Of Bishops and Confidences - Letter to Dan Peterson

[_William Schryver]

I think that one should treat the idea of bishop confidentiality as a good idea that often fails in practice. I'm sure that some bishops/SP practice it scrupulously, and others far less so. At one point, in my old ward, it was fairly well known that anything told to the bishop would be repeated to his wife, who at times would share that information with others. I personally had the experience of being behind in my tithing at tithing settlement. I was about 200 dollars behind, and intended to pay it in full at my next paycheck, and did. Yet since this occurred at tithing settlement, I was still listed as a "partial tithe payer". Of course I assumed this was confidential information, and I wasn't proud of being late on my tithing, but was under considerable financial stress. Imagine my surprise and distress when the next time I visited my parents (who live in a nearby city, same stake) and my father asked me why I was having difficulty paying my tithing. Someone apparently felt it was appropriate to let my father know that I, an adult married woman with children, was late paying my tithing.

As I've stated before, I think Mormons often have problems respecting personal boundaries with other adults. In particular, LDS parents seem to want to control many aspects of their adult children's lives. All of this originates with good intentions - the parents feeling responsible and anxious for their children's eternal welfare, even after the children are adults. The emphasis on the possibility of losing family members in the next life, in my opinion, causes this anxiety, which results in over-intrusiveness.

In response to Bob's question, which of course still missed the mark as an apt comparison in ways already pointed out - I would absolutely think it was inappropriate for someone to "tattle" on my daughter, unless issues of personal safety were involved. Appparently this is such a fundamental difference in worldviews that some LDS simply cannot fathom that some parents do not want to be informed if and when their adult children may complain about their adult parents. All relationships can be stressful at times, and it is normal to want to vent in safety. Venting can help one determine which reactions and thoughts are legitimate, and which may not be, among other things. Venting can also be a way to just express frustration now and then without causing unnecessary disruption to the relationship.

This reminds me of the way middle school teenage girls often act. They form cliques, and then start "tattling" on each other within the clique. "Did you hear what X said about you?" they will eagerly ask - and, of course, if the party did not happen to hear what X said about them, they will promptly inform them. Teenage girls often protest that they are doing this in the party's best interest: "I would want to know if someone said that about ME." But their behavior tells another story - they like the uproar, and they hope the uproar will result in a more favorable social setting for them, personally. It also just appeals to the instinct to gossip.

So if someone "tattled" on my daughter to me, I would think far less of the tattler than I would've my daughter. I know that my daughter loves me, and any venting she would have to do would be a way of analyzing her emotions and maybe letting off steam in a nonthreatening way. But the tattler doesn't have our relationship as the primary interest, otherwise the tattler would not be so presumptious as to insert him or herself in the middle of it, so the tattler's goal is to gratify him or herself in some way, no matter the possible risk to my relationship with my daughter.

I've concluded that you are probably the most resentment-riddled individual with whom I have ever come in contact on these LDS-related message boards. You have a long-held grudge/offense for just about every occasion. It's as though, while you were "in" the church, you carefully squirreled away these things for years and years and years, until one day you just exploded. And even then you didn't let them go. No, you cling to them with a continuing purpose and resolve to ultimately bring all of the offenders to account, no matter how long it takes.

[_beastie]

I've concluded that you are probably the most resentment-riddled individual with whom I have ever come in contact on these LDS-related message boards. You have a long-held grudge/offense for just about every occasion. It's as though, while you were "in" the church, you carefully squirreled away these things for years and years and years, until one day you just exploded. And even then you didn't let them go. No, you cling to them with a continuing purpose and resolve to ultimately bring all of the offenders to account, no matter how long it takes.

My mentioning this experience, as a response to a directly related topic, somehow becomes evidence of your above assertions? Wow. You have a very active imagination.

So is my posting about this topic my way of "bringing all the offenders to account, no matter how long it takes"?

[_William Schryver]

beastlie:

My mentioning this experience, as a response to a directly related topic, somehow becomes evidence of your above assertions?

Not hardly. That’s why I said you seem to have a resentment for every occasion. One could easily look back over your posts from the past few years and identify several dozens of these kinds of stories. It’s your stock in trade when it comes right down to it. You’ve got many more of these resentment stories than you do sources for Mesoamerican anthropology.

