LifeOnaPlate wrote:First, I'm not convinced of that in the least, and second, "having a lot riding" on something doesn't equate to dishonesty.
Try as you might to accuse me of doing so, I never attributed dishonesty to Keyes. So what are you not convinced of, the very thing you implicitly suggested--that both men are liable to rework their pasts?
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
So it sounds to me like the SP was given an assignment, rather than trying to clear the air, and the assignment, which he chose to accept (he could have refused and taken the high ground, but he didn't, which alone makes me pity the poor folk in his stake) was to try to smack down a former member of his stake. Bad form. Better to post where Tal posted. Better to simply thank Tal for posting his own personal view, making clear that Tal's memory was valid for Tal. The rest is self-serving self-justification, when he could simply have commented that he didn't personally see the conversation that way, but he could see how Tal would see it his way. Bad form. Unfortunately, I think he's a pretty typical SP. *sigh*
Keyes felt Tal misrepresented him publicly, Keyes responded respectfully to clarify his position. Good form. Well done.
Then SP should have responded in the forum in which he felt Tal misrepresented him. He didn't. Instead he responded in a forum known to be hostile to Tal. Bad form. Very bad form. Not well done.
LifeOnaPlate wrote:And you assume the SP is more likely to recolor the past than Tal Bachman?
I would say both are liable to rework the past, as any human being is, but Keyes has a lot more riding on his response to Tal.
First, I'm not convinced of that in the least, and second, "having a lot riding" on something doesn't equate to dishonesty.
You haven't studied human memory much, or what motivates people, have you? DCP was right (yes, the foundation of the world just shook); a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. Tal's memory of the conversation would no doubt differ significantly from the SP's, simply because they both have their own filters which protect themselves and their own world view from anything likely to cause harm to either. It's not at all surprising they remember it differently.
What I disagree with is the implication that the SP has more riding on his response to Tal thus somehow making him more likely to be inaccurate.
by the way, this conversation was not confidential, and therefore no ethics have been breached. Only confession of sin is confidential, not every conversation a member has with church authorities. And doubt is not a sin.
amen to that
One moment in annihilation's waste, one moment, of the well of life to taste- The stars are setting and the caravan starts for the dawn of nothing; Oh, make haste! -Omar Khayaam
"When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan—it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no discussion, it should mark the end of controversy." Improvement Era, June 1945, p. 345.
LifeOnaPlate wrote:And you assume the SP is more likely to recolor the past than Tal Bachman?
I would say both are liable to rework the past, as any human being is, but Keyes has a lot more riding on his response to Tal.
First, I'm not convinced of that in the least, and second, "having a lot riding" on something doesn't equate to dishonesty.
You haven't studied human memory much, or what motivates people, have you? DCP was right (yes, the foundation of the world just shook); a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. Tal's memory of the conversation would no doubt differ significantly from the SP's, simply because they both have their own filters which protect themselves and their own world view from anything likely to cause harm to either. It's not at all surprising they remember it differently.
What I disagree with is the implication that the SP has more riding on his response to Tal thus somehow making him more likely to be inaccurate.
No one recorded this conversation, therefore there is no "accurate" in this conversation. There is simply two different people remembering the same conversation based on their own filters. And of course the SP has more riding on the conversation than Tal does. The SP is much more sensitive to the perception of others, others who may change the way they view him, based on Tal's remembrances, others who are important to him and his lifestyle. Others who may take Tal's words to an extreme and cause major disruption in SP's life.
by the way, this conversation was not confidential, and therefore no ethics have been breached. Only confession of sin is confidential, not every conversation a member has with church authorities. And doubt is not a sin.
FAIR did not solicit a response from Randy Keyes, nor did we invite him to respond. He is the one who initiated the response and permitted FAIR to post it.
Quite frankly, if FAIR had been interested in soliciting such a response, it would have been better to do it four years ago, or so, when Tal was first telling his version of what his ex-stake president believed.
-Allen
One moment in annihilation's waste, one moment, of the well of life to taste- The stars are setting and the caravan starts for the dawn of nothing; Oh, make haste! -Omar Khayaam
LifeOnaPlate wrote:What I disagree with is the implication that the SP has more riding on his response to Tal thus somehow making him more likely to be inaccurate.
Any stake president who has LDS leaders and members looking over his shoulder is going to be a lot more careful about what he says, and in such a way that less is likely to be communicated than would be otherwise (at least in this case, when it seems pretty clear that he expressed doubts of some kind).
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
"When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan—it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no discussion, it should mark the end of controversy." Improvement Era, June 1945, p. 345.
I am not held to the stupidity of a minor official before I was born. Doubt is not a sin.
harmony wrote:I am not held to the stupidity of a minor official before I was born.
That makes me just as good a Mormon as you then! If the church can mean "whatever I want it to mean", then I'm no less validly a Mormon than you are. You disregard doctrine. So do I. I just disregard more of it.
FAIR did not solicit a response from Randy Keyes, nor did we invite him to respond. He is the one who initiated the response and permitted FAIR to post it.
If FAIR didn't solicit the response, then who did?
Let's face it: Statistically speaking, it's quite unlikely that President Keyes himself is a regular reader of this website. If FAIR didn't bring Tal's comments to his attention, then it adds all the more credence to my speculation that the Strengthening the Church Members Committee is the entity that did.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"