"I was told to stay away from you"

[beefche]

Mormonmusic,

I was responding to Backroad's suggestion of having policies to prevent this. I am not implying anything that you seem to think I am. (BTW, I love how this whole thread is all about assuming--assuming we know what happened with this young man, assuming we know why this girl rejected him, assuming I am saying things I'm not). What POLICIES should the church enact to prevent gossip?

And what punishment are you wanting exactly? Increase their tithing to 12%? Put them in stocks and throw tomatoes at them? What PUNISHMENTS do you see being enacted?

Of course we should address breaches of confidentiality. But, as john doe said, am I supposed to know about something like that? How does one tell another member (even one who was wronged) that someone has been "punished" without breaking a confidence?

And I've been in leadership positions. Several of them. I've known things about people that were told to me in confidence. I've also had information withheld from me due to confidentiality. Your many experiences (too many to shake a stick at) are not my experiences.

And what do you mean by this?

By the way, they sometimes excommunicate when they shouldn't -- did you know that? And then SLC has to reverse the decisions. This came out in one of the leadership meetings held a while ago. So, let's not look at everything that happens with rose-colored glasses....in my view there IS a partnership here -- and both sides have responsibilities.

Are you implying (there's that word again) that lay ministry should be perfect in how they do their callings? Are you suggesting that no mistakes ever be made?

My point of earlier posts is that there are horrible things that will and do happen--in and out of the church. And yes, I stand firmly by my statement that it is ultimately up to the individual what they do with it. There are many things we have no control over--but our reaction is one thing we do have control. So, while I may work to help the kingdom, perfect the saints, succor those in need---I cannot take on the responsibility for choices of each member I come contact with. I have control over my own choices--I don't even have control over my own husband's choices. He does.

[Guest mormonmusic]

What POLICIES should the church enact to prevent gossip?

As I said earlier, when breaches happen, taken them seriously and talk to the people who have breached confidentiality. Go to the person who has suffered from the breach and indicate the breacher has been spoken to, where appropriate, and apologize for the breach.

In addition, how about talks and training on that aspect of it in priesthood leadership meetings? Beyond a passing "by the way, it's confidential" I have never had training in all my 27 years in the Church about that topic specifically, and I too have held many leadership positions. And I've seen huge breaches in confidentiality time that have hurt people -- or that could hurt people if they knew what I was told by others when I had no reason for knowing.

I also mentioned one other thing in my post earlier.

And what punishment are you wanting exactly? Increase their tithing to 12%? Put them in stocks and throw tomatoes at them? What PUNISHMENTS do you see being enacted?

I don't want to see any punishments As I said above the discomfort of being spoken to when there is a clear breach of confidentiality is a form of punishment, but also training. And perhaps the discomfort of apologizing -- either from the priesthood leader over the breacher or the breacher themself.

Of course we should address breaches of confidentiality. But, as john doe said, am I supposed to know about something like that? How does one tell another member (even one who was wronged) that someone has been "punished" without breaking a confidence?

I think you need to use a different word than "punish" -- that seems to be gettign in the way of the discussion. I come from a psychology background, so the world "punish" to me simply means an unpleasant consequence -- such as being spoken to firmly and fairly about the need for confidentiality when it's clear that someone has broken it.

And I've been in leadership positions. Several of them. I've known things about people that were told to me in confidence. I've also had information withheld from me due to confidentiality. Your many experiences (too many to shake a stick at) are not my experiences.

And what do you mean by this?

We both speak from our own life experiences. My experiences have been deep, unsettling behavior on the part of people in the Church that should never go excused. So, because you haven't had these experiences, let me share them generally. Member or priesthood leader X behaves in a way that is unconscionable. Everyone knows about it, no one does anything about it. It's left to the member to lean on their testimony and if they run into commitment or testimony problems -- too bad, it's their fault for reacting that way is the prevailing attitude -- without empathy. Bad attitude on the part of people in authority and the members at large to behave that way in my view.

Are you implying (there's that word again) that lay ministry should be perfect in how they do their callings? Are you suggesting that no mistakes ever be made?

Nope. I acknowledge they make mistakes. That's why I think we need to STOP putting everything on the backs of the members when things go wrong and these volunteers make huge mistakes that damage testimony and turn people away.

My point of earlier posts is that there are horrible things that will and do happen--in and out of the church. And yes, I stand firmly by my statement that it is ultimately up to the individual what they do with it. There are many things we have no control over--but our reaction is one thing we do have control. So, while I may work to help the kingdom, perfect the saints, succor those in need---I cannot take on the responsibility for choices of each member I come contact with. I have control over my own choices--I don't even have control over my own husband's choices. He does.

