A Question

[phaedrus ut]

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.

 

Responding to the hypothetical scenario people who flaunt their worthiness to gain trust should be scrutinized even further than normal, IMO. I've noticed many confidence men encouraging people to pray about these opportunities.  I suspect they do this for a reason.

 

Regarding the actual scenario I don't see anything illegal or unethical about what you did.  You were in a unique position to have access to both lists to verify the claims being made and that's what you did.

 

However, it does seem a bit hypocritical to complain about people’s stalking behavior yet actively seek out the real identity of an anonymous internet poster. People may eventually ignore the pot's claims about the kettle.

 

Phaedrus

[Avatar4321]

I can't imagine that my bishop friend would have been violating any privacy even if he had supplied information from the directory.

 

Suppose I had said to him that I was going to be spending three months within what I knew to be the Brazzaville 3rd Ward.  I wanted to contact the bishop there about something, but I didn't know his name.  Could my friend look him up?  Yes, he might respond.  His name is John Jones.

 

I don't think that even that would constitute any kind of ethical or legal crime.

 

John Jones? The Martian Manhunter is a Bishop? How cool:)

[Daniel Peterson]

However, it does seem a bit hypocritical to complain about people’s stalking behavior yet actively seek out the real identity of an anonymous internet poster. People may eventually ignore the pot's claims about the kettle.

 

But, of course, I didn't "actively seek out the real identity of an anonymous internet poster."

 

So your comment about pots and kettles is irrelevant and misguided.

[Bob Crockett]

However, it does seem a bit hypocritical to complain about people’s stalking behavior yet actively seek out the real identity of an anonymous internet poster. People may eventually ignore the pot's claims about the kettle.

That's really absurd.  The poster has invited scrutiny by boasting that, while on a tour with Dr. Peterson, he overheard the latter making impolitic statements about Jews or Arabs.

[LordUther]

I can't imagine that my bishop friend would have been violating any privacy even if he had supplied information from the directory.

Suppose I had said to him that I was going to be spending three months within what I knew to be the Brazzaville 3rd Ward. I wanted to contact the bishop there about something, but I didn't know his name. Could my friend look him up? Yes, he might respond. His name is John Jones.

I don't think that even that would constitute any kind of ethical or legal crime.

No it wouldn't because that would be the intended use of the directory. Please note that I am not opposed to what you did I was just explaining to another poster how under UK law how data kept by an organisation on individuals would be considered confidential when not used in the manner intended by the organisation.

[LordUther]

Hiccup

Edited September 25, 2013 by LordUther

[Robert F. Smith]

 Bob,

LDS Church members are only allowed to access their own ward or branch directory.  They do not have a need to have access to churchwide membershp lists, nor to churchwide leadership lists.  In addition, they should always treat as utterly confidential all membership records.  Breaches of confidentiality in all these areas does occur, and there are always "legitimate" excuses.

 

You need to reread your own comments below, my reply, and then your rejoinder,which misses the point entirely.  I have bolded the offending phrases for you.

Just like the proverbial camel who gets his nose inside the tent, and next thing you know he is all in, You first speak of a leadership directory which is not actually available to the general membership as though it is available to them.  Sounds to me like you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.  

 Especially when you declare that you used that directory to look up an old buddy.

It seems not to dawn on you that anyone can come up with a "legitimate" excuse why it would be O.K. to use such a non-public record.  I recall a police lieutenant who had the innocent excuse that our high school class reunion was coming up and so he used confidential law enforcement data systems to find graduates whose addresses were unknown.  No harm, no foul, right?  I know of several less innocent reasons why both law enforcement and LDS Church confidential records have been breached by those who thought that they had "legitimate" reasons.  This happens all the time.  It begins with the breach of ordinary membership lists, and then moves on to membership records.  You have no doubt been a ward clerk (as well as transient bishop) at some time, so you likely know the difference, and the increasing levels of security as one moves up the leadership chain.  You may also know just how lax that security really is, so that almost anyone with determination can obtain the information he seeks.

 

There is a reason why members do not have access to general lists of members (whether leaders or not), and can only access their own ward directory.  If the Brethren wanted everyone to have access to general membership lists, then they would be readily available online. 

 

 

In your post #33, you said:

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.

The leadership directory is not a confidential membership record. The restriction that it be used for church business does not make it confidential. Any member may make inquiry of it. It is exactly like any stake directory.

A membership record is confidential because it contains sensitive info and a person has the right to keep his membership a secret, so says NCAAP v Alabama.

