Stake Pres. Ditches Ethics to Smear Tal B.

[_mbeesley]

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.

Try again Scratch. It doesn't apply, not only because Bachman already put it in the public domain, but perhaps more importantly, because nowhere does President Keyes disclose anything that Bachman said. He is only correcting what Bachman has claimed President Keyes said. Surely you will agree that is a substantial difference. If you disagree, perhaps you will be so kind as to point out where President Keyes disclosed anything that Bachman told him in confidence.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

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.

Aside from the fact that Tal shot his mouth off about it in many circumstances, Keyes had no right to defend his position.


Hysterical.

[_gramps]

Fun stuff from stn9 over on the MADness board:

I've been quietly following the Bachman-Keyes "thang" for the past several days and have come to wonder why it's generated so much interest and response. And I have to conclude that part of the answer must entail something about how good looking Tal Bachman is (or was--I haven't seen him since the Mormons on PBS). I mean, he's really handsome. I'm not gay or anything, and (the following sarcastic fiction is muttered quickly and under my breath) I won't post any more about his hitting on me once if he'll stop denying he's gay or else I'll give more details of our (to me) awkward encounter. (There. I finally said it out loud.)

But honestly, the real question should probably be: Why wouldn't I be interested in following a (to me) inconsequential internet sqabble between an ex-member golden haired free-spirit musician and an LDS stake president who might have all of the character and niceness of a prototypical LDS stake president? I mean, he's definitely cuter than DCP (whom I greatly respect and think he's handsome in a professorial, balding kind of donought-scarfing way)! And he's way cuter than the supposed Joseph Smith daguerreotype about which I posted a new topic and no one has responded to because they are too busy drooling over Goldilocks v. The Suit. Ah, forget it. I'm switching channels.

Anyone interested in discussing the seer stone/Urim and Thummim/plates/no plates issue can join in on the new thread I'm about to create.... (I miss you already, Tal.)

[_mentalgymnast]

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...

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest...

You're good at it.

Birds of a feather flock together. You and Tal may have have at least one thing in common. Twisting and turning things around to meet your own ends.

Tacit admission? Hardly.

Take what you want...you will anyway. Being the moral authority around here and all...

...and therefore, Tal did nothing wrong, and Keyes's accusations concerning "misrepresentation" brand this poor SP as "unethical."

Oh my, you are a master at coming to unwarranted conclusions. And what's even more, you aren't even aware of the fact. Amazing.

Again, take what you want.

Winning is everything, isn't it?

Cheater.

You'll do anything to win. Even if it means ignoring and/or twisting someone else's logic and reason to meat your own agenda and reach your own pre-determined conclusion. Doing this causes an incapacity to really hear what someone else is saying.

Comes back to avoidance behavior as I mentioned earlier.

Anyhoo, I would just as well not continue to go back and forth on whether or not I adequately described how Pres. Keyes was besmirched (dirtied) through the things that Tal said in his story. I think that the evidence stands as it is.

Take it or leave it.

You are a cunning one, Mr. Scratch.

Regards,
MG

[_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.

Try again Scratch. It doesn't apply, not only because Bachman already put it in the public domain, but perhaps more importantly, because nowhere does President Keyes disclose anything that Bachman said.

Keyes is discussing the nature of the conversation, and using it to portray Bachman as a dissembler. Furthermore, what part of "We do not disclose client confidences to anyone" do you not understand?

He is only correcting what Bachman has claimed President Keyes said. Surely you will agree that is a substantial difference. If you disagree, perhaps you will be so kind as to point out where President Keyes disclosed anything that Bachman told him in confidence.

Since Keyes is discussing the nature of the conversation, then I'm afraid I do disagree, my dear mbeesley.

[_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.

Aside from the fact that Tal shot his mouth off about it in many circumstances, Keyes had no right to defend his position.


Hysterical.

LoaP:

Which of the above "exceptions" does Keyes's "open letter" fall under? I will wait patiently for you to enlighten me.

[_Mister Scratch]

Oh my, you are a master at coming to unwarranted conclusions. And what's even more, you aren't even aware of the fact.

Oh, and you *are*? For your position to hold any water, you'd have to demonstrate that word of Keyes's "doubts" would harm his character. Where have you done that, my dear friend MG? Where, oh, where is your explanation / evidence?

You'll do anything to win. Even if it means ignoring and/or twisting someone else's logic and reason to meat your own agenda and reach your own pre-determined conclusion. Doing this causes an incapacity to really hear what someone else is saying.

"Meat" my own agenda? Well, I do like a good steak now and then.

Comes back to avoidance behavior as I mentioned earlier.

Uh, <ahem>, MG: I'm still waiting for your evidence. Who is it, exactly, that's engaging in "avoidance"?

Anyhoo, I would just as well not continue to go back and forth on whether or not I adequately described how Pres. Keyes was besmirched (dirtied) through the things that Tal said in his story. I think that the evidence stands as it is.

But where have you done this, MG? Where, oh, where is your "description"?

[_bcspace]

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.

How so?

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."

Oh cry me a river. I never pegged you as one to accept the logic of the burning bosom testimony...until now. Completely non sequitur OR obviously his emotions got in the way of his hearing and understanding which only further proves my case.

In either case, I think that Tal should just reveal all of what he knows, perhaps bring in other witnesses, etc.

Yes. We are waiting to see what else Tal has made up. I'm sure he's working on it now.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

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...

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest...

You're good at it.

Birds of a feather flock together. You and Tal may have have at least one thing in common. Twisting and turning things around to meet your own ends.

Tacit admission? Hardly.

Take what you want...you will anyway. Being the moral authority around here and all...

...and therefore, Tal did nothing wrong, and Keyes's accusations concerning "misrepresentation" brand this poor SP as "unethical."

Oh my, you are a master at coming to unwarranted conclusions. And what's even more, you aren't even aware of the fact. Amazing.

Again, take what you want.

Winning is everything, isn't it?

Cheater.

You'll do anything to win. Even if it means ignoring and/or twisting someone else's logic and reason to meat your own agenda and reach your own pre-determined conclusion. Doing this causes an incapacity to really hear what someone else is saying.

Comes back to avoidance behavior as I mentioned earlier.

Anyhoo, I would just as well not continue to go back and forth on whether or not I adequately described how Pres. Keyes was besmirched (dirtied) through the things that Tal said in his story. I think that the evidence stands as it is.

Take it or leave it.

You are a cunning one, Mr. Scratch.

Regards,
MG

MG: Try Hoffer's True Believer and see how uncannily it matches.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

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.

Aside from the fact that Tal shot his mouth off about it in many circumstances, Keyes had no right to defend his position.


Hysterical.

LoaP:

Which of the above "exceptions" does Keyes's "open letter" fall under? I will wait patiently for you to enlighten me.

Let me speak simply: Tal publicly discussed his conversation with Keyes (which was neither related to Keyes' counsel as a professional or Church discipline). Keyes disagreed with how Tal represented him and cleared the record from his perspective by issuing a public open letter.

That's all.

I realize your fanaticism cannot allow you to concede to anything, least of all such a simple concept as the above, but what more can I say?