Horns of a dilemma, moral obligation?

[Calm]

Quote

The only thing necessary for evil to triumph in the world is that good men do nothing

Does this only apply to big things?

 

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Does this only apply to big things?

 

I don’t think this always is a correct principle.  I think of nature, for example- watching a predator attempt to kill prey. As a human my instinct is to protect the prey, but I don’t.  Also, I have learned over time that overfunctioning is a thing. 

Edited December 31, 2022 by MustardSeed

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I don’t think this always is a correct principle.  I think of nature, for example- watching a predator attempt to kill prey. As a human my instinct is to protect the prey, but I don’t.  Also, I have learned over time that overfunctioning is a thing. 

I agree.  I think sometimes it is appropriate, but not all the time.  The hard part is figuring out the difference.  I don’t think that is possible when we don’t know much of the background.  Duncan did ask for advice and people’s opinion, so most of the thread is just fine, imo.  I just get leery when absolutes are discussed with human behavior as situations are so varied; “one size fits all” approaches tend to backfired a good part of the time imo.

Edited December 31, 2022 by Calm

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

I agree.  I think sometimes it is appropriate, but not all the time.  The hard part is figuring out the difference.  I don’t think that is possible when we don’t know much of the background.  Duncan did ask for advice and people’s opinion, so most of the thread is just fine, imo.  I just get leery when absolutes are discussed with human behavior as situations are so varied; “one size fits all” approaches tend to backfired a good part of the time imo.

Reminds me of this gem:

[Duncan]

So, the SP investigated this and met with the couple in question and it's resolved, it's an unusual situation for sure. He told me that if he had known all this before they wouldn't have been considered for the calling the brother has and so I am satisfied with everything and how it was handled.

[John L]

20 hours ago, Duncan said:

the SP investigated this and met with the couple in question and it's resolved,

This is highly disturbing. Why do you know this? It's bad enough you told on the couple, it's even worse the Stake President thought it was !OK! to keep you informed about the couples situation. 

 

20 hours ago, Duncan said:

 He told me

HE should of kept his mouth shut. It was none of your business. After you tattletaled on the couple, you were out of the loop. I'm very upset the Stake President felt it was appropriate to inform you what happened. 

 

20 hours ago, Duncan said:

so I am satisfied

You're satisfied? You need to rethink how you view the church's roll here on earth!

 

 

 

In it's entirety, the situation you have described for everyone here to ponder, shines a negative light on the church, in my opinion. 

[telnetd]

On 12/25/2022 at 11:37 PM, Duncan said:

I found out some information about a local church leader that could, if true, get them released and I know someone in the past who got exed for it. The thing is though there is one piece of information I don't have and wouldn't have access to but if if found it they could face serious consequences churchwise. That last piece of the puzzle could mean it's nothing or something really big. It isn't anything illegal and no one is in harms way but should I say something to the Stake President? I think he would be interested in knowing and could find out the one piece of information I don't have-which, again, if it's true then heads could roll or not, I don't know. Should I tell what I know to the SP? 

Your statements sound contradictory.  You should make up fake names and provide exact details if you
want a realistic answer.

As for the contradictions ... if it's not illegal and no one is in harm's way, then it is not serious enough for
someone to be released or exed.

Your "last piece of the puzzle" is all speculation.  You never even explain why you think the SP could figure
it out and you cannot.

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

Your statements sound contradictory.  You should make up fake names and provide exact details if you
want a realistic answer.

As for the contradictions ... if it's not illegal and no one is in harm's way, then it is not serious enough for
someone to be released or exed.

Your "last piece of the puzzle" is all speculation.  You never even explain why you think the SP could figure
it out and you cannot.

I got a "realistic answer" 

it is absolutely seriosu enough for someone to get exed or disfellowshipped for. I know two people who have, I don't know the specifics of each situation but the overall seriousness of the situation was the same and potentially was the same in this case

I don't have access that the SP has, I have no authority to ask the couple the final part and he does. What information that was missing isn't publicly available, unless you ask the people involved or have access to the records-which I don't. So, as I say the SP investigated and it went the way we all wanted and not the other way which would lead to discipline. Where I the SP I would have contacted a lawyer to look through and make sure I had my ducks in a row prior to going to the couple , which he may have done I don't know. But it's all resolved now.

