Wife of MP blogs about the missionaries.....

[_Jesse Pinkman]

In what context is it appropriate for an adult to blog about the private lives and personal struggles of other adults? Is redacting names enough? Should consent be obtained to adequately respect the wishes of those involved?

Would a high school principal or college administrator would be allowed to blog about students this way. Do missionaries deserve less consideration? Have they signed that away?

Would it be appropriate for a counselor who is not anonymous to blog about current patients if he/she doesn't post in real life names?

Would it be appropriate for a member of the clergy to blog like this? A clergyman's wife/husband?

Is it appropriate for a mother to blog about her adult children in this way if she redacts specific names?

On one hand, I think she has probably done a service by sounding an alarm about the realities of missionary life-- sounds like the mission experience could use some remodeling. On the other hand, I think it her choice to blog in this way demonstrates an astounding lack of discretion and knowing that their private experiences could inspire blog entries might discourage struggling missionaries from asking for support. Surely there's a way to communicate the gravity of the problem without telling specific stories about missionaries who are currently in the field who can be identified by other missionaries with internet access, etc.

Reminds me too much of my in-laws and why I live 1,793 miles away.

I agree. My mother in law was also an MP's wife. She didn't face as many of the mental health issues with missionaries. There were more issues with physical health, which I thought she addressed beautifully. She has the utmost discretion and when I mentioned this particular blog to her, she was horrified.

She said that the sister had no right to publicly blog such things. If she wanted to keep a private journal, then fine. But that sort of blogging was a clear violation of missionary privacy.

[_Mayan Elephant]

Sounds like a reunion at Buddy's is well overdue. I am game all the time and available most of the time. Maybe we can get the Mayan Elephant to show and I'd love to meet the Mission president there. More the merrier.

PS I still got to try some Bend micro breweries with cwald.

i have family in cache valley and thatcher, next time i am in utah the burgers and beers are on you guys. i may make a special trip if we could get the mission president to sit down and have a bite with us.

[_MrSimpleton]

In what context is it appropriate for an adult to blog about the private lives and personal struggles of other adults? Is redacting names enough? Should consent be obtained to adequately respect the wishes of those involved?

Would a high school principal or college administrator would be allowed to blog about students this way. Do missionaries deserve less consideration? Have they signed that away?

Would it be appropriate for a counselor who is not anonymous to blog about current patients if he/she doesn't post in real life names?

Would it be appropriate for a member of the clergy to blog like this? A clergyman's wife/husband?

Is it appropriate for a mother to blog about her adult children in this way if she redacts specific names?

On one hand, I think she has probably done a service by sounding an alarm about the realities of missionary life-- sounds like the mission experience could use some remodeling. On the other hand, I think it her choice to blog in this way demonstrates an astounding lack of discretion and knowing that their private experiences could inspire blog entries might discourage struggling missionaries from asking for support. Surely there's a way to communicate the gravity of the problem without telling specific stories about missionaries who are currently in the field who can be identified by other missionaries with internet access, etc.

Reminds me too much of my in-laws and why I live 1,793 miles away.

Apples and oranges.

Dr's have oaths, LAWS, and professional license ethics which mandate privacy. I am unaware that Mission President is bound by similar? If you can show, via MP handbook or other Church rule, then you have an great comparison. Simply stated what is going on, without names, isn't in my opinion a breach of any kind.

[_MrSimpleton]

I agree. My mother in law was also an MP's wife. She didn't face as many of the mental health issues with missionaries. There were more issues with physical health, which I thought she addressed beautifully. She has the utmost discretion and when I mentioned this particular blog to her, she was horrified.

She said that the sister had no right to publicly blog such things. If she wanted to keep a private journal, then fine. But that sort of blogging was a clear violation of missionary privacy.

Was blogging, email, and other forms of electronic/social media promoted by the Church HQ when your MIL was serving as the "Mission Mom"? And what kind of privacy was violated?

[_cafe crema]

In what context is it appropriate for an adult to blog about the private lives and personal struggles of other adults? Is redacting names enough? Should consent be obtained to adequately respect the wishes of those involved?

Would a high school principal or college administrator would be allowed to blog about students this way. Do missionaries deserve less consideration? Have they signed that away?

Would it be appropriate for a counselor who is not anonymous to blog about current patients if he/she doesn't post in real life names?

Would it be appropriate for a member of the clergy to blog like this? A clergyman's wife/husband?

Is it appropriate for a mother to blog about her adult children in this way if she redacts specific names?

On one hand, I think she has probably done a service by sounding an alarm about the realities of missionary life-- sounds like the mission experience could use some remodeling. On the other hand, I think it her choice to blog in this way demonstrates an astounding lack of discretion and knowing that their private experiences could inspire blog entries might discourage struggling missionaries from asking for support. Surely there's a way to communicate the gravity of the problem without telling specific stories about missionaries who are currently in the field who can be identified by other missionaries with internet access, etc.

Reminds me too much of my in-laws and why I live 1,793 miles away.

Apples and oranges.

Dr's have oaths, LAWS, and professional license ethics which mandate privacy. I am unaware that Mission President is bound by similar? If you can show, via MP handbook or other Church rule, then you have an great comparison. Simply stated what is going on, without names, isn't in my opinion a breach of any kind.

