A Question

[Tacenda]

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!"

It was awhile before we finally had the nerve to turn him down. Phone calls etc., I wish it didn't leave a bad taste in our mouths. Edited September 24, 2013 by Tacenda

[Calm]

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.

In the case where someone was making the claim to create gossip, I think one must work within the limits of the information available. If the individual makes the claim while refusing to share other info due to privacy....a legitimate concern on the Internet, it seems to me the responsible thing to use what resources are available.

[rpn]

Yes, unless the friend who is a bishop and has current list is (a) your personal priesthood leader, or (b) a law enforcement officer with jurisdiction for the fraudulent misrepresentation (in which case he misused the resources, but he can answer to his own priesthood leader and employer on the matter.

 

The problem is that your friend should have refused to participate in the quest, and if he did do it, he should report it to appropriate authorities, not YOU.

[strappinglad]

The first red flag would be anyone coming to ME with a business deal. I would immediately question their intelligence.

[The Nehor]

In the case where someone was making the claim to create gossip, I think one must work within the limits of the information available. If the individual makes the claim while refusing to share other info due to privacy....a legitimate concern on the Internet, it seems to me the responsible thing to use what resources are available.

If someone tries to solicit money on the internet that is enough right there.

[ERayR]

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.

 

Even if he were a bishop I would refuse to do business with him simply because he was using his church affiliation to influence you.  No matter who they are thoroughly vet them before going into business with them.

[Kenngo1969]

It was awhile before we finally had the nerve to turn him down. Phone calls etc., I wish it didn't leave a bad taste in our mouths.

I was kinda disappointed when a high school friend of mine looked me up and asked to drop by.  I thought it'd be a good opportunity for two old friends to get reacquainted ... He gave me a Quixstar Ultra-High-Pressure Sales Pitch .  I still consider him to be a good friend, and I hope the Quixstar thing was just a phase, but I haven't heard from him lately.

[Bob Crockett]

The answer to the opening post is no. The church directory of leaders is available to all members although you need to be at least a bishop to access it. The leadership directory is not confidential.

Had you used it to solicit a bishop for an investment you'd be using it contrary to its posted restrictions, much like a similar misuse of a stake directory. But even then there would be no breach of any confidence as being a bishop is not a confidential matter.

I once used the directory to chase down an old missionary companion to reconnect. That was no breach of confidence.

I used the directory to chase false assertions of membership in a ward when I was a transient bishop. Seems a member ought to be able to use it to test a person's claim that he is a bishop. A false claim that one is a bishop is potentially a priesthood issue.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[Robert F. Smith]

The answer to the opening post is no. The church directory of leaders is available to all members although you need to be at least a bishop to access it. The leadership directory is not confidential.

Had you used it to solicit a bishop for an investment you'd be using it contrary to its posted restrictions, much like a similar misuse of a stake directory. But even then there would be no breach of any confidence as being a bishop is not a confidential matter.

I once used the directory to chase down an old missionary companion to reconnect. That was no breach of confidence.

I used the directory to chase false assertions of membership in a ward when I was a transient bishop. Seems a member ought to be able to use it to test a person's claim that he is a bishop. A false claim that one is a bishop is potentially a priesthood issue.

The problem, Bob, is that we can always come up with "legitimate" needs to know this or that about members (or those who claim to be members), and there is no end to it.  In law enforcement, after frequent violations of that nature, our confidential, nation-wide data base was placed under tight restrictions -- requiring a specific investigative need and probable cause by those assigned to the case.  No looky-loos. Training was instituted and the system was carefully monitored for compliance -- errant officers being threatened with everything from days off to loss of job to jail time.  Even at that, we still have those who feel compelled to check up on a girlfriend or boyfriend, or to provide information to the press or private investigators.

Just so, we have church members who access confidential Church records without permission and without justification.  When in positions which have given me such easy access, I have pointedly not looked at the records.

