Gossip

[_Ray A]

Is this created by the Church culture? Do you think?

Even if this is created by the Church culture it is contrary to LDS scripture. Just ask those who've been to the temple, too. Go over any number of Conferences addresses and you'll see endless sermons about avoiding gossip. Teaching doesn't always meet practice, though, but this is a human failing.

D&C 20:

54 And see that there is no iniquity in the church, neither hardness with each other, neither lying, backbiting, nor evil speaking;

[_Mister Scratch]

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".

Gee whiz, Ray. All I tried to point out to you was a problematic aspect of your stance---i.e., that you consider it "a rather low act" for private information to be circulated via someone's SP, and yet you give a free pass to your man-crush, DCP.

[_Imwashingmypirate]

I think it is OK if someone needs a background check for some reason or another (NOT to be circulated) but to know if it is safe for them to talk with someone. I once asked for a background check on someone. My only problem was that I asked a person thet knew very little. But my instinct was good enough in such cases. But I would never gossip about what I found out. Gossip is bad. It does harm and it reminds me of chinese wispers. It always goes wrong when circulate.

[_Ray A]

Gee whiz, Ray. All I tried to point out to you was a problematic aspect of your stance---I.e., that you consider it "a rather low act" for private information to be circulated via someone's SP, and yet you give a free pass to your man-crush, DCP.

That's a very tactful way of phrasing it. The point is, Scratch, I think I've read considerably more of DCP's writings than you have, corresponded more with him than you have, and know him far better than you do. I have misjudged him in the past, no denying that! I don't believe, Scratch, that he's a malicious person, like you. Does anyone ever tell you how malicious you are? (apart from me) I mean, let us reason. You are a grudge looking for a target.

Is Quinn your "man-crush"?

[_Mister Scratch]

Gee whiz, Ray. All I tried to point out to you was a problematic aspect of your stance---I.e., that you consider it "a rather low act" for private information to be circulated via someone's SP, and yet you give a free pass to your man-crush, DCP.

That's a very tactful way of phrasing it. The point is, Scratch, I think I've read considerably more of DCP's writings than you have, corresponded more with him than you have, and know him far better than you do. I have misjudged him in the past, no denying that! I don't believe, Scratch, that he's a malicious person, like you.

Ray, why are you trying to change the subject? I really am curious: Why do you give Prof. P. a free pass on this issue? I'm not really sure why you think that your having "read considerably more" of his writings somehow excuses his Quinn gossip.... Would you care to explain?

[_Ray A]

Ray, why are you trying to change the subject? I really am curious: Why do you give Prof. P. a free pass on this issue? I'm not really sure why you think that your having "read considerably more" of his writings somehow excuses his Quinn gossip.... Would you care to explain?

Because, Scratch, I think it rather odd that in the 18 years I've been reading DCP, I haven't seen him launch any personal attacks against Quinn. To me this was a non-issue until you raised it. DCP did , at one time, criticise "intellectuals", quoting Paul Johnson and others. We had a long debate about this on Z. Even Brent felt my criticism was unwarranted. His (DCP's) essay was a generalisation. He made no specific accusations. And to my knowledge, he never has.

[_Mister Scratch]

Ray, why are you trying to change the subject? I really am curious: Why do you give Prof. P. a free pass on this issue? I'm not really sure why you think that your having "read considerably more" of his writings somehow excuses his Quinn gossip.... Would you care to explain?

Because, Scratch, I think it rather odd that in the 18 years I've been reading DCP, I haven't seen him launch any personal attacks against Quinn.

Huh? What about the various innuendo-laden comments such as, "I don't trust Quinn", or, "I have good reason to believe Quinn's homosexuality was known to his (then) Stake President"? What about the rather vicious polemical attacks DCP has editorially sanctioned in FARMS Review?

To me this was a non-issue until you raised it. DCP did , at one time, criticise "intellectuals", quoting Paul Johnson and others. We had a long debate about this on Z. Even Brent felt my criticism was unwarranted.

I'd love a link to the thread, if you've got it.

His (DCP's) essay was a generalisation. He made no specific accusations. And to my knowledge, he never has.

I'm sorry, Ray, but I still feel like you are changing the topic. We were discussing gossip and the unethical nature thereof. as far as I know, nobody (save you) has mentioned "accusations." Face it: DCP was guilty of the kind of gossip you elsewhere characterized as "a rather low act." I'm just curious about your lack of consistency on this one issue. That's all.

