Stake Pres. Ditches Ethics to Smear Tal B.

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_skippy the dead
_Emeritus
Posts: 1676
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 5:39 am

Post by _skippy the dead »

Dr. Shades wrote:
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.


LoaP left out quite a bit of Allen's post. Allen said that someone "acquainted with FAIR" saw the post and brought it to Keyes' attention. And Allen doesn't know how the subject of providing a response came about; he uses words like "It is my understanding that. . .", which really means "I'm guessing what happened" or "I'm not going say exactly what happened." Either way, a response was written and the original mystery person acquainted with FAIR sent it to Allen for posting on the extremely well-read FAIR blog.
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
_LifeOnaPlate
_Emeritus
Posts: 2799
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 4:50 pm

Post by _LifeOnaPlate »

Trevor wrote:
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'm not convinced that SP has "more to lose" in this than Tal.
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

*Be on the lookout for the forthcoming album from Jiminy Finn and the Moneydiggers.*
_LifeOnaPlate
_Emeritus
Posts: 2799
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 4:50 pm

Post by _LifeOnaPlate »

Loquacious Lurker wrote:
harmony wrote:And doubt is not a sin.


Your own church leaders say otherwise.

"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.


Image

That statement in the IE was soundly refuted by then-President of the Church George Albert Smith.

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Office of the First Presidency
Salt Lake City, Utah
December 7, 1945

Dr. J. Raymond Cope
First Unitarian Society
13th East at 6th South Street
Salt Lake City, Utah

My dear Dr. Cope:

I have read with interest and deep concern your letter of November 16, 1945, in which you make special comment on "a short religious editorial prepared by one of your (our) leaders entitled "Sustaining the General Authorities of the Church'". You say that you read the message with amazement, and that you have since been disturbed because of its effect upon members of the Church.
I am gratified with the spirit of friendliness that pervades your letter, and thank you for having taken the time to write to me.
The leaflet to which you refer, and from which you quote in your letter, was not "prepared" by "one of our leaders." However, one or more of them inadvertently permitted the paragraph to pass uncensored. By their so doing, not a few members of the Church have been upset in their feelings, and General Authorities have been embarrassed.

I am pleased to assure you that you are right in your attitude that the passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church. Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church, which is that every individual must obtain for himself a testimony of the truth of the Gospel, must, through the redemption of Jesus Christ, work out his own salvation, and is personally responsible to His Maker for his individual acts. The Lord Himself does not attempt coercion in His desire and effort to give peace and salvation to His children. He gives the principles of life and true progress, but leaves every person free to choose or to reject His teachings. This plan the Authorities of the Church try to follow.
The Prophet Joseph Smith once said: "I want liberty of thinking and believing as I please." This liberty he and his successors in the leadership of the Church have granted to every other member thereof.

On one occasion in answer to the question by a prominent visitor how he governed his people, the Prophet answered: "I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves."

Again, as recorded in the History of the Church (Volume 5, page 498 [499] Joseph Smith said further: "If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way."

I cite these few quotations, from many that might be given, merely to confirm your good and true opinion that the Church gives to every man his free agency, and admonishes him always to use the reason and good judgment with which God has blessed him.
In the advocacy of this principle leaders of the Church not only join congregations in singing but quote frequently the following:

"Know this, that every soul is free
To choose his life and what he'll be,
For this eternal truth is given
That God will force no man to heaven."

Again I thank you for your manifest friendliness and for your expressed willingness to cooperate in every way to establish good will and harmony among the people with whom we are jointly laboring to bring brotherhood and tolerance.

Faithfully yours,

Geo. Albert Smith [signed]
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

*Be on the lookout for the forthcoming album from Jiminy Finn and the Moneydiggers.*
_LifeOnaPlate
_Emeritus
Posts: 2799
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 4:50 pm

Post by _LifeOnaPlate »

harmony wrote: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.


Agreed.

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.


I don't believe the SP has "nothing" riding on it, only that I am unconvinced he has more riding on it than does Tal.
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

*Be on the lookout for the forthcoming album from Jiminy Finn and the Moneydiggers.*
_LifeOnaPlate
_Emeritus
Posts: 2799
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 4:50 pm

Post by _LifeOnaPlate »

skippy the dead wrote:
Dr. Shades wrote:
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.


LoaP left out quite a bit of Allen's post. Allen said that someone "acquainted with FAIR" saw the post and brought it to Keyes' attention. And Allen doesn't know how the subject of providing a response came about; he uses words like "It is my understanding that. . .", which really means "I'm guessing what happened" or "I'm not going say exactly what happened." Either way, a response was written and the original mystery person acquainted with FAIR sent it to Allen for posting on the extremely well-read FAIR blog.


Here's Allan's statement:
http://www.fairblog.org/2008/05/01/sett ... mment-2167

Justin,

Someone who is acquainted with FAIR also knew of the comments that Tal had made. (They really are available in several places on the Internet and Tal has been making them for years.) This person knows Randy Keyes and, I believe, brought the comments to his attention.

It is my understanding that Randy Keyes didn’t care for what he saw as misrepresentation of his beliefs, and decided to make an open statement of those beliefs. (I think that Randy’s letter speaks for itself in this regard.) He gave that statement to this other person, who forwarded them on to me.

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

*Be on the lookout for the forthcoming album from Jiminy Finn and the Moneydiggers.*
_mbeesley
_Emeritus
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 10:51 pm

Post by _mbeesley »

Mister Scratch wrote:Sure: all of this may hold true from a legal perspective. But from an ethical and moral perspective? Methinks not. What Keyes did was rotten.

