Owning deeds we didn't do

[Chum]

Callings taught me a simple principle. It's this. While success by my predecessor are mine to live up to - I need to own their mistakes.  The reasons are:

1) While we serve, other people experience our service. Those experiences shape their expectations. When a calling passes to me, so does all of that.

2) I have more power to fix what is mine.  If my predecessor fell short (which we all do), I can quietly adopt their mistakes as my own. This give me more power to improve on them.

I also found this principle isn't limited to callings.

This house we're renting has had some difficult tenants. Dozens of patched holes bear testimony to just how difficult. One neighbor shared how the earlier violence brought a fair amount of misery to the surrounding homeowners. Now those homeowners have some apprehension about renters in general - which I find reasonable.

I believe that allowing that history to extend onto myself helps me validate my neighbors' experiences - and that helps them trust me.

On moving in, I met the neighbors and asked them to please let us know if we were ever being a challenge. This weekend, I leveraged some of our new trust by getting their permission to replace some of their dilapidated fencing (son gets repairable rejects for 10%). One neighbor was home and came out to help us and later hauled away scrap (nice!).

With us being more approachable, I think neighbors feel like they have more control (which they do) and that reduces everyone's apprehension.

Lastly, I want to note that establishing good relations with neighbors doesn't come naturally. Our last 3 homes had awful neighbors. The best of that terrible lot was on the HOA board and endlessly cited us (and others), often falsely. I get that it can be hard to trust.

[Fether]

2 minutes ago, Chum said:

Callings taught me a simple principle. It's this. While success by my predecessor are mine to live up to - I need to own their mistakes.  The reasons are:

1) While we serve, other people experience our service. Those experiences shape their expectations. When a calling passes to me, so does all of that.

2) I have more power to fix what is mine.  If my predecessor fell short (which we all do), I can quietly adopt their mistakes as my own. This give me more power to improve on them.

I also found this principle isn't limited to callings.

This house we're renting has had some difficult tenants. Dozens of patched holes bear testimony to just how difficult. One neighbor shared how the earlier violence brought a fair amount of misery to the surrounding homeowners. Now those homeowners have some apprehension about renters in general - which I find reasonable.

I believe that allowing that history to extend onto myself helps me validate my neighbors' experiences - and that helps them trust me.

On moving in, I met the neighbors and asked them to please let us know if we were ever being a challenge. This weekend, I leveraged some of our new trust by getting their permission to replace some of their dilapidated fencing (son gets repairable rejects for 10%). One neighbor was home and came out to help us and later hauled away scrap (nice!).

With us being more approachable, I think neighbors feel like they have more control (which they do) and that reduces everyone's apprehension.

Lastly, I want to note that establishing good relations with neighbors doesn't come naturally. Our last 3 homes had awful neighbors. The best of that terrible lot was on the HOA board and endlessly cited us (and others), often falsely. I get that it can be hard to trust.

I love this. It isn’t about blame, but taking control. When you take responsibility, you take control.

This is a principle taught in one of my favorite books, Extreme Ownership by Jocko Willink

[bsjkki]

16 minutes ago, Chum said:

Callings taught me a simple principle. It's this. While success by my predecessor are mine to live up to - I need to own their mistakes.  The reasons are:

1) While we serve, other people experience our service. Those experiences shape their expectations. When a calling passes to me, so does all of that.

2) I have more power to fix what is mine.  If my predecessor fell short (which we all do), I can quietly adopt their mistakes as my own. This give me more power to improve on them.

I also found this principle isn't limited to callings.

This house we're renting has had some difficult tenants. Dozens of patched holes bear testimony to just how difficult. One neighbor shared how the earlier violence brought a fair amount of misery to the surrounding homeowners. Now those homeowners have some apprehension about renters in general - which I find reasonable.

I believe that allowing that history to extend onto myself helps me validate my neighbors' experiences - and that helps them trust me.

