Coward Member Secretly Filmed A Temple Session In Slc

[MormonMason]

What we really need to do is have a local veterinarian show up at each Stake President's temple recommend interview. Once approved by the Stake Pres, an RFID chip could quickly be inserted into the neck of each member. Using advanced techniques of encryption would make it impossible for Norton or his buddies to invade sacred space.

Now that is an idea. It would then need to be removed on excommunication or being found unworthy of a recommend, of course. I am not sure it would stop disaffected members who remain for a time like Twede, though. But it is an idea. I can see the Evangelicals all over that once they hear of it, too. Then again, they will probably take this discussion as hints of reality and run with it as some of them, like Ed Decker and Bill Schnoebelen, tend to do.

[emeliza]

I do hope you are joking about putting in a RFID chip.

I agree with others, the temple ordinances have been photographed, written up word for word and shown on many different videos that people have smuggled in. It sucks, but at the same time it is up to the church to handle and it doesn't change what the temple means to us.

[USU78]

I'm almost sure it's all for political reasons.

Been thinking about this . . .

I'm quite sure you're right, but probably not for the reasons you think.

I'm thinking the demographic that would do this and the likely reasons therefor might well follow a particular political philosophy as well.

[MormonMason]

I do hope you are joking about putting in a RFID chip.

I agree with others, the temple ordinances have been photographed, written up word for word and shown on many different videos that people have smuggled in. It sucks, but at the same time it is up to the church to handle and it doesn't change what the temple means to us.

He is joking about it. But, I am semi-serious about using EMP generators to destroy recording devices on the way back to the locker room from the ordinance rooms. If members get their equipment destroyed it would be their own fault for taking them into ordinance rooms in the first place.

[Saints Alive]

Not even the ones whom I have seen greeting people entering the ordinance rooms and in the chapel before sessions, after people have already changed?

I didn't think about them, I was thinking about the recommend checkers.

More info about the poster:

He apparently has been banned from antimormon sites! Recovering from Mormonism, and several other sites banned Mike Norton awhile ago because of his "extremist" attitude. Additionally, Salt Lake has issued a restraining order against him before, for trespassing and forging temple recommends. He resigned his membership in 2001. All of the YouTube videos were done with borrowed recommends from apathetic members.

The best way to respond to his behavior is to post a response video on YouTube, exposing who he is and what he is. I am working on one I plan to post soon.

[Calm]

Make sure you have solid documentation and provide links to it for everything you say. Be careful of libel/slander issues.

And be kind and add a disclaimer that you are doing it completely on your own so others who would not be inclined to denounce him like this are not dragged into it....at least through your actions.

Edited October 24, 2012 by calmoriah

[Saints Alive]

That's my only hesitation, how ironic would it be to get sued for libel and defamation from him!

[MormonMason]

That's my only hesitation, how ironic would it be to get sued for libel and defamation from him!

Even if you told the whole truth and nothing but about him (I do not think you would do otherwise) you still could be sued by him. Just make sure that you keep adequate documentation in a safe place in the event that this happens. Someone I know was sued for writing something about a critic of the Church. He won the case against him, of course, but it still did not stop the suit from happening.

[why me]

The attacks began almost before the Church did. The level of attacks waxes and wanes over time, so far little recently comes close to what early members had to endure. We should be grateful when attacks are limited to verbal ones (though we need to still be concerned for multiple reasons including misinformation misleading people about our beliefs and behaviour as well as potential for actual violence if lesser attacks are not challenged).

The church can make the temple ceremony more open for those who are interested in the ceremony and for new members who have not gone to the temple. This would make secret recordings less enticing for those who are interested because there is no longer any secret to record.

The attacks are quite interesting because they seem to come from a darker source. I am not just referring to satan but also to the place where the attackers are in in their personal lives. And perhaps this was also the case in earlier times in Ohio, Missouri etc. I do believe that much of the hostility now on the web stems from insecurities that now exist in various societies and in personal lives. Certainly such attacks do not come from centers of inner peace.