So is my posting about this topic my way of "bringing all the offenders to account, no matter how long it takes"?

Of course, the “bringing them to account” occurs exclusively in your own mind, and in whatever “court of public opinion” is represented by these sparsely-frequented message boards. But, by all indications, you find it sufficient for your needs.

[_Nightingale]

The emphasis on the possibility of losing family members in the next life, in my opinion, causes this anxiety, which results in over-intrusiveness.

I agree absolutely with this. I have always thought that the Mormon ladder to heaven concept (depicted on an Ensign cover I saw) places a huge and unnecessary burden on every member. Not only do you have to work for your own place in heaven, you have to haul everyone else along with you too. This must surely be one of the main reasons why members react as they do when someone in their family leaves the church. As has been said countless times before (some of the time by me) in other churches you can leave to attend another denomination and not be considered "lost" (depending on the doctrines of your previous church, obviously). You can even discontinue church attendance and not be "lost", again, depending on individual beliefs. The huge difference is that in Mormonism, so much emphasis is placed on the church whereas in non-LDS Christianity the emphasis is on God. If you start attending a different congregation of the same denomination (strict boundaries are not mandated about which congregation you must be part of) or even switch denominations fellow church-goers still see you as part of "the family of God" because you still believe in God, you've just changed churches. The emphasis is altogether different and doesn't give rise to that whole scenario of desperate family members trying to persuade, manipulate or enforce church attendance. Each person is seen as an individual, responsible for themselves, unlike in Mormonism where the family structure can be ruptured, according to some at least, if one member isn't on the ladder.

In response to Bob's question, which of course still missed the mark as an apt comparison in ways already pointed out - I would absolutely think it was inappropriate for someone to "tattle" on my daughter, unless issues of personal safety were involved. Appparently this is such a fundamental difference in worldviews that some LDS simply cannot fathom that some parents do not want to be informed if and when their adult children may complain about their adult parents.

Good insight re the "fundamental difference in worldviews". I think this aptly explains how there is no meeting of the minds at all on this matter, even after a year's worth of discussion.

I think it's also accurate to say it's a boundary issue, although Mormons may see that as offensive, although it isn't meant to be. Again, it's a case of adults being individuals - or not - according to your religious beliefs or worldview in general.

Re the difference in worldviews and how that can hamper understanding and communication, when I first started reading posts at RfM, many of which were/are written by people who call themselves atheists, I literally could not comprehend what it would be like to have no belief in God. I didn't know how to have a discussion with an atheist, didn't know where to start or how to discuss a topic, and I kept tripping over that wide divide, of absolute and certain belief in the existence of God and the equally absolute conviction that there is no god. I think a lot of assumptions are made, especially when people are feeling defensive (even subconsciously) and communication suffers, understanding is not gained and unnecessary conflict ensues.

I am surmising that perhaps the lack of "boundaries", as seen by non-LDS, is one reason that in this case with Grosskreutz and s-dad and the infamous email those who can't see anything wrong with involving the s-dad tend to be LDS while those who are most opposed to sending the email are not LDS. That is a generalization as obviously some LDS here have disagreed with the send. But rcrocket and DCP, the sender, are the two who most energetically defend DCP's decision to send it. They are as unlike non-LDS as anyone I can think of and perhaps, speaking of worldviews, they are so immersed in Mormonism that they truly cannot even fathom a different viewpoint, much as I described myself as a very active Christian, immersed in that world, not even being able to comprehend what it would be like to not believe in God.

What is still curious to me, though, is how from my reading of the comments of both rcrocket and DCP they both seem to have the impression that Grosskreutz was trashing his dad/family in his original post when to the average reader it was all about what he was thinking about ph blessings and not at all about his family. Certainly there was no identifying information in the post itself. The vast body of readers would never have known who it was posting or who he was talking about. Because two LDS posters here did recognize him, perhaps they overreacted somewhat on the damage control side in assuming that many people would also recognize the family, which was not the case. Even so, as Grosskreutz is well into his 20s (so I understand) why is it necessary for someone to inform his father about what he does or says? Surely that should be between them (or not, according to their own choice). This is where the concept of "boundaries" comes in - that there is a time to let people make their own choices and stay out of it.

