TAL BACHMAN RESPONDS TO PRESIDENT KEYES

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Post by _bcspace »

What do you think I should do if he persists in saying I invented the stuff? Just say, "I've already recounted the meeting as accurately as I can"? Like, what if he comes out and says, "Tal persists in misrepresenting me"?...


LOL! Tal persists in presenting the face of victimization. C'mon Tal, where is your evidence that it is not you who has misrepresented? What about all the exmos hoping for a good old fashioned outing?
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.
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Post by _The Nehor »

LifeOnaPlate wrote:
Sethbag wrote:It's only regrettable that this becomes Jerry Springer material, when in reality what matters is whether the LDS church is true. The LDS church isn't true even if it were shown that Tal lied (I don't think this has been shown, I'm just saying this hypothetically), and the LDS church isn't true even if were shown that Pres. Keyes was 100% accurate and honest in every word he said.

But the soap opera stuff I find personally a bit off-putting, and I find the mad glee over at MADB about this to be off-putting as well.



I agree that this is blown too far out of proportion. I will point out, however, there is much more glee over here in Shadytowne over the whole affair. (Scratch's glee is downright laughable.)


Torrid soap-opera secrets and lies. It's his specialty. Scratch doesn't debate doctrine, he focuses on people.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
_LifeOnaPlate
_Emeritus
Posts: 2799
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 4:50 pm

Post by _LifeOnaPlate »

The Nehor wrote:
LifeOnaPlate wrote:
Sethbag wrote:It's only regrettable that this becomes Jerry Springer material, when in reality what matters is whether the LDS church is true. The LDS church isn't true even if it were shown that Tal lied (I don't think this has been shown, I'm just saying this hypothetically), and the LDS church isn't true even if were shown that Pres. Keyes was 100% accurate and honest in every word he said.

But the soap opera stuff I find personally a bit off-putting, and I find the mad glee over at MADB about this to be off-putting as well.



I agree that this is blown too far out of proportion. I will point out, however, there is much more glee over here in Shadytowne over the whole affair. (Scratch's glee is downright laughable.)


Torrid soap-opera secrets and lies. It's his specialty. Scratch doesn't debate doctrine, he focuses on people.


Soap Operas, eh?


[adds to secret evidence file]
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.*
_Nightingale
_Emeritus
Posts: 323
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 7:31 am

Post by _Nightingale »

Tal Bachman wrote:Analytics -

Yeah, I think you might be right about keeping quiet. That was really well put, thanks.

What do you think I should do if he persists in saying I invented the stuff? Just say, "I've already recounted the meeting as accurately as I can"? Like, what if he comes out and says, "Tal persists in misrepresenting me"?...


Not that I'm Analytics, but here goes anyway.

First, I would reframe how I'm looking at it in that:

1. The SP is not "persist"[ing] in anything, it would appear, at this point anyway. He has written and sent his letter and his wife has done likewise. They have consented to have their letters posted at FAIR. I think I read that that is all he was going to say about it, but I could be mistaken in that recollection.

2. The SP did not directly state that you "invented the stuff". I think he was careful to say you misunderstood and other general terms to that effect. That may or may not be true but he is not the one calling you a liar (unless you want to read that into his remarks?) (I acknowledge that I am quite literal and don't automatically see bad intentions everywhere and generally first take things at face value, until proven that there's something lurking below the surface).

Remembering those two facts can ratchet down the intense emotional response that this exchange could easily and understandably elicit but which may warp one's perception, leading in turn to more misunderstanding.

Second, I would remember the adage that discretion is the better part of valour. This is often very applicable to a wide range of situations. There is nothing to say you can't change your reaction if something momentous alters from where things stand now.

Third, I would not make a preemptive strike; i.e., react now to something he may (or equally, may not) say or do at some future time. (This goes along with #2). Don't answer what isn't asked or said, In other words.

Fourth, I would try and decide if my regard for the other person and a possible ongoing relationship are worth losing in order to publicly discuss a matter that is sensitive for one or another of the involved parties.

Fifth, if something else transpires to change any of the above or if I truly felt my character had been totally impugned and it was crucial to put the record straight, I would then re-evaluate the pros and cons of speaking out and even so, I would likely keep it on the side of me and my thoughts and opinions and not the other guy's. Nobody can read minds.

And lastly, I would remember my default position on this and pretty much everything: People can misunderstand, fail to remember, mischaracterize, be poor communicators, etc., none of which makes them a LIAR. On either side.