On moving in, I met the neighbors and asked them to please let us know if we were ever being a challenge. This weekend, I leveraged some of our new trust by getting their permission to replace some of their dilapidated fencing (son gets repairable rejects for 10%). One neighbor was home and came out to help us and later hauled away scrap (nice!).

With us being more approachable, I think neighbors feel like they have more control (which they do) and that reduces everyone's apprehension.

Lastly, I want to note that establishing good relations with neighbors doesn't come naturally. Our last 3 homes had awful neighbors. The best of that terrible lot was on the HOA board and endlessly cited us (and others), often falsely. I get that it can be hard to trust.

Interesting concept. 

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, Chum said:

Callings taught me a simple principle. It's this. While success by my predecessor are mine to live up to - I need to own their mistakes.  The reasons are:

1) While we serve, other people experience our service. Those experiences shape their expectations. When a calling passes to me, so does all of that.

2) I have more power to fix what is mine.  If my predecessor fell short (which we all do), I can quietly adopt their mistakes as my own. This give me more power to improve on them.

I also found this principle isn't limited to callings.

This house we're renting has had some difficult tenants. Dozens of patched holes bear testimony to just how difficult. One neighbor shared how the earlier violence brought a fair amount of misery to the surrounding homeowners. Now those homeowners have some apprehension about renters in general - which I find reasonable.

I believe that allowing that history to extend onto myself helps me validate my neighbors' experiences - and that helps them trust me.

On moving in, I met the neighbors and asked them to please let us know if we were ever being a challenge. This weekend, I leveraged some of our new trust by getting their permission to replace some of their dilapidated fencing (son gets repairable rejects for 10%). One neighbor was home and came out to help us and later hauled away scrap (nice!).

With us being more approachable, I think neighbors feel like they have more control (which they do) and that reduces everyone's apprehension.

Lastly, I want to note that establishing good relations with neighbors doesn't come naturally. Our last 3 homes had awful neighbors. The best of that terrible lot was on the HOA board and endlessly cited us (and others), often falsely. I get that it can be hard to trust.

Good thoughts.  A few questions:

1. Whom do you consider your "predecessors"?  

2. What do you mean by "own their mistakes"?  

3. Is it possible to ratify and endorse and celebrate a predecessor's virtues, successes, and so on, while also disclaiming and - pursuant to Moroni 9:31 - learning from their imperfections, missteps, transgressions, and so on?

4. I have a somewhat distant relative (my grandmother's brother-in-law) who fought bravely in World War II.  I admire his patriotism, his bravery, and his commitment to duty.  If he were a closer relation, I might even feel I have some "bragging rights."  However, I can't really say that I "own" his admirable achievements.  Even though our country benefited from his bravery, any plaudits are owed to him, not to me.  He is my "predecessor" in a sense, but I don't feel I can or ought to lay claim to ("own") his virtuous actions.  I can only seek to emulate him in my sphere and experience.  Would you agree?

5. Now, let's also say that I have another distant relative who also served in World War II, but who did not do so honorably.  Let's say he was insubordinate, lazy, cowardly, dishonest, and was eventually discharged with having been far more of a burden on the war effort than a help to it.  He too is my "predecessor," but I don't feel I can or ought to "own" his failures and mistakes.  Instead, i think I ought to - per Moroni 9:31 - learn from his imperfections and seek to be more wise than he was.  Would you agree?

6. As regarding past members of the Church as our "predecessors," would the foregoing principles apply?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[bsjkki]

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Good thoughts.  A few questions:

1. Whom do you consider your "predecessors"?  

2. What do you mean by "own their mistakes"?  

3. Is it possible to ratify and endorse and celebrate a predecessor's virtues, successes, and so on, while also disclaiming and - pursuant to Moroni 9:31 - learning from their imperfections, missteps, transgressions, and so on?