Safety was cited by beastie as a reason to perhaps inform parents about an adult child's actions. I can see, just, that many LDS would perhaps consider this very much a case of "safety" in that Grosskreutz jumped off the ladder, to them an extreme action that disrupts the family chain, or something like that.

I think we are unlikely to ever agree on whether the email should have been sent or not. I really like the worldview explanation for that and I think that nails it. And it's tough for one side to see the other side's view on that, as in many other situations as well.

rcrocket said:
"Contrast what GoodK has done to me. Lots of fun pointed out about my physical appearance (thinking erroneously that I am short). Lots of vuglar references to my daughter. Name-calling and such."

I have noticed the references to your daughter. Some of them have made me cringe. Some sound kind of creepy and certainly inappropriate. But that's just my view from afar, not knowing any details about the parties involved or their relationships. I would wish that comments here are restricted only to ourselves and other participants and not to people's family members who don't post and certainly not to their children.

I somewhat understand some people's rabid aversion to all things Mormon but I regret the often-OTT spillover onto specific individuals who surely are not to blame for everything Mormon that bugs someone. In other words, I prefer to heap the fire upon the actual source of my issues and not any handy lightning rod I happen to bump into.

[_Nightingale]

I've concluded that you [beastie] are probably the most resentment-riddled individual with whom I have ever come in contact on these LDS-related message boards. You have a long-held grudge/offense for just about every occasion. It's as though, while you were "in" the church, you carefully squirreled away these things for years and years and years, until one day you just exploded. And even then you didn't let them go. No, you cling to them with a continuing purpose and resolve to ultimately bring all of the offenders to account, no matter how long it takes.

Speaking of worldviews, ha - I've always found beastie to be calm and factually-oriented in her posts. I've long been amazed by the amount of harsh comments she gets from some LDS posters, on this and other boards, especially when other non-LDS posters here and elsewhere are rabidly against Mormonism. Such comments to them would seem more appropriate.

In terms of sharing examples from our personal experiences, don't we all do that? In years and years of church membership, yeah, it's possible that we did have numerous negative experiences that we use in discussion of our time in the church.

I once mentioned in a post on MADB (where I read and post very seldom) a comment made to me by a missionary. I was immediately jumped on with demands to "prove" that it was even a missionary I was speaking with. I was shocked at such a harsh reaction (the tone, intent and words were harsh, it wasn't just a question) as I had not in any way intended to cause offence and certainly not to embellish or lie about the point I was making. Obviously, that reader, at least, "saw" something in my comment that was absolutely not there. I understand quite a bit better now how that occurs, as now I see how people bring their own preconceptions to a discussion and it affects how they comprehend what the other party says.

I have also come to see that being a "critic" of Mormonism is tolerable to some LDS but not if you've been a member of the church and have left. Is that at least a partial explanation for the bad light in which some particular ex-members are seen? It would better explain the harsh tones and regular denunciations of some particular ex-LDS posters by some of the LDS defenders. Otherwise, it just leaves me bemused as I don't see where it comes from. One example is Will S's comments to beastie in response to her very benign account of an experience she had with tithing. Of all the comments written here and all the contentious issues, that is what you want to use to denounce beastie as so "bitter", "storing up" grievances against the church? All I see is a level-headed woman calmly recounting an incident in her life. She didn't even criticize or denounce "the church". She just recounted an incident. It's interesting (and a little scary) to see how that was interpreted by at least one LDS reader.

Leaving a church where one no longer fits in (or for whatever reason that makes sense in a person's life) is a rational thing to do. It does not deserve the denunciation it receives from many believers. Sharing an experience one had while a member is a normal part of being human, reflecting on one's past, processing events we've been part of, reaching out to others to discuss and work through both positives and negatives in our lives. It's sad to see that used as "proof" of bad character, malicious motives, or whatever other negatives someone wants to hurl. Also inaccurate.

