A Question

[phaedrus ut]

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?

 

If he didn't expect to find anything why go looking at all?  He used a list of real people and cross referenced it with bishops listed in a church leadership directory.  How is that not trying to find the real identity? 

 

Dan complains quite often, and rightly so, about his malevolent stalker. My criticism was that such behavior makes his complaints less sympathetic, at least in my opinion.

 

 

Phaedrus

[thesometimesaint]

It is also inherently dishonest.

[Kenngo1969]

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'?

Nope, I don't (think that it's not part of your Church calling, that is).

[webbles]

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.

Like this I've previously had problems with the MultiQuote feature and so I've rarely used it.  I've probably only tried to use 2-3 times.

 

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.

Or you could just write a simple script that does it for you (and it really is a simple script, the api is very easy to work with). In this case, instead of asking his bishop friend to look it up, he could have asked his programmer friend (hopefully, he has one) to look it up.

[Daniel Peterson]

If he didn't expect to find anything why go looking at all?  He used a list of real people and cross referenced it with bishops listed in a church leadership directory.  How is that not trying to find the real identity? 

 

Dan complains quite often, and rightly so, about his malevolent stalker. My criticism was that such behavior makes his complaints less sympathetic, at least in my opinion.

 

It's not trying to find the real identity for several reasons, among them (a) the fact that I was quite confident that none of the men on the trip seemed to be a double-dealing cynic and poseur, so that I didn't expect to find the bogus phony in question among them, and (b) the fact that, even if one of them had turned out to be a bishop, I wouldn't have believed him to be the boastful liar from the message board.

 

Why did I go looking if I expected to find nothing?  Because actually looking and finding nothing would, I knew, cement the case far better than merely expecting to find nothing would.

 

I understand your concern, but think it groundless:  Constantly trying to ferret out real-life information about an internet poster is rather different than checking and disconfirming a false claim about oneself in real life that has been made by an anonymous poster.

[Daniel Peterson]

It is also inherently dishonest.

 

What is?

[Tiki]

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.

There's no need to use Church resources. Check with your State Govt's Corporation Commission if Corn.Stimp. claims his business is a Corporation, or merely ask him for references/customers, etc.

Or get a friend working at the IRS to violate his Tea Party privacy. :/

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Yes, webbles let us know that the maps at Mormon.org actually has all that info on leadership worldwide readily available, so you are right for the wrong reasons, Bob.

So I'm glad that we had this conversation.

Since I spend no time investigating people and trying to get the goods on them, I seldom have occasion to use such resources.  And when I do I try to forget that information and then conduct my affairs as though I didn't ever know it.  I  think that we owe that much to each other 

And, yes (for the umpteenth time), I know the difference between membership records and membership lists.  I expressed dismay that we have members out there who justify improper access to membership records, and who use all manner of sophistry to justify their chicanery.  Your only response is to suggest that I don't know the difference and that it is not part of the OP.  I hope that is not indicative of your lack of concern.

[Daniel Peterson]

Just for the record:  I view what I did in this case as no more morally problematic than if, having heard from somebody that my former Olympic luge partner Philastus Trunkelstein is a bishop in the Cape Enchilada Kansas East Stake, I were to ask a friend who lives in that stake, "Is my old friend Philastus Trunkelstein really a bishop in your stake?"

[Bob Crockett]

Yes, webbles let us know that the maps at Mormon.org actually has all that info on leadership worldwide readily available, so you are right for the wrong reasons, Bob.

...

And, yes (for the umpteenth time), I know the difference between membership records and membership lists.  I expressed dismay that we have members out there who justify improper access to membership records, and who use all manner of sophistry to justify their chicanery.  Your only response is to suggest that I don't know the difference and that it is not part of the OP.  I hope that is not indicative of your lack of concern.

You are rather harsh. Unduly. But pot meet kettle, I suppose.

[mfbukowski]

Just for the record:  I view what I did in this case as no more morally problematic than if, having heard from somebody that my former Olympic luge partner Philastus Trunkelstein is a bishop in the Cape Enchilada Kansas East Stake, I were to ask a friend who lives in that stake, "Is my old friend Philastus Trunkelstein really a bishop in your stake?"

Agree.  Much ado