Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Church Employee Claims He Was Assigned to Spy on Online Church Critics


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, rongo said:

What just kills me about the howling from ex-Mormon critics about this is the hypocrisy. Those who delight in surreptitious recording of interviews, disciplinary councils, temple, etc. tend to ditch their "all is fair in hate and war" justification when . . . a Mormon poses as an exxie to gain trust and acceptance and then turns the tables and goes all exposè? 

Tone deaf to irony. And, it's not bad for them to have to have the same thing in the back of their minds that a priesthood leader does when talking with someone who might be recording him. This is even worse for them, because they crave "likes," "friend requests," exposure, and prominence. The price of going for high numbers is that there might be some Trojan horses or moles. 

Do you, personally, find the behaviours outlined in the OP acceptable for the Church to request of its employees?

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

On the flip side, it's ironic that a church employee engaged in some of the same behaviors people criticize Mike Norton for doing. Is it hypocritical to note that neither side's hands are totally clean?

I don’t think it’s ironic, more that it is disappointing. Shouldn’t the Church and its representatives behave better than this? Isn’t the behaviour outlined in the OP contrary to the spirit of the 13th Article Of Faith?

Edited by Marginal Gains
Link to comment
Just now, Marginal Gains said:

I don’t think it’s ironic, more that it is disappointing. Shouldn’t the Church and its representatioves behave better than this? Isn’t the behaviour outlined in the OP contrary to the spirit of the 13th Article Of Faith?

I suppose disappointing is in the eye of the beholder. I don't expect the church or its representatives to behave better than the average organization. Articles of Faith or not, it's still made of humans, and humans are prone to less-than-laudable behavior.

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Do you, personally, find the behaviours outlined in the OP acceptable for the Church to request of its employees?

Do you find the claims of an anonymous person credible?  Anybody can say anything.   I have been on record many times saying that anonymous posters are not to be believed, whether they are pro-church or anti-church.  I certainly do not have a problem with anonymous posts; let freedom of speech reign.  On the other hand, if I knew that a friend of mine was spending his hours as an anonymous poster on this website -- either anti- or pro- -- I would consider the person lacking in moral courage and conviction.

I read above Bob Smith's comments that anonymity may be desirable to protect one's self from the backlash of statements made on this board.  I certainly have been made the subject of such backlash because people know who I am and complaints have been made to my former employer (well, I was my own employer) and stake president.  But I don't think that fear and concern makes one a credible poster.   The post that is the subject of the opening post is laughable and not credible.  I post in my own name to attempt to be more credible; people who know me know that I am the director (well, the outside non-academic director) of the Claremont Mormon Studies Program.  I'm not afraid.  Moreover, while I have substantial issue with Bill Reel's website and podcasts, as well as John Dehlin's, at least they have moral courage.  I would be pleased to sit down with them for a cup of hot chocolate; if I were to sit down with Happy Jack Wagon (to pick somebody) for the same, I'd be laughing up my sleeve. 

Having said that, the D&C contains an explicit mandate to the Church to keep a record of its critics' statements.   It stems from the Missouri persecutions.   But the mandate has never been revoked.   I'm sure the Church would rather not have to engage in such collection of data.

Arrington, in his biography, writes about this library in the pre-internet era.   A huge treasure trove of critical statements about the church, on musty shelves that few ever visited, and largely unorganized.  

Thus, I would expect, that this sort of activity has to continue into the internet age.

Edited by Bob Crockett
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

On the flip side, it's ironic that a church employee engaged in some of the same behaviors people criticize Mike Norton for doing. Is it hypocritical to note that neither side's hands are totally clean?

Mike Norton trespasses on church property which is, you know, actually illegal.

The guy referenced in the OP (assuming he's telling the truth) violated Facebook's TOS which, I'm guessing, puts him in company with virtually every other member of Facebook at one point or another.

I don't have a problem with an organization using every legal means at their disposal to try and safeguard themselves from those who actively seek to undermine them.

Link to comment
Just now, Amulek said:

Mike Norton trespasses on church property which is, you know, actually illegal.

The guy referenced in the OP (assuming he's telling the truth) violated Facebook's TOS which, I'm guessing, puts him in company with virtually every other member of Facebook at one point or another.

I don't have a problem with an organization using every legal means at their disposal to try and safeguard themselves from those who actively seek to undermine them.

I didn't say they were equivalent at all. 

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Do you, personally, find the behaviours outlined in the OP acceptable for the Church to request of its employees?