[_why me]

I agree absolutely with this. I have always thought that the Mormon ladder to heaven concept (depicted on an Ensign cover I saw) places a huge and unnecessary burden on every member. Not only do you have to work for your own place in heaven, you have to haul everyone else along with you too. This must surely be one of the main reasons why members react as they do when someone in their family leaves the church. As has been said countless times before (some of the time by me) in other churches you can leave to attend another denomination and not be considered "lost" (depending on the doctrines of your previous church, obviously)..

I can agree with you up to a point. But it more or less goes like this: the celestial kingdom is a place where god dwells. It would be wonderful if the entire family can be where god dwells. And as such it becomes sad when a family member is destined to be in the terrestial or telestial kingdom. Mormon familes have such love for family members that they hope that all will be together in the celestial kingdom.

Now most christian faiths have a belief in hell. But what is interesting is that I have never been to a funeral where all present would believe that an aunt mabel or an uncle bing will be heading to hell. They could have been the worst human beings but no one would claim that a relative or good friend is hell bound. There is this understanding that hell exists for the others. Which would be more factual? I think the Mormon vision is quite humane. No one actually goes to hell but inherits a kingdom of glory. But in other chrisitian faiths hell is ever present for the people who live without god or sin (excluding relatives).

[_Ray A]

I think that one should treat the idea of bishop confidentiality as a good idea that often fails in practice. I'm sure that some bishops/SP practice it scrupulously, and others far less so. At one point, in my old ward, it was fairly well known that anything told to the bishop would be repeated to his wife, who at times would share that information with others. I personally had the experience of being behind in my tithing at tithing settlement. I was about 200 dollars behind, and intended to pay it in full at my next paycheck, and did. Yet since this occurred at tithing settlement, I was still listed as a "partial tithe payer". Of course I assumed this was confidential information, and I wasn't proud of being late on my tithing, but was under considerable financial stress. Imagine my surprise and distress when the next time I visited my parents (who live in a nearby city, same stake) and my father asked me why I was having difficulty paying my tithing. Someone apparently felt it was appropriate to let my father know that I, an adult married woman with children, was late paying my tithing.

I would have reported the bishop to the assigned high councilman, or even stake president, but not before asking him directly if he revealed this information. There were many "private" discussions that also went on in PEC, and tithing status would sometimes come up, so it may not necessarily have been leaked by the bishop. The ward clerk also knows the tithing status of ever member. (Confidences regarding morality are never discussed to other PH leaders, with the except of the SP when it's necessary.)

I can't say I've had any confidences divulged, and the bishops I knew were very discreet. I have never revealed anything private about any member, and have kept those confidences 26 years after I was released.

[_Fionn]

And as such it becomes sad when a family member is destined to be in the terrestial or telestial kingdom. Mormon familes have such love for family members that they hope that all will be together in the celestial kingdom.

Given that belief, that the former Mormon family member won't be with the family in the CK, wouldn't the rational reaction be to insure a wonderful familial relationship while you're still on earth together? It's utterly tragic that the opposite occurs at all, but it does.

[_harmony]

I've concluded that you are probably the most resentment-riddled individual with whom I have ever come in contact on these LDS-related message boards. You have a long-held grudge/offense for just about every occasion. It's as though, while you were "in" the church, you carefully squirreled away these things for years and years and years, until one day you just exploded. And even then you didn't let them go. No, you cling to them with a continuing purpose and resolve to ultimately bring all of the offenders to account, no matter how long it takes.

Now wait just a doggone minute. How can Trixie be the most resentment riddled individual blah blah blah? I am sure I have that trophy on my mantle.

[_harmony]

I can agree with you up to a point. But it more or less goes like this: the celestial kingdom is a place where god dwells. It would be wonderful if the entire family can be where god dwells. And as such it becomes sad when a family member is destined to be in the terrestial or telestial kingdom. Mormon familes have such love for family members that they hope that all will be together in the celestial kingdom.

If we stop and think about it, we will either all be in the CK, or none of us will. And there will be no children there. And we'll all be sealed to each other, so there will be no family units. People just don't stop to think it through before they get all gooey eyed about families being together forever.

Pulllllease!

Some days, when I've had altogether too many bombs being dumped on me and the Bank of Mom is overdrawn and the dishes aren't done and no one's cooking but me... I'd gladly settle for the Terrestial Kingdom.