[_Ray A]

Huh? What about the various innuendo-laden comments such as, "I don't trust Quinn", or, "I have good reason to believe Quinn's homosexuality was known to his (then) Stake President"? What about the rather vicious polemical attacks DCP has editorially sanctioned in FARMS Review?

These two comments are out of context (not unusual for you). "I don't trust Quinn" has to do with aspects of his historical writing, NOT his homosexuality. The second statement you TRY to connect to not trusting Quinn because he's homosexual. As I mentioned before, the Tanners objected to Quinn's off-target interpretation of Joseph Smith being in favour of homosexual relations. This is where Quinn really went awry, and even the Tanners recognised that! When will you accuse them of having a "Christian agenda"? They were looking objectively at Quinn's interpretation, not his homosexuality, but they may have thought his homosexuality influenced this interpretation. And believe me, it was a very strange interpretation, by any historical standard. That peccadillo should not detract from his overall work, and I don't think it has. I think very highly of Quinn as a historian, for the record, and this goes back to his 1985 Dialogue article on Plural marriages between 1890-1904. I really don't care who published him, what he wrote was a breath of fresh air for me. Historical truth, using numerous and reliable sources, with very little, or no personal interpretation. I thought for myself, thank you, and thanks to Quinn for providing the information I would never find in any copy of the Ensign. DCP has approved articles for the FARMS Review which he has not always agreed with. There is ample evidence of this if you care to read his editorials!

I'd love a link to the thread, if you've got it.

Ask your informants.

I'm sorry, Ray, but I still feel like you are changing the topic. We were discussing gossip and the unethical nature thereof. as far as I know, nobody (save you) has mentioned "accusations." Face it: DCP was guilty of the kind of gossip you elsewhere characterized as "a rather low act." I'm just curious about your lack of consistency on this one issue. That's all.

Which fly on which wall were you?

[_Ray A]

There's always the idea of "Quinn's agenda". Everyone is biased. The fact is, however, that I've read Quinn's work, and really don't care for his personal interpretations. I can check the sources myself for context, and this is what I did. I didn't need Quinn to make any interpretations for me, because he abundantly provided the sources, and sometimes nearly up to half his books are sources. So no one can really argue about "agendas" when there's so much from primary sources to form opinions.

[_wenglund]

I've witnessed quite a bit of gossipy behavior -- wondering if this is something common in the Church? What about at ex-mo meetups? Is it fun to talk about private lives? Whispering, guess what I know about so and so?

'Cause I've been informed that this is pretty common. Is this created by the Church culture? Do you think?

Let's define gossip as not something that directly relates to you but hearing something 2nd hand and passing it on and talking to others about what you've heard. Does that work? Nod your head yes. :)

Unfortunately, gossip does occur in the Church, though it is certainly not a practice that is restricted mostly to the Church (I have observed its wide-spread presence among many cultures--look for example at the circulation numbers of gossip papers and magazines like National Enquirer, People, US, etc., or the viewrship numbers for gossip shows like ET, Access Holiwood, the VIEW, etc.).

Nor, can the practice (whether participated in by members or former members) be faulted to the Church or its culture. It is strongly discouraged in our scriptures, lesson material, and council from Chruch leaders--and rightly so. It is a practice that tends to degrade all parties concerned, though it can provide the temporary illusion of making the gossipers feel better about themselves.

For that reason, I am somewhat averse to and shy away from the practice. And, because of the amount of gossip that goes on around here, I have in the past attempted to broach the subject for the purpose of improving things, but was met with no small resistence, and consequently have periodically been inclined to take a break from the board for a time.

But, that may just be me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It's always just you, isn't it? Aren't you lonely?

What precisely do you see as gossip on the board? I think we may have different definitions. You mentioned gossipy behavior when there was criticism of lavish temples -- uhhh.... I don't geddit! What is gossipy about talking about that? I didn't understand it in that thread when you stated it and still don't.

I am fine with using your definition. Please explain how it doesn't apply to the hords of threads here discussing MA&D and the participants there, or the threads on Liz is a "rat fink", Quinn, Oaks, Tom Cruise and Daniel Peterson.

However, perhaps my definition is a bit more broad that yours, and includes counterproductive or non-productive gripes, complaints, piling on, stereotyping, name-calling, or other such things which tend to degrade all parties concerned. In other words I see gossip as group discussions which tear other people down. Maybe it is just me, but I see an aweful lot of that going on here.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-