A Question

[Daniel Peterson]

Suppose that somebody -- let's call him Cornelius Stimplethwaite -- comes to you with a business proposition.  You don't know him, and, while the business proposition is tempting, you're not quite sure whether you should trust the guy.  Sensing this, he assures you that he's an active member of the Church.  In fact, he's currently serving as a bishop.

 

Afterwards, though, you still wonder.  Something smells funny.  So you contact a friend who, you know, is a currently serving bishop (and who thus has access to the Church's directory of officers.)  You ask him, "Is there a Cornelius Stimplethwaite who is currently serving as a bishop in the Church?"  He checks the directory and answers "No."

 

Have you or your friend acted unethically?  Have you violated Cornelius Stimplethwaite's privacy?

 

Please advise.

[Damien the Leper]

I don't believe so, Doc. If integrity and honesty is in question, I believe you should do the homework to ensure all manners of safety.

[bluebell]

Has Bro. Cornelius been promised privacy?

 

It seems like, the second he decided to claim he was a bishop, and use that claim to try to manipulate you into doing something, he implied that you had the right to verify that information.

[Damien the Leper]

Has Bro. Cornelius been promised privacy?

 

It seems like, the second he decided to claim he was a bishop, and use that claim to try to manipulate you into doing something, he implied that you had the right to verify that information.

Agreed. This is why you, Calmoriah and GG will be great Heavenly Madres.

[Duncan]

Suppose that somebody -- let's call him Cornelius Stimplethwaite -- comes to you with a business proposition.  You don't know him, and, while the business proposition is tempting, you're not quite sure whether you should trust the guy.  Sensing this, he assures you that he's an active member of the Church.  In fact, he's currently serving as a bishop.

 

Afterwards, though, you still wonder.  Something smells funny.  So you contact a friend who, you know, is a currently serving bishop (and who thus has access to the Church's directory of officers.)  You ask him, "Is there a Cornelius Stimplethwaite who is currently serving as a bishop in the Church?"  He checks the directory and answers "No."

 

Have you or your friend acted unethically?  Have you violated Cornelius Stimplethwaite's privacy?

 

Please advise.

 

 

no way!

[cdowis]

Suppose that somebody -- let's call him Cornelius Stimplethwaite -- comes to you with a business proposition.  You don't know him, and, while the business proposition is tempting, you're not quite sure whether you should trust the guy.  Sensing this, he assures you that he's an active member of the Church.  In fact, he's currently serving as a bishop.

 

 

If someone uses his church position to solcit business, do not walk but RUN away.  Why would I need to check on him?

[rockpond]

Has Bro. Cornelius been promised privacy?

 

It seems like, the second he decided to claim he was a bishop, and use that claim to try to manipulate you into doing something, he implied that you had the right to verify that information.

 

 

If someone uses his church position to solcit business, do not walk but RUN away.  Why would I need to check on him?

 

Both bluebell and cdowis nailed it.  I could not agree more.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

Have you or your friend acted unethically?  Have you violated Cornelius Stimplethwaite's privacy?

 

Please advise.

Why do you ask? Just curious. The answer is no though to your question.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If someone uses his church position to solcit business, do not walk but RUN away.  Why would I need to check on him?

This is was my initial response. I can't think of a bigger red flag.

 

"Do business with me I am a bishop".

[thesometimesaint]

Suppose that somebody -- let's call him Cornelius Stimplethwaite -- comes to you with a business proposition.  You don't know him, and, while the business proposition is tempting, you're not quite sure whether you should trust the guy.  Sensing this, he assures you that he's an active member of the Church.  In fact, he's currently serving as a bishop.

 

Afterwards, though, you still wonder.  Something smells funny.  So you contact a friend who, you know, is a currently serving bishop (and who thus has access to the Church's directory of officers.)  You ask him, "Is there a Cornelius Stimplethwaite who is currently serving as a bishop in the Church?"  He checks the directory and answers "No."

 

Have you or your friend acted unethically?  Have you violated Cornelius Stimplethwaite's privacy?

 

Please advise.

 

Trust but varify. From my perspective if anyone tries to sell you something for money, based on their religion. RUN. And if it is based on your religion RUN FASTER.

[The Nehor]

Suppose that somebody -- let's call him Cornelius Stimplethwaite -- comes to you with a business proposition.  You don't know him, and, while the business proposition is tempting, you're not quite sure whether you should trust the guy.  Sensing this, he assures you that he's an active member of the Church.  In fact, he's currently serving as a bishop.

 

I would stop here and run. Anyone who uses their church membership or calling as some kind of proof of integrity to get your money into play is practicing Priestcraft whether the business deal is good or not and whether they are a member or are a bishop or not.

 

The only action I would consider taking is finding out if they are a bishop so you can call the stake president and tell them what the bishop is doing.

[aspire]

No, and no. And even if he really was a Bishop the answer would still be no.

Edited September 24, 2013 by aspire

[Stargazer]

Suppose that somebody -- let's call him Cornelius Stimplethwaite -- comes to you with a business proposition.  You don't know him, and, while the business proposition is tempting, you're not quite sure whether you should trust the guy.  Sensing this, he assures you that he's an active member of the Church.  In fact, he's currently serving as a bishop.

 

Afterwards, though, you still wonder.  Something smells funny.  So you contact a friend who, you know, is a currently serving bishop (and who thus has access to the Church's directory of officers.)  You ask him, "Is there a Cornelius Stimplethwaite who is currently serving as a bishop in the Church?"  He checks the directory and answers "No."