Thus, in the case placed before us by Dan Peterson, the person who was uneasy about this claimed "bishop" should have reported the matter in writing to his bishop or stake president, and left it there for them to deal with.  Such a claim is serious and actionable by Church officials.  What is even more nauseating are the continuing instances in which active or past bishops turn out to be engaged in fraud or other violations of the law.  It does no good for the Church when such matters are disclosed in the press -- as they must be when an arrest takes place.  We need to nip this problem in the bud.

[mfbukowski]

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. 

What he said!

 

Now, because I used to be a bishop, you owe me a consultation fee.

[foster]

The answer to the opening post is no. The church directory of leaders is available to all members although you need to be at least a bishop to access it. The leadership directory is not confidential.

Had you used it to solicit a bishop for an investment you'd be using it contrary to its posted restrictions, much like a similar misuse of a stake directory. But even then there would be no breach of any confidence as being a bishop is not a confidential matter.

I once used the directory to chase down an old missionary companion to reconnect. That was no breach of confidence.

I used the directory to chase false assertions of membership in a ward when I was a transient bishop. Seems a member ought to be able to use it to test a person's claim that he is a bishop. A false claim that one is a bishop is potentially a priesthood issue.

I doubt the leadership records are for personal use unrelated to ones calling? Edited September 25, 2013 by foster

[Daniel Peterson]

Okay.  Sorry to have led a few of you down rabbit trails, but I wanted to get some general ethical discussion going.

 

Here's the actual situation:

 

Two or three years ago, a pseudonymous poster on a basically agnostic-to-atheist message board that is devoted to attacking Mormons and ridiculing Mormonism claimed that his wife had surprised him with plans to go on a tour of Israel with me the following April, about six months away.  He would, he said, provide regular reports from the tour of my antics and my ridiculous comments.  He reiterated this claim several times, and his audience was greatly amused.

 

This same poster had also been claiming to be a currently serving bishop.

 

I wasn't very pleased at the prospect of a double-dealing cynic riding along on the bus with us, feigning orthodox Mormonism and secretly sneering at me and the other "sheeple" on the tour as we visited such places as Capernaum, the Mount of Beatitudes, Gethsemane, and the Garden Tomb.

 

But the amusement at his plan eventually died down and, quite frankly, i forgot about it.

 

For that reason, I made no effort to figure out the identity of the secret sneerer on our tour.  I didn't even think about the matter.  I assumed that, in the end, he hadn't gone.

 

Afterwards, though, somebody asked him on his board whether he had indeed gone on the tour.  As I recall, he responded that he had, and that he would soon provide reports for their amusement.

 

At this point, I began to wonder who, if anybody, on our small tour might have been the covert cynic.  (During a nearly two-week tour on a bus and at meals and at the sites, together from early morning until fairly late at night, we come to know one another reasonably well.)  I concluded that the pseudonymous poster was probably a poseur.  He hadn't actually come with us.

 

But I decided to check something in order to be more certain.  I had definitively eliminated most of the men on the tour, because I knew that they weren't currently serving bishops.  (Some of them I had already known long before the tour.)  But I contacted a friend of mine who is, in fact, a current bishop, and asked him if he could check the directory regarding four men on the tour whose current callings I didn't know and then tell me whether any of them was currently serving as a bishop.

 

He responded that no, none of them were currently serving bishops.

 

Thus, I knew that no secret cynic currently serving as a bishop had accompanied us on our tour, for the simple and sufficient reason that there had been no currently serving bishops in our group at all. 

 

This told me that the pseudonymous critic was not a currently serving bishop and/or that he did not accompany us to Israel.  Which demonstrated the poster to be, to that extent at least, a lying fraud.  And I said so.  (He has, by the way, never posted an account of his supposed trip with me, nor any photographs of it.)

 

For the past couple of years, though, some of his fellow denizens of that agnostic-to-atheist anti-Mormon board have been citing my request to my bishop-friend as an instance of blackly unethical behavior of the very worst kind.  I was, they say, seeking confidential information about the poster, violating both his privacy and Church policy.  The incident is simply another redundant example of my complete lack of moral character and my vicious, vengeful personality.

 

That's the real story.