That's a healthy attitude -- to a point. But when there are flagrant abuses of confidentiality that turn people away, and you are a leader in a position to "confront" the breacher, and also comfort the "breachee" then don't rely on the "the onus is totally on the member" rationale.

That member does have a responsibility to try to forgive, but on the other hand, such onus does not exonerate this divine, inspired organization from admitting fault, even apologizing, and doing their best to make amends. Just because the organization is true doesn't give its leaders a license to do whatever they want without taking responsibility for the ways in which they fall down.

In a way, I'm not disagreeing with you. I do think people need to take resopnsiblitity for their actions, but in our Church I have seen far too much emphasis on this when the organization, staunch members, and leaders as a whole have their own glaring faults that led to the harm in the first place.

My point in mentioning excommunications wrongly given is to show the gravity of the mistakes that can happen from our volunteers, to help everyone shed the mentality that "because the Church is divinely led, inspired, and perfect, it can do no wrong and has no obligations to its members". The drastic mistake of excommunicating someone who should not have been excommunicated is one of the larger problems I am trying to point out to help us sit up and realize that both the member, AND the official organization have responsibilities to right these kinds of problems.

Edited September 12, 2011 by mormonmusic

[Dove]

I think a lot of good points have been made on this thread. I also believe there is a lot of unrighteousness going on in the body of the church. So what is the answer for a person's confidence being breached?

Perhaps we should make the process for receiving a high profile calling a little more stringent or strict. Perhaps each one of us can change a little more and repent.

I will say again, their is so much wickedness among the body of the church. But, Beefche is right. The only agency we can/should exercise and control is our own individually.

This doesn't mean that attention shouldn't be brought to things that we could work on. Issues should be addressed in order for a better way to be sought.

[prophetofdoom]

There are a lot of unanswered questions to this story...

1) How old was this young woman? Was she 18 or older? If so, can't she make her own decisions on who she hangs out with? Why would she tell this guy this if she is an adult?

2) How was it said? Did she say it in a rude manner or was it in the middle of some conversation with no ill will intended?

[Guest mysticmorini]

There are a lot of unanswered questions to this story...

1) How old was this young woman? Was she 18 or older? If so, can't she make her own decisions on who she hangs out with? Why would she tell this guy this if she is an adult?

2) How was it said? Did she say it in a rude manner or was it in the middle of some conversation with no ill will intended?

From what I know all parties in this story were over 18.

[Guest mysticmorini]

Why are we ALL assuming the worst in this situation of anyone mentioned in the very vague and biased OP?

How is this post "biased"? I simply mentioned the facts that I heard. If you have a problem with me personally or my integrity I suggest you take that up with me privately as I know you are more than capable of sending me private messages.

And I keep going back to this point, but why in the world do we need to assign blame, condemnation or other judgment in this case? What is the point of this thread?

If you reread the OP (the one that is so biased) you would notice it only asked "who is at fault" NOT who should we blame, condemn or judge.

[beefche]

I see, so you "heard" these things. You are concerned that presumably someone broke a confidence and yet you continue to listen to the gossip and now have put that gossip on a public forum.

And what do you mean when you say fault? Isn't assigning "fault" labeling them with blame or judgement? In other words, you would be ok if I said you were at fault for stealing at work or lying to obtain gain or other some such horrible thing? After all, I'm not judging you or condemning you, just finding you at fault.

I have a problem with this thread because you proposed that this girl was told either directly by the uncle who is a HC or from someone who heard it from him--thereby implying that he broke a confidence. You have absolutely no knowledge if such occurred. You have little knowledge of the people involved. In fact, by your own wording you are stating "from what I know" or "I heard." Yet, despite this fact, you want to find out who is at fault.

If you wanted to discuss a hypothetical, then that is one thing. But, you didn't present it as a hypothetical. You presented it as facts, then asked who is at fault.

Remember, whether you mean something else or not, the definition and connotations of words carrying meaning.

And with this post, I'm done talking about gossip.

[Guest mysticmorini]

I see, so you "heard" these things. You are concerned that presumably someone broke a confidence and yet you continue to listen to the gossip and now have put that gossip on a public forum. .

Your are so upset about people assuming when you have assumed many things.

I did hear this SP say these things, i heard him say them when he was addressing my elders quorum about why some members go inactive. So is the SP guilty of Gossip or are you guilty of assuming that I overheard something I wasn't supposed to?

