Stake Pres. Ditches Ethics to Smear Tal B.

[_rcrocket]

"I do think that he (Keyes) is bending the truth now"

I'll be polite.

Basis please?

[_rcrocket]

Nice try, Bob. But you aren't going to set the terms of the debate (on a false basis), and then declare victory when I dodge your pretty thinly veiled rhetorical scheme. Try it on a rube.

Isn't that what I've been doing? Weak weak weak. Come on, I answer all questions -- in my own time and way.

[_rcrocket]

Here's a question for the peanut gallery (that means everybody): Does the location of the "open letter" make a difference in your evaluation of the situation? Would your evaluation have been different if the stake president had posted his reply directly to Tal in the thread in question (regardless of how he had heard of it)?

For me, I think having the open letter posted on a FAIR blog seems intended only to make a point with respect to Tal (I.e., to damage his credibility), and not as an honest response to him. For what that's worth.

The very public forum selected by Tal justified a similar response.

[_Trevor]

Isn't that what I've been doing? Weak weak weak. Come on, I answer all questions -- in my own time and way.

Like the one about whether you beat your wife?

Just why should I answer a question about why I called Keyes a liar? So I can defend myself for something I did not say and thereby lend credence to your false claim? Give me a break.

[_Mister Scratch]

Keyes is not a lawyer (as far as I know). The question is one of ethics, not of legality.

I see. Your ethics. I deal in ethics all the time and I don't agree with your assessment.

You are not one to be spouting off on ethics -- using anonymity to hurt the professional standings of persons such as Dr. Peterson and, to a much lesser degree, myself.

Professor P. is a Professor of Middle Eastern studies. If you can find a single post of mine that is critical of his work as a professor of Middle Eastern studies, then I will permanently resign from the messageboards. Or, if he's willing to admit that he earns his livelihood doing Mopologetics, then I'll resign in that case as well.

If not, then I see nothing wrong in offering up commentary and criticism concerning his "hobby" of LDS apologetics.

"Nothing wrong" in your case means amoralism, if there is such a word. Unmask your cowardly anonymity and resign.

Resign what? From the board? Or from the Church?

[_Mister Scratch]

Here's a question for the peanut gallery (that means everybody): Does the location of the "open letter" make a difference in your evaluation of the situation? Would your evaluation have been different if the stake president had posted his reply directly to Tal in the thread in question (regardless of how he had heard of it)?

Yes, frankly, my evaluation would have been different.

For me, I think having the open letter posted on a FAIR blog seems intended only to make a point with respect to Tal (I.e., to damage his credibility), and not as an honest response to him. For what that's worth.

I agree.

[_Coggins7]

Trevor, upon what basis, given the evidence we have, can you conclude that Keys is distorting the truth in any way here?

Why will you not answer this simple query?

[_Coggins7]

Resign what? From the board? Or from the Church?

It must be from the board, since, as you've never been a Latter Day Saint, it would be logically impossible for you to resign from it.

[_mentalgymnast]

I think if Tal made comments about his Stake President with which the Stake President disagrees, said Stake President has every right to add his comments.

I actually have to agree with LOP here. Tal did name this stake president specifically. I think he had a duty to respond.

I'm just now dropping in on this thread late in the game. Didn't even know what was going on here until John Larsen bumped up my original thread that apparently played a part in initiating this hullabaloo.

I have to agree with GoodK. The SP has a moral responsibility to set the record straight. The fact that some of you guys are lambasting him for doing so says ALOT. Well, back to reading this interesting exchange...

Regards,
MG

Now, this is an even more foolish post. "Moral responsibility," now?

Yes. If his good name and the good name of his wife are being besmirched, Pres. Keyes as a moral right to stand up and be counted on to tell the truth. And especially if being dragged through the mud without cause also indirectly drags the church through the same mud hole.

Why do you consider this to be a foolish thing for me to say? Are you a moral authority on this subject?

Regards,
MG

[_Mister Scratch]

Trevor, upon what basis, given the evidence we have, can you conclude that Keys is distorting the truth in any way here?

Why will you not answer this simple query?

Upon what basis, given the evidence, can you conclude that Tal is distorting the truth in any way here?