Stake Pres. Ditches Ethics to Smear Tal B.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

PS- this was confirmed to me by Kevin Christenson in a personal e-mail.

Have a great weekend, everyone.

[_Mister Scratch]

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?

I don't understand how discussing the nature of the conversation has anything to do with client confidences. It has nothing to do with it. But you know that.

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.

You made a brazen accusation that President Keyes acted unethically by denying that he said what Bachman claims he said.

There was literally no reason for Keyes to issue a "correction." MG has failed, after repeated requests, to supply any evidence that Tal's initial story was somehow "harmful" or "besmirching" to Keyes's character, and therefore, his "open letter" seems a breach of typical confidentiality standards and ethics. Do I think this is a *huge* breach? No. But let me ask you this: If the letters came to the attention of Keyes's professional organization (e.g., whatever the Canadian version of the APA is) how do you think they would look upon his behavior? I don't know that he'd be reprimanded, necessarily, but I doubt very much that the Powers that Be would look upon his behavior favorably.

You have been unable to provide any support for such an accusation, other than your own opinion. Now you are simply being a stubborn old mule.

Have a nice day.

(So, do I get a dossier entry in your blog now? :D )

Well, Mark, aside from your general grumpiness, you do seem like a reasonably decent chap. And, I have been known to take requests in the past. ; )

[_Coggins7]

You apologists are very confused about the meaning of the word "lie." That in itself might be considered quite revealing.

At least we don't have any problems with the word "is".

[_Trevor]

At least we don't have any problems with the word "is".

Good for you! At least you have something on Bill Clinton.

[_Mister Scratch]

If Pres. Keyes is truly TBM, then it becomes obvious (go back and read Tal's story again if you need to) that Tal's story is damaging to Pres. Keyes in the sense that the very nature and/or reality of his religious beliefs are being challenged. This is where the besmirching takes place. Making public something that isn't so, and thus potentially damaging another's reputation through fabricated innuendo heaps unwarranted/unwanted dirt on the other. Pres. Keyes' relationships could be muddied up, and his reputation with his peers also.

Thank you for taking the time to type up this explanation, mentalgymnast. I appreciate it. However, there are some problems with your argument: namely, it is entirely dependent upon all of these "ifs". (I went ahead and bolded the portions of your post in order to point out how speculative your position is.) Thus, you have not established that the postings would "harm"/"besmirch" his reputation. You are just guessing / presuming. Realistically speaking, in order for the "besmirching" to occur, news of Bachman's posts would have to be leaked to the appropriate people (e.g., his family, stake members, etc.), and I think it's worth bearing in mind that it was *YOU*, MG, who got this whole pot stirred up. I mean, would Pres. Keyes have ever even known about all of this had you not inquired into it?

Is that not besmirching?

Given how reliant your argument is upon presumption and speculation, I'm going to have to say, "No."

Now if Pres. Keyes actually has doubts, then it's a different story. And of course, that's where you're coming from because you're more likely to believe Tal's story than Pres. Keye's testimony.

Even if Keyes is 100% telling the truth, you would still have to demonstrate how, why, and in what ways his reputation would actually be "besmirched"/"damaged." But, of course, you cannot do that. Your argument rests entirely upon speculation. I mean, can you cite a single instance---even anecdotally---in which an LDS leader was shunned, "besmirched," or disciplined merely for having some doubts?

[_Mister Scratch]

The process went like this:

[in one instance] Christenson wrote a book review and mailed it to the FARMS office (the address is listed on their website). He was contacted by the editor. He was informed that the article would be peer reviewed, and then possibly published. It was, and was.

PS: The "code of ethics" to which you refer has absolutely no application to this situation.

Was this the first time Christenson had ever sent anything to FARMS? Further, did DCP and Christenson know each other? (Or did Christenson know anyone at FARMS?)

As to your PS: Why?

[_Alter Idem]

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

No. ex-Bro Bachman has been talking about this man, telling readers on public message boards that he's a closet unbeliever! You don't think that is besmirching his character? While I realize that as an Ex-lds, 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? Both of them chose sites they felt comfortable posting on--why you would even bring this up as a criticism is beyond me.

[_Coggins7]

No. ex-Bro Bachman has been talking about this man, telling readers on public message boards that he's a closet unbeliever! You don't think that is besmirching his character? While I realize that as an Ex-lds, 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.

I agree wholeheartedly. Bachman threw down the gauntlet, and now wants his own Internet Oprah forum to cry victim. If Keys is not a closet unbeliever, and if he is not continuing in his Priesthood duties under false pretenses with regard to the members of his Stake, Tal has a lot of explaining to do.

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

No. ex-Bro Bachman has been talking about this man, telling readers on public message boards that he's a closet unbeliever! You don't think that is besmirching his character?

How is it a "besmirch," A.I.? Can you cite any bit of LDS scripture or doctrine which treats doubt as a sin, or as something which is damaging to a person's reputation? I'll be waiting for you to enlighten me. Otherwise, I guess I've got no choice but to assume that you believe LDS are viciously judgmental by nature.

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 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.

[_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.

There was literally no reason for Keyes to issue a "correction." MG has failed, after repeated requests, to supply any evidence that Tal's initial story was somehow "harmful" or "besmirching" to Keyes's character, and therefore, his "open letter" seems a breach of typical confidentiality standards and ethics. Do I think this is a *huge* breach? No. But let me ask you this: If the letters came to the attention of Keyes's professional organization (e.g., whatever the Canadian version of the APA is) how do you think they would look upon his behavior? I don't know that he'd be reprimanded, necessarily, but I doubt very much that the Powers that Be would look upon his behavior favorably.

I doubt very much that the Powers that Be would give a diddley-squat about the whole affair.

Well, Mark, aside from your general grumpiness, you do seem like a reasonably decent chap.

Me??? Grumpy??? I've generally got a huge, demonic smile on my face when I'm posting on these Boards. The folks at another anti-Mormon Board know me as: