Stake Pres. Ditches Ethics to Smear Tal B.

[_Mister Scratch]

It is clear that the "We do not disclose client confidences to anyone" is a dictum that means nothing to Pres. Keyes. None of the circumstances listed above fits this scenario.

The circumstances do not fit the scenario because the scenario does not fall within the parameters of the rules governing confidentiality.

How do you figure? This was a conversation between an ecclesiastical authority and a parishioner, was it not?

[_SatanWasSetUp]

I don't know who is right and who is wrong, and don't really care. It's a stupid argument, and I believe people misinterpret one another all the time. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. However, why would Tal Bachman lie about the conversation? What would motivate him to make up lies about someone that he appears to be friends with? I don't see a motive. On the other hand, the Stake President has a whole lot of motivation to deny that he is a closet unbeliever. Either way, I think Tal deserves some blame. If the Stake President told Tal he is an unbeliever, Tal shouldn't have said anything. And of course, if Tal made it all up because he is an evil apostate and that's what apostates do, then he is was wrong of course.

Interestingly, my bishop told me that he sometimes has doubts too. I'm sure if I told people this, the bishop would deny ever saying it. Bishops and Stake Presidents need to give an outward appearance of "I know the church is true with every fiber of my being" but when you have a one-on-one serious discussion with them, I imagine most of them are as unsure in their testimony as everyone else.

[_mbeesley]

It is clear that the "We do not disclose client confidences to anyone" is a dictum that means nothing to Pres. Keyes. None of the circumstances listed above fits this scenario.

The circumstances do not fit the scenario because the scenario does not fall within the parameters of the rules governing confidentiality.

How do you figure? This was a conversation between an ecclesiastical authority and a parishioner, was it not?

Read the entirety of Principle IV, are pay particular attention to subdivision B: "We treat all communications from clients with professional confidence." The Principle of confidentiality is speaking only to communications from clients. Again, President Keyes has not disclosed anything that Bachman said.

[_Mister Scratch]

It is clear that the "We do not disclose client confidences to anyone" is a dictum that means nothing to Pres. Keyes. None of the circumstances listed above fits this scenario.

The circumstances do not fit the scenario because the scenario does not fall within the parameters of the rules governing confidentiality.

How do you figure? This was a conversation between an ecclesiastical authority and a parishioner, was it not?

Read the entirety of Principle IV, are pay particular attention to subdivision B: "We treat all communications from clients with professional confidence." The Principle of confidentiality is speaking only to communications from clients. Again, President Keyes has not disclosed anything that Bachman said.

Actually, he did, such as this:

I felt that when I spoke of my spiritual confirmations your response was, “Yeah, but what about…” This was a dismissing of my views, and it is obvious from your message board post that you neither understood those views nor have you reported them correctly.

(bold emphasis added)

He also revealed in the "open letter" that Tal had expressed doubts concerning Joseph Smith. Pres. Keyes absolutely did "disclose" things Tal said.

[_rcrocket]

It is clear that the "We do not disclose client confidences to anyone" is a dictum that means nothing to Pres. Keyes. None of the circumstances listed above fits this scenario.

The circumstances do not fit the scenario because the scenario does not fall within the parameters of the rules governing confidentiality.

How do you figure? This was a conversation between an ecclesiastical authority and a parishioner, was it not?

There is no obligation for confidentiality per se in that relationship, whether in scripture, the handbook, or any ethical manual you choose to cite. You are confusing the penitential relationship with a mere discussion A point made a couple of times above

[_Mister Scratch]

It is clear that the "We do not disclose client confidences to anyone" is a dictum that means nothing to Pres. Keyes. None of the circumstances listed above fits this scenario.

The circumstances do not fit the scenario because the scenario does not fall within the parameters of the rules governing confidentiality.

How do you figure? This was a conversation between an ecclesiastical authority and a parishioner, was it not?

There is no obligation for confidentiality per se in that relationship, whether in scripture, the handbook, or any ethical manual you choose to cite. You are confusing the penitential relationship with a mere discussion A point made a couple of times above

Well, Bishop Bob, I hope that you remember to tell your parishioners at the next sacrament meeting that you feel no obligation concerning confidentiality.

[_Trevor]

I seem to recall Daniel told us he was leaving our conversation on another thread because he was off to the "Near East."

And yet, it looks like he may have been following this very thread this morning, and took time to comment on it a few hours later.

I wrote this earlier this morning, and you can find it on this thread:

I know I will rue asking this, but is anyone else wondering whether Daniel Peterson "knows" Randy Keyes? Yes, I am offering the question in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek fashion, but he has been known to contact interested parties when claims about them have been made by ex-Mormons on the internet.