I must have missed where the Church requested this of its employees. Wasn't this someone who went rogue, on his own?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

I’m not sure why you are asking me to clarify what Scott means when he says “we are still at war”, but for clarity I was working on the assumption that he wasn’t meaning the weaponised kind you seem to be suggesting. *In terms of your suggestion that the War In Heaven was mythical, rather than one that actually happened, I’d be interested in exploring that suggestion, but perhaps on a different thread.

I don’t automatically accept the claims in the OP, I was responding to Scotts suggestion that the actions claimed in the OP were justified because “we are still at war”.

Drive-by shootings? Where, in any way, have I or any one else referenced drive-by shootings?

Mormons are generally quite gracious and well-behaved. Where have I suggested otherwise?

You are quite correct to state that instances can be cited where anti-Mormons have not evinced gracious and honest behaviour, including the examples you give. The question is whether it is acceptable for the Church to request/encourage/allow its employees to behave in a manner outlined in the OP. The wording of Scott’s post suggests to me he thinks it is. Do you?

I’m absolutely sure this board has had trolls and sock puppets in search of anything but honest dialogue. But the OP isn’t talking about board trolls or sock puppets. Nor am I. It’s talking about a Church employee utilising a sock puppet as part of their Church employment to seek out personal information on Church critics to be fed back to their employer so it can be used IRL against an individual. I’m sure you see the difference.

So you buy all the claims made by the anti-Mormon cited in the OP?  You say you don't, and then turn right around and accept them.  And you assume that Scott actually meant that skulduggery is justified for the LDS side because we are in a metaphorical war?  That  interpretation requires an excess of naivete in my opinion, and I find nothing like that intended by Scott.   Let's see the hard evidence before we conclude that the Brethren are that stupid and unethical.  On the other hand, we on this board, readily accept the pseudonyms of many participants without complaint.  Perhaps under the OP-anti-Mormon's classification those pseudonyms constitute lying and deceit.  Your statements here lack clarity and balance.  We might be able to make progress and have a reasonable debate, if and only if we are willing to take a much harder look at these absurd claims.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, rongo said:

I must have missed where the Church requested this of its employees. Wasn't this someone who went rogue, on his own?

No, The church employee in question was instructed to get personal information of an anonymous poster only known at the time as "New Name Noah" whom the church had learned through means not fully explained, to have a video of Mitt Romney in the Temple.  It was feared that is clandestinely made video would hurt the Romney campaign in some kind of last minute release just before voting began.  The church instructed the employee to find out who this person was, I'm guessing so that they could take legal action.

Link to comment

I don't have a problem with the church gathering public information about people as long as the only action taken in the end against the person or persons is excommunication or some other internal discipline. The church certainly has the right to grant or take away membership and the member doesn't have to belong or take part either. This information was gathered from a public forum so as many others have said, that is a big distinction that keeps the actions within proper bounds. Certainly members who post their grievances publically and publically respond to anonymous posters should realize that the church is watching and could take action against them for what was said publically.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I sure don't have any problem with anyone reading what is written on a public forum. It would be silly to be upset by that.

However, it seems just as silly to suggest that gaining access to private groups using false identities & using social engineering techniques of using false ID's to build fake relationships with others so that you can gain access to your target, is not spying. Obviously these tactics are not illegal, but something doesn't have to be illegal to be distasteful.

I know personally of one very specific example on a closed group geared towards people experiencing faith transitions, where an individual gained access to the group using a false identity which was in violation of both group and FB rules. This individual then used access to that group to befriend others in the group. He monitored what was said in the group & took screen shots. He then used personal profiles to determine where people lived so he could determine which ward they belonged to. He then sent information (including screenshots of comments) to ecclesiastical leaders in an effort to try to instigate disciplinary actions.

Now, I don't know if he was an employee of the church. In fact, I'm fairly certain this person was doing it on his own. Was his behavior proper? Or was his spying a breach of trust and were his actions distasteful and unethical? To me, it doesn't make a difference if the church had put him up to it. I view it as a scumbag move whether the church was involved or not. I find it unfortunate that some would choose to defend behavior from the church that they would otherwise reject.

Such zealotry is completely inappropriate, and the  person engaged in that behavior should be brought before his High Council on a charge of unchristianlike behavior.  Such self-appointed Gestapo agents can be very harmful to an organization which depends upon the integrity of individuals in finding their own way through this vale of tears -- without the Orwellian nonsense you describe.