4. I have a somewhat distant relative (my grandmother's brother-in-law) who fought bravely in World War II.  I admire his patriotism, his bravery, and his commitment to duty.  If he were a closer relation, I might even feel I have some "bragging rights."  However, I can't really say that I "own" his admirable achievements.  Even though our country benefited from his bravery, any plaudits are owed to him, not to me.  He is my "predecessor" in a sense, but I don't feel I can or ought to lay claim to ("own") his virtuous actions.  I can only seek to emulate him in my sphere and experience.  Would you agree?

5. Now, let's also say that I have another distant relative who also served in World War II, but who did not do so honorably.  Let's say he was insubordinate, lazy, cowardly, dishonest, and was eventually discharged with having been far more of a burden on the war effort than a help to it.  He too is my "predecessor," but I don't feel I can or ought to "own" his failures and mistakes.  Instead, i think I ought to - per Moroni 9:31 - learn from his imperfections and seek to be more wise than he was.  Would you agree?

6. As regarding past members of the Church as our "predecessors," would the foregoing principles apply?  

Thanks,

-Smac

If I'm understanding Chum correctly (and I might not be), it seems like he's talking about how to deal with people who are "once bitten twice shy".  Even if we were not the person who "bit" them, we have power to help rectify the past harm by proceeding as if it is our responsibility to repair the hurt.

So, with a neighbor that was harmed by a bad neighbor, you can go out of your way to make up for that by being an even better neighbor than you really are expected to me to help put them at ease and not be 'shy' (the example that he used).

In church, it could mean that if you have someone that was harmed by a past leader, you can go out of your way--as the new leader--to handle them with more caution/concern/being more open or up front, etc., than you might be with others that you lead to help put the hurt person at ease or help them to heal more quickly.

[Chum]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

1. Whom do you consider your "predecessors"? 

I'm puzzled that this wouldn't be self-evident. In a calling, it would be the person who held it before me. Possibly persons if someone served a short time.  In the case of my rental, the memories of the bad tenants' deeds are longer lasting.

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

2. What do you mean by "own their mistakes"?  

Stuff that leads reasonable people toward less positive or non-positive impressions toward the calling/callee. Could be neglect that leads to expected stuff not happening or could be a situation handled poorly. Typical volunteer pitfalls.

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

3. Is it possible to ratify and endorse and celebrate a predecessor's virtues, successes, and so on, while also disclaiming and - pursuant to Moroni 9:31 - learning from their imperfections, missteps, transgressions, and so on?

"Is it possible...." is kind of open-ended.  I'd use "Is there wisdom in...".  To answer that I'd say "I think so except for the disclaiming part". Adopting someone's past missteps is something I'd want to do quietly and internally. 

Usual disclaimers apply - like missteps happened and are worth considering.

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

4. ... I can't really say that I "own" his admirable achievements.

Nor do I.  Missteps can be mine because that can serve a purpose. Successes are solely the person's - because what would I do with them?

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

5. Now, let's also say that I have another distant relative who also served in World War II, but who did not do so honorably.

This doesn't seem to be a good fit. Most impacted people are dead and effects from mistakes are long diluted.

I might also avoid applying this principle to profoundly awful events. Trauma comes with it's own priorities.

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

6. As regarding past members of the Church as our "predecessors," would the foregoing principles apply?

In seeming contradiction to the above, yes. They would for me.  When a non-member raises reasonable concerns about long-past Church events, I don't distance myself. This history is mine. edit: Withdrawing this. While true, it is beyond the scope of my OP. It may clutter things.

 

I'd like to note that none of this is about bounded rules or fairness. It's more about figuring out what I can possibly do & then determining what would be most beneficial. I often find that fairness (for myself) is at odds with efficiency.

Edited January 11, 2022 by Chum

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Extreme Ownership is a load of garbage.

Of course, it's the kind of garbage that narcissistic leaders are wont to believe in because they truly believe they are responsible for every success.

Until something goes wrong, of course, and then some sort of magical change takes place and now Extreme Ownership only applies to everyone below them in the chain of command.

