Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

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


Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I once had a brief email discussion with a critic who told me that it was absolutely right and fair for the Tanners to have "sources" in the Church Office Building who tell them what the Church is doing. He then expressed outrage that the Church used "spies" to tell them what the Tanners were up to.

So a Church employee who sneaks around betraying his employer to a pair of career troublemakers is a "source." Someone who looks into the activities of those troublemakers and reports on them is a "spy."

It seems that a similar double standard in favour of the execrable Mr Norton may be in view here.

People often stopped by and talked to the Tanners or wrote them letters, and the Tanners used that info, but the Tanners never mounted any spy operations.  Once when a friend of the Tanners came by with a microfilm which he had stolen from the Church Archives, Jerald Tanner immediately took that microfilm over to the Archives and placed it on the desk of the manager -- without a word -- and walked out.  Ever after the false tale was told that Jerald was a thief, which he was not.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The problem is that failing to be explicit in telling him to stop can easily be interpreted in different ways. Saying they don't condone it while not asking him to stop could easily be seen as a CYA move. A kind of see no evil approach. "Just get me results but don't tell me how you do it" kind of mentality. This exists in many industries. It allows the institution plausible deniability should the tactics become known but also benefits the organization with ill-gotten gains. Sadly, this isn't an uncommon approach in leadership.

Yes, it can be seen that way.  And it reads like Stay assumed that was what they were doing.

Otoh, as an employee of a Christian church that teaches "thou shalt not lie", even if on the business side of things, it seems to me the default assumption would be employees are not to and will not lie, especially since many other commandments were openly enforced (WoW and Chastity from what I hear).

Link to comment
4 hours ago, sheilauk said:

On behalf of the UK, I apologise for the appalling incompetence of its government and warn you that it is likely to be several months yet, if at all and, should you get here,  it won't get any better! 

Well aren't you a ray of sunshine, LOL! :D

I should mention that it has already been six months -- the application was received by them in April. One of my wife's coworkers, a surgeon from Malta, suggested that the delay might have been exacerbated by the effects of Brexit. One of those effects has probably been long-term UK-resident EU citizens who are applying for settlement status in advance of the UK's departure from the EU.

Patience is the order of the day.

Link to comment
22 hours ago, Duncan said:

details please!!!!! I have to set up 1000 chairs tonite for stake conference, I need something to look forward to!!!!!

I reported this bozo to church security after he made a clear threat.  About a week later I read that the FBI arrested him at a truck stop. (wow!)

  This was a few years back when the FBI shifted their focus to terrorism, so they had a big incentive to track down a "terrorist threat", so to speak.

Edited by cdowis
Link to comment
3 hours ago, cdowis said:

I reported this bozo to church security after he made a clear threat.  About a week later I read that the FBI arrested him at a truck stop. (wow!)

  This was a few years back when the FBI shifted their focus to terrorism, so they had a big incentive to track down a "terrorist threat", so to speak.

Was said bozo posting anonymously? How were they able to identify him?

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

People often stopped by and talked to the Tanners or wrote them letters, and the Tanners used that info, but the Tanners never mounted any spy operations.  Once when a friend of the Tanners came by with a microfilm which he had stolen from the Church Archives, Jerald Tanner immediately took that microfilm over to the Archives and placed it on the desk of the manager -- without a word -- and walked out.  Ever after the false tale was told that Jerald was a thief, which he was not.

It's nice to know that the Tanners returned stolen physical property. It's a pity they didn't have a better grasp of the ownership of intellectual property.

ETA: Incidentally, I'm not aware that the Church ever "mounted any spy operations" against the Tanners, either.

Edited by kiwi57
Link to comment
3 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

It's nice to know that the Tanners returned stolen physical property. It's a pity they didn't have a better grasp of the ownership of intellectual property.

ETA: Incidentally, I'm not aware that the Church ever "mounted any spy operations" against the Tanners, either.

