Gossip

[_Mary]

It's more common amongst Mormons for a couple of reasons. First of all, given their limited entertainment, with bans on R-rated movies, plenty of PG-13 movies, and even the local gym, what else is there to do? Then, because of their "high standards" or strange expected conduct, it's more newsworthy when someone deviates from the "norm" and there is greater pressure to hide one's dark deeds.

Gadianton, I think you are right. The average church ward tends to be a very tight knit affair, and once you're a stable steady member, then you become fair game. I think converts are given good treatment to begin with unless they upset the apple cart in any way.

Actually, it was one of the things I was greatly relieved to be away from when I left full activity. If you dated someone and split up, you could bet the whole ward would be chatting about it. If you dated someone who someone else had dated...it got around. There was no privacy. I hated that aspect, and people meddled. If they thought you were dating someone who wasn't 'good enough' they'd let you know, and even try and intervene and so on. I dreaded it.

I think some gossip is harmless and some innocent, but there can also be malicious and destructive gossip, and gossip that is just darned right wrong... I knew which married couple were having certain sexual challenges, a single that was having a problem with masturbation, all because I guess the bishop had told his wife, or stake president in the case of the couple, who told others and it just got round. That's utterly wrong, wrong, wrong. The people involved were oblivious to the fact that there most intimate challenges were doing the rounds.

I think there also tends to be a lot of judgemental gossip....using the church to whip others...or to feel superior...

I'm not saying LDS aren't good people, but crikey lots of them (particularly the women I have to say) do seem to gossip...

Mary

[_Abinadi's Fire]

Personally I think confession to a bishop is a big part of the control system you're thinking about, Mon.

Yes, I would imagine that having to confess intimate things often certainly is very controlling. I wonder if that creates the mentality that nothing is really "personal" -- that anything that fits outside the norms dictated must be "outed" in some manner?

Oliver Cowdery's peeking through the crack comes to mind.

[_Moniker]

It's more common amongst Mormons for a couple of reasons. First of all, given their limited entertainment, with bans on R-rated movies, plenty of PG-13 movies, and even the local gym, what else is there to do? Then, because of their "high standards" or strange expected conduct, it's more newsworthy when someone deviates from the "norm" and there is greater pressure to hide one's dark deeds.

Gadianton, I think you are right. The average church ward tends to be a very tight knit affair, and once you're a stable steady member, then you become fair game. I think converts are given good treatment to begin with unless they upset the apple cart in any way.

Actually, it was one of the things I was greatly relieved to be away from when I left full activity. If you dated someone and split up, you could bet the whole ward would be chatting about it. If you dated someone who someone else had dated...it got around. There was no privacy. I hated that aspect, and people meddled. If they thought you were dating someone who wasn't 'good enough' they'd let you know, and even try and intervene and so on. I dreaded it.

I think some gossip is harmless and some innocent, but there can also be malicious and destructive gossip, and gossip that is just darned right wrong... I knew which married couple were having certain sexual challenges, a single that was having a problem with masturbation, all because I guess the bishop had told his wife, or stake president in the case of the couple, who told others and it just got round. That's utterly wrong, wrong, wrong. The people involved were oblivious to the fact that there most intimate challenges were doing the rounds.

I think there also tends to be a lot of judgemental gossip....using the church to whip others...or to feel superior...

I'm not saying LDS aren't good people, but crikey lots of them (particularly the women I have to say) do seem to gossip...

Mary

Wow! Mary! I think you nailed it!

[_harmony]

I knew which married couple were having certain sexual challenges, a single that was having a problem with masturbation, all because I guess the bishop had told his wife, or stake president in the case of the couple, who told others and it just got round.

WHAT???? That's a breach of professional confidentiality and should have resulted in discipline against the bishop.

[_beastie]

WHAT???? That's a breach of professional confidentiality and should have resulted in discipline against the bishop.

I think every bishop I had was known to tell things to his wife.

[_Ray A]

I think some gossip is harmless and some innocent, but there can also be malicious and destructive gossip, and gossip that is just darned right wrong... I knew which married couple were having certain sexual challenges, a single that was having a problem with masturbation, all because I guess the bishop had told his wife, or stake president in the case of the couple, who told others and it just got round. That's utterly wrong, wrong, wrong. The people involved were oblivious to the fact that there most intimate challenges were doing the rounds. (emphasis added)

Of course it's wrong, and no bishop should ever divulge personal information. I would check some things first before drawing this conclusion. Did the information leak out through the bishop, or the people themselves? Or perhaps others they confided to others than the bishop, and they leaked the information? A bishop should not reveal personal information about a member even to a stake president, unless it's absolutely pertinent, for example in the case of a church disciplinary council. Twenty-five years after being released as a bishop I have still kept private information confidential. To me this has nothing to do with the Church, it's a matter of good taste. I would consider it a rather low act to reveal sensitive information like this.

by the way, do I think there's more gossip in the LDS community than elsewhere? This is a furphy. I'm really surprised anyone would think this.

[_Mister Scratch]

Of course it's wrong, and no bishop should ever divulge personal information. I would check some things first before drwaing this conclusion. Did the information leak out through the bishop, or the people themselves? Or perhaps others they confided to others than the bishop, and they leaked the information? A bishop should not reveal personal information about a member even to a stake president, unless it's absolutely pertinent, for example in the case of a church disciplinary council. Twenty-five years after being released as a bishop I have still kept private information confidential. To me this has nothing to do with the Church, it's a matter of good taste. I would consider it a rather low act to reveal sensitive information like this.

So, do you also think it "a rather low act" to discuss how one heard, via the grapevine, that so-and-so's stake president knew about a member's homosexuality, and that said homosexuality figured into so-and-so's disciplinary council, and, further, that a "sad incident" was involved? And do you think it "rather low" to be blabbing about all of this stuff on an online messageboard for the sole purpose of discrediting an enemy scholar?

[_Ray A]

So, do you also think it "a rather low act" to discuss how one heard, via the grapevine, that so-and-so's stake president knew about a member's homosexuality, and that said homosexuality figured into so-and-so's disciplinary council, and, further, that a "sad incident" was involved? And do you think it "rather low" to be blabbing about all of this stuff on an online messageboard for the sole purpose of discrediting an enemy scholar?

It would be if the charges are true. It would be serious if this information was disclosed through a broken confidentiality given in a private confession to a bishop or stake president. Speculation isn't the same as breaking a confidential confession.

[_Mister Scratch]

So, do you also think it "a rather low act" to discuss how one heard, via the grapevine, that so-and-so's stake president knew about a member's homosexuality, and that said homosexuality figured into so-and-so's disciplinary council, and, further, that a "sad incident" was involved? And do you think it "rather low" to be blabbing about all of this stuff on an online messageboard for the sole purpose of discrediting an enemy scholar?

It would be if the charges are true. It would be serious if this information was disclosed through a broken confidentiality given in a private confession to a bishop or stake president. Speculation isn't the same as breaking a confidential confession.

Ah, okay. I'll be sure to remember that the next time you come unglued over one of my more "speculative" threads.

[_Ray A]

Ah, okay. I'll be sure to remember that the next time you come unglued over one of my more "speculative" threads.

You're always after "juicy gossip", and you get tip offs from your "informants", and here we are discussing whether gossip is more prevalent in the LDS community. Your sole aim is to demonise those who disagree with you, and to go to any extent to discredit them, even if it talkes distorting information with innuendo, and that you're an expert at doing, in the name of "entertainment".

I'd say one thing to all the posters on this board, be careful what you reveal in PMs, especially to Scratch.