marg wrote: And Dan Peterson is a nut case, so ignore him. We all know what he's about.
.
Dan Peterson is not a nut case. You may not agree with him, like his tactics or his apologetics or even his style. But he is not a nut case at all. He is really a fairly decent human being.
I get so tired of personal attacks on this board, from all sides of it.
About Peterson: I am genuinely happy that Peterson seems to be spending less and less time on defending Mormonism's unique "Kolobian light borrowing" theory of solar production these days (or the "magic rock" theory of book production), and more on academic stuff.
My one concern is that he seems increasingly now to just be defending another fake holy man. Why the attraction to obvious fakes, I wonder? I don't really get it. (What's next - Dan Peterson editing the Sylvia Browne papers?).
By the way, I'm happy to apologize for any misrepresentation of anyone I've done, where it is brought to my attention. I await quotes.
About Randy Keyes: I don't get any love for saying this, but I really do think that Solomarineris has put his finger on something. True enough I opened the door for this in recounting the meeting in the first place, and naming him...but bringing it to a head was, it seems, some amped-up Mormon who put Pres. Keyes into an almost impossible position: deny that he said what he said, or look like a total goof in front of his wife and the whole stake, his whole peer group.
Tal Bachman wrote:About Randy Keyes: I don't get any love for saying this, but I really do think that Solomarineris has put his finger on something. True enough I opened the door for this in recounting the meeting in the first place, and naming him...but bringing it to a head was, it seems, some amped-up Mormon who put Pres. Keyes into an almost impossible position: deny that he said what he said, or look like a total goof in front of his wife and the whole stake, his whole peer group.
What would I pick, I wonder?
Well, and the kicker is that the person who did this may, and would probably not be the only Mormon involved who, think(s) that the question is not whether Keyes ever doubted, but whether he will do the "right thing" now by averring some kind of certainty of testimony. You may note that on the FAIR blog the repeated refrain is that "only Keyes can know" what his beliefs are, with the implication being that his present words are all that matter.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
By the way, I'm happy to apologize for any misrepresentation of anyone I've done, where it is brought to my attention.
Perhaps you should apologize for bringing the private discussion to the internet in the first place. It's almost as if you are placing the responsibility of leaving on him. Sometimes things can be known about another that serves no benefit to anyone bringing it out in the open for others to know.
marg wrote: And Dan Peterson is a nut case, so ignore him. We all know what he's about.
.
Dan Peterson is not a nut case. You may not agree with him, like his tactics or his apologetics or even his style. But he is not a nut case at all. He is really a fairly decent human being.
I get so tired of personal attacks on this board, from all sides of it.
Agreed. Well, at least as far as I know, agreed. He may be a closet ham radio operator, or a closet kimchee eater, or a closet democrat for all I know. But he's not a nut case.
By the way, I'm happy to apologize for any misrepresentation of anyone I've done, where it is brought to my attention.
Perhaps you should apologize for bringing the private discussion to the internet in the first place. It's almost as if you are placing the responsibility of leaving on him. Sometimes things can be known about another that serves no benefit to anyone bringing it out in the open for others to know.
Not sure the privacy thing's really all that big a deal, Harmony. Randy Keyes obviously doesn't think it is. Louis Midgley's about to post publicly our private email correspondence from a few years ago without asking my permission, so he obviously doesn't care. And Randy never requested that I not mention what we talked about. And I don't care what they say or print either because I have nothing to hide.
Yes Trevor - people are correct that "only Randy Keyes can know what he believes" (at least at any given moment). But when we discuss things, we can only go by what people say they believe. Plunging debates into the world of mystery by continually pointing out that what we say might not really be what we think seems totally pointless - we just go by what people say, because that's all we can go by.
So all I know is what Randy Keyes said to me, true enough.
Tal Bachman wrote:Not sure the privacy thing's really all that big a deal, Harmony. Randy Keyes obviously doesn't think it is. Louis Midgley's about to post publicly our private email correspondence from a few years ago without asking my permission, so he obviously doesn't care. And Randy never requested that I not mention what we talked about. And I don't care either because I have nothing to hide.
I'm not sure it would have occurred to SP Keyes to request you not mention the conversation on an internet bulletin board or two, years in the future. I doubt he knew much if anything about internet bulletin boards until just a short while ago.
As for Midgley, while I don't think DCP is a nut case, I'm reserving judgment on Midgley. He's a loose cannon, from what I have ever seen.
It's not a matter of hiding something. It's a matter of courtesy and politeness.
I find it very difficult to believe that Randy Keyes did not know about Tal's comments prior to last week. The Mormon world is very small, and news travels quickly. Surely, this was brought to Keyes' attention some time ago by someone in his stake or elsewhere. Tal was likely a well known member and an open apostate. Well known apostates are openly talked about by other members, particularly those close to the situation.
When did Randy Keyes really know about Tal's disclosure? Isn't it possible that he was finally forced to respond? If Keyes was aware of Tal's allegations, why did he not respond either privately or publicly sooner?