The Tanners lived life in the open, and talked about everything in their newsletters and publications.  A spy operation against them would have been silly and unproductive.  I even went to their church (Missionary & Alliance Church) with them one Sunday, and they were very gracious to me.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

It's nice to know that the Tanners returned stolen physical property. It's a pity they didn't have a better grasp of the ownership of intellectual property............................................

I think both of them figured that, since they were descendants of Mormon pioneers, they had an inherent right to the early documents and that the Mormon people generally had a right to those documents as well.  I agree with that assumption.  The upshot is that the Tanners helped strengthen the Mormon Church by reprinting those old, dynamic documents.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I think both of them figured that, since they were descendants of Mormon pioneers, they had an inherent right to the early documents and that the Mormon people generally had a right to those documents as well.  I agree with that assumption.  The upshot is that the Tanners helped strengthen the Mormon Church by reprinting those old, dynamic documents.

I think kiwi57 may have had reference to the Tanners’  Internet posting of content from the Church Handbook in violation of copyright, which, in very deed was theft of intellectual property. 

This is my assumption. kiwi can clarify as he deems necessary. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, DonBradley said:

An ex-Mormon who has deceitfully sneaked through the temple scores of times making videos was trying to destroy a presidential candidate simply for being Mormon by doctoring temple footage to make it appear that Mitt Romney worshipped Satan and you think that the Mormons should be ashamed of this episode?

You say that like it's a bad thing....

Link to comment
17 hours ago, DonBradley said:

An ex-Mormon who has deceitfully sneaked through the temple scores of times making videos was trying to destroy a presidential candidate simply for being Mormon by doctoring temple footage to make it appear that Mitt Romney worshipped Satan and you think that the Mormons should be ashamed of this episode?

No Don, that was not at all what I was suggesting. I have no sympathy for NNN.  But does the need to protect the church justify any means to achieve it?  I believe we lose moral authority when we sink to the same level as those who wish to destroy the church.  Do you disagree?

Edited by Button Gwinnett
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

No Don, that was not at all what I was suggesting. I have no sympathy for NNN.  But do need to protect the church justify any means to achieve it?  I believe we lose moral authority when we sink to the same level as those who wish to destroy the church.  Do you disagree?

Are you still confidant that Stay is accurate in his portrayal of the Church leadership behaviour in regard to his lying?  This is someone who not only is comfortable with lying, but has bragged about it.  He also exaggerated his role at least once with the claim he made the connection for the Church between Norton and NNN rather than being cautious that it may just have been his own unawareness (I have admitted hearsay evidence that leaves me very, very confident the Church knew ahead of time as a friend had discussions about this very thing earlier than the time frame given by Stay...I am not suggesting anyone else accept it, just explaining why I am certain.)

He states they said they did not condone lying.  I am quite comfortable with including the next part of his claim---that they knew he continued to lie and said nothing---as a misunderstanding or intentional exaggeration given there is evidence of either in his description already.

It seems strange to me to condemn the Church for lying on the evidence of someone who describes himself as a liar.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

Are you still confidant that Stay is accurate in his portrayal of the Church leadership behaviour in regard to his lying?  This is someone who not only is comfortable with lying, but has bragged about it.  He also exaggerated his role at least once with the claim he made the connection for the Church between Norton and NNN rather than being cautious that it may just have been his own unawareness (I have admitted hearsay evidence that leaves me very, very confident the Church knew ahead of time as a friend had discussions about this very thing earlier than the time frame given by Stay...I am not suggesting anyone else accept it, just explaining why I am certain.)

He states they said they did not condone lying.  I am quite comfortable with including the next part of his claim---that they knew he continued to lie and said nothing---as a misunderstanding or intentional exaggeration given there is evidence of either in his description already.

It seems strange to me to condemn the Church for lying on the evidence of someone who describes himself as a liar.

Confident? Yes. Know as fact? No.  So I've done a little sleuthing of my own and have discovered that Bro. Stay is taking an online killing among his new exmo peer group on FB who are upset that he used deceit and lies while an employee of the church to gain the trust of the exmormon community to achieve his goal of discovering who NNN was. Despite this he's sticking with his story, so this for me adds credibility to his story. If it was all a ruse, I think he would say so with his new friends.  