 

.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Daniel Peterson

[webbles]

Anyone with an account on lds.org can find out all the bishops on the planet.  Just a little bit of scripting and probably 20-30 minutes, you'll have the names and phone numbers of all stake presidents, bishops, branch presidents, counselors, and clerks.  So this information really isn't all that private.  If you don't have an account, you can still get last names and phone numbers of bishops and branch presidents.

[Storm Rider]

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.

I certainly don't think you have violated his privacy. Nor do I think you have acted unethically.

 

If someone ever comes to me to sell something and (s)he attempts to use her/his membership in the Church as a reason to trust them, there is not a chance in blue blazes that I need listen further and there is no possibility of any interest in their "opportunity". Business is business and religious affiliation is another thing completely. 

 

In business I prefer to work with non-members. It is an easier process and there are never any conflicts due to unmet expectations.

[Freedom]

I would be violating your privacy if I went to your face book page, I would not be violating your privacy if I inquired if your name is listed somewhere if you claim it is. At least as far as Canadian privacy law is concerned, it is not a violation of privacy to confirm a claim unless the source provided protected information such as marital status, phone numbers, or birthdates. I can, for example, inquire at BYU to confirm if you work there if you so claim. If you do not so claim (ie, a member of your tour group that may or may not have been the anonymous poster) I can see a potential problem because, although you are indirectly checking for the poster, you are in fact directly investigating the people you toured with. So in this example, you were not confirming the claims of a specific individual, but you were confirming information on people who did not make any claims and who did not authorize you to search. So it is the violation against the innocent ones that could be a moral problem rather than the indirect investigation of the anonymous poster.

 

How would you feel if someone where digging into your private life in order to rule you out as a suspect?

[Bernard Gui]

In my opinion, this scenario does not violate privacy rights or Church policy. For someone like this tourist to engage in such an elaborate and expensive ruse, however, raises questions about his sanity.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Bernard Gui

[Storm Rider]

Okay.  Sorry to have led a few of you down rabbit trails, but I wanted to get some general ethical discussion going.

 

Here's the actual situation:

 

Two or three years ago, a pseudonymous poster on a basically agnostic-to-atheist message board that is devoted to attacking Mormons and ridiculing Mormonism claimed that his wife had surprised him with plans to go on a tour of Israel with me the following April, about six months away.  He would, he said, provide regular reports from the tour of my antics and my ridiculous comments.  He reiterated this claim several times, and his audience was greatly amused.

 

This same poster had also been claiming to be a currently serving bishop.

 

I wasn't very pleased at the prospect of a double-dealing cynic riding along on the bus with us, feigning orthodox Mormonism and secretly sneering at me and the other "sheeple" on the tour as we visited such places as Capernaum, the Mount of Beatitudes, Gethsemane, and the Garden Tomb.

 

But the amusement at his plan eventually died down and, quite frankly, i forgot about it.

 

For that reason, I made no effort to figure out the identity of the secret sneerer on our tour.  I didn't even think about the matter.  I assumed that, in the end, he hadn't gone.

 

Afterwards, though, somebody asked him on his board whether he had indeed gone on the tour.  As I recall, he responded that he had, and that he would soon provide reports for their amusement.

 

At this point, I began to wonder who, if anybody, on our small tour might have been the covert cynic.  (During a nearly two-week tour on a bus and at meals and at the sites, together from early morning until fairly late at night, we come to know one another reasonably well.)  I concluded that the pseudonymous poster was probably a poseur.  He hadn't actually come with us.

 

But I decided to check something in order to be more certain.  I had definitively eliminated most of the men on the tour, because I knew that they weren't currently serving bishops.  (Some of them I had already known long before the tour.)  But I contacted a friend of mine who is, in fact, a current bishop, and asked him if he could check the directory regarding four men on the tour whose current callings I didn't know and then tell me whether any of them was currently serving as a bishop.

 

He responded that no, none of them were currently serving bishops.

 

Thus, I knew that no secret cynic currently serving as a bishop had accompanied us on our tour, for the simple and sufficient reason that there had been no currently serving bishops in our group at all. 