 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Chum said:

Callings taught me a simple principle. It's this. While success by my predecessor are mine to live up to - I need to own their mistakes.  The reasons are:

1) While we serve, other people experience our service. Those experiences shape their expectations. When a calling passes to me, so does all of that.

2) I have more power to fix what is mine.  If my predecessor fell short (which we all do), I can quietly adopt their mistakes as my own. This give me more power to improve on them.

I also found this principle isn't limited to callings.

This house we're renting has had some difficult tenants. Dozens of patched holes bear testimony to just how difficult. One neighbor shared how the earlier violence brought a fair amount of misery to the surrounding homeowners. Now those homeowners have some apprehension about renters in general - which I find reasonable.

I believe that allowing that history to extend onto myself helps me validate my neighbors' experiences - and that helps them trust me.

On moving in, I met the neighbors and asked them to please let us know if we were ever being a challenge. This weekend, I leveraged some of our new trust by getting their permission to replace some of their dilapidated fencing (son gets repairable rejects for 10%). One neighbor was home and came out to help us and later hauled away scrap (nice!).

With us being more approachable, I think neighbors feel like they have more control (which they do) and that reduces everyone's apprehension.

Lastly, I want to note that establishing good relations with neighbors doesn't come naturally. Our last 3 homes had awful neighbors. The best of that terrible lot was on the HOA board and endlessly cited us (and others), often falsely. I get that it can be hard to trust.

Never met an HOA I liked.

I Won't touch a property that has an HOA, no matter how nice they seem.

[Fether]

24 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Extreme Ownership is a load of garbage.

Of course, it's the kind of garbage that narcissistic leaders are wont to believe in because they truly believe they are responsible for every success.

Until something goes wrong, of course, and then some sort of magical change takes place and now Extreme Ownership only applies to everyone below them in the chain of command.

 

You completely missed the point. The whole purpose and goal of extreme ownership is to stop just accepting the success and take  ownership of the mistakes.

Anyone who practices extreme ownership laughs in the face of those who  neglect to take responsibility for the bad. The whole book “Extreme Ownership” entirely full of first hand war stories where Jocko took ownership and responsibility of a bad situation and turned it into something good.

Edited January 10, 2022 by Fether

[LoudmouthMormon]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Never met an HOA I liked.

I Won't touch a property that has an HOA, no matter how nice they seem.

You might be ok in my neighborhood.  We're a bunch of reclusive near-libertarians, and the people who get elected to our board, are pretty much only there to make sure we don't become one of "those HOAs".    I did a stint as treasurer.  The folks mad at us, are mad because they hear some variation on "Look, we're not law enforcement, we're not your bosses, we're not your parents.  Go figure out your problems with your neighbor, and leave us out of it."   

The only reason we exist, is because there needs to be a neighborhood organization to hold the water rights and pay 3 bills a year.  We're not gonna measure the length of your grass and cite you.

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Never met an HOA I liked.

I Won't touch a property that has an HOA, no matter how nice they seem.

My friend is a part of an HOA that, sometime before she moved in, negated most of the covenants and required a full 100% unanimous vote to change anything (which is never going to happen).  So she's stuck paying HOA fees to an HOA that has no power to do anything or enforce anything.  She hates it.

[Chum]

32 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Never met an HOA I liked.

I Won't touch a property that has an HOA, no matter how nice they seem.

Not only an HOA, the most notorious one in the region. If we could have gone anywhere else, we would have.

[Chum]

30 minutes ago, Fether said:

You completely missed the point. The whole purpose and goal of extreme ownership is to stop just accepting the success and take  ownership of the mistakes.

Anyone who practices extreme ownership laughs in the face of those who  neglect to take responsibility for the bad. The whole book “Extreme Ownership” entirely full of first hand war stories where Jocko took ownership and responsibility of a bad situation and turned it into something good.

This is the first I've ever heard the term. The stuff in my OP is what I figured out thru trial+error.  It's likely obvious enough that tons of other people came to similar conclusions.