[Calm]

Even if you told the whole truth and nothing but about him (I do not think you would do otherwise) you still could be sued by him. Just make sure that you keep adequate documentation in a safe place in the event that this happens. Someone I know was sued for writing something about a critic of the Church. He won the case against him, of course, but it still did not stop the suit from happening.

Screenshots of anything you reference online for example.

[Calm]

The church can make the temple ceremony more open for those who are interested in the ceremony and for new members who have not gone to the temple. This would make secret recordings less enticing for those who are interested because there is no longer any secret to record.

.

There is still the whole juvenile 'let's see if I can get away with it' attitude and the appeal of playing cloak and dagger and then bragging about it. As long as the ceremony is restricted to supposedly faithful members, less faithful and mature members will look for ways to make themselves feel superior, etc. to the rest of us. It is a human tendency unfortunately. I am surprised it took this long to happen though I suppose it is because those who could afford the tech were generally mature enough not to indulge such a petty urge.

[MormonMason]

Screenshots of anything you reference online for example.

And, hard copies of police incident reports as well as copies of the court filings and outcome of any case against him. You may have to visit the courthouse to get some or all of these depending upon whether or not the relevant court has an electronic records system. Keep copies of everything in at least two places. Some else I know had her home broken into by a perpetrator, her computer broken, and her evidence against the perpetrator she had published against stolen just before a court date. As a result of lack of evidence, she lost her case.

[Saints Alive]

And, hard copies of police incident reports as well as copies of the court filings and outcome of any case against him. You may have to visit the courthouse to get some or all of these depending upon whether or not the relevant court has an electronic records system. Keep copies of everything in at least two places. Some else I know had her home broken into by a perpetrator, her computer broken, and her evidence against the perpetrator she had published against stolen just before a court date. As a result of lack of evidence, she lost her case.

That's probably a little overboard, I'm pretty sure he has to prove that my video response caused tangible harm, i.e. loss of money, work, etc.

[Scott Lloyd]

I didn't think about them, I was thinking about the recommend checkers.

More info about the poster:

He apparently has been banned from antimormon sites! Recovering from Mormonism, and several other sites banned Mike Norton awhile ago because of his "extremist" attitude. Additionally, Salt Lake has issued a restraining order against him before, for trespassing and forging temple recommends. He resigned his membership in 2001. All of the YouTube videos were done with borrowed recommends from apathetic members.

The best way to respond to his behavior is to post a response video on YouTube, exposing who he is and what he is. I am working on one I plan to post soon.

(bold emphasis mine)

The matter of "apathetic members" who would blithely lend out their temple recommends without giving it a second thought is of some concern to me as well. Perhaps the screening process in recommend interviews needs to be tweaked so that such lax and irresponsible attitudes can be identified. I should think, at the very least, it would be grounds for denial of the recommend.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[MormonMason]

That's probably a little overboard, I'm pretty sure he has to prove that my video response caused tangible harm, i.e. loss of money, work, etc.

No. It is not overboard. There is more than just tangible harm that is considered. I watched a case like this from beginning to end. There was no loss of money or work involved. Yet, had the burden of proof not been 51% on the Defendant's side, he most certainly would have lost the case and been liable for slander and related damages in the judge's eyes. Such was so stated during the proceedings.

The costs to the Defendant would have been in the many thousands of dollars had he not had proof that what he wrote had private circulation and that the Plaintiff had actually been the one to publish the damaging material to a wider, more public audience. The Defendant could not obtain the evidence needed to prove his case otherwise, because the evidence needed for an absolute win had been discarded by one individual involved the year previous to the filing of the lawsuit.

But, if you don't want to take my advice, remember that you have been warned. I have no real need to press this issue. I am only offering the safest course for you to pursue should you choose to do this. If you don't want to make the effort to protect yourself, that certainly is your business. But, your likelihood of being sued is quite high with individuals like this. You need to ensure a quick win in such a case. Evidence backing each and every thing that you say is the only way to go if you want to protect yourself from a heavy loss in a court of law. It also will shorten the case so that you will not also have high costs of lawyers to pay should you lose such a case. The longer a case drags on, the more cost to you to defend it. That is reality.