Well you would think that MP's and their wives would be bound by manners. I was taught by my parents that gossiping about others and telling everyone their personal problems was thoughtless, cruel, rude and unacceptable behavior on my part, in short it was sinful. Apparently gossiping is fine and dandy for LDS.

[_CameronMO]

I agree. My mother in law was also an MP's wife. She didn't face as many of the mental health issues with missionaries. There were more issues with physical health, which I thought she addressed beautifully. She has the utmost discretion and when I mentioned this particular blog to her, she was horrified.

She said that the sister had no right to publicly blog such things. If she wanted to keep a private journal, then fine. But that sort of blogging was a clear violation of missionary privacy.

Was blogging, email, and other forms of electronic/social media promoted by the Church HQ when your MIL was serving as the "Mission Mom"? And what kind of privacy was violated?

This seems to apply to the blog, in my opinion:

I am acquainted with a wife and mother who is chained securely at the present time to a life-style of murmuring and criticism. She is the first to point out faults in her husband or to repeat neighborhood gossip. How damaging is a habit that permits fault-finding, character assassination, and the sharing of malicious rumors! Gossip and caustic comments often create chains of contention. These chains may appear to be very small, but what misery and woe they can cause!

https://www.LDS.org/general-conference/ ... d?lang=eng

[_Mayan Elephant]

Looks like they made the blog private. The wayback machine only has May 7th archived.
http://web.archive.org/web/201405071023 ... gspot.com/

damnit. did anyone save the page?

[_MrSimpleton]

Looks like they made the blog private. The wayback machine only has May 7th archived.
http://web.archive.org/web/201405071023 ... gspot.com/

damnit. did anyone save the page?

yes.

Apparently the RFM, post was a cut and paste from at least two months of the blog. September 2013 and December 2013.

[_Mayan Elephant]

Apples and oranges.

Dr's have oaths, LAWS, and professional license ethics which mandate privacy. I am unaware that Mission President is bound by similar? If you can show, via MP handbook or other Church rule, then you have an great comparison. Simply stated what is going on, without names, isn't in my opinion a breach of any kind.

that is true about doctors. but this is anything but apples and oranges. perhaps it is a fuji vs a granny smith. but damn sure ain't apples and oranges.

i think it is worse. doctors are bound by laws, oaths and ethics. but we all know they are getting paid for their services, knowledge and the risks they take in practicing their profession. there is an element of trust that they will operate inside the lines and do their best.

with a mission president, parents are trusting that this dude will care for their kids. they are trusting that he will act with decency and integrity. these are young adults and they are going to act like young adults, but their parents at home have an expectation that this mission president will act like an adult and keep their kids as well as he can. the parents have to trust the guy because there is not a backstop of laws and oaths or the risk of being sued. parents have to trust him to just behave decently. having this blog online, with all this BS on it, is a complete and total breach. changing the name of the kid that was put on medications and then transferred to the mission home in april is NOT responsible behavior. regardless of what laws are in place, he is acting carelessly by having this blog online.

there is nothing on her blog that suggested at all that she was concerned for why these kids were experiencing medical emergencies (calling the paramedics in the night), experimenting with medication while on their mission (with only the living supervision of another 18 year old), going to LDS social services for counselling, running away, and contemplating suicide. rather, she was only pointing out how hard blake was working to give them all blessings, and how she was comforted to know that the same things were happening in other missions and to other mission presidents. it is not just her and blake that have to manage these mental illnesses.

[_MrSimpleton]

Apples and oranges.

Dr's have oaths, LAWS, and professional license ethics which mandate privacy. I am unaware that Mission President is bound by similar? If you can show, via MP handbook or other Church rule, then you have an great comparison. Simply stated what is going on, without names, isn't in my opinion a breach of any kind.

that is true about doctors. but this is anything but apples and oranges. perhaps it is a fuji vs a granny smith. but damn sure ain't apples and oranges.

i think it is worse. doctors are bound by laws, oaths and ethics. but we all know they are getting paid for their services, knowledge and the risks they take in practicing their profession. there is an element of trust that they will operate inside the lines and do their best.

with a mission president, parents are trusting that this dude will care for their kids. they are trusting that he will act with decency and integrity. these are young adults and they are going to act like young adults, but their parents at home have an expectation that this mission president will act like an adult and keep their kids as well as he can. the parents have to trust the guy because there is not a backstop of laws and oaths or the risk of being sued. parents have to trust him to just behave decently. having this blog online, with all this BS on it, is a complete and total breach. changing the name of the kid that was put on medications and then transferred to the mission home in april is NOT responsible behavior. regardless of what laws are in place, he is acting carelessly by having this blog online.

there is nothing on her blog that suggested at all that she was concerned for why these kids were experiencing medical emergencies (calling the paramedics in the night), experimenting with medication while on their mission (with only the living supervision of another 18 year old), going to LDS social services for counselling, running away, and contemplating suicide. rather, she was only pointing out how hard blake was working to give them all blessings, and how she was comforted to know that the same things were happening in other missions and to other mission presidents. it is not just her and blake that have to manage these mental illnesses.

Your emotional appeal = apples
Duty bound by laws, oaths and professional license ethics = oranges.