I have a problem with this thread because you proposed that this girl was told either directly by the uncle who is a HC or from someone who heard it from him--thereby implying that he broke a confidence. You have absolutely no knowledge if such occurred. You have little knowledge of the people involved. In fact, by your own wording you are stating "from what I know" or "I heard." Yet, despite this fact, you want to find out who is at fault.

More assumptions, I never proposed that the HC told the Girl. I stated (its all there if you care to reread the OP) that the girls uncle was on the HC and you ASSumed that i was inferring that he was the one who told her.

If you wanted to discuss a hypothetical, then that is one thing. But, you didn't present it as a hypothetical. You presented it as facts, then asked who is at fault.

And you assumed many thing and turned this thread into something it is not.

Remember, whether you mean something else or not, the definition and connotations of words carrying meaning.

Especially when you assume meaning to those words and read more into a statement than what was said.

And with this post, I'm done talking about gossip.

well I don't think you can really consider this gossip since there are no name, locations or other identifiers. For all intents and purposes it might as well be hypothetical.

[NeuroTypical]

Elder Oaks had a masterful Ensign article back in 1999 about when to judge and when to not judge.

“Judge Not” and Judging - Ensign August 1999

He lays out a few steps that one must take in order to make a righeous judgement. Italics mine.

First, a righteous judgment must, by definition, be intermediate. It will refrain from declaring that a person has been assured of exaltation or from dismissing a person as being irrevocably bound for hellfire.

...

Second, a righteous judgment will be guided by the Spirit of the Lord, not by anger, revenge, jealousy, or self-interest.

...

Third, to be righteous, an intermediate judgment must be within our stewardship. We should not presume to exercise and act upon judgments that are outside our personal responsibilities. Some time ago I attended an adult Sunday School class in a small town in Utah. The subject was the sacrament, and the class was being taught by the bishop. During class discussion a member asked, “What if you see an unworthy person partaking of the sacrament? What do you do?” The bishop answered, “You do nothing. I may need to do something.” That wise answer illustrates my point about stewardship in judging.

...

Fourth, we should, if possible, refrain from judging until we have adequate knowledge of the facts.

...

A fifth principle of a righteous intermediate judgment is that whenever possible we will refrain from judging people and only judge situations.

...

Sixth, forgiveness is a companion principle

...

Seventh, a final ingredient or principle of a righteous judgment is that it will apply righteous standards.

[Backroads]

Perhaps we can say...

The individual will be held accountable for leaving the church and not finishing repentance.

Anyone who may have contributed to that individual's choice to leave will be held accountable for their contributing actions.

[Guest mormonmusic]

Perhaps we can say...

The individual will be held accountable for leaving the church and not finishing repentance.

Anyone who may have contributed to that individual's choice to leave will be held accountable for their contributing actions.

Now are getting it!!!

I believe that mercy may well be shown to those who leave due to the actions of others that genuinely put doubt in their mind about the truthfulness of the Church. Not necessarily outright forgiveness or exoneration, but perhaps gentler consequences, and I wouldn't rule out large gobs of forgiveness either.

And I no longer believe that it's simply this:

The individual will be held accountable for leaving the church and not finishing repentance.

This statement alone leaves the Church with no accountability whatsoever -- the Church being its offical leaders and members at large. And I think it leads to lack of caring and lack of empathy that I see very often here on this forum and in our Wards.

It's funny, we will go to great lengths to reach out to the people who have become stone cold in the gospel, yet, when active or semi-active people start showing signs they are becoming disaffected, we look up on them with the indifference I see in that lonesome statement:

The individual will be held accountable for leaving the church and not finishing repentance.

What bothers me even more is that it's not even a CONSCIOUS cultural value. People default to it immediately it seems, and can't seem to see the need for balance between Church accountability and individual accountability. And they look at attempts to bring balance to the perspective as Church bashing when in my view, it's simply being empathetic and seeing a situation from many different angles -- the nature of an organization that has a "divine commission".

Edited September 12, 2011 by mormonmusic

[Guest mysticmorini]

Mormonmusic: EXACTLY! I concur 100%

we let our leaders, almost by default, get away with some pretty heinous things and resolve to say, oh well they probably didn't really do anything wrong and if they did they will get theirs in the end. But, of individual members we automatically assume the worst and consider them guilty until proven innocent.

[pam]

Due to numerous site rule violations now in this thread..it is closed. Notifications will go out.