Other than your own personal opinion and manifest outrage, can you cite to any unbiased publication on ethics from which I might be able to reach the conclusion that President Keyes' response was unethical? In other words, can you indentify any published philosophers whose general writings on ethics might lead me to conclude that President Keyes acted in an unethical manner?


Maybe so. But his choice of publication venue says a lot about him and his intentions.

I agree, but I am reasonably certain that we will disagree what it says. To me, what it says is that President Keyes felt compelled to correct Bachman's misrepresentations but was not desirous of getting into a pissing match with him. Bachman's response, recently posted at MADB in which Bachman levels a threat against President Keyes if President Keyes continues to correct Bachman's misrepresentations, illuminates the wisdom of President Keyes in avoiding just such a pissing contest. I'm afraid that in this instance, the end result is simply that Bachman ends up with wet shoes.
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

Post by _Dr. Shades »

LifeOnaPlate wrote:That statement in the IE was soundly refuted by then-President of the Church George Albert Smith.


KEY POINT: It was soundly refuted to ONE GUY, Dr. J. Raymond Cope of the First Unitarian Society. It was NEVER soundly refuted to the Mormon populace as a whole.

In other words, he wanted to pacify a single non-Mormon to prevent his church from looking so foolish. George Albert Smith had every intention for all Mormons to keep on believing the statement as written.
"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?"

--Louis Midgley
_Some Schmo
_Emeritus
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:59 pm

Post by _Some Schmo »

Who Knows wrote:meh. I don't see the big deal. there's always 2 views to how a conversation went. We now know how tal thought it went, and how this other dude thought it went. there's probably some truth, and some embellishments, to both their statements.


I didn't get past the first page of this thread because this was exactly how I reacted. He said, she said, and all that.

Do I believe the guy is a closet doubter? Who knows, but from his letter, he doesn't sound like one. He's got all the appropriate sound bites going.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
_LifeOnaPlate
_Emeritus
Posts: 2799
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 4:50 pm

Post by _LifeOnaPlate »

Dr. Shades wrote:
LifeOnaPlate wrote:That statement in the IE was soundly refuted by then-President of the Church George Albert Smith.


KEY POINT: It was soundly refuted to ONE GUY, Dr. J. Raymond Cope of the First Unitarian Society. It was NEVER soundly refuted to the Mormon populace as a whole.

In other words, he wanted to pacify a single non-Mormon to prevent his church from looking so foolish. George Albert Smith had every intention for all Mormons to keep on believing the statement as written.


“What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self security. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. (Brigham Young, "Eternal Punishment," Journal of Discourses, 9:150.)


"...the question is sometimes asked,- to what extent is obedience to those who hold the priesthood required? This is a very important question, and one which should be understood by all Saints. In attempting to answer this question, we would repeat, in short, what we have already written, that willing obedience to the laws of God, administered by the Priesthood, is indispensable to salvation; but we would further add, that a proper conservative to this power exists for the benefit of all, and none are required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the Priesthood..."We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark, that they would do anything that they were told to do by those who preside over them, if they knew it was wrong: but such obedience is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself, should not claim rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God...would despise the idea. Others in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without asking any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their minds to do wrong themselves." (Priesthood, author unknown, recorded in the Millennial Star, 14, v. 38:593-595)


"Some may say, Brethren, you who lead the Church, we have all confidence in you, we are not in the least afraid but what everything will go right under your superintendence; all the business matters will be transacted right; and if brother Brigham is satisfied with it, I am. I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied. I wish them to know for themselves and understand for themselves, for this would strengthen the faith that is within them. Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are, this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord.
Every man and woman in this kingdom ought to be satisfied with what we do, but they never should be satisfied without asking the Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, whether what we do is right." (Brigham Young, October 6, 1855, Journal of Discourses, 3:45)

“Concerning the question of blind obedience. Not a man in this Church, since the Prophet Joseph Smith down to the present day, has ever asked any man to do as he was told blindly. No Prophet of God, no Apostle, no President of a Stake, no Bishop, who has had the spirit of his office and calling resting upon him, has ever asked a soul to do anything that they might not know was right and the proper thing to do. We do not ask you to do anything that you may not know it is your duty to do, or that you may not know will be a blessing for you to do.
If we give you counsel, we do not ask you to obey that counsel without you know[ing] that it is right to do so. But how shall we know that it is right? By getting the Spirit of God in our hearts, by which our minds may be opened and enlightened, that we may know the doctrine for ourselves, and be able to divide truth from error, light from darkness and good from evil…”(Joseph F. Smith, Collected Discourses, ed. Brian H. Stuy, Vol. 3 (Burbank, B.H.S. Publishing, 1987-1992)

As a means of coming to truth, people in the Church are encouraged by their leaders to think and find out for themselves. They are encouraged to ponder, to search, to evaluate, and thereby to come to such knowledge of the truth as their own consciences, assisted by the Spirit of God, lead them to discover.
(James E. Faust, "The Truth Shall Make You Free," Ensign, Spetember, 1998.



Just a start.
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

*Be on the lookout for the forthcoming album from Jiminy Finn and the Moneydiggers.*
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Post by _bcspace »

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.

If you believe that Tal is consciously misrepresenting the SP, I suppose you might argue that. As I have written above, and no one has bothered to respond to, Tal consistently represents the SP as a potential ally.


How does this show that it is Tal who is correct?

For Tal, it would seem that the most negative thing about the SP is that he stayed firmly in the church, not that he shared some of Tal's doubts or like Tal saw a particular GA as an insensitive clod.


He yet his continued service in the Church exposes Tal as the likely deceiver here. Actions speak louder than words.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
Post Reply