"I was told to stay away from you"

[john doe]

HA! not even close... never met the guy before but I do feel bad for his situation.

There are a lot of variables that could be taken into consideration but you know as much as I do. I'm not sure why it is acceptable to automatically defend the gossiper and condemn the sinner.

How do you know there even is a gossiper? You have no proof that the uncle said anything to the woman. It could have been anyone in her circle of family and friends who told her that, or she could have made it up just to avoid him.

[Guest mysticmorini]

I gotta say, your leaps of logic and extrapolation are amazing. Your first scenario is nothing like your second one. Care to try again?

I'd say your inability to understand my analogy is amazing but i'll take another crack at it.

So if I know someone who has commited a sin and I go up to them and tell them i don't want anything to do with them/ don't like them/ don't value them because of that sin, that is perfectly fine and there is no fault in me? Is that clear?

[Guest mysticmorini]

How do you know there even is a gossiper? You have no proof that the uncle said anything to the woman. It could have been anyone in her circle of family and friends who told her that, or she could have made it up just to avoid him.

Unless she did make it up to avoid him, someone did tell her to avoid him. I'd assume it was the Uncle but I don't know that and it doesn't matter. The principle is the same.

[beefche]

So, this thread is to condemn the girl who told the guy that? Is that the point of this thread?

[Guest mysticmorini]

So, this thread is to condemn the girl who told the guy that? Is that the point of this thread?

Who said anything about condemning anyone?

[Dravin]

So if I know someone who has commited a sin and I go up to them and tell them i don't want anything to do with them/ don't like them/ don't value them because of that sin, that is perfectly fine and there is no fault in me? Is that clear?

And you still roll a 1 on your analogy check. You might want to try using this one, I'm sure John will accept it:

What if I came up to a smoker (or if you prefer to base it off your second attempt, a sinner) and told him I was told to stay away from him.

Edited September 9, 2011 by Dravin

[john doe]

I'd say your inability to understand my analogy is amazing but i'll take another crack at it.

So if I know someone who has commited a sin and I go up to them and tell them i don't want anything to do with them/ don't like them/ don't value them because of that sin, that is perfectly fine and there is no fault in me? Is that clear?

Your second story is clear, but has no relation to the first story. You don't know all of the first story, only what you overheard, and only one side of the situation. The second story is more concise, and easier to make a judgement on. The first story has many more variables that are not included in the telling of it. There is no way to be able to honestly assign blame based on your retelling of the first scenario.

[Vort]

Unless she did make it up to avoid him, someone did tell her to avoid him. I'd assume it was the Uncle but I don't know that and it doesn't matter. The principle is the same.

I don't understand. You asked who was at fault. Isn't that what's at issue?

Ignoring for the moment the fact that we cannot possibly know who is at fault, especially given only a third-hand recounting of a few of the facts, it most certainly does matter if it was the uncle or someone else (or no one) who told the girl. You wanted to assign blame, and in order to do that, it is necessary to know who said what to whom.

[Guest mysticmorini]

That still doesn't mean you cant make a general assesment based on what you do know.

[Guest mysticmorini]

I don't understand. You asked who was at fault. Isn't that what's at issue?

Ignoring for the moment the fact that we cannot possibly know who is at fault, especially given only a third-hand recounting of a few of the facts, it most certainly does matter if it was the uncle or someone else (or no one) who told the girl. You wanted to assign blame, and in order to do that, it is necessary to know who said what to whom.

This is an internet forum, we aren't going to hang anyone. We can make assumptions and general statements based on what we know. Heck we do that with gosple issues all the time.

[john doe]

Who said anything about condemning anyone?

You did. You asked who is at fault. Remember?

[beefche]

Alright, I've given this a lot of thought, and I believe it is the Sunday School president's fault. Here's why:

A SS teacher taught this girl, her parents, her uncle, and the bishop of the people involved. Obviously, that SS teacher failed to teach manners, doctrine, principles, and general hygiene to these individuals. Since the SS teacher is under the stewardship of the SS president and he has been set apart and given blessings in his calling, the failure is on his shoulders.

[Vort]

That still doesn't mean you cant make a general assesment based on what you do know.

Here is what we know:

• Mr. Boddy was found dead with multiple stab wounds.
• Mr. Green owns a knife.
• Col. Mustard was seen with Mr. Boddy a few hours before the murder took place.
• Miss Scarlet washed blood off her hands sometime after the murder.
• Mrs. White said some nasty things about Mr. Boddy and wished him ill.
• Prof. Plum was a major heir in Mr. Boddy's will.

Now, based on the information, please make a general assessment and tell me: Who murdered Mr. Boddy?

[Guest mysticmorini]

You did. You asked who is at fault. Remember?

Being at fault is different from being condemned IMHO perhaps you see it different.

[estradling75]

That still doesn't mean you cant make a general assesment based on what you do know.

We have... The Young Man choose to go inactive. The whys and whatfores on the reasoning for going inactive are lesser important to understanding and making a judgement on that fact...

The other fact is girl choose to say she can't be around him. The whys and whatfores on the reasoning for her saying that are very critical to understanding what is going on and making a judgement.