Edited October 24, 2012 by MormonMason

[MormonMason]

(bold emphasis mine)

The matter of "apathetic members" who would blithely lend out their temple recommends without giving it a second thought is of some concern to me as well. Perhaps the screening process in recommend interviews needs to be tweaked so that such lax and irresponsible attitudes can be identified. I should think, at the very least, it would be grounds for denial of the recommend.

This sort of thing has been going on for many years. I agree with you that I wish there were some ways to identify people like this and deny them a recommend on that basis. Unfortunately, some people are really good liars. Others have the support of their friends who are Bishops. I have seen it enough to know it is going on. That is an unfortunate circumstance and I think such a procedure might curtail it somewhat but not in all cases. I can offer one example of several I have witnessed with utter disappointment and dismay.

In one Ward I was once in, a person who by all criteria was unworthy of a recommend was granted one by a Bishop because they were friends and he did not want to cause disharmony in a family. Two weeks before that man went to the temple he had been arrested for solicitation of prostitution (had been with several prostitutes before the arrest), was using hard drugs such as crystal meth and cocaine, and that Bishop knew all this because he himself bailed his friend out of jail each time he was arrested! Court records showed that he pleaded 'guilty' to every offense with which he was charged. These were offered as evidence, along with eyewitnesses to his unworthiness, but that Bishop refused to hold a disciplinary council and never notified the Stake President. That Bishop's counselors were between a rock and a hard place, too. In time, it ended up being the case that the Bishop and First Counselor even began hiding things from the Second Counselor to keep him in the dark concerning some matters because he did not support such misconduct as this. Reports to the Stake President were swept under the carpet because the Stake President and Bishop also were friends.

So, in theory I agree that something like you have suggested could and should be implemented. On the other hand, I think if all Bishops and all Stake Presidents paid more attention to the Spirit of the Lord during interviews, and actually used the gift of discernment given to them for use in their ministry, a lot less of these kinds of people would get recommends in the first place. I have seen some really good Bishops and Stake Presidents who would not let anything pass them like this.

I knew a Stake President who was so close to the Spirit of the Lord that he would send people away without signing the recommends because he would know right away that people weren't worthy. If the person tried to lie to him, he would pause, and then say to the person that he was not being truthful. He would then pause again and ask if there was anything else that the member would like to tell him. If the member did not say anything, he would name the particular sin and the amount of time it had been since the last commission of whatever particular sin it had been that had not been repented of, and would send the member out the door to repent if he would not admit to it and covenant to repent. To my recollection, he was accurate 100% of the time and the members who experienced this knew it. We need more Stake Presidents like this. We need more Bishops like this. They have the right to have and make use of this gift. But, how many actually use it or even have the faith necessary to use this awesome gift?

[USU78]

No. It is not overboard. There is more than just tangible harm that is considered. I watched a case like this from beginning to end. There was no loss of money or work involved. Yet, had the burden of proof not been 51% on the Defendant's side, he most certainly would have lost the case and been liable for slander and related damages in the judge's eyes. Such was so stated during the proceedings.

The costs to the Defendant would have been in the many thousands of dollars had he not had proof that what he wrote had private circulation and that the Plaintiff had actually been the one to publish the damaging material to a wider, more public audience. The Defendant could not obtain the evidence needed to prove his case otherwise, because the evidence needed for an absolute win had been discarded by one individual involved the year previous to the filing of the lawsuit.

But, if you don't want to take my advice, remember that you have been warned. I have no real need to press this issue. I am only offering the safest course for you to pursue should you choose to do this. If you don't want to make the effort to protect yourself, that certainly is your business. But, your likelihood of being sued is quite high with individuals like this. You need to ensure a quick win in such a case. Evidence backing each and every thing that you say is the only way to go if you want to protect yourself from a heavy loss in a court of law. It also will shorten the case so that you will not also have high costs of lawyers to pay should you lose such a case. The longer a case drags on, the more cost to you to defend it. That is reality.

Testify!

[Cobalt-70]

The best way to respond to his behavior is to post a response video on YouTube, exposing who he is and what he is. I am working on one I plan to post soon.