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I got a "realistic answer" 

it is absolutely seriosu enough for someone to get exed or disfellowshipped for. I know two people who have, I don't know the specifics of each situation but the overall seriousness of the situation was the same and potentially was the same in this case

I don't have access that the SP has, I have no authority to ask the couple the final part and he does. What information that was missing isn't publicly available, unless you ask the people involved or have access to the records-which I don't. So, as I say the SP investigated and it went the way we all wanted and not the other way which would lead to discipline. Where I the SP I would have contacted a lawyer to look through and make sure I had my ducks in a row prior to going to the couple , which he may have done I don't know. But it's all resolved now.

None of us are in your shoes so we don't have the right to judge you for what you felt was the right thing to do. 

[Duncan]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

None of us are in your shoes so we don't have the right to judge you for what you felt was the right thing to do. 

thanks!!!!

[MustardSeed]

On 1/1/2023 at 12:02 PM, Duncan said:

So, the SP investigated this and met with the couple in question and it's resolved, it's an unusual situation for sure. He told me that if he had known all this before they wouldn't have been considered for the calling the brother has and so I am satisfied with everything and how it was handled.

Admittedly it’s frustrating to be pulled in to the process and yet not given nearly enough information. But it is what it is.

[Vanguard]

On 12/25/2022 at 9:37 PM, Duncan said:

I found out some information about a local church leader that could, if true, get them released and I know someone in the past who got exed for it. The thing is though there is one piece of information I don't have and wouldn't have access to but if if found it they could face serious consequences churchwise. That last piece of the puzzle could mean it's nothing or something really big. It isn't anything illegal and no one is in harms way but should I say something to the Stake President? I think he would be interested in knowing and could find out the one piece of information I don't have-which, again, if it's true then heads could roll or not, I don't know. Should I tell what I know to the SP? 

I have not yet read any of the other responses. But, ABSOLUTELY you should report any concern you have. The trick is how you go about doing so. The information should be shared with the SP in the most delicate, deferential manner you can muster. You do not KNOW the facts sufficient to make any final conclusion about the local church leader and this should be evident in your very humble report. You should also reassure the SP that this information will remain confidential and that you will step away from the situation now that you have spoken your piece/peace.

Ok, now I'll read everyone else's comments. ; )

[Vanguard]

Oh my! If I had known the general tenor of the posts that followed, I probably would have tempered my response and not been totally honest. ; ) Regardless, I stand by my counsel to Duncan. If he were 'beyond the mark' it would be an opportunity for the SP to help him understand the kinds of things we as members should be concerned with and not - a teaching opportunity for sure. The fact is that we are our brother's keeper. The difficulty is knowing to what extent we should be.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

thanks!!!!

I agree with both Tacenda and Mustard Seed, though I understand and agree with the reluctance to share details which could identify individuals since your own personal info is semi out there or perhaps you know others in your area who might read the board.

However, in the future if you need to be this vague if public, perhaps instead of seeking general feedback, you should instead PM a couple of posters whose opinion or experience you think would be useful (and this is actually a generic request to everyone because it is frustrating to feel pulled into a situation, but then not really understand it…this happened in a testimony meeting this past Sunday where the speaker shared a wonderful testimony of how they were turning their life in a completely different direction with the help of the Lord and others and went into quite a bit of dramatic detail, but never shared the actual why).  With less information given, the poster is going to have to deal with a lot of wrong assumptions from readers’ attempts to fill in the blanks in order to give decent advice….advice that might be completely different if they were able to have more detail.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

Oh my! If I had known the general tenor of the posts that followed, I probably would have tempered my response and not been totally honest. ; ) Regardless, I stand by my counsel to Duncan. If he were 'beyond the mark' it would be an opportunity for the SP to help him understand the kinds of things we as members should be concerned with and not - a teaching opportunity for sure. The fact is that we are our brother's keeper. The difficulty is knowing to what extent we should be.

I agree with your and your approach, but also don’t have much actual experience besides what happened with my parents so no one should take my opinion as very weighty…and I might change my mind if I saw more harm come of it.  I also believe we are our brother’s keeper and sometimes that means we should get involved and others we shouldn’t.

Life is very messy and rarely are answers cut and dried if the questions involved anything of significant impact on others.

Edited January 4, 2023 by Calm

[gav]

On 1/2/2023 at 6:41 PM, John L said:

This is highly disturbing. Why do you know this? It's bad enough you told on the couple, it's even worse the Stake President thought it was !OK! to keep you informed about the couples situation. 

