Posted by:
snowowl
(
)
Date: October 30, 2011 05:23PM
I missed the original post on this story which is now closed, so please excuse me for posting here. I am so astonished that the Mormon church would produce the video and then laud such actions represented in it by a GA giving a talk in General Conference.
I worked for a major national retailer for thrity-five years, thirty of those years in management. It is amazing the things that customers leave in a retail store, especially wallets and purses.
Sales personnel were instructed that when they found one of these items, they were not to open or search them under any circumstances. They were to take the item to the nearest check-out terminal and use the phone to call and report the item as found. Failure to follow that protocol could result in termination. If the item was a purse or wallet, then security or management would respond to pick it up. Sales personnel were instructed to place the item in a bag, secure it in a safe location if possible or hold it in their possession until security or management arrived.
Whether it was security or management, two people were always dispatched to handle the item. If I was called, then I chose the second person which was usually a security agent, another manager or a floor supervisor. We took the item to the main office and checked for three things:
1. Identification
2. Valuables
3. Weapons
If identification was found, it became my responsibility to make sure the customer was contacted, either by phone (if it could be determined) or letter.
If valuables were found, then they were listed and any money was counted and verified by both of us who were present.
If a gun was found (which I never encountered) that became a security issue and police would have been notified to determine if the weapon was legal.
Everything was then replaced as it was originally and the item was again placed in a bag and sealed. Both of us would sign the seal and then the bag was numbered and listed in a log with sequential numbers. The ID name, and valuables were listed in the log entry and both of us signed the log. The item was then placed in the store vault if there was enough space, or in a secure locked cabinet in the cashroom which was always locked.
The miscellaneous items were of no consequence to use and I do not remember anyone discussing those items in the manner of judging the character of the person who had inadvertently left their personal possessions with us and we were now responsible for its security.
In the video, there are three persons looking at everything in the purse; the third person having no reason to be invoved. If the incident actually happened, were there more than three persons involved? Apparently there were.
The three persons in the video are depicted as smiling sweethearts who are so infatuated with how wonderful they have determined the unknown person to be. In point of fact, in the original incident, they were grinning, nosey harpies who went far beyond their duty to determine an identity, protect the personal information contained in the contents of the purse and then notify the owner. Instead they took on themselves the task of evaluating every item in the purse in detail, discussing those items among themselves and making a judgment of the person who was the owner. Instead of restricting their actions to a determination of ownership, they assumed a right to peruse in detail personal information to which they should not have been privy, which had nothing to do with the identification of the owner.
Next, the YS president (Monica Sedgwick) decides that the information they gleaned and the judgments they made should become the personal knowledge of the nearest GA and the GA (Quentin L. Cook) decides that the same information should be broadcast during general conference for the whole world to hear.
https://lds.org/general-conference/2011/04/lds-women-are-incredible?lang=engWhy didn't it occur to any of those people that they were revealing to the world their lack of personal integrity. Their inability to keep confidential what was not their duty or right to divulge to others speaks volumes as to not only what they actually believe, but who they are deep inside. A person's personal integrity restrains them from acting outside the bounds of what is proper, but that was all lacking in this case, from the lowest to the highest individual. They obviously admitted that they knew the information was personal and private:
“We didn’t want to pry; this was someone’s personal stuff! So we gingerly opened it and grabbed the first thing that was on top—hopefully, it would identify her."
And they knew that they had made a judgment as to her character:
"The sisters immediately wanted to meet this stalwart young woman."
Why did YS president Monica Sedgwick, exercise her responsibility to maintain the confidentiality of the information entrusted to her instead of conveying it to the sisters? Why was she reading and discussing in detail information that she knew had nothing to do with identifying the owner of the purse? Why did she determine that she should pass the information on to a higher level church official who was not even involved in the event and had no need to know what had transpired?
Why did Apostle of the Quorum of the 12, Quentin L. Cook, deem it a positive teaching moment to broadcast to the world the actions of gossips and busybodies cloaked in a facade of deep spiritual conduct.
This may seem like a small issue, but in a church that claims to conduct itself under the mantel of revelation and inspiration, it reveals that the smallest of actions, when carried out improperly can make its way to the top echelon undetected, uncorrected and without any inspiration and even the self-proclaimed apostles don't have a clue how inappropriate are their actions.