Frankly, I would be almost as embarrassed by a Mormon making such a defamatory video as I am about Mike Norton's videos.

[Cobalt-70]

There were less of these sorts of incidents when certain things were once part of the temple ceremony. I would like to see most of them put back. People seemingly took it more seriously back then.

If you are talking about the graphic Masonic parts, I think they would be an incentive for even more recording.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I do what I can. Now I just need to find my steel bat and bash some windows and break some legs.

Why not a wooden bad...a Louisville Slugger.

[Cobalt-70]

I knew a Stake President who was so close to the Spirit of the Lord that he would send people away without signing the recommends because he would know right away that people weren't worthy. If the person tried to lie to him, he would pause, and then say to the person that he was not being truthful. He would then pause again and ask if there was anything else that the member would like to tell him. If the member did not say anything, he would name the particular sin and the amount of time it had been since the last commission of whatever particular sin it had been that had not been repented of, and would send the member out the door to repent if he would not admit to it and covenant to repent. To my recollection, he was accurate 100% of the time and the members who experienced this knew it. We need more Stake Presidents like this. We need more Bishops like this. They have the right to have and make use of this gift. But, how many actually use it or even have the faith necessary to use this awesome gift?

If the apocryphal stories about this stake president are true, he sounds like kind of a jerk. He's denying people temple recommends without any evidence and without a confession, and he is not following the guidelines in the temple recommend book. Besides, how could anyone possibly know that he was 100% accurate?

[Scott Lloyd]

If the apocryphal stories about this stake president are true, he sounds like kind of a jerk. He's denying people temple recommends without any evidence and without a confession, and he is not following the guidelines in the temple recommend book. Besides, how could anyone possibly know that he was 100% accurate?

Specifically, which guidelines is he violating?

[Cobalt-70]

Specifically, which guidelines is he violating?

The CHI says that there can be no extra requirements to getting a temple recommend other than the guidelines in the temple recommend book. Those guidelines say that the temple recommend questions need to always be discussed, and an acceptable answer to those questions is ordinarily sufficient to establish worthiness. Stake Presidents are supposed to ask the questions, and if the person gives acceptable answers, they get a recommend, unless the Stake President knows of some evidence to the contrary.

[MormonMason]

If the apocryphal stories about this stake president are true, he sounds like kind of a jerk. He's denying people temple recommends without any evidence and without a confession, and he is not following the guidelines in the temple recommend book. Besides, how could anyone possibly know that he was 100% accurate?

I knew him personally. This is no apocryphal story. I will state at the outset that I myself experienced his accuracy. People also discussed things after the initial embarrassments wore off. Back in those days people would confess their shortcomings to one another in certain meetings. At the times of some of these interviews some would be outside the room to see people hurriedly leave the room where they were interviewed and not so thick walls in that old building (that no longer exists, by the way) often let people sitting outside hear goings on in the room if people got upset. Many confessed after having the sins identified. They actually got their lives in line--well, most of them, anyway--and went on to attend the temple worthily. The events I describe were from long before the CHI and Temple Recommend book we now use. In fact, it predates by more than a decade even the 1999 General Handbook of Instructions that got leaked onto the Internet in text format in later years.

And, I also can tell you that the man was by no means "a jerk." But, he also would not stand by and let someone lie to him when Spirit let him know it was going on. You could not get much past him. He was very direct but kind as a teddy bear. He actually would attempt to contact people after their interviews and put his arms around them, tell them he loved them, and try to get them to do what they should. I actually think of him as one of the best Stake Presidents I have ever had the privilege to know. He passed away some years ago. I have met few like him since. I wish there were more like him. I can recall some of my fondest memories in that Ward in that Stake at the time. Those were times I never shall forget. I often find myself wishing we could go back to those days.

Edited October 24, 2012 by MormonMason

[MormonMason]

Frankly, I would be almost as embarrassed by a Mormon making such a defamatory video as I am about Mike Norton's videos.

It is not defamatory if it is the truth and nothing but--and has evidence to back up everything said.