[Fether]

11 minutes ago, Chum said:

This is the first I've ever heard the term. The stuff in my OP is what I figured out thru trial+error.  It's likely obvious enough that tons of other people came to similar conclusions.

The whole principle is based on “what’s happened has happened, the course of action now is to take ownership of the situation and fix it” blaming only delays problem solving.

Its impressive you learned it yourself!

Edited January 10, 2022 by Fether

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Chum said:

Callings taught me a simple principle. It's this. While success by my predecessor are mine to live up to - I need to own their mistakes.  The reasons are:

1) While we serve, other people experience our service. Those experiences shape their expectations. When a calling passes to me, so does all of that.

2) I have more power to fix what is mine.  If my predecessor fell short (which we all do), I can quietly adopt their mistakes as my own. This give me more power to improve on them.

I also found this principle isn't limited to callings.

This house we're renting has had some difficult tenants. Dozens of patched holes bear testimony to just how difficult. One neighbor shared how the earlier violence brought a fair amount of misery to the surrounding homeowners. Now those homeowners have some apprehension about renters in general - which I find reasonable.

I believe that allowing that history to extend onto myself helps me validate my neighbors' experiences - and that helps them trust me.

On moving in, I met the neighbors and asked them to please let us know if we were ever being a challenge. This weekend, I leveraged some of our new trust by getting their permission to replace some of their dilapidated fencing (son gets repairable rejects for 10%). One neighbor was home and came out to help us and later hauled away scrap (nice!).

With us being more approachable, I think neighbors feel like they have more control (which they do) and that reduces everyone's apprehension.

Lastly, I want to note that establishing good relations with neighbors doesn't come naturally. Our last 3 homes had awful neighbors. The best of that terrible lot was on the HOA board and endlessly cited us (and others), often falsely. I get that it can be hard to trust.

While I wouldn’t use the word “own” as that has the wrong connotations for me, I agree we need to recognize and work with what our predecessors have left us and not ignore or act as if they are not a part of the current environment. Nor is feeling antagonistic about them going to be helpful, imo, as that wastes energy better put into moving towards a better environment. 

[Chum]

1 minute ago, Fether said:

The whole principle is based on “what’s happened has happened, the course of action now is to take ownership of the situation and fix it” blaming only delays problem solving

In a similar example:  I've learned that in bad situations, the harmed party is often the person with the most power - not only to right the wrong but over the person who harmed them. Realizing that strength can turn an offended heart by itself.

Or in the case of systemic issues, those who were harmed can be the only people capable of shouldering a particular burden - or may be the only ones qualified to lead everyone involved thru the next few steps. Truly unfair but there is potential.

[Chum]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

While I wouldn’t use the word “own” as that has the wrong connotations for me, I agree we need to recognize and work with what our predecessors have left us and not ignore or act as if they are not a part of the current environment. Nor is feeling antagonistic about them going to be helpful, imo, as that wastes energy better put into moving towards a better environment. 

There's lots of room to improve the wording. I'm still working out how to express the notion.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

If I'm understanding Chum correctly (and I might not be), it seems like he's talking about how to deal with people who are "once bitten twice shy".  Even if we were not the person who "bit" them, we have power to help rectify the past harm by proceeding as if it is our responsibility to repair the hurt.

So, with a neighbor that was harmed by a bad neighbor, you can go out of your way to make up for that by being an even better neighbor than you really are expected to me to help put them at ease and not be 'shy' (the example that he used).

In church, it could mean that if you have someone that was harmed by a past leader, you can go out of your way--as the new leader--to handle them with more caution/concern/being more open or up front, etc., than you might be with others that you lead to help put the hurt person at ease or help them to heal more quickly.

Expecting someone to treat you as separate from past experiences or any experiences they are having with anyone else may be fair or just, but it isn’t realistic or practical.  
 