 

HE should of kept his mouth shut. It was none of your business. After you tattletaled on the couple, you were out of the loop. I'm very upset the Stake President felt it was appropriate to inform you what happened. 

 

You're satisfied? You need to rethink how you view the church's roll here on earth!

 

 

 

In it's entirety, the situation you have described for everyone here to ponder, shines a negative light on the church, in my opinion. 

Are we not a Church that operates on the basis of common consent? or at least some semblance of it?

Any sustaining can and should be objected to when necessary so that objections may come to light and be resolved. Their resolution necessarily entails the sharing of information with the objectionable party and the objecting party. Naturally these objections must be handled with sensitivity etc.

Sustaining is not a one time thing, but an ongoing process which we will be required to do throughout the persons calling and should we have difficulty sustaining them with valid concerns at any time it is appropriate to raise those concerns with the right people according to protocol.

When we are not required to sustain a person then we also have no requirement to raise objections and, unless its major like abuse etc, should keep our mouths shut. Should that person later be called to a calling where we are required to sustain them, then raising any concerns is appropriate and welcomed but once again with sensitivity and following the correct protocol. That is how, as I see it, common consent works.

Edited January 5, 2023 by gav

[rodheadlee]

On 1/2/2023 at 8:41 AM, John L said:

This is highly disturbing. Why do you know this? It's bad enough you told on the couple, it's even worse the Stake President thought it was !OK! to keep you informed about the couples situation. 

 

HE should of kept his mouth shut. It was none of your business. After you tattletaled on the couple, you were out of the loop. I'm very upset the Stake President felt it was appropriate to inform you what happened. 

 

You're satisfied? You need to rethink how you view the church's roll here on earth!

 

 

 

In it's entirety, the situation you have described for everyone here to ponder, shines a negative light on the church, in my opinion. 

Point!

[bluebell]

On 1/2/2023 at 9:41 AM, John L said:

This is highly disturbing. Why do you know this? It's bad enough you told on the couple, it's even worse the Stake President thought it was !OK! to keep you informed about the couples situation. 

 

HE should of kept his mouth shut. It was none of your business. After you tattletaled on the couple, you were out of the loop. I'm very upset the Stake President felt it was appropriate to inform you what happened. 

 

You're satisfied? You need to rethink how you view the church's roll here on earth!

 

 

 

In it's entirety, the situation you have described for everyone here to ponder, shines a negative light on the church, in my opinion. 

If this person was being called to a calling in Duncan's ward, and he had to raise his hand in sacrament meeting saying that he could not sustain the person (and then had to explain to the bishop or stake president why) do you believe that would be highly disturbing as well?

If no, what makes refusing to sustain someone and explaining why to a ward or stake leader acceptable when a person is being called to a position, but highly disturbing after someone has been called?

Duncan has spoken from the beginning about how his concern is with the calling the person has.

[John L]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

If this person was being called to a calling in Duncan's ward, and he had to raise his hand in sacrament meeting saying that he could not sustain the person (and then had to explain to the bishop or stake president why) do you believe that would be highly disturbing as well?

That's not what he described. 

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

If no, what makes refusing to sustain someone and explaining why to a ward or stake leader acceptable when a person is being called to a position, but highly disturbing after someone has been called?

Do you believe  Bishops and Stake Presidents are divinely called to their position in the church? Do you believe their calling allows them to be to guided by revelation? If so, it's my belief, once someone has been given a calling, people need to mind their own business and shut up! 

I know a sister who smokes cigarettes two or three times a week and she also attends the temple and has a calling, should I become a tattletale because I know about her sin?

 One of my friends doesn't believe in the church but still attends weekly to support his wife. He lies to the bishop so he can keep his temple recommend, should I tattletale on him because I know his sins? 

 

[John L]

15 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Point!

!!!!!

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, John L said:

That's not what he described. 

Do you believe  Bishops and Stake Presidents are divinely called to their position in the church? Do you believe their calling allows them to be to guided by revelation? If so, it's my belief, once someone has been given a calling, people need to mind their own business and shut up! 

I know a sister who smokes cigarettes two or three times a week and she also attends the temple and has a calling, should I become a tattletale because I know about her sin?

 One of my friends doesn't believe in the church but still attends weekly to support his wife. He lies to the bishop so he can keep his temple recommend, should I tattletale on him because I know his sins? 

 

I don't see it as much different than what Duncan described.  The SP told Duncan that if he had known about this person's actions beforehand, this person would not have been called to their church position.  Duncan has mentioned a couple times in this thread that this is an offense serious enough that excommunication could have been on the table.  