However, I don't really believe that the Brethren would be so idiotic as to  assign and pay someone to do spying and infiltrating -- even if Porter Rockwell used to go beyond such nicely drawn limits, and even if Ernie Wilkinson did have spies operating at BYU.  That sort of thing is normal for Scientology, which hires legions of private detectives and lawyers to investigate and sue their ex-members, and assigns other people to harass them unmercifully.  Last time I checked, LDS have not been known for that sort of nonsense.  The shoe is actually on the other foot:  It is the ex-Mormons who do the harassing.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Such zealotry is completely inappropriate, and the  person engaged in that behavior should be brought before his High Council on a charge of unchristianlike behavior.  Such self-appointed Gestapo agents can be very harmful to an organization which depends upon the integrity of individuals in finding their own way through this vale of tears -- without the Orwellian nonsense you describe.

However, I don't really believe that the Brethren would be so idiotic as to  assign and pay someone to do spying and infiltrating -- even if Porter Rockwell used to go beyond such nicely drawn limits, and even if Ernie Wilkinson did have spies operating at BYU.  That sort of thing is normal for Scientology, which hires legions of private detectives and lawyers to investigate and sue their ex-members, and assigns other people to harass them unmercifully.  Last time I checked, LDS have not been known for that sort of nonsense.  The shoe is actually on the other foot:  It is the ex-Mormons who do the harassing.

Doesn't the church still operate the strengthening the church members committee? Also, what is wrong with an organization gathering information against those it sees as troublemakers? Would you have a problem with a bishop asking one youth questions about another youth who is suspected of breaking commandments? What about a bishop asking an independent witness about a supposed adulterous affair that allegedly is going on in the bishop's ward? What if the bishop looked online at the targets' facebook posts?

Edited by Pete Ahlstrom
Link to comment
33 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So you buy all the claims made by the anti-Mormon cited in the OP?  You say you don't, and then turn right around and accept them.  And you assume that Scott actually meant that skulduggery is justified for the LDS side because we are in a metaphorical war?  That  interpretation requires an excess of naivete in my opinion, and I find nothing like that intended by Scott.   Let's see the hard evidence before we conclude that the Brethren are that stupid and unethical.  On the other hand, we on this board, readily accept the pseudonyms of many participants without complaint.  Perhaps under the OP-anti-Mormon's classification those pseudonyms constitute lying and deceit.  Your statements here lack clarity and balance.  We might be able to make progress and have a reasonable debate, if and only if we are willing to take a much harder look at these absurd claims.

My questions to Scott were to clarify if that’s what he meant or not. 

If there’s hard evidence that it actually happened as explained in the OP you would conclude that the Brethren are stupid and unethical?

Please can you give an example of a statement I’ve made (as opposed to a question I’ve asked) lack clarity and balance?

 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

How would one verify it? I'm not sure it matters, either way.

The purported actions of the church employee seem to matter to some who are defending the church.

If the story is made up and the church did not allow (encourage?) the employee to do as claimed, then there is no need to defend the church against this kind of activity.

Frankly it reminds me a bit of the Russian meddling affair, where they purposefully riled up certain factions against other factions.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Button Gwinnett said:

I own a company.  I have employees.  If I discover that one of my employee is operating outside of their defined boundaries I manage their conduct, take remedial action or dismiss them.  Once the church became aware of his activities there are no longer excuses, its on them.  If they then do nothing they are condoning his actions and are responsible for his activities..

Calm called this guy "Despicable" and she knows only half of this guy's story. I own a company too, one day two of my trusted nurses (I'm not the doctor) run a gig on me with self made story, I totally fell for it...I could not believe they would think it would be funny to mislead someone with straight face. Later I let them know and they felt awful a little. The reason I told this story was this "New Name Noah" guy had the videos of going to Lion House, Temple Square and represent himself as investigator and try to trap missionaries with insensitive Q's with other guests present, I felt bad for missionary girls and never listened his podcasts again. Whatever he does with dishonest means, which is not acceptable. I guess I can give him an appropriate title of an accomplished sociopath.

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

The purported actions of the church employee seem to matter to some who are defending the church.

If the story is made up and the church did not allow (encourage?) the employee to do as claimed, then there is no need to defend the church against this kind of activity.

Frankly it reminds me a bit of the Russian meddling affair, where they purposefully riled up certain factions against other factions.

IMO, the reason it doesn't matter is that, whatever the truth of the story, it seems people make up their minds how to interpret it. I don't see any reason to believe this guy is making the story up from whole cloth, but the basic story is going to be spun either way by both sides. 

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I am curious, and maybe I missed it, but has anyone verified if this story is true?

Whilst not a verification of the facts, ‘Mary Snap’ has outed herself as social media expert Jesse Stay.

