Gossip

[_harmony]

However, I am still not sure how this doesn't qualify as "gossip" under Moniker's definition, or stereotyping. What is the point in talking amongst ourselves here (particularly since most here are former members), about the Church's supposed "emphasis on appearance"? What value is there in doing so other than perhaps artificially making ourselves feel better about ourselves?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I suggest you take to task those in the leadership quorums that give these instructions, Wade. You know... the GA's who are so concerned about the appearance of the Saints, they tell them what color shirt to wear, dresses only, no shorts allowed, how long their hair can be, that they have to shave (as if facial hair was evil), how many earrings they can wear, if they can get a tattoo, what hairstyle to wear... it's endless!

I'll be waiting to see what response you get. It should be interesting.

[_wenglund]

You can read about the most egregious recent example of Mormonism fostering "spying" on each other here. Ernest Wilkinson was president of BYU and actually set up a spy ring.

http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no37.htm

...I also seem to remember some quotes from early in church history that openly encouraged spying on and reporting on fellow LDS. I'll see if can hunt some up.

Oh, and of course there's the Strengthening the Members committee, that collects information about certain members and keeps it on file.

One can get a reasonable sense for just how non-pervasive "spying" is in the Church today, when the best evidence that can be presented requires reaching back over 30 years to a nominal practice regarding school standards (not to be confused with "the Church"), and trotting out a relatively obcure news clipping service.

Doesn't quite envoke the image of black helicopters, does it? ;-)

But, if one is intrigued by the notion of people "spying" on members, then their intrigued may best be satiated here by looking at any of a number of threads talking about MA&D.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I see a great deal of emphasis on appearance in the LDS Church -- even down to what people wear. I know I visited this Baptist Church once (I've been to pretty much every denomination in my area -- just 'cause I'm not a Christian does not mean I don't go to Church:) and there were people in blue jeans. Not that blue jeans make you a sinner -- just the lack of concern over the outer shell and more an emphasis on the inner person.

Boy, if that isn't the truth! LDS are a very appearance-minded bunch, that's for sure.

How is this not gossiping about the LDS Church and its membership, let alone stereotyping?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

White shirts and ties? Earrings holes? Tattoos? Boy, Wade. You haven't been paying attention for the last 30 years or so, have you? Listen to your priesthood leaders, Wade. They'll tell you exactly how to dress, what length of hair you can have, how many earrings you can wear, etc. If that isn't appearance-minded, I don't know what is.

Whether I have been listening to priesthood leaders or not, I still don't see how this answer my question whether the previously mentioned posts qualify as "gossip" or steroetyping or not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

No. DCP, over the course of the now-infamous Quinn Gossipmongering FAIR thread, suggested that homosexuals cannot be trusted/are out of control. Further, he gave his editorial "thumbs up" to the Mitton/James smear article printed in FARMS Review.

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.

Did they ever say that though?

And believe me, it was a very strange interpretation, by any historical standard.

I'm afraid I disagree, Ray. So do many other scholars and readers who heartily praised the book.

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!

Blah blah blah. None of this explains why you are giving DCP a free pass on his gossip. Are you doing this simply because he was nice to you in Australia?

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?

Huh? Again: Why are you giving Prof. P. a free pass, gossip-wise? Why aren't you consistent in your standards, mate?

[_harmony]

I see a great deal of emphasis on appearance in the LDS Church -- even down to what people wear. I know I visited this Baptist Church once (I've been to pretty much every denomination in my area -- just 'cause I'm not a Christian does not mean I don't go to Church:) and there were people in blue jeans. Not that blue jeans make you a sinner -- just the lack of concern over the outer shell and more an emphasis on the inner person.

Boy, if that isn't the truth! LDS are a very appearance-minded bunch, that's for sure.

How is this not gossiping about the LDS Church and its membership, let alone stereotyping?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

White shirts and ties? Earrings holes? Tattoos? Boy, Wade. You haven't been paying attention for the last 30 years or so, have you? Listen to your priesthood leaders, Wade. They'll tell you exactly how to dress, what length of hair you can have, how many earrings you can wear, etc. If that isn't appearance-minded, I don't know what is.

Whether I have been listening to priesthood leaders or not, I still don't see how this answer my question whether the previously mentioned posts qualify as "gossip" or steroetyping or not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well, since the thread is about gossip, not stereotyping, that's a moot point. And no, it's not gossip, because it's the truth.