If you assume (which you seem to) that her uncle broke confidence which lead to her saying that... then yeah that is bad. But if she said it for any one of the half dozen or so other possibilities suggested then their is nothing wrong.

[Guest mysticmorini]

Here is what we know:

• Mr. Boddy was found dead with multiple stab wounds.
• Mr. Green owns a knife.
• Col. Mustard was seen with Mr. Boddy a few hours before the murder took place.
• Miss Scarlet washed blood off her hands sometime after the murder.
• Mrs. White said some nasty things about Mr. Boddy and wished him ill.
• Prof. Plum was a major heir in Mr. Boddy's will.

Now, based on the information, please make a general assessment and tell me: Who murdered Mr. Boddy?

It was COL Mustard in the Library with the candle stick.

[Guest mysticmorini]

But if she said it for any one of the half dozen or so other possibilities suggested then their is nothing wrong.

There is nothing wrong with what she said?

[Vort]

There is nothing wrong with what she said?

There is nothing immoral about what she said. But it was certainly an insensitive thing to say, and may have contributed toward this young man's decision to sever ties with the Church. That is regrettable and unfortunate, but ultimately it's his choice.

[NeuroTypical]

I actually have used the phrase "I was told to stay away from you" before. The person I used it on is now my wife. (I wasn't attracted to 'bad girls', and she wasn't one. The conversation was more about the person who told me to stay away.)

[Guest mysticmorini]

There is nothing immoral about what she said. But it was certainly an insensitive thing to say, and may have contributed toward this young man's decision to sever ties with the Church. That is regrettable and unfortunate, but ultimately it's his choice.

that is reasonable.

[Just_A_Guy]

Here is what we know:

• Mr. Boddy was found dead with multiple stab wounds.
• Mr. Green owns a knife.
• Col. Mustard was seen with Mr. Boddy a few hours before the murder took place.
• Miss Scarlet washed blood off her hands sometime after the murder.
• Mrs. White said some nasty things about Mr. Boddy and wished him ill.
• Prof. Plum was a major heir in Mr. Boddy's will.

Now, based on the information, please make a general assessment and tell me: Who murdered Mr. Boddy?

Porter Rockwell, and three other Danites known only as "John Does One, Two, and Three".

[john doe]

Porter Rockwell, and three other Danites known only as "John Does One, Two, and Three".

I have an alibi.

[Snow]

I heard a Stake President talking about a young man who had become inactive. Apparently the young man had some issues with the Law of Chastity and had been through a disciplinary council. He was working through his issues and was almost ready to have another council to end his discipline (not sure what it was). Then, a young women in the stake told this young man "I was told to stay away from you" after that almost a year has passed without the SP being able to get a hold of this young man or him going to church. It also turns out the Young woman’s Uncle was on the High council.

Who is at fault for the loss of this young man?

Uh - someone chose to become inactive because he believed that someone had said something to someone else... and you think we should blame someone?

[prophetofdoom]

The young woman did do the wrong thing by telling the young man about what she was told. She didn't commit some grave sin but she did do something wrong. God also looks at our intentions and the thoughts in our hearts.

When we tell someone something truthful... are we sensitive to their feelings? Do we show an increase of love towards that person when we tell them the cold truth. The Lord always lets us know that he loves us first before he reveals our weaknesses to us. Are we trying to tear someone down or build them up?

This young man ultimately responsible for his activity... and we are not aware of ALL factors that led to this man's decision to become less active.

[Dove]

I heard a Stake President talking about a young man who had become inactive. Apparently the young man had some issues with the Law of Chastity and had been through a disciplinary council. He was working through his issues and was almost ready to have another council to end his discipline (not sure what it was). Then, a young women in the stake told this young man "I was told to stay away from you" after that almost a year has passed without the SP being able to get a hold of this young man or him going to church. It also turns out the Young woman’s Uncle was on the High council.

Who is at fault for the loss of this young man?

(I know this sounds familiar to another post in the advise section, but to my understanding this is a separate occurrence and a different person.)

Mysticmorini;

First of all, I just want to say how sorry I am to hear this story. It's deeply sad.

Secondly, I don't think whose fault it is is really the point here. I believe you were trying to discuss a very real possibility, that we don't know for sure is true in this particular instance; that this man's confidence may have been broken by those who were under strict counsel not to. I don't know if that is a topic that can really be discussed here without the thread being closed. Whose fault do I really believe it is? Laugh at me if you will; but, I believe the adversary used this young woman as a pawn in getting to the young man who was in the process of repenting. Yes, the young woman did use her agency to act cruelly. Yes, the young man used his agency to fall for satan's ploy to get him to fall away from the gospel. It's just so sad.

Lastly, the members of our church certainly can be insensitive, uncaring, and unloving towards those of us who are "different" in innumerable ways, creating a veritable battleground. I have to admit that I, myself, have allowed the persecution of members around me to lead me to doing things that are not in agreement with keeping my baptismal covenants; like smoking.

I do believe there is a divine purpose to this though. Something along the lines of culling the wheat from the tares, purification and sanctification for those who remain true to the gospel regardless of the cruelty of others claiming to be members.

Edited September 11, 2011 by Dove