Stake Pres. Ditches Ethics to Smear Tal B.

[_mbeesley]

Doesn't this play out in favor of Tal, then, particularly in lieu of Tal's "open threat"? In other words, doesn't it seem likely that Keyes would want to avoid a "pissing match" (such lovely mouths on you TBMs!) due to the fact that more details concerning his doubts might get revealed?

I'm allowed a foul mouth. My current church membership status is such that I don't take the sacrament. Feel better now? :D

It seems likely that President Keyes would not want to get into a pissing match because Bachman is demonstrably capable of lying, and also of wetting himself without anyone else's help.

There, see what I mean about these Boards being poisonous?

By the way Scratch, I'm waiting to see if you can provide something from a published philosopher to support your claim that President Keyes acted unethically.

[_mentalgymnast]

Not now. I had a good night's sleep and was able to return to an emotionally stable frame of mind. You should have seen me yesterday after having made the post you've clipped above...poor dog...

I was SOOOO angry. <g> Yep, I can laugh about it now.

by the way, I think I've got you partially figured out Mr. Scratch. You're more bark than bite.

That poor dog...

I hold you personally responsible.

Regards,
MG

P.S. no, I was not angry at all. Why do you ask?

Hey, MG---

I'm still waiting for you to explain how doubt within the Church is a "besmirch" on Keyes's character. I will continue to wait patiently for you to enlighten me.

Are you deeeeef?

You are a brick wall. <g>

Regards,
MG

[_Mister Scratch]

Doesn't this play out in favor of Tal, then, particularly in lieu of Tal's "open threat"? In other words, doesn't it seem likely that Keyes would want to avoid a "pissing match" (such lovely mouths on you TBMs!) due to the fact that more details concerning his doubts might get revealed?

I'm allowed a foul mouth. My current church membership status is such that I don't take the sacrament. Feel better now? :D

It seems likely that President Keyes would not want to get into a pissing match because Bachman is demonstrably capable of lying, and also of wetting himself without anyone else's help.

I'm not aware of any evidence that Tal has "lied". Can you provide some?

There, see what I mean about these Boards being poisonous?

No; I just think you are over-reacting and having a bit of difficulty reining in your emotions. Just take a deep breath, though, my dear friend, and you'll be fine. I'm really not as mean and evil as you've been led to believe. ; )

By the way Scratch, I'm waiting to see if you can provide something from a published philosopher to support your claim that President Keyes acted unethically.

C'mon, mbeesley. This has got to rank among the stupidest CFRs ever. I mean, what do you have in mind? Some passage from Kant or Locke that discusses Mormon Stake Presidents? Keyes clearly posted his letter in order to blacken Tal's character (and he dragged his wife into it!), and furthermore, he did it within the context of a hostile, designed-to-smear blog (i.e., FAIR). Your "he wants to avoid a pissing match!" argument doesn't hold any water, I'm afraid.

[_Mister Scratch]

Not now. I had a good night's sleep and was able to return to an emotionally stable frame of mind. You should have seen me yesterday after having made the post you've clipped above...poor dog...

I was SOOOO angry. <g> Yep, I can laugh about it now.

by the way, I think I've got you partially figured out Mr. Scratch. You're more bark than bite.

That poor dog...

I hold you personally responsible.

Regards,
MG

P.S. no, I was not angry at all. Why do you ask?

Hey, MG---

I'm still waiting for you to explain how doubt within the Church is a "besmirch" on Keyes's character. I will continue to wait patiently for you to enlighten me.

Are you deeeeef?

You are a brick wall. <g>

Regards,
MG

Still no answer, eh? Well then, I have little choice but to take this as a tacit admission of defeat on your part. You have no evidence/explanation as to how this would "besmirch" Keyes's character, and therefore, Tal did nothing wrong, and Keyes's accusations concerning "misrepresentation" brand this poor SP as "unethical."

[_bcspace]

I'm not aware of any evidence that Tal has "lied". Can you provide some?

I think it's obvious that at the very least Tal heard what he wanted to hear and has continued to perpetuate that lie if he did not outright make it up himself. It's not common for an SP to so publically respond so I guess Tal felt safe telling it, until now.