[_wenglund]

However, I am still not sure how this doesn't qualify as "gossip" under Moniker's definition, or stereotyping. What is the point in talking amongst ourselves here (particularly since most here are former members), about the Church's supposed "emphasis on appearance"? What value is there in doing so other than perhaps artificially making ourselves feel better about ourselves?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I suggest you take to task those in the leadership quorums that give these instructions, Wade. You know... the GA's who are so concerned about the appearance of the Saints, they tell them what color shirt to wear, dresses only, no shorts allowed, how long their hair can be, that they have to shave (as if facial hair was evil), how many earrings they can wear, if they can get a tattoo, what hairstyle to wear... it's endless!

I'll be waiting to see what response you get. It should be interesting.

Were I in the "ark-steading" or "busy-body" business, your side-tracking suggestion may make some sense. I am not, and so it doesn't. Instead, I choose to reasonably confine my efforts to the relatively small sphere of my influence--the bulk of which is internal to myself, and on issues of substance in improving relations and life experiences. That is what I find works for me. Perhaps it could work for you as well. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I see a great deal of emphasis on appearance in the LDS Church -- even down to what people wear. I know I visited this Baptist Church once (I've been to pretty much every denomination in my area -- just 'cause I'm not a Christian does not mean I don't go to Church:) and there were people in blue jeans. Not that blue jeans make you a sinner -- just the lack of concern over the outer shell and more an emphasis on the inner person.

Boy, if that isn't the truth! LDS are a very appearance-minded bunch, that's for sure.

How is this not gossiping about the LDS Church and its membership, let alone stereotyping?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

White shirts and ties? Earrings holes? Tattoos? Boy, Wade. You haven't been paying attention for the last 30 years or so, have you? Listen to your priesthood leaders, Wade. They'll tell you exactly how to dress, what length of hair you can have, how many earrings you can wear, etc. If that isn't appearance-minded, I don't know what is.

Whether I have been listening to priesthood leaders or not, I still don't see how this answer my question whether the previously mentioned posts qualify as "gossip" or steroetyping or not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well, since the thread is about gossip, not stereotyping, that's a moot point. And no, it's not gossip, because it's the truth.

Whether true or steroetyping, I am not sure why this would disqualify the previously mentioned posts as "gossip", as Moniker defines it. Are you suggesting that gossip is only about things that are "false"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

I see a great deal of emphasis on appearance in the LDS Church -- even down to what people wear. I know I visited this Baptist Church once (I've been to pretty much every denomination in my area -- just 'cause I'm not a Christian does not mean I don't go to Church:) and there were people in blue jeans. Not that blue jeans make you a sinner -- just the lack of concern over the outer shell and more an emphasis on the inner person.

Boy, if that isn't the truth! LDS are a very appearance-minded bunch, that's for sure.

How is this not gossiping about the LDS Church and its membership, let alone stereotyping?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It's not gossip because it is primarily observational in nature. No one in the Church would care if they were observed wearing white shirts, or one pair of earrings, etc. There is no expectation of discretion or privacy as far as this stuff is concerned. On the other hand, DCP's babbling about his "insane" neighbor, or chatting up one of his pals about Mike Quinn's sexuality (and Prof. P.'s subsequent announcement of this on the FAIRboard) are very much within the realm of gossip, since one could reasonable expect that this kind of personal information would have been handled with a bit more discretion and care.

for what it's worth, I think that one of the main things in the Church which contributes to this atmosphere of gossip is the secrecy. The LDS Church is a very secretive organization, and this sort of places people in a position where they are more likely to gossip.

[_Moniker]

I didn't read the replies to Wade concerning discussing an organization vs. discussing intimate things about a person. Someone else already probably covered it -- but I'm running outta the house and wanted to reply.

Wade is it gossip if I state the Republican Party emphasizes certain things? Has a certain platform? I disagree with it for X,Y, and Z and I prefer another party?

Why? Or why not?

You take things as said about an organization as if it's a person. That does not fit my definition of gossip.

I did not make a statement about appearance to make myself feel elevated. I made a statement as to how I viewed there was an emphasis on this and I appreciate other places where there is not that emphasis. Why is this gossip?

[_harmony]

for what it's worth, I think that one of the main things in the Church which contributes to this atmosphere of gossip is the secrecy. The LDS Church is a very secretive organization, and this sort of places people in a position where they are more likely to gossip.

I'm not sure there's a connection, Scratch. Why would secrecy contribute to gossip?