 

This told me that the pseudonymous critic was not a currently serving bishop and/or that he did not accompany us to Israel.  Which demonstrated the poster to be, to that extent at least, a lying fraud.  And I said so.  (He has, by the way, never posted an account of his supposed trip with me, nor any photographs of it.)

 

For the past couple of years, though, some of his fellow denizens of that agnostic-to-atheist anti-Mormon board have been citing my request to my bishop-friend as an instance of blackly unethical behavior of the very worst kind.  I was, they say, seeking confidential information about the poster, violating both his privacy and Church policy.  The incident is simply another redundant example of my complete lack of moral character and my vicious, vengeful personality.

 

That's the real story.

 

.

 

Their anger is more the frustration that comes with getting their sacred cow gored and nothing better to say. Such vaunted ethics from backbiters and fraudsters; I am shocked I tell you.

[foster]

How about we up the ethical ante, in the situation regarding the Israel trip.

 

First the conditions the Church has placed on accessing the directory of organizations and leaders:

This site is owned and operated by Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All material found at this site (including visuals, text, icons, displays, databases, and general information) is owned or licensed by us. You may [the ecclesiastical leader with authorization to access this site]  view, download, and print material from this site only for your personal, noncommercial use directly related to your work for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (whether as a volunteer, as part of a Church calling, or as a paid employee of an affiliated legal entity).  <snip>

 

 

emphasis added,

Edited September 25, 2013 by foster

[mfbukowski]

You want ethical conundrums?  I can give them to you.

 

Hope these are not derails, if they are I will delete the post upon request.

 

What about farmers growing barley to make beer?  Growing hops?  Accepting tithing on lottery winnings?  Should casino workers have temple recommends? (there goes the Las Vegas temple!)  How about professional gamblers?

 

How about those who invest in derivatives?  Stocks?  Anything?

 

My point is these are all miniscule possible "violations" about which we can debate til the cows come home, but ultimately there are cases in which they can be seen as right and cases in which they can be seen as wrong.

 

It all depends on the situation and the intent.

 

Of course we could debate how many steps we can take on the Sabbath- that would be a blast, wouldn't it? 

[Calm]

 

How would you feel if someone where digging into your private life in order to rule you out as a suspect?

People's callings in the Church are not private, especially if they are bishops.  What privacy has been violated by confirming someone is not a bishop since Dan already knew these people's names?  What privacy would have been violated by confirming that someone was a bishop?

Edited September 25, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

In my opinion, this scenario does not violate privacy rights or Church policy. For someone like this tourist to engage in such an elaborate and expensive ruse, however, raises questions about his sanity.

Alleged tourist...it would seem, imo, the whole scenario is false.

[Tacenda]

Well I guess Dan, you're like a celebrity in that people feel they can say anything they want and get away with it. I'm sure that trip was a difficult one for you. That wasn't unethical in the least, you had every right to do what you did. I think the people on that board probably deep down sided with you in that they would have done the same detective work. And the conversation probably died down after that, I hope. I thought there was some law about defamation of character out there somewhere? This guy, poser, certainly fits that crime.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Tacenda

[Calm]

You may[the ecclesiastical leader with authorization to access this site]  view, download, and print material from this site only for your personal, noncommercial use directly related to your work for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (whether as a volunteer, as part of a Church calling, or as a paid employee of an affiliated legal entity). 

 

 

I would think that helping a member deal with harassment from an alleged fellow member would be considered as part of being a member of our faith and especially appropriate for a bishop to do.  It might have been more appropriate for Dan to contact his own bishop to ask the service from, but I do not see a bishop as being limited to helping only those members of his ward anymore than I believe that we should not stop and help someone who is stranded on the road if we can simply because they are from a different state or country than we are.

[LDSGuy]

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 verify.

[Kenngo1969]

 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.

I'll second what Cal says on the matter (I often do: we belong to a Mutual Admiration Society! )  I'll also add that we're talking about several potential "candidates," probably from several different stakes.  I don't see any reason why Professor Peterson is obligated to make several phone calls when one will suffice.