Stake Pres. Ditches Ethics to Smear Tal B.

[_Mister Scratch]

"Stake Pres. Ditches Ethics to Smear Tal B."


So, as we see, while Scratch browbeats mentalgymnast on Tal's "besmirch" of Pres. Keys, Scratch himself had already come to a conclusion and taken a position on who is lying and who is not at the outset.

This is absolutely and unutterable amazing.

No, not really. There is really no other way to interpret Pres. Keyes's "open letter." It rather unapologetically accuses Tal of "misrepresenting the facts." Keyes could have said, "I think we may have misunderstood each other," but he didn't. Instead, he has laid 100% of the blame at the feet of Tal. Moreoever, a simple scan of Tal's postings shows that he views Pres. Keyes in quite a charitable light. There can be no question that this was intended as a smear.

[_bcspace]

No, not really. There is really no other way to interpret Pres. Keyes's "open letter." It rather unapologetically accuses Tal of "misrepresenting the facts." Keyes could have said, "I think we may have misunderstood each other," but he didn't. Instead, he has laid 100% of the blame at the feet of Tal. Moreoever, a simple scan of Tal's postings shows that he views Pres. Keyes in quite a charitable light. There can be no question that this was intended as a smear.

Yet if Tal is misrepresenting the SP, then it is Tal who is doing the smearing. One does not have to be vitriolic to smear and some of the best liars use honey and sugar exclusively. At worst, the SP is merely responding with his version of events. Tal has made this a public and personal issue and the response is merited. Bravo the SP and his wife.

[_harmony]

If I were to try to determine what is most likely to be the closest to the truth, I'd look at motivations. Tal wins in this case, the S.P loses. Tal is much less motived to make up that story of the S.P than the S.P is to deny it, especially if the S.P was tracked down for his statement by someone in the church. What choice does he have, when he's confronted and asked to respond. He could not comment but then he likely would have his wife wondering why and to the people tracking him down for comment it wouldn't look good. He also may have been caught off-guard. It serves no benefit to the S.P. admit any of Tal's take as true. So he's highly motivated to deny whereas Tal has little reason to make it all up. But this issue, is important to Mormons, it's important to the S.P for reasons of wanting to be at peace with the community he's a member of. One could predict it would happen, that the S.P would issue a public denial. How could Tal not expect him to eventually say something publically and deny.

In any event truth doesn't always work out to be what it may seem and one can only conjecture without any hard evidence.

Marg is correct. When in doubt, look for who benefits the most.

Trevor is also correct. We "remember" the past not necessarily as it was, but through our own filters, and our filters are invariably more sympathetic to ourselves than they are to the Other, whoever that may be.

And what the heck is up with the wife? Her letter is an embarrassment to LDS women everywhere. Good grief, Sister... the sun does not rise and set in your husband. Gain some perspective, for pity's sake.

[_Coggins7]

Classic Ms. Scratch right here. When backed into a corner accuse the other of becoming "upset."

That is true, but he did push your button in a major way the other day. Never let them see you sweat.

Yeah. I got my "butt kicked." Totally. After citing examples of people blind submitting articles to the FARMS Review, which flew in the face of her theories. That's when the butt kicking occurred.

Ha! Gee, thanks, Bob. You know, it's funny---LoaP wants to deny his "upsetness," and yet what do we see? A parody thread, ala Wade, Coggins, and all sorts of other TBMs! It seems to be a kind of "stress release valve".

Furthermore, my dear LoaP, you *never* supplied evidence of "blind submitting articles." Your best evidence was your Kevin Christiansen examples, and in the end you were finally forced to admit that you didn't know whether any conversation had taken place beforehand. Things got rough for you, and so you had to "take a leave of absence." You went to recuperate on MAD, and now you're back, smarting yet again, and so bent out of shape that the best you can offer is parody threads. So sad!

Absolutely, utterly, unreservedly, phantasmagorically hilarious. This is better than Black Adder...

[_Coggins7]

No, not really. There is really no other way to interpret Pres. Keyes's "open letter." It rather unapologetically accuses Tal of "misrepresenting the facts."

Could that possibly be because...he did?

Keyes could have said, "I think we may have misunderstood each other," but he didn't.

Could that possibly be because...he had no reason to?

Instead, he has laid 100% of the blame at the feet of Tal.

Could that possibly be because...well, I think you're getting the drift by now.

Moreoever, a simple scan of Tal's postings shows that he views Pres. Keyes in quite a charitable light. There can be no question that this was intended as a smear.

What there is no question regarding is that virtually everything you post in this forum is some form or species of a smear, including this thread, which is a smear of Pres. Keys based upon no evidence or factual ground whatsoever.

Keep up the pose Scratch. I can hardly wait for the day that your real identity is revealed publically and you're forced to confront those you attack with a real name and a real face.

[_moksha]

Juliann Says:
May 1st, 2008 at 3:07 pm
I can usually judge the strength of a position by how quickly its adherent runs to poison the well. Some musicians have molested neighbors, Nick. Therefore, I have no reason to believe Tal. Especially when his silly story was harder to believe than anything Joseph ever said.

Is this molested neighbors part something from outer space? Who is this Juliann?

[_Tal Bachman]

Hi

I have a deep appreciation for Pres. Keyes for all the reasons I mentioned. And I admire his wife for trying to stick up for him. I feel bad that this has hurt her. She's a doll.

I just sent a letter to Dr. Shades for him to post on MAD about this. I think he's going to post a link.

[_antishock8]

I really don't see a problem with the Stake President posting his side of the story, either. Mr. Bachman has been actively asserting his version of the events on public forums for quite a while, I guess, and it seems reasonable that a man who feels besmirched by Mr. Bachman's allegations would respond. To talk about a Mormon's ecclesiastical authority is a nice exercise in futility, but the reality is we know their authorities have rarely, if ever, been good about this. They yammer on about private matters to their wives and other priesthood leaders without the slightest notion of wrongdoing. Do all of them do it? No, of course not. Do enough do it that one could call it institutional? Probably. In my experience, and from having read dozens of stories online I would say it's a safe bet confidentiality with Mormon leadership is not to be expected.

That being said, if a former member is publicizing his exchanges with a former Stake President it should come as no surprise when the other side not only is presented, but really ought to be presented. The Stake President has a personally moral duty to preserve his reputation, his family's reputation, and to some degree the Mormon church's reputation.

[_Dr. Shades]

I just sent a letter to Dr. Shades for him to post on MAD about this. I think he's going to post a link.

Hi Tal,

THANKS FOR THAT. However, I was banned from MA&D quite some time ago, so I'm neither allowed nor able to post anything there.

May I post it to MormonDiscussions.com instead? Or, better yet, would YOU consider doing it?

Thanks a million,
Shades

[_Trevor]

Correct. Problem is, it tastes good to many. We will be fighting the Cold War over and over because of the left.

A fine example of the delusions of shallow ideologues who like to pretend they are real conservatives.