And here I find on the FAIR blog:

Daniel Peterson Says:
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:09 pm
It’s being suggested elsewhere that I’m the one who “ratted out” Mr. Tal Bachman.
I have absolutely no objection to cluing a person in to what someone else is saying about that person in public venues of which the person may be unaware — recently, the son of an old friend was mocking him on a message board, and I thought my friend ought to know about it (I would have wanted to know it if MY son had been doing such a thing), so, after hesitating for a while, I told him — but I’ve never met Randy Keyes, don’t know Randy Keyes, and have, as far as I’m aware, never had any contact with Randy Keyes.
(As if my saying so will have any effect on inveterate conspiracy fantasists!)

as posted by someone with the handle "Len L."

Could it be that Daniel did not leave the discussion because he had to travel to the Near East? I find it a little humorous that my playful speculation has earned me the title "inveterate conspiracy fantasist." That Daniel, what a joker!

[_Yong Xi]

I seem to recall Daniel told us he was leaving our conversation on another thread because he was off to the "Near East."

If I am not mistaken, "The Near East" is a restaurant in Provo. Peterson is a regular there. Oh, and they have WIFI.

[_Trevor]

If I am not mistaken, "The Near East" is a restaurant in Provo. Peterson is a regular there. Oh, and they have WIFI.

LOL!!! Of course! That must be it.

[_Alter Idem]

Keyes clearly posted his letter in order to blacken Tal's character (and he dragged his wife into it!),

Well, hello, Alter Idem! I'm glad to see that you finally summoned up the gumption to come confront me here on this board. I noticed that you were bashing me on MAD. Not very nice, especially since I cannot defend myself there! In any case, don't worry: I forgive you.

Scratch you are right--I blew it. I should not have talked about you without posting those same comments here so you could respond. My bad; thanks for forgiving me. And so, I will post my comments here so you can see what I said.

Maklelan complained that you were criticizing the Stake pres. for writing the open letter--I responded:


"Maklelan, It's Mr. Scratch It's his twisted logic that attacks a person for defending himself. wacko.gif Mr. Scratch does not think like reasonable, rational people. He has his own code of ethics--all Mormons are crafty, lying, sordid, hypocrites....just for starters.

Mr. Scratch started the thread criticizing the Stake President for posting a letter to defend himself against the FACT that Tal Bachman had been spreading stories about him for quite some time and besmirching his character by claiming he was pretending to be a believer, holding a position of great trust and responsibility and being a closet non-believer. Frankly, if someone had done that to me, I'd be outraged.

All normal people would not question the Stake Pres.'s right to speak out against this serious mischaracterization--except for a moral relativist, like Scratch. All normal people would admit that the Stake Pres. had a right to speak up for himself and deny what he claims are serious mischaracterizations--except for people who are so blinded by their hatred, they can't abide fairness."

While I realize that as an Ex-lds,

Where did I ever say I was "Ex-lds"? Would you like to see my TR?

You haven't--as far as I know, you haven't said hardly anything about yourself, so a lot is left up to us to try and figure out your background. I'd love to see your temple recommend--that would be something to see:).

you probably think that is a compliment, but to an LDS person, it is not. And Bachman is seriously creepy with his veiled threats to give out more damaging information coated in sugar-frosted "concern for his stake president and his sweet wife"...yuck, this guy is seriously scary. Just reading his comments about this makes my skin crawl.

and furthermore, he did it within the context of a hostile, designed-to-smear blog (I.e., FAIR).

And ex-Bro Bachman chose a totally neutral, LDS friendly side to post his side?

Well, about as much as he could, I would say. Material is not censored or banned on this site, as it would be on RfM or MAD.

Both of them chose sites they felt comfortable posting on--why you would even bring this up as a criticism is beyond me.

Because it makes sense. I can just picture Allen Wyatt glowering over his computer screen, mashing his fingers together in a steeple shape, just so proud---yes, proud!---of himself for hosting this smear on Tal Bachman! Let's not forget that Wyatt was the same guy who was buying up all kinds of web property in an effort to discredit and undermine Church critics such as Grant Palmer. Wyatt, as someone once rightly pointed out, is quite a "snake." So, it's a real shame that an apparently nice guy such as Keyes would want to post his "open letter" in a place such as the ironically named FAIR.

Regardless of Mr. Wyatt's motives, Tal Bachman set this up. It was just pretty outrageous that he was telling people that his Stake Pres. was a closet unbeliever--I'm sure some who don't like Mr. B and who read his claims these last couple of years decided to inform the Stake Pres. about what he was saying and naturally, the Stake president wanted to denounce the things said about him which were untrue and damaging to his reputation as an ecclesiastical leader and in his profession as a therapist.