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

Confident? Yes. Know as fact? No.  So I've done a little sleuthing of my own and have discovered that Bro. Stay is taking an online killing among his new exmo peer group on FB who are upset that he used deceit and lies while an employee of the church to gain the trust of the exmormon community to achieve his goal of discovering who NNN was. Despite this he's sticking with his story, so this for me adds credibility to his story. If it was all a ruse, I think he would say so with his new friends.  

Once he shared the story, why in the world would he then retreat in the online community if it is the hits for lying that is bothering him.  If he retracts, then he just gets accused of lying again.  Who's going to pat him on the head for taking a less confidant in his perception stance?  This is not a case where he is intending to switch his community to one that would be happier with him if he admitted to lying about lying or even just that he should not have been so certain of the leaders' position.

He used deceit no matter what in his story. Of course he is going to get slammed for that.  The only thing he would be doing if he retracted the bit about the Church being okay with it is to make the Church look better and himself worse.  What has he to gain?

The only question is if his supervisors were okay with him continuing to do so or if by them telling him they did not condone lying, they understood him to have stopped doing so.

It is quite possible he is not lying, but merely projecting his own comfort with lying onto his supervisors.  It certainly would help him feel better about what he was doing if he told himself they were okay with it.  His commentary about his Snap persona appears to me to be quite gleeful, he either enjoyed what he was doing or enjoys looking back at it with that view.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
24 minutes ago, Calm said:

Once he shared the story, why in the world would he then retreat in the online community if it is the hits for lying that is bothering him.  If he retracts, then he just gets accused of lying again.  Who's going to pat him on the head for taking a less confidant in his perception stance?  This is not a case where he is intending to switch his community to one that would be happier with him if he admitted to lying about lying or even just that he should not have been so certain of the leaders' position.

He used deceit no matter what in his story. Of course he is going to get slammed for that.  The only thing he would be doing if he retracted the bit about the Church being okay with it is to make the Church look better and himself worse.  What has he to gain?

The only question is if his supervisors were okay with him continuing to do so or if by them telling him they did not condone lying, they understood him to have stopped doing so.

It is quite possible he is not lying, but merely projecting his own comfort with lying onto his supervisors.  It certainly would help him feel better about what he was doing if he told himself they were okay with it.  His commentary about his Snap persona appears to me to be quite gleeful, he either enjoyed what he was doing or enjoys looking back at it with that view.

You'd have to ask him why. All I know is that he seems to have upset folks on both sides.  Since the church will never admit to any of this, all we have to go on is his word. If you don't find him credible then don't believe him.  

As for me, He seems credible but then I also take it all with a grain of salt. Yeah just never know with these stories.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Button Gwinnett said:

No Don, that was not at all what I was suggesting. I have no sympathy for NNN.  But does the need to protect the church justify any means to achieve it?  I believe we lose moral authority when we sink to the same level as those who wish to destroy the church.  Do you disagree?

It's a very good thing that we didn't sink to anywhere near the same level as the execrable Mr Norton, then.

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

It's a very good thing that we didn't sink to anywhere near the same level as the execrable Mr Norton, then.

I make no excuses for what Mr. Norton has done.  But does anything he's done justify using methods some would equate as similar i.e. Lies, false identities & manipulation of people to get information on his identity?  

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Button Gwinnett said:

I make no excuses for what Mr. Norton has done.  But does anything he's done justify using methods some would equate as similar i.e. Lies, false identities & manipulation of people to get information on his identity?  

I think motives matter. For example, it is routine (and perfectly legal) for law enforcement officers to use any deception they like to try and obtain a confession from a suspect. They aren’t generally trying to do this for nefarious purposes – they are simply trying to catch criminals and close cases. It seems to me that one could engage in this kind of behavior at work and still be a faithful Latter-day Saint. 