Getting upset because your boss is in a bad mood because their kid trashed the family car last night isn’t going to make your day easier, it will make it harder.  I think that is a pretty easy concept for people to get. Extending that into past relationships may feel more unfair as one had no input at that time to affect what was happening, but the reality is the past is in the present whether we want it to be or not. 

And if one doesn’t like the idea that the result of someone else’s error is one’s responsibility to fix, why not look on it instead as a blessing to be able to help someone heal? 

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by Calm

[Chum]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

While I wouldn’t use the word “own” as that has the wrong connotations for me,

I use own to signal that mistakes I inherited are effectively my own. It could be a distracting overstatement.

Some embracing does need to happen here tho. There should be continuity from them to me.

[Chum]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Getting upset because your boss is in a bad mood because their kid trashed the family car last night isn’t going to make your day easier, it will make it harder.

Ah but this is the core of it. Assuming I have sufficient resources, I'd want to close the door and tell my boss to finish this up on me. I mean we're already halfway there. No sense in trashing two people.

[poptart]

2 minutes ago, Chum said:

Ah but this is the core of it. Assuming I have sufficient resources, I'd want to close the door and tell my boss to finish this up on me. I mean we're already halfway there. No sense in trashing two people.

You'd put up with it?  Depending on who he/she is that's right about when I'd start recording conversations, whipping out my LGBTQ lanyard, maybe one of those mini Hawaiian flags to hint that my pale self is technically a minority then see what happens. 

 

[Chum]

1 minute ago, poptart said:

You'd put up with it?  Depending on who he/she is that's right about when I'd start recording conversations, whipping out my LGBTQ lanyard, maybe one of those mini Hawaiian flags to hint that my pale self is technically a minority then see what happens.

I'm speaking only to this scenario where someone with an good heart is having an infrequent bad moment. This is not me volunteering to be fodder for a sadist and it presumes I can differentiate between the two.

In this act, there are a lot in things in play. One is the shock of the person messaging "You're hurting me. I'm going to allow it this time."  In a good person, that will likely to spark some introspection, eventually.

Another thing is lashing out at a person who already has callouses. It's less wasteful than trashing vulnerable people who'd pay a lot higher price. Again this all assumes I've run the math and know exactly what it costs me.

[smac97]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

If I'm understanding Chum correctly (and I might not be), it seems like he's talking about how to deal with people who are "once bitten twice shy".  Even if we were not the person who "bit" them, we have power to help rectify the past harm by proceeding as if it is our responsibility to repair the hurt.

Okay.

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

So, with a neighbor that was harmed by a bad neighbor, you can go out of your way to make up for that by being an even better neighbor than you really are expected to me to help put them at ease and not be 'shy' (the example that he used).

Okay.

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

In church, it could mean that if you have someone that was harmed by a past leader, you can go out of your way--as the new leader--to handle them with more caution/concern/being more open or up front, etc., than you might be with others that you lead to help put the hurt person at ease or help them to heal more quickly.

Okay.

I guess I'm hung up on semantics.  "Owning deeds we didn't do" and "need to own {a predecessor's} mistakes" does not seem to refer to blame or culpability, but rather just an attempt to fix something I did not break, but that nevertheless needs fixing.

Is that about right?

Thanks,

-Smac

[poptart]

56 minutes ago, Chum said:

I'm speaking only to this scenario where someone with an good heart is having an infrequent bad moment. This is not me volunteering to be fodder for a sadist and it presumes I can differentiate between the two.

In this act, there are a lot in things in play. One is the shock of the person messaging "You're hurting me. I'm going to allow it this time."  In a good person, that will likely to spark some introspection, eventually.

Another thing is lashing out at a person who already has callouses. It's less wasteful than trashing vulnerable people who'd pay a lot higher price. Again this all assumes I've run the math and know exactly what it costs me.

Ok, that's different.  Wow, way to be awesome.  Thats a really solid way to deal with people.

Sorry calm, re read your post, ops.  Keep forgetting, not everyone is a privileged slime ball out to get you.  Even the genuine good people have bad days.  That's something I'm having to work on.