Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

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


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Five Solas said:

As a side note, I had a couple of bishops do this sort of thing to me back in the day when I had questions they didn't appreciate and offered a different point of view--they turned the tables and made it about me, about my "worthiness" (meaning my lack thereof).

It has nothing to do with 'worthiness', Erik.

But considering how many times you've stopped by to tell us how terribly worried we should all be about anything and everything that might paint the Church in a bad light when in reality you absolutely delight in whatever has the potential to make the Church look bad or suggest it is faltering in some way, I don't really expect you to understand.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment
On 10/22/2017 at 2:35 PM, 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?

I don't see the actions described as morally equivalent.

Link to comment

It seems like there's an easy way to figure out the ethics. 

1. Will the information being sought prevent people from being significantly hurt?

2. Is there an other way to get the information?

3. Do you only do what is necessary to get the information and no more.

Those questions are what justify police or others using limited deception in order to get information. It applies just as much to an individual as it does a government. Yet oddly it seems like those questions aren't the ones being asked.

Link to comment
On 10/24/2017 at 5:44 PM, Five Solas said:

Wow. 

As a side note, I had a couple of bishops do this sort of thing to me back in the day when I had questions they didn't appreciate and offered a different point of view--they turned the tables and made it about me, about my "worthiness" (meaning my lack thereof).  Had no idea I was going to get to indulge such nostalgia by having a peak at this thread.

;0)

--Erik

PS.  But I think it does you no credit, kiwi57 (nor you, Hamba Tuhan).  You should really consider how this looks to any non-partisan readers out there. 

I see you have elsewhere tried to pretend that I was here making some kind of "insinuation." I was not. I was merely explaining to Button what I thought Hamba's post was saying.

Just so you know.

 

Link to comment
On 10/24/2017 at 11:51 AM, clarkgoble said:

It seems like there's an easy way to figure out the ethics. 

1. Will the information being sought prevent people from being significantly hurt?

2. Is there an other way to get the information?

3. Do you only do what is necessary to get the information and no more.

Those questions are what justify police or others using limited deception in order to get information. It applies just as much to an individual as it does a government. Yet oddly it seems like those questions aren't the ones being asked.

Interesting questions.  Having listened to the MS interview with Norton and Stay (aka Snap), here are my thoughts:

1.  I think the Church leaders and Stay both felt that what they were doing was to prevent people from being significantly hurt.  Norton also believes that what HE was doing was to prevent people from being significantly hurt.

2.  My guess is "no".

3.  My guess is "yes" the Church/Stay only did what was necessary.  My understanding is that the fake profile was to enable Stay/Snap to become a facebook friend of Norton and to allow enough trust for online interaction.

 

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

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