[_Mister Scratch]

I'm not aware of any evidence that Tal has "lied". Can you provide some?

I think it's obvious that at the very least Tal heard what he wanted to hear and has continued to perpetuate that lie if he did not outright make it up himself. It's not common for an SP to so publically respond so I guess Tal felt safe telling it, until now.

But, even given the context of Tal's initial postings, this does not seem to be the case. Tal stated that he absorbed Keyes's comments in something like a state of shock, and that time surrounding the conversation was one of great personal turmoil for him. So, I don't know that it's entirely accurate to state that he "heard what he wanted to hear." In either case, I think that Tal should just reveal all of what he knows, perhaps bring in other witnesses, etc.

[_Mister Scratch]

Mbeesley: I know this doesn't count as a "published philosopher," exactly, but I think it nonetheless addresses what you were asking about:

http://www.aapc.org/ethics.cfm#IV

The following quote is from the "Confidentiality" section of the AAPC Code of Ethics:

We do not disclose client confidences to anyone, except: as mandated by law; to prevent a clear and immediate danger to someone; in the course of a civil, criminal or disciplinary action arising from the counseling where the pastoral counselor is a defendant; for purposes of supervision or consultation; or by previously obtained written permission. In cases involving more than one person (as client) written permission must be obtained from all legally accountable persons who have been present during the counseling before any disclosure can be made.

It seems to me that none of these instances applies in this case. I guess you could argue that the information was no longer "in confidence" since Tal had been discussing it for some time, but aside from that, Keyes really has no case.

[Dr. Sunstoned]

But, even given the context of Tal's initial postings, this does not seem to be the case. Tal stated that he absorbed Keyes's comments in something like a state of shock, and that time surrounding the conversation was one of great personal turmoil for him. So, I don't know that it's entirely accurate to state that he "heard what he wanted to hear." In either case, I think that Tal should just reveal all of what he knows, perhaps bring in other witnesses, etc.

How many times, Scratch, are we going to go around and around this sugar bowl in which Tal tells us his version of events and you support it because you have left yourself no other psychological or intellectual option?

How many circular arugments can you make in a single post? Tal should "reveal all he knows"? But, if Tal has fabricated much of the incident, what he "reveals" is utterly worthless as testimony.

What part of this, precisely, don't you understand? There is really no reason to favor Tal's version over Keys, especially as:

1. Keys denies it outright and

2. Keys behavior does not correspond, in any manner, to Tal's claims regarding his actual beliefs. Claims of doublethink and the power of false ideas are not compelling here. Anyone who accepts little or none of a religion's central truth claims is not only ignoring cognitive dissonance, but engaging in a form of gross personal dishonesty in continuing to minister in a position of authority to that religion's members as if he did accept them.

Unless this SP has some history of guile or psychological instability of this magnitude, Tal's claims are simply not compelling.

[_mbeesley]

I'm really not as mean and evil as you've been led to believe. ; )

My beliefs about your character are a result of my own observations of your postings here an on your blog.

C'mon, mbeesley. This has got to rank among the stupidest CFRs ever. I mean, what do you have in mind? Some passage from Kant or Locke that discusses Mormon Stake Presidents?

C'mon Scratch, that has got rank among the stupidest responses and cop-outs ever.

Of course I don't expect a passage that specifically discusses Stake Presidents. I would like a passage that says that a priest, doctor, lawyer or anyone who is normally bound by rules of confidentiality or privilege, is ethically bound to refrain from disagreeing in public when they believe that their words or beliefs have been misrepresented in public. Surely in accusing President Keyes of acting unethically you have some broad principle of ethics in mind that countenances one-sided battles. (I have one in mind, but you have to go to the Book of Mormon for it. :D )

[_Coggins7]

C'mon, mbeesley. This has got to rank among the stupidest CFRs ever. I mean, what do you have in mind? Some passage from Kant or Locke that discusses Mormon Stake Presidents?

Kant and Locke? Is your personal library finally expanding from Quinn and Metcalf into broader pastures?