Public Embarrassment At Church

[USU78]

The clerk publicly divulge private information he was privy to as a part of his calling.    You should first talk with him about it, and ask him to admit he was wrong to the other members who overheard it, and that what he said should not be construed as your not being a full tithe payer.  Then you should talk with the bishop.   Then, if the clerk is not removed from being a clerk, you should make sure that the stake president knows it, and up to the Area Authority.    (I realize that it is not a member's responsibility to directly address it, and a bishop and stake president might have correctly ascertained that the problem was solved, sufficiently for them to not remove the person from his position or take any action that the member can see.    But the reason you MUST go as far as the area president is that the church needs to be protected from such wrongful disclosures - which in this case was defamatory as well as a violation of privacy- and that means everyone up the chain should DO something about them when they happen.   The Area Presidency will be in a position to assure this has been taken care of.)   Then I'd butt out.   

 

Overreact much?

[USU78]

Most people really do not Tsar what somebody else paid in tithing and offerings.

 

FIFY

[ksfisher]

The clerk publicly divulge private information he was privy to as a part of his calling.    You should first talk with him about it, and ask him to admit he was wrong to the other members who overheard it, and that what he said should not be construed as your not being a full tithe payer.  Then you should talk with the bishop.   Then, if the clerk is not removed from being a clerk, you should make sure that the stake president knows it, and up to the Area Authority.    (I realize that it is not a member's responsibility to directly address it, and a bishop and stake president might have correctly ascertained that the problem was solved, sufficiently for them to not remove the person from his position or take any action that the member can see.    But the reason you MUST go as far as the area president is that the church needs to be protected from such wrongful disclosures - which in this case was defamatory as well as a violation of privacy- and that means everyone up the chain should DO something about them when they happen.   The Area Presidency will be in a position to assure this has been taken care of.)   Then I'd butt out.   

 

Why not just shoot the guy.

[ERayR]

FIFY

 

My fingers some times stumble and I sometimes hurry to much and do not check my spelling.

[rpn]

For those who think it is overreacting to take action to assure that everyone who has access to private information because of their church callings preserves that confidentiality, why do you think the handbook talks about the importance of confidentiality, if there is no effort whatsoever to assure it?   People are hurt by such violations.   There is real legal liability that occurs when members violate it.   There is harm to the trust of those so violated.     Surely members know that.   We have to take these things seriously.

 

For those who suggest it is an overreaction to hold people accountable for such violations, how does that address justice?  

 

(And I'm not suggesting members do more than make sure those in a position to correct know the problem ---- we all should forgive, but we shouldn't let such privacy violations continue or go without correction if we are leaders in charge of the persons who are doing the violating.) 

Edited November 8, 2014 by rpn

[The Nehor]

For those who think it is overreacting to take action to assure that everyone who has access to private information because of their church callings preserves that confidentiality, why do you think the handbook talks about the importance of confidentiality, if there is no effort whatsoever to assure it?

 

Because we like there being no effort to ensure it. The deluge of revelations that come out about members every time we have a BBQ at the Bishop's house and getting the scoop about the latest excommunication court when the High Council member speaks livens up a talk that desperately needs it.

[ksfisher]

For those who think it is overreacting to take action to assure that everyone who has access to private information because of their church callings preserves that confidentiality, why do you think the handbook talks about the importance of confidentiality, if there is no effort whatsoever to assure it?   People are hurt by such violations.   There is real legal liability that occurs when members violate it.   There is harm to the trust of those so violated.     Surely members know that.   We have to take these things seriously.

 

For those who suggest it is an overreaction to hold people accountable for such violations, how does that address justice?  

 

(And I'm not suggesting members do more than make sure those in a position to correct know the problem ---- we all should forgive, but we shouldn't let such privacy violations continue or go without correction if we are leaders in charge of the persons who are doing the violating.)

Please explain how the church is legally liable for what the clerk said.