 

Edited September 26, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Calm]

However, it does seem a bit hypocritical to complain about people’s stalking behavior yet actively seek out the real identity of an anonymous internet poster. People may eventually ignore the pot's claims about the kettle.

 

Phaedrus

Since when is looking for evidence to support a conclusion that a claim of position was a lie actively seeking out the real identity of a poster?  Dan did not expect to find any information that would help him identify WC.  There was no intent to find out the identity of WC, merely to prove his claim a lie.  If so, if there was no intent, how can you claim that there was active seeking out of a real identity?

Edited September 26, 2013 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

 Their indignation is, instead, reserved entirely for me.)

Ah yes, welcome back to high school.  You know that movie "Mean Girls"?  That's about the level of their mentality over there.

[mfbukowski]

Do you realize (as I mentioned earlier) that the names and phone numbers are freely available and unrestricted to all members through the lds maps site?

Sort of.

 

First, you can only get membership lists for your personal ward, or stake if you have a stake calling.

 

You CAN theoretically look up the bishop of any ward, but first you have to pick a ward geographically to do so.  I suppose you could theoretically pick every ward in every stake in the world one by one and find the name of all bishops that way but it would be ridiculously tedious work to do so.  For all I know, ther emay be limits on how many such searches you can do- that's what I would do if I were a programmer on it.

[mfbukowski]

When I was a bishop I used to regularly get solicitations from LDS marriage counselors and boy did it get me mad!

 

There is also a Utah-based organization which counsels people with "same sex attraction" (presumably to cure them) which uses these directories for business use.

 

I think bishops are probably so busy they don't do anything about it- that's why I didn't, but boy it got me hot under the collar!

[webbles]

Sort of.

 

First, you can only get membership lists for your personal ward, or stake if you have a stake calling.

 

You CAN theoretically look up the bishop of any ward, but first you have to pick a ward geographically to do so.  I suppose you could theoretically pick every ward in every stake in the world one by one and find the name of all bishops that way but it would be ridiculously tedious work to do so.  For all I know, ther emay be limits on how many such searches you can do- that's what I would do if I were a programmer on it.

I was'nt talking about the membership lists.  I was specifically talking about access to leadership, such as bishops and stake presidents.  That information is freely available through the maps site and with a little bit of programming, you can easily get all of them.  Even if they had a limit (which I haven't found so far), it would just expand the amount of time required from 30 minutes to a few hours.  In Dan's case, he might know the cities, states, or countries of the people and that would reduce the number of requests needed.

[webbles]

Just like the proverbial camel who gets his nose inside the tent, and next thing you know he is all in, You first speak of a leadership directory which is not actually available to the general membership as though it is available to them.  Sounds to me like you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

But the phone numbers and names of all bishops and stake presidents are available to the general membership through the maps website.

[mfbukowski]

First you say this:
 

Do you realize (as I mentioned earlier) that the names and phone numbers are freely available and unrestricted to all members through the lds maps site?

Then you say this:

I was'nt talking about the membership lists.  I was specifically talking about access to leadership, such as bishops and stake presidents.  That information is freely available through the maps site and with a little bit of programming, you can easily get all of them.  Even if they had a limit (which I haven't found so far), it would just expand the amount of time required from 30 minutes to a few hours.  In Dan's case, he might know the cities, states, or countries of the people and that would reduce the number of requests needed.

I mean do you think the what you say cannot be looked up?  Are you running for president or something?

[webbles]

First you say this:

 

Then you say this:

I mean do you think the what you say cannot be looked up?  Are you running for president or something?

Actually, I first said:

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.

 

That was what I was referrering to when I said "(as I mentioned earlier)".  So I'm sorry that you might have mistooken me somehow that I switched from talking about leadership information to membership information but I've always been talking about leadership information.

 

But I do need to clarify one thing.  After looking at the various outputs from the maps website, sometimes you get full names and phone numbers for the stake presidint/bishop, councillors, and clerks and sometimes you just get last names and phone numbers of just the stake presidentns/bishops.  I've tried several different locations and it is seemlingly random at this point.  But you can also get mission president information as well.

[Hamba Tuhan]

No it wouldn't because that would be the intended use of the directory. Please note that I am not opposed to what you did I was just explaining to another poster how under UK law how data kept by an organisation on individuals would be considered confidential when not used in the manner intended by the organisation.

 

How exactly do you know that the intended uses of the directory include providing a member who is moving/travelling with the name/number of a Bishop halfway around the world but don't include verifying whether or not someone who is claiming to be a duly ordained bishop in the Church really is? I would certainly consider either request for information to be 'directly related to [my] work for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints'.