Mr. Norton’s motivation for using lies, false identities, etc. was to help him perpetuate crimes (e.g. trespass). The church’s security team on the other hand (again, assuming the report is accurate) used the information they gathered to do what, exactly? Send people to trespass at Norton’s home or engage in any other sort of illegal activity? No, as near as I can tell, they simply used the information to help expedite take-down notifications and prepare themselves to respond publicly to his efforts to attack the church and embarrass its members. 

Would it be nice if the church could accomplish those goals without anyone ‘misrepresenting’ themselves online? Sure. I think that would be ideal; and it sounds like that is what they generally try to do. But at the end of the day, I have to admit that, yeah, I’m okay with an organization using any legal means to try and protect themselves from those who are actively trying to undermine the organization. 
 

Link to comment
20 hours ago, Button Gwinnett said:

Confident? Yes. Know as fact? No.  So I've done a little sleuthing of my own and have discovered that Bro. Stay is taking an online killing among his new exmo peer group on FB who are upset that he used deceit and lies while an employee of the church to gain the trust of the exmormon community to achieve his goal of discovering who NNN was. Despite this he's sticking with his story, so this for me adds credibility to his story. If it was all a ruse, I think he would say so with his new friends.  

Kind of confused by this. What places don't allow pseudonyms?  While I'll confess I don't like sites with pseudonyms and don't use them myself, they do seem to be ubiquitous. What site was this person going to where they were being deceptive given the norms of the forums? There's a lot fishy here.

Given these norms of all these forums, exactly what was misrepresented? From what I can tell merely that they didn't shout "I work for the Church." It's not clear to me how that is misrepresentation. I assume they did something to try and glean information by posting, but it'd be helpful if someone could point to what's supposedly so problematic morally.

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
42 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Kind of confused by this. What places don't allow pseudonyms?  While I'll confess I don't like sites with pseudonyms and don't use them myself, they do seem to be ubiquitous. What site was this person going to where they were being deceptive given the norms of the forums? There's a lot fishy here.

Given these norms of all these forums, exactly what was misrepresented? From what I can tell merely that they didn't shout "I work for the Church." It's not clear to me how that is misrepresentation. I assume they did something to try and glean information by posting, but it'd be helpful if someone could point to what's supposedly so problematic morally.

The church employee created an online false identity in order to garner the favor with former members of the church in order to gain personal information on NNN.  I suggest you read the link I provided in my OP.  I don't believe anyone has suggested that the church employee did anything illegal, however they did use dishonesty, lies and deceit to accomplish his goals, none of which are very Christ like.  But maybe this is what's its come to.  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Button Gwinnett said:

I suggest you read the link I provided in my OP.  I don't believe anyone has suggested that the church employee did anything illegal, however they did use dishonesty, lies and deceit to accomplish his goals, none of which are very Christ like.  But maybe this is what's its come to.  

Read that and it did provide the extra info. I guess I should have read that initially.

Seems like the main issue was a private Facebook groups rather than the public stuff and finding out when this guy was planning on releasing the Romney stuff.

I confess in this case I don't have a problem with the actions, although I can understand why some do. Particularly when actions like this are done. Were it done for different reasons - say just general keeping tabs on people - then I'd have pretty different views. Really this is no different from hiring a private detective to do something similar. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Button Gwinnett said:

I don't believe anyone has suggested that the church employee did anything illegal, however they did use dishonesty, lies and deceit to accomplish his goals, none of which are very Christ like.

So, Christlike people can't work in law enforcement? Or be undercover agents? Or work in any sort of counterintelligence capacity?

Or do things like motives, intent, methods employed, etc. all need to be weighed and considered when determining whether or not something is morally permissible? 

I can understand those who take the principled position that these things ought to be avoided always. I guess I'm just not fully committed to the "always" part of that position just yet - though I freely admit it is something I could be mistaken about. 

Link to comment

Button, if the guy had been a woman and had posted actual criticisms of the Church without revealing they were still committed to the Church (omissions rather than outright lying), would you still have a problem with his investigation?

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

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