 

Have you or your friend acted unethically?  Have you violated Cornelius Stimplethwaite's privacy?

 

Please advise.

 

Absolutely not.

 

If someone comes to you and uses their Church membership status as a credential, then he or she has implicitly given you permission to check him out.  For that matter, no rational person making a business proposition can object to prospective partners checking up on any statements used to promote the proposition, and that includes relevant personal data.  Under the right circumstances I would even check criminal history records and feel perfectly justified in doing so.

 

I'm really curious as to why you ask this question, Dr. Peterson!  Did someone come to you with a business proposition?  In fact, I am surprised even that you ask the question -- you're smart enough that you should have known the correct answer already (and it would agree with every poster in the thread thus far).

 

Or are you asking as a test of those who choose to reply?  Are we being vetted?  Did we pass? 

Edited September 24, 2013 by Stargazer

[CA Steve]

Why not simply ask the purported bishop where he is serving and then verify it through normal channels?

[halconero]

No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

 

This power and influence extends to all facets of our life, including business proposals.

[Derl Sanderson]

From General Handbook of Instructions 2 (21.1.36):

 

Sales Agents

Local leaders should not accept the claims of sales agents that the Church or a Church leader has authorized them to call on local leaders or members to sell their products.
 

Though not specifically addressing DP's scenario, the principle expressed here seems pretty clear. The "self-authorized"  bishop should be shown the door.

[DBMormon]

Could have have just been called so that it is not in the system yet.  There is a slight lag (a few weeks perhaps at most)

[Damien the Leper]

Could have have just been called so that it is not in the system yet.  There is a slight lag (a few weeks perhaps at most)

 

Doesn't change the ethical implications by much.

[Stargazer]

Could have have just been called so that it is not in the system yet.  There is a slight lag (a few weeks perhaps at most)

 

True, but the attempt to use a priesthood office as a bona fides in a financial matter like this raises the reddest of red flags to me, and it should do so for anyone.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Absolutely not.

 

If someone comes to you and uses their Church membership status as a credential, then he or she has implicitly given you permission to check him out.  For that matter, no rational person making a business proposition can object to prospective partners checking up on any statements used to promote the proposition, and that includes relevant personal data.  Under the right circumstances I would even check criminal history records and feel perfectly justified in doing so.

 

I'm really curious as to why you ask this question, Dr. Peterson!  Did someone come to you with a business proposition?  In fact, I am surprised even that you ask the question -- you're smart enough that you should have known the correct answer already (and it would agree with every poster in the thread thus far).

 

Or are you asking as a test of those who choose to reply?  Are we being vetted?  Did we pass? 

I think Dr. Peterson is refering to this post here? http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/60262-review-of-greg-smiths-review-of-mormon-stories/page-5#entry1209235403

 

In darker circles he was accused of violating the confidentiality of church records.  Church handbook states that church records are only to be used for church purposes.  I personally think it is a stretch to make this accusation and don't see any harm done in verifying someone's claim in the manner that Dr. Peterson describes.

Edited September 24, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Buckeye]

One of the great things about living in the mission field is you rarely face situations where church and business mix. 

 

To answer your question, there is no reasonable right to privacy for a calling as bishop (or any other calling for that matter).  The church does not publish callings for the whole world to see, and will good reason.  But callings are well known by those who need to know.  There is no expectation of privacy. 

 

As to ethics, it is not unethical to verify.  Especially for business deals.

 

The only possible hitch could be a violation of some church policy regarding the proper use of the bishop's directory.  I doubt it, but it could exist.

[Tacenda]

It really bothered my husband when his former Mission President called and asked my husband and I to go to an Amway type meeting, and even picked us up! We felt pressured to join, but didn't.

[Kenngo1969]

Why not simply ask the purported bishop where he is serving and then verify it through normal channels?

What are "normal channels"?  It seems to me that one of the reasons why the Church's Directory of Officers and Leaders exists is for just such occasions as this.  Just my $0.02, actual value $0.017537518375.  The only possible way what the good doctor has suggested would be unethical (or otherwise problematic) is if, for some reason, Professor Peterson should not have access to the directory.  And if someone objects to being listed in the directory, he should turn down any calling for which such a listing would occur.  (P.S.: The course of action you suggest, though unlikely to result in the one who pursues it being deceived, isn't foolproof.  It seems to me that the directory is much closer to that ideal.)

Edited September 24, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

It really bothered my husband when his former Mission President called and asked my husband and I to go to an Amway type meeting, and even picked us up! We felt pressured to join, but didn't.

If it'd been me, after the meeting, I'd have said, "President, nice to see you again.  I treasure the time we served together.  Thanks for the free stuff [assuming some was offered as an inducement to get you to come].  Tootles!"

[CA Steve]

What are "normal channels"?  It seems to me that one of the reasons why the Church's Directory of Officers and Leaders exists is for just such occasions as this.  Just my $0.02, actual value $0.017537518375.  The only possible way what the good doctor has suggested would be unethical (or otherwise problematic) is if, for some reason, Professor Peterson should not have access to the directory.  And if someone objects to being listed in the directory, he should turn down any calling for which such a listing would occur.  (P.S.: The course of action you suggest, though unlikely to result in the one who pursues it being deceived, isn't foolproof.  It seems to me that the directory is much closer to that ideal.)

 Normal channels would be a phone call to the stake president (or anyone in the know) within the stake where the "bishop" resided. Information the "bishop" should be glad to provide since he offered that he was a bishop. If the "bishop" is reluctant to provide verifiable information then that would be a great sign he is not legit.