I think it is very unfortunate that a person's pain from loss of faith that meant so much to them is disregarded in favour of scoring points. How does a person's life crisis elicit glee from any quarter? That's a different world from the one I inhabit.
_marg

Post by _marg »

Analytics wrote:
Tal,

Just be a man and restrain yourself. It's just a stupid he-said-she-said argument which you should be high above. I think dispassionate observers will tend to take your side because you don't have any motivation to lie about this. Since you can't prove that he really said what you are claiming he did, why get into a petty argument about it?

Show some grace and take the position that you related the events as you logged in your contemporaneous notes, and acknowledge the possibility that you may have misunderstood what he said. Heck, it wouldn't be an awful thing to apologize for making public the details of a private conversation. It’s not like you were morally obligated to blow the whistle on the discrepancy between his private and public beliefs.


Agreed.

It sounds like the Keyes is a nice guy, and willing to be honest with some people, but has to play the Mormon game to operate in the role he's chosen in life which he's happy and comfortable with. Let him do that, let him have the respect he wants from the Mormon community and his wife. It's not like he's a horrible person, and as you say he did you a favor and was honest with YOU. That's more than most others in his situation would do. You can't expect much more from him and you can appreciate the position he's in. I'm sure he feels betrayed that anything he said to you was implied confidence and yet it became public. Probably not your original intention but it happened.
_antishock8
_Emeritus
Posts: 2425
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:02 am

Post by _antishock8 »

Tal,

Do what you want.

Sincerely,

AntiShock8
You can’t trust adults to tell you the truth.

Scream the lie, whisper the retraction.- The Left
_Analytics
_Emeritus
Posts: 4231
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:24 pm

Post by _Analytics »

Tal Bachman wrote:Analytics -

Yeah, I think you might be right about keeping quiet. That was really well put, thanks.

What do you think I should do if he persists in saying I invented the stuff? Just say, "I've already recounted the meeting as accurately as I can"? Like, what if he comes out and says, "Tal persists in misrepresenting me"?...


I'd just say, "Keyes has brought these concerns to my attention. Apparently, I misunderstood what he said. I think very highly of Keyes and apologize for talking in public about our private conversation."

Just try to have class and diffuse the situation.
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.

-Yuval Noah Harari
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Analytics wrote:
Tal Bachman wrote:Analytics -

Yeah, I think you might be right about keeping quiet. That was really well put, thanks.

What do you think I should do if he persists in saying I invented the stuff? Just say, "I've already recounted the meeting as accurately as I can"? Like, what if he comes out and says, "Tal persists in misrepresenting me"?...


I'd just say, "Keyes has brought these concerns to my attention. Apparently, I misunderstood what he said. I think very highly of Keyes and apologize for talking in public about our private conversation."

Just try to have class and diffuse the situation.


But, wouldn't this be tantamount to admitting that he "lied"? Certainly, it would provide a great deal of fuel for apologists....
_LifeOnaPlate
_Emeritus
Posts: 2799
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 4:50 pm

Post by _LifeOnaPlate »

Mister Scratch wrote:
Analytics wrote:
Tal Bachman wrote:Analytics -

Yeah, I think you might be right about keeping quiet. That was really well put, thanks.

What do you think I should do if he persists in saying I invented the stuff? Just say, "I've already recounted the meeting as accurately as I can"? Like, what if he comes out and says, "Tal persists in misrepresenting me"?...


I'd just say, "Keyes has brought these concerns to my attention. Apparently, I misunderstood what he said. I think very highly of Keyes and apologize for talking in public about our private conversation."

Just try to have class and diffuse the situation.


But, wouldn't this be tantamount to admitting that he "lied"? Certainly, it would provide a great deal of fuel for apologists....


Mercy me!
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.*
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Post by _asbestosman »

Analytics wrote:I'd just say, "Keyes has brought these concerns to my attention. Apparently, I misunderstood what he said. I think very highly of Keyes and apologize for talking in public about our private conversation."

Just try to have class and diffuse the situation.

Quoted For Truth

Tal, I tend to lean towards your former SP as having the more accurate account. That said, I'll try imagining your side of the story is correct for what I write.

If you admire your former SP and don't want to hurt him, then you shouldn't have written what you did about him. Not that you wrote it in the first place to hurt him, but that is what has now happened. Since this is what has happened and you don't wish to hurt him, you should withdraw your comments which hurt him and you can do so without claiming that you are lying. We all misunderstand things from time to time. Sure, some will think you are lying. So what? They probably would have thought that even if your former SP didn't write that open letter.

You should also privately correspond to your former SP and apologize for the comments which hurt him if you did not intend to hurt him.


Whether you're lying or he's lying or someone just misremembers is of no interest to me. It has no bearing on whether LDSism is true or false (as Sethbag points out). Even if you are lying it would make no difference to me in the sort of arguments I'm interested in--those based more on an understanding of LDS doctrine than those based on anecdotes.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
Post Reply