 

For the past several months, I've had to be in direct contact with Church headquarters in America as I've worked through an issue involving a family in our ward. Each time when I rang up, the person working there asked me for the name of my ward, looked it up in the CDOL -- on one occasion the brother on the phone actually said this was what he was doing -- and then asked me to name myself and my calling followed by providing information such as my birth date and address to verify that I was indeed who I was claiming to be. It would seem to me, therefore, that those working directly for the Church have no problem using the CDOL as a tool for verifying the identity of those claiming to hold certain callings.

 

Interestingly, if one consults the full Conditions of Use on the site, they make it rather clear what kinds of uses the Church does not intend:

 

You may not make available material from this site on any other Web site or on a computer network. You may not use this site or information found at this site for selling or promoting products or services, soliciting clients, or any other commercial purpose.

Edited September 26, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[Robert F. Smith]

But the phone numbers and names of all bishops and stake presidents are available to the general membership through the maps website.

Thanks for the info.  I was not aware of that.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Thanks for the info.  I was not aware of that.

 

Yep. On more than one occasion in the past I've used the map feature on mormon.org to check to see who is currently serving as bishop/branch president in some of the congregations I've lived in previously.

[LordUther]

How exactly do you know that the intended uses of the directory include providing a member who is moving/travelling with the name/number of a Bishop halfway around the world but don't include verifying whether or not someone who is claiming to be a duly ordained bishop in the Church really is? I would certainly consider either request for information to be 'directly related to [my] work for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints'.

 

For the past several months, I've had to be in direct contact with Church headquarters in America as I've worked through an issue involving a family in our ward. Each time when I rang up, the person working there asked me for the name of my ward, looked it up in the CDOL -- on one occasion the brother on the phone actually said this was what he was doing -- and then asked me to name myself and my calling followed by providing information such as my birth date and address to verify that I was indeed who I was claiming to be. It would seem to me, therefore, that those working directly for the Church have no problem using the CDOL as a tool for verifying the identity of those claiming to hold certain callings.

 

Interestingly, if one consults the full Conditions of Use on the site, they make it rather clear what kinds of uses the Church does not intend:

 

Exactly and in the OP it was about confirming the ID of a self proclaimed Bishop in order to conduct a business deal, the 2nd was after posting on an apostate/anti website he gets a troll claiming to be stalking him on holiday and using the directory to ascertain wether or not this troll is who he says he is. Neither of the examples are for church business which is what the directory is for. Note the usage of 'directly related to your work with the LDS'

 

 

 

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).

Edited September 26, 2013 by LordUther

[Hamba Tuhan]

Neither of the examples are for church business which is what the directory is for. Note the usage of 'directly related to your work with the LDS'

 

As a member of the bishopric, part of my work for the Church -- the phrase 'church business' is yours -- includes providing members with the correct information they may need to keep themselves and others safe. One of the families in our ward recently sent their eldest son to America to attend a university in the Midwest. Imagine that a man contacted them claiming to be this boy's bishop, but he left them with an odd feeling. So they come to me, and I look up who the bishop is for them. Does anyone think that's somehow not part of my 'Church calling'?

[LordUther]

As a member of the bishopric, part of my work for the Church -- the phrase 'church business' is yours -- includes providing members with the correct information they may need to keep themselves and others safe. One of the families in our ward recently sent their eldest son to America to attend a university in the Midwest. Imagine that a man contacted them claiming to be this boy's bishop, but he left them with an odd feeling. So they come to me, and I look up who the bishop is for them. Does anyone think that's somehow not part of my 'Church calling'?

 

 

That is but the OP's examples aren't. Continuing to provide examples of what is appropriate doesn't provide evidence in favour of what isn't. The first example the OP provided was in order to conduct a business deal...this is not directly involved in his work with the church. The second example involved him hanging around a website that could easily be argued that a faithful member of the churchy shouldn't be a member of in the first place, getting himself into trouble and then using the church directory to ascertain his own safety. Which wouldn't have been compromised in the first place if a) he hadn't been mixing with a group of people that have feelings of ill will against him in the first place. b) had used basic internet safety protocols and used a pseudonym rather than giving out his real name. c) kept personal information about his holidays and movements to himself rather than broadcasting it to people he doesn't know and, once again, would have feelings of ill will against him. None of this anything to do with any calling or anything to do with the church. And all would have been avoided if he had employed basic internet safety protocols!!

 

Oh and by the way, congratulations, If you go back and read my first posts in this thread I started off on the OP's side and was actually saying that I felt he didn't compromise any policies, and only got on to the subject of 'intended use' to explain a principle of UK law to another poster but you have successfully managed to argue me into changing my mind and swing me round to an opposing view. Well done! I actually started out on the same side as you but you managed to change my mind on that. Yes, in both examples the OP was out of order for using the church directory in the way he did and it was an abuse of said directory.

