"I was told to stay away from you"

[Snow]

The young woman did do the wrong thing by telling the young man about what she was told.

How did she do wrong?

The guy sounds like he couldn't keep his pants on. Telling the young ladies to stay away from him is probably sound advice. Be honest with the kid about why you won't spend time with him is, well, honest.

[Dove]

How did she do wrong?

The guy sounds like he couldn't keep his pants on. Telling the young ladies to stay away from him is probably sound advice. Be honest with the kid about why you won't spend time with him is, well, honest.

Why judge the "guy" for her comment? Is it now his fault she said something, to say the least, didn't take into account what his reaction might be? How he might feel in response?

It sounds like he had been going through the repentance process for at least a year. But, again, we don't really know why he left as he did...Like we don't know why this "girl" said what she did or who counseled her with this advice.

Snow, how would you react if you approached another person at church and was told by him/her that he/she was advised not to associate with you? How would that leave you feeling? While it may have been honest, I feel a negative/hurt reaction to this comment would be entirely reasonable.

But, it hits on my own issues of feelings of being ostracized by other members for one reason or another. So often it happens in whispers/gossip without any kindness or respect to me, the target of their rejection.

[Guest mormonmusic]

Naturally, I see it differently than most of you. Granted, people are ultimately responsible for how they react to situations, but IF (and this is a big IF), someone on the HC had spilled the beans about this Young Man's chastity issues to the woman, that is a breach of confidentiality. It was a mistake, and shouldn't go unchecked by the leaders above him.

We claim a divine commission, leaders who are inspired, and the only true Church on the earth. We can't have people broadcasting sins of others (or even implying them) to others without some kind of censure given those claims. Otherwise, are we truly behaving like a Church with such a divine commission?

I realize after being on certain councils that there really is far less confidentiality in the Church than I would like to see. And I think that lack of confidentiality plays with the souls of men. How likely are to you confess a sin when you know it's going to be broadcast among the wives and friends of the people on the disciplinary council, even though you are fully willing to confess it to the right person within the bounds of confidentiality?

I actually had a similar situation years ago. I was eligible to many women in a part of the world where there wasn't a lot of eligible single men. I had a lot of dates and a couple relationships that blossomed, but I ended them after finding the person unsuitable in some way -- after prayer. This happened three times in the same Ward and Stake, so after a while rumours were circulated that you should stay away from Mormonmusic. Two people approached my wife and told her not to marry me after we announced our engagement. A few ostracized me because I broke up with the girl who waited for me on my mission after I prayed about marriage and felt so utterly depressed about it. They felt it was wrong for her to wait so long and find I wasn't willing to marry her -- even though I never promised marriage and was neutral about it on my mission in letters and before I left.

All that is wrong. We should feel part of our communities, and I see over and over again that our common values in the gospel spawns a bi-product -- JUDGMENTALISM that is rampant among many, including the person who told others to stay away from this apparently repentent young man. Shame on them.

[Backroads]

How did she do wrong?

The guy sounds like he couldn't keep his pants on. Telling the young ladies to stay away from him is probably sound advice. Be honest with the kid about why you won't spend time with him is, well, honest.

She did no wrong in making the personal and probably intelligent choice of staying away from the young man.

Whoever told her to stay away from the young man had reason to believe she shouldn't be around him. Best case scenario is that whoever told her was someone she respected, trusted, and probably had her best interests at heart. Nothing wrong with that, either.

However, what the young woman did do wrong was the manner in which she worded her comment. In my view, the comment detracted from her personal choice--she blamed someone else for her personal choice of staying away from the young man.

If I were the young man, that comment alone would be plenty to make me feel betrayed by those I trusted, to feel once again unworthy, to feel paranoid the entire stake was talking about me behind my back.

My personal assessment of the situation:

The girl was not at fault for her choice to stay away from the young man--we have no clue of her reasoning or what led to her choice, but we can assume she had valid reasons--at least reasons valid to her. I do not blame her at all there. But I do criticize her for how she phrased her comment--that was a bad can-of-worms move.

Of course, that is all in response to Snow's question.

Now my response to the original post and other thoughts in this thread:

The young man is ultimately at fault. No matter how betrayed, hurt, humiliated, etc. he felt and no matter how understandable those feelings are to me, he is still the one who made the choice to not finish his official disciplinary council and to stop attending church. He is the one who chose to be offended. No matter who else could contribute blame, the young man is the one who made the choice.

Whoever else is worthy of being at fault is dependent on facts we don't know.

Worst-case scenario: High-council is unable to keep their mouths shut and are blabbing this young man's sins all over kingdom come. They would be at fault for doing so, but the young man still made the choice to go inactive.

Mid-case scenario Version A: High council tries their darndest to respect the privacy and confidentiality of the situation, but some of them accidentally slip up. Perhaps uncle, concerned with the young man's situation and not knowing how the final meeting will work out, doesn't want his precious niece getting too serious with the young man until he, the protective uncle, is sure of the young man's repentance. In order to protect his niece, he tells her to stay away from the young man. He may or may hot have revealed details, but his good intentions backfired. In this situation I would only put him at fault if he revealed details, and then only at fault for breaking confidentiality. If he did not reveal details, I could only respect his choice for wanting to protect his niece/keep her out of trouble, and I don't think he's at fault for that mindset. Young man still made the choice to go inactive.

Mid-case scenario Version B: Same as above, but Uncle either doesn't trust the young man and the sincerity of his repentance process or is too judgmental for his own good. He reveals more than he should. I would put him at fault breaking confidentiality. Young man still made the choice to go inactive.

Best-case scenario: Council kept confidentiality, but other people knew about the situation, word got around, young woman made a personal choice (see above). I fault people for spreading gossip, as I have trouble believing the facts of the young man's sin were kept intact as talk spread. I do not fault anyone for making personal choices based on what they know. I still fault young woman for her phrasing, but not necessarily her choice. Young man still made the choice to go inactive.

Now, I do pity the young man. I don't think sticking around the church would have been all that easy. That young man must have felt horrible. I do think his feelings will factor in during the final judgment, but not enough to redeem his choice to go inactive.

Edited September 11, 2011 by Backroads

[Dravin]

However, what the young woman did do wrong was the manner in which she worded her comment. In my view, the comment detracted from her personal choice--

None of us know exactly how she worded her comment as none of us were there for it. There is a lot of assumption that she just came up to him and dropped a "I was told to stay away from you" out of the blue, there are quite a lot of ways a conversation can go that the recipient would report it as she told me she was told to stay away from me. If he was say asking her out and she kept on declining and he asked why then telling him that she was advised to stay away from him is entirely honest and isn't spiteful by nature.

she blamed someone else for her personal choice of staying away from the young man.

Yes, she is making the choice to stay away from him, explaining why she is making that choice is not blaming someone else for her personal choice. Why don't I touch a hot stove? My mom told me not to. Is that passing the buck for my personal choice to not touch the stove? Or is it explaining why I'm making the personal choice. It's no more passing the buck then me pointing to D&C 89 to explain why I don't drink alcohol. God told me not to, that's why I don't drink. It's not buck passing, it's explanation. That someone your trust and respect giving you advice can be a perfectly valid reasons for a decision.

Edited September 11, 2011 by Dravin

[Backroads]

None of us know exactly how she worded her comment as none of us were there for it. There is a lot of assumption that she just came up to him and dropped a "I was told to stay away from you" out of the blue, there are quite a lot of ways a conversation can go that the recipient would report it as she told me she was told to stay away from me.

If he was say asking her out and she kept on declining and he asked why then telling him that she was advised to stay away from him is entirely honest. Yes, she is making the choice to stay away from him, explaining why she is making that choice is not blaming someone else for her personal choice. Why don't I touch a hot stove? My mom told me not to. Is that passing the buck for my personal choice to not touch the stove? Or is it explaining why I'm making the personal choice. It's no more passing the buck then me pointing to D&C 89 to explain why I don't drink alcohol. God told me not to, that's why I don't drink. It's not buck passing, it's explanation.

That's true, we don't know the details of that. I guess I assumed that was exactly how she worded her phrase.

Still, by saying she was told to stay away from him would do quite a bit to bother that young man.

[Dravin]

Still, by saying she was told to stay away from him would do quite a bit to bother that young man.

But if that's what the answer was to an asked question, or otherwise needed by the conversation there isn't much other she can do except lie or avoid. While we need to be cognizant of other's feelings sometimes we're placed in positions where we need/are asked to say something even though they won't like it.

[Backroads]

True. If she were backed into a corner for a response, it probably meant the young man wasn't taking a simple "no" for an answer.

[beefche]

Since we are assuming so much in this thread, let's assume that perhaps the young man displayed actions that would make him less than desirable as a companion for this girl. If you were her parents or some other close adult in her life, why wouldn't you tell her to stay away from a young man that you, with your more experience and wisdom, feel would not be a good companion for her?

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

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?

[Snow]

Why judge the "guy" for her comment? Is it now his fault she said something, to say the least, didn't take into account what his reaction might be? How he might feel in response?

I don't know what that means

It sounds like he had been going through the repentance process for at least a year. But, again, we don't really know why he left as he did...Like we don't know why this "girl" said what she did or who counseled her with this advice.

Snow, how would you react if you approached another person at church and was told by him/her that he/she was advised not to associate with you? How would that leave you feeling? While it may have been honest, I feel a negative/hurt reaction to this comment would be entirely reasonable.

But, it hits on my own issues of feelings of being ostracized by other members for one reason or another. So often it happens in whispers/gossip without any kindness or respect to me, the target of their rejection.

No one likes to have others think ill of them but I don't form my sense of self worth off what other people say to me in passing and I don't makes decisions about being active based on people saying nice things to me.

We know, in this story, why the guy was disciplined. I'd advise my daughter to avoid (not date him) too. If she was honest with the guy - fine.

[Snow]

She did no wrong in making the personal and probably intelligent choice of staying away from the young man.

Whoever told her to stay away from the young man had reason to believe she shouldn't be around him. Best case scenario is that whoever told her was someone she respected, trusted, and probably had her best interests at heart. Nothing wrong with that, either.

However, what the young woman did do wrong was the manner in which she worded her comment. In my view, the comment detracted from her personal choice--she blamed someone else for her personal choice of staying away from the young man.

If I were the young man, that comment alone would be plenty to make me feel betrayed by those I trusted, to feel once again unworthy, to feel paranoid the entire stake was talking about me behind my back.

We don't know what really happened - all we know is the case scenario presented in OP, which may or may not be correct, but that what we have to go on.

The guy had morality issues of such significance, he was being disciplined.

The girl claimed she was told to stay away from the guy.

People seem to be jumping to the conclusion that the girl actually was told to stay away and that they person that said that to her was someone who had an ethical duty not to tell her to stay away from him. Was the High Council the only ones who knew the guy was wild? Likely not. People develop reputations from people that know them. The advice to stay away could have come from anywhere.

Regardless - the guy is completely responsible for his own activity. He's an agent unto himself. People choose.

However - I think many/most of know from experience that some Mormons are a bunch of self-righteous gossip hounds and don't understand the meaning of discretion... here I am thinking about some of the nonsense I've heard discussed in Ward Councils in various wards. Unfortunately, the gospel does't cure everyone of their ugly habits.

[john doe]

I tell my daughters to stay away from certain boys, and certain boys who engage in certain types of behaviors. Does that make me judgemental? Yeah, probably. But I'm also trying to help my children make decisions that will aid them in avoiding situations which may cause them heartache in the future. Is it foolproof? No, but it's better than nothing.

I teach my children to live the gospel the best way I know how, and I teach them to find and be friends with people who reflect those same values that I hold dear. Peer pressure is a big deal, and if your kids hang out with good kids who hold good values, then the chances of your kids keeping those values goes up. If your kid hangs out with druggies you can't really be too surprised if he(or she) starts experimenting with drugs.

We don't know why the young woman in this story was told to stay away from this young man. All we know is that she told him that she was told to avoid him. It's entirely possible that he displayed other behaviors which others saw or heard about and warned her about him.

In my experience, a young person doesn't just fall into having issues with the Law of Chastity without them also falling into other types and patterns of inappropriate and sinful behavior. It's generally not a one-off failing. There are usually other things going on, and it's extremely difficult to keep such things secret from other teens. It's likely the young woman didn't hear about this guy from her uncle, but that she heard it from friends at school.

[Guest mormonmusic]

But in spite of not knowing what really happened, I feel some of the posts I've seen here are suffering from "it's-all-the-member's-fault-itis". I've seen it again and again, that when someone is unhappy struggling or even not active, everyone places the entire problem on the back of the struggling member.

To the point we don't even acknowledge our own faults as an organization, as a leadership, or as contributors to the person's problem. That's why I always like to catch myself when I start blaming the member for every bit of unhappiness they feel in their Church experience.

I feel that this ego-centric way of viewing our members' problems prevents us from improving as an organization. I hold that there are many things we could change that would increase activity rates substantially, but we feel we are so perfect as an organization, we can be blind to change.

[Dove]

I don't know what that means

No one likes to have others think ill of them but I don't form my sense of self worth off what other people say to me in passing and I don't makes decisions about being active based on people saying nice things to me.

We know, in this story, why the guy was disciplined. I'd advise my daughter to avoid (not date him) too. If she was honest with the guy - fine.

What I was trying to say in the first quote was that it seems you are blaming the young man for being offended at the young woman's comment. I'm saying that I believe it would be totally reasonable to be offended at such an "honest" comment. If what has been presented is true, that this man had spent a year in the repentance process, no wonder what she said would be viewed as harsh.

While I agree that we can't base our worth and value on the opinions of other people, I don't think this is an easy thing to do. Peer pressure and the opinions of others really do matter to younger people.

I really feel this young woman was out of place in what she said. You defend her as being "honest." While the comment may have been honest, it certainly wasn't necessary for her to say.

[Dove]

Since we are assuming so much in this thread, let's assume that perhaps the young man displayed actions that would make him less than desirable as a companion for this girl. If you were her parents or some other close adult in her life, why wouldn't you tell her to stay away from a young man that you, with your more experience and wisdom, feel would not be a good companion for her?

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

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?

I think there are many points worth discussing in this thread. The fact that there are now 6 pages of conversation means others too deem this topic worth discussing.

One point I believe is in this thread is how we, as members of the LDS church, treat other members who are perhaps struggling with serious sin. How do we handle/cope/deal with those who have been involved in serious sin and yet are attempting to repent? I believe this is very much a valid topic to discuss.

[Backroads]

No, we don't know all the details, but it seems most people here are discussing this situation as theoretical--which I think is a great approach to discussing how the situation could have been handled.

Yes, I do think most of agree that it ultimately was the young man's choice to leave the church. I am one of those people. I don't think that young man can say he was forced out by anyone in the church.

But mormonmusic has also raised some excellent points. Whatever happened, whomever else we can possibly think of blaming, may have done some things that had consequences. Yes, it's ultimately the leaver's choice to leave, but it's no good for us to have a Church that makes anyone want to leave.

So, no, we don't know all the details of what really happened, but I think if we look at the situation as a case study, we can discuss quite a few things.

Edited September 11, 2011 by Backroads

[beefche]

But mormonmusic has also raised some excellent points. Whatever happened, whomever else we can possibly think of blaming, may have done some things that had consequences. Yes, it's ultimately the leaver's choice to leave, but it's no good for us to have an organization that makes anyone want to leave.

So, no, we don't know all the details of what really happened, but I think if we look at the situation as a case study, we can discuss quite a few things.

What organization are you talking about?

[Backroads]

What organization are you talking about?

the Church. I shall go back and edit/clarify.

[beefche]

Here is something I learned long ago: I am going to get personally offended by someone I know from church. It happens time and time again--thoughtless people or thoughtless statements happen. And they will continue to happen regardless of how much we try to teach correct principles or preach against it. Why? Because we are all fallen people. Each and every one of us have said/done and will say/do things that will hurt another, whether intentional or not.

So, we can discuss all day long if this girl was right or wrong to say what she did. It doesn't matter. Because obviously, she can say the same thing to one man and he gets offended. Say the same to another, and he shrugs it off.

Ultimately, it is the choice of each of us what offends us. And our reactions to that. Doesn't excuse us to say what we will and not consider another's feelings. But, we still have choice in our reactions to when it happens.

[beefche]

the Church. I shall go back and edit/clarify.

Did I miss where the Church teaches to offend others? Perhaps I missed where members are instructed on the best way to get others to leave?

I'm confused on how the Church makes others want to leave. Because if I based the Church solely on it's members, then yeah, there would be serious issues. And I include myself in those issues.

[Backroads]

Yet what policies is the Church implementing to discourage council members from blabbing information they have no right to share? What punishments are those who do break trust receiving? Do we have any strategies on not offending others?

Sigh. Perhaps that is the danger of having a theoretical discussion. I really don't want this to turn into banging on the Church.

[beefche]

I'm not sure what else you would want--we are taught that we should not break confidences and not gossip. We have training for bishops, RS presidents and other leaders to not break confidences. We have common sense. We have General Conference addresses talking about not gossiping. We have the scriptures and commandments. What other policies are you thinking about?

And punishments? The only "punishment" that I see the church using is disfellowship and excommunication. And those aren't really punishments. What punishments are you thinking of?

[Backroads]

Oh, I don't know. But it does bite that someone in a disciplinary council can betray trust and suffer no consequences.

[Guest mormonmusic]

I'm not sure what else you would want--we are taught that we should not break confidences and not gossip. We have training for bishops, RS presidents and other leaders to not break confidences. We have common sense. We have General Conference addresses talking about not gossiping. We have the scriptures and commandments. What other policies are you thinking about?

And punishments? The only "punishment" that I see the church using is disfellowship and excommunication. And those aren't really punishments. What punishments are you thinking of?

Two comments on this -- one is that you imply that nothing needs to be done to stop people from doing things that encourage people to leave -- and in earlier posts, that it's all on the member. That is exactly the kind of "itsallthemembersfault-itis" that I'm talking about. You mention the teaching and the training and imply that nothing else needs to be done about this problem. It sounds like you think it's not a worthy goal or anything that needs addressing. You also imply that there is no way to punish anyone that fits the "offence" or indiscretion.

I would argue that MUCH needs to be done. How about talking to people who break confidences about their specific breach? Have a discussion about confidentiality. Why not limit knowledge of transgressions or welfare to a smaller group of people where possible (like trying someone in a Bishop's court) so there is less chance for leaks.

And this young man -- instead of putting this all on his back, why not suggest that if a church leader leaked this information and even encouraged others to stay away from him, that he be given a kind but firm informal coaching by his priesthnood leader about the impact he has had on this young man. Why not speak to the young man and determine what happened and if there were any wrongs on the part of his priesthood leaders, address them, and then feed that back to the Young Man with an apology and hope that this won't impair his progress. Support this young man who is already facing the humbling that comes from having to confess your sexual transgressions to a group of 15 men (SP and HC + clerk and exec sec), many of who are complete strangers. I'm not disagreeing with that process, but he's already had to go through a lot to repent -- I would be LOATHE to think that someone in my Stake, after submitting to the disciplinary process, would be made to feel like a leper due to judgmentalism on the part of someone on the council, who breached confidentiality. (That is the scenario I am writing to here, theoretically).

Are we so true, and perfect and inspired that we can never acknowledge our mistakes, apologize to the members, and look at our relationship as a partnership where each side carries some responsibilities in the repentence/disciplinary council process?

I have seen this first hand more times than I care to shake a stick at. There is much that can be done on a case by case basis to right wrongs that have occurred by volunteer leaders in the Church.

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.

[john doe]

Oh, I don't know. But it does bite that someone in a disciplinary council can betray trust and suffer no consequences.

We don't know what happened in this case. We don't know if someone on a high council told anyone about the situation. And if he in fact did tell anyone, we don't know that he suffered no consequences. And wouldn't it ironically be wrong for us to be told of any consequences he suffered for not keeping a confidence? That would imply that a someone else broke their responsibility to keep things confidential.