If you believe that members should be able to commit very serious sins without their leaders being aware and everyone should just shut up about it, ok.  But not everyone views their relationship with their brothers and sisters, or their responsibility to the church, in the same way that you do. 

 

[John L]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The SP told Duncan that if he had known about this person's actions beforehand, this person would not have been called to their church position

This could be said for most members.

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If you believe that members should be able to commit very serious sins without their leaders being aware and everyone should just shut up about it, ok. 

Do Bishops have Is power of discernment or not? If they do, stay out of the business of other's. Everyone I have ever met is a sinner, are you a sinner? 

 

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

their responsibility to the church

What responsibility? 

[bluebell]

Just now, John L said:

This could be said for most members.

Do Bishops have Is power of discernment or not? If they do, stay out of the business of other's. Everyone I have ever met is a sinner, are you a sinner? 

 

What responsibility? 

No, I don't think it could be said for most members. 

Yes, I do believe that bishop's can have powers of discernment but I also believe--as a previous stake president taught--that good information makes for good inspiration. 

Sustaining a ward member in a calling is the business of every member of that ward.  It's not just done for show, we are asked to sustain for a reason.  And, I think that most members of the church understand that some sins are more serious than others.  We shouldn't not sustain someone because they are a sinner but if we know that someone is committing a sin serious enough that they could be excommunicated for it, then that might be a valid time to refuse to sustain them until you have spoken with a leader about it. 

The responsibility to be our brother's and sister's keeper, maybe.  The responsibility to ensure that our leaders are not engaged in serious sins which would impact their ability to lead with the spirit, perhaps.  Different people view these kinds of things differently.  I don't think there is anything wrong with disagreeing about the appropriate way to proceed in a difficult or sensitive situation.  

Implying someone needs to repent because they disagree though, that seems inappropriate to me.

[Rain]

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

No, I don't think it could be said for most members. 

Yes, I do believe that bishop's can have powers of discernment but I also believe--as a previous stake president taught--that good information makes for good inspiration. 

Not just a stake president.  Several women in the general auxiliaries have taught it and President Nelson later taught it in conference.

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

Sustaining a ward member in a calling is the business of every member of that ward.  It's not just done for show, we are asked to sustain for a reason.  And, I think that most members of the church understand that some sins are more serious than others.  We shouldn't not sustain someone because they are a sinner but if we know that someone is committing a sin serious enough that they could be excommunicated for it, then that might be a valid time to refuse to sustain them until you have spoken with a leader about it. 

The responsibility to be our brother's and sister's keeper, maybe.  The responsibility to ensure that our leaders are not engaged in serious sins which would impact their ability to lead with the spirit, perhaps.  Different people view these kinds of things differently.  I don't think there is anything wrong with disagreeing about the appropriate way to proceed in a difficult or sensitive situation. 

 

Especially with a huge lack of knowledge about the situation. 

Things can be so different as well. I have a friend who drinks coffee and wine. I figure she is an adult and I don't need to get into it. 

I have another friend who has a child predator in her ward. You bet I would say something if he were called into the primary.

 People aren't perfect so I wouldn't expect my bishop to know about the child predator. That would be a time he needs good information.

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

 

Implying someone needs to repent because they disagree though, that seems inappropriate to me.

 

[Calm]

18 hours ago, John L said:

This could be said for most members.

I disagree.  That seems a pretty cynical view of the members or perhaps you have an idea that almost any kind of sin disqualifies someone for a calling and only ignorance of these sins keeps the church staffed?

Do you think minor sins will block a calling?  If so, evidence please that they do.

If not, what kind of sins do you believe most members are committing such that they wouldn’t be called to any position if known and why do you believe most members are committing these serious sins?

_____

Bishops have access to the gift of discernment. Doesn’t mean they always make use of it.  From what I have heard, sometimes they think they know enough already, other times they are distracted.
 

Sometimes the bishop themselves is the problem as well that needs to be reported (one of my bishops got excommunicated for having an affair, I am pretty sure from what she said and how she acted, one of my friends knew something was going on for quite sometime as she was very good friends with the woman he had an affair with…it started out as trying to help her with counseling; if my friend has said something earlier, maybe it wouldn’t have ended up as an excommunication and divorce…though she may well have warned her friend and the friend ignored her advice because she was so lonely)

Edited January 12, 2023 by Calm