Eliminating Gossip

This entry is in response to an experience and a rebuke. I have been rebuked by the spirit lately for my participation in gossip. However, shortly after the rebuke and my own humble pleadings of repentance, I still found myself, more hesitantly, but assuredly gossiping again within only a couple of weeks. See, I remembered the rebuke the whole time I was making the decision of whether to participate or how much, and I had remembered my resolve to watch my tongue, but still the rational persisted that perhaps this situation was different, and perhaps my comments or contributions were not as harmful as in other situations. But still, I couldn’t help but feel I had spoken inappropriately, and was led to ask for understanding to know what is gossip, what is too much, or what can or should be spoken if anything and in what situations. I needed a solid definition of my standard so as to never cross it again. This is what I have concluded thus far through prayer and thought, but I put them here in part to define it in my own mind so that I can take it back to the Lord for approval or refinement if necessary, so this is not my final word on the subject.

Gossip, the way I understand it, is speaking negative or confidential things about someone to others. The easiest way test for me to know whether an item qualifies as “negative” or “confidential” is to consider the feelings of the person spoken of should they overhear this conversation or receive report of its contents from another. If their feelings are hurt, and the thought of them knowing brings my own mortification, it is clearly “negative” or “confidential.”
Having such a clear test of the negative or confidential, it would be simple for me to refuse to speak anything of that nature again (excluding of course my own pride and carnal nature that makes me find entertainment or self validation by doing so). However, I am not convinced negative or confidential things should never be spoken to anyone. And if sharing these things with someone is “good” I need to decide who it is. But in order to determine who it is that can receive these things in good conscience, it is more important to determine my reasoning, or underlying motive for the communication. And one method of discovering a good motive, is to eliminate the bad. And as mentioned earlier, the bad motive, or the motive that I believe most often commands these conversations, is pride. It is an attempt to exalt oneself by debasing another; to diminish one’s own weaknesses by protruding another’s.

There are of course other minor motives that often accompany this pride such as entertainment, small mindedness for lack of better things to discuss, not wanting to offend another gossiper by abstaining, or more likely seeking to please their sense of pride as well as yours hoping to better endear yourself to them.

Now, the only worthwhile motives that I could possibly see existing for the speaking of negative or confidential things to another, is either a sincere concern for their welfare with the careful consideration of whether sharing such information with chosen individuals will likely benefit them in the long run. Or the sincere desire to learn from their negative actions something that will benefit myself or one to whom I hope to teach the same principle but who does not know or think they know the individual spoken of.

For the first motive, I can see very few receivers of the communication that would qualify. That may include: Heavenly Father in heartfelt prayer, one’s bishop in some situations, one’s relief society president in fewer situations, one’s parents in some cases, and one’s spouse in some cases. However, I think it is best to remember that this communication under this motive is a very rare necessity, and prayerful consideration and discrimination should be taken before endeavoring because this means the things spoken are very likely to get back to the person or affect their lives somehow and you do not want to be esteemed his enemy, especially from an eternal perspective (meaning some may esteem you his enemy at the time he is in sin, but will appreciate the decision in a future, more righteous state of mind).

For the second motive, one needs to determine the importance of the information retaining anonymity or not, and whether the learning will be enhanced by the example or whether the principle alone will suffice. The default of course should be not to share the negative information, and if shared, retaining anonymity. Negative stories about others are shared regularly even over the pulpit of General Conference, but the identity of the individual is not shared except as in the instance of the conversation with McJagger where he confessed he writes his music to encourage teens to have sex, where knowing the individual’s identity may protect youth and parents from his vices and those like him (so of course protecting others is also an acceptable motive in some rare cases as well). And in conference, the story is limited to those details that enhance the teaching of the principle, and not those that may give anyone a chance to discover the identity of the doer.

The only instances where I can see sharing the negative information without anonymity, is within one’s own mind to learn for oneself, possibly with a spouse in some instances and with very careful consideration of the purity of your motives, and perhaps at time with your children if the behavior of the individual is already known to them and the severity of it or the consequences of such need to be expounded to them for their protection or learning.

In all these instances, if the motive is pure, the test of gossip still stands to some degree. Perhaps if the person were to overhear or receive report of the communication, they would be hurt or offended, but you would not be so embarrassed because you deemed it necessary and treated it carefully, and if they were to discover the report from the spirit world and learn of it from a better perspective, they would not be offended nor condemn you for your words but would agree the communications were justified and appropriate.