Jesse Stay worked for three years as leader of the LDS Church’s social media initiatives. He was the first LDS Church employee with the name “social media” in his title.  His work primarily involved formulating the early Facebook and Twitter strategies for the church (including for LDS general authorities).  Jesse also provided social media support to various LDS Church departments including the missionary department, public relations, genealogy, the Joseph Smith Papers project, and the “I’m a Mormon” PR campaign.

http://www.mormonstories.org/jesse-stay/

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Calm said:

You didn't read very closely.  I said if they were supportive of Norton (his false ids), it would be hypocritical to condemn someone else for using false ids.

"Hypocritical as you know would suggest the person is concerned about something he/ she does."

I have no clue what you saying here...unless I misspelled something, got a migraine going, so that may be it.  Will check.

Nope, I spelled it correctly:

"Hyp·o·crit·i·cal

ˌhipəˈkridək(ə)l/
adjective
  1. behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.
    "we don't go to church and we thought it would be hypocritical to have him christened""

I guess I'm just wondering where this caustic reply was coming from.  I didn't see anyone supporting this guy's tactics while also showing opposition to the Church's efforts, through this person.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Doesn't the church still operate the strengthening the church members committee? Also, what is wrong with an organization gathering information against those it sees as troublemakers? Would you have a problem with a bishop asking one youth questions about another youth who is suspected of breaking commandments? What about a bishop asking an independent witness about a supposed adulterous affair that allegedly is going on in the bishop's ward? What if the bishop looked online at the targets' facebook posts?

All legitimate questions and concerns, but such considerations do not require undercover operations such as conducted by police, private eyes, and spies.  In fact, bishops do like to be informed of suspected criminal activity.  A bishop should know, for example, when a registered sex offender is living within his ward boundaries, or that someone addicted to drugs has been going through members' medicine cabinets when over for otherwise innocent social activities.  Both occurred in my previous ward, and the bishop took appropriate action.  "Be as wise as serpents, and as gentle as doves."  We don't need to be intrusive busybodies to deal with such concerns.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Button Gwinnett said:

No, The church employee in question was instructed to get personal information of an anonymous poster only known at the time as "New Name Noah" whom the church had learned through means not fully explained, to have a video of Mitt Romney in the Temple.  It was feared that is clandestinely made video would hurt the Romney campaign in some kind of last minute release just before voting began.  The church instructed the employee to find out who this person was, I'm guessing so that they could take legal action.

And you know this for certain!?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

My questions to Scott were to clarify if that’s what he meant or not. 

If there’s hard evidence that it actually happened as explained in the OP you would conclude that the Brethren are stupid and unethical?

Please can you give an example of a statement I’ve made (as opposed to a question I’ve asked) lack clarity and balance?

I thought that I did a pretty good job of bolding (highlighting) the items where you went rogue -- quoting your own words to you.  Sorry if I misinterpreted or misunderstood you, but it should be quite simple to clarify what you actually mean.  Thus far, I am not at all sure.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

All legitimate questions and concerns, but such considerations do not require undercover operations such as conducted by police, private eyes, and spies.  In fact, bishops do like to be informed of suspected criminal activity.  A bishop should know, for example, when a registered sex offender is living within his ward boundaries, or that someone addicted to drugs has been going through members' medicine cabinets when over for otherwise innocent social activities.  Both occurred in my previous ward, and the bishop took appropriate action.  "Be as wise as serpents, and as gentle as doves."  We don't need to be intrusive busybodies to deal with such concerns.

I guess I don't see the distinction between what a bishop would legitimately do and the church hiring someone to gather public information about what the disaffected are doing.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Having said that, the D&C contains an explicit mandate to the Church to keep a record of its critics' statements.   It stems from the Missouri persecutions.   But the mandate has never been revoked.   I'm sure the Church would rather not have to engage in such collection of data.

Arrington, in his biography, writes about this library in the pre-internet era.   A huge treasure trove of critical statements about the church, on musty shelves that few ever visited, and largely unorganized.  

Thus, I would expect, that this sort of activity has to continue into the internet age.

This record you mention is still maintained.

"As the Director of the Church History Library, where we hold the Church’s official archival, manuscript, and print collections, ...we also happen to have the world’s largest anti-Mormon collection and that’s because of [Doctrine and Covenants] section 123 – an instruction that counseled the early Saints to gather up libelous publications, magazines, encyclopedias, histories.[1] That’s a practice that we’ve continued through the twenty-first century. "

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2017/witnessing-book-mormon-testimonies-three-eight-millions

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...