[Tacenda]

How exactly do you know that the intended uses of the directory include providing a member who is moving/travelling with the name/number of a Bishop halfway around the world but don't include verifying whether or not someone who is claiming to be a duly ordained bishop in the Church really is? I would certainly consider either request for information to be 'directly related to [my] work for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints'.

For the past several months, I've had to be in direct contact with Church headquarters in America as I've worked through an issue involving a family in our ward. Each time when I rang up, the person working there asked me for the name of my ward, looked it up in the CDOL -- on one occasion the brother on the phone actually said this was what he was doing -- and then asked me to name myself and my calling followed by providing information such as my birth date and address to verify that I was indeed who I was claiming to be. It would seem to me, therefore, that those working directly for the Church have no problem using the CDOL as a tool for verifying the identity of those claiming to hold certain callings.

Interestingly, if one consults the full Conditions of Use on the site, they make it rather clear what kinds of uses the Church does not intend:

This made me think back to a time of great distress. When my husband and I went to sell our first home it was brought to our attention that we had a cloudy title. A woman's name was still on it and she was the ex wife of the original owner who built the home who was a home builder. It turns out that several sub contractors didn't get paid so they put liens on our home. It was such a mess. And we needed to locate this woman in order to get her name off the title. We tried everything, no one knew what had happened to her or her location. We didn't have the technology back then with google or the internet. Then I thought, you know what, maybe she's a member. So I contacted the church office and the sweet lady on the other end found this woman and gave me some info to contact her!

Maybe Dan could have easily have done this and no one could say anything!!

Btw, we lost thousands on the sale of our home, and being the bill payer I didn't catch that someone's name was on our taxes. So dumb!!!!

Edited September 26, 2013 by Tacenda

[Bob Crockett]

snip

I've read what you've said, re-read it, and disagree.

 

The leadership directory is not confidential.  It just isn't.   A list does not become confidential if it assembles publicly-available information, and then puts a stamp on it which says:  "For leadership uses only."**  As was pointed out to you, the very same information which is contained in the leadership directory is available to members from on-line resources.  The only difference, however, is that lds.org does not offer a search by leader name; once that happens, or if it happens, there will be no difference between the leadership directory and what lds.org offers.

 

Although the leadership directory is available to all members, as it is online and only online, no member who is not a leader can actually access it, but when it was given to bishops in hard copy form it was given to members to look at upon request.   You may think it is confidential and not available to members, but you're not correct.

 

The leadership directory is not the same as a membership record.  The opening post does not ask questions about a membership record. 

 

That is about all I can say without repeating myself again.

 

*** I don't have the exact restriction quoted, but what does this restriction mean?  I would say that if a member wants an answer to a question about a leader's identification, the local leader ought to answer the question.  I suppose there are exceptions; the member wants to stalk the leader or solicit for funds, and says so, but otherwise -- I believe that my bishop should not refuse to answer my question as to whether Oliver Twist, who says he is a bishop and is asking me for money, is really a bishop.  Although the Church follows the view that the bishop faces the congregation because he is the representative of the Lord, rather than faces the cross because he is the representative of the congregation, the bishops nonetheless minister to the congregation.

Edited September 26, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[mfbukowski]

Thanks for the info.  I was not aware of that.

BUT it is only available in "one direction"- AFTER you have chosen a location, to find the bishop for that location only.  So if you want to know who is the stake president for Podunk Nova Scotia, you can find that out, let's say he's President John Smith.  But if you want to know if John Smith is a stake president, anywhere in the church, the system will not tell you that.  You can search by location only, not by name.

 

So to get a list of all stake presidents, you would theoretically have to input a search for every stake location in the church.

[mfbukowski]

Actually, I first said:

 

 

That was what I was referrering to when I said "(as I mentioned earlier)".  So I'm sorry that you might have mistooken me somehow that I switched from talking about leadership information to membership information but I've always been talking about leadership information.

 

But I do need to clarify one thing.  After looking at the various outputs from the maps website, sometimes you get full names and phone numbers for the stake presidint/bishop, councillors, and clerks and sometimes you just get last names and phone numbers of just the stake presidentns/bishops.  I've tried several different locations and it is seemlingly random at this point.  But you can also get mission president information as well.

Ok but it is helpful if you use the function which links to the post you quoted instead of just using the quote box-thingy.  That way people can check the context of the quote before responding, at least that is the way I do it.