[Yirgacheffe]

I guess you don't remember when you had to get up to the pulpit to admit your sins to the whole congregation so the ward could "help" you. My father had to do some at one point it time, it was more than just public embarrassment in my opinion.

That's a bit different than having someone else announce your failings to who ever is listening.

[why me]

.

I felt a bit upset by the experience, and want to talk with the bishop about it.

So, have you talked to the bishop about it? I hope so because it is bothering you. But it may be best to talk with the clerk about it. I would be interested in what the clerk said. Go for it and see what happens. I am sure that it is best to clear it up before it begins to fester inside you. Much better to take the bull by the horns and go for it.

[why me]

For those who think it is overreacting to take action to assure that everyone who has access to private information because of their church callings preserves that confidentiality, why do you think the handbook talks about the importance of confidentiality, if there is no effort whatsoever to assure it?   People are hurt by such violations.   There is real legal liability that occurs when members violate it.   There is harm to the trust of those so violated.     Surely members know that.   We have to take these things seriously.

 

For those who suggest it is an overreaction to hold people accountable for such violations, how does that address justice?  

 

(And I'm not suggesting members do more than make sure those in a position to correct know the problem ---- we all should forgive, but we shouldn't let such privacy violations continue or go without correction if we are leaders in charge of the persons who are doing the violating.) 

I would say forgive and forget. But I do think that the injured party should talk to the clerk about it. Maybe the guy was having a bad day and responded accordingly. No one is perfect. And we need to remember that he is not getting paid to do the job. I am sure that it can be stressful for him too.

[ERayR]

For those who think it is overreacting to take action to assure that everyone who has access to private information because of their church callings preserves that confidentiality, why do you think the handbook talks about the importance of confidentiality, if there is no effort whatsoever to assure it?   People are hurt by such violations.   There is real legal liability that occurs when members violate it.   There is harm to the trust of those so violated.     Surely members know that.   We have to take these things seriously.

 

For those who suggest it is an overreaction to hold people accountable for such violations, how does that address justice?  

 

(And I'm not suggesting members do more than make sure those in a position to correct know the problem ---- we all should forgive, but we shouldn't let such privacy violations continue or go without correction if we are leaders in charge of the persons who are doing the violating.) 

 

This seems like a good solution.  I have tried it a couple of times and it worked out pretty well.

 

Matt 5:23-24

 

 23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;

 24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

[ERayR]

Because we like there being no effort to ensure it. The deluge of revelations that come out about members every time we have a BBQ at the Bishop's house and getting the scoop about the latest excommunication court when the High Council member speaks livens up a talk that desperately needs it.

 

Tongue in cheek, I hope.

[ERayR]

I guess you don't remember when you had to get up to the pulpit to admit your sins to the whole congregation so the ward could "help" you. My father had to do some at one point it time, it was more than just public embarrassment in my opinion.

 

No I surely do not and I have been around for almost 3/4 of a century.

[ERayR]

So, have you talked to the bishop about it? I hope so because it is bothering you. But it may be best to talk with the clerk about it. I would be interested in what the clerk said. Go for it and see what happens. I am sure that it is best to clear it up before it begins to fester inside you. Much better to take the bull by the horns and go for it.

 

Matt 5:

 23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;

 24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

[The Nehor]

Tongue in cheek, I hope.

Either that or I live in a very interesting area.

[ERayR]

Either that or I live in a very interesting area.

 

Either one is possible.

[Rain]

I'm sorry that happened and I see why that would bother you. We have had something similar happen with clerks and tithing.

I would talk with the clerk directly. When I was in the RS presidency the president came to me a couple of times over people being upset or hurt about something I had said or done. The problem was I didn't even think the things they accused me of saying - some of it was directly opposite. I have always wished they would have come to me directly instead of stewing over it for months with me not having a clue.

[The Nehor]

Either one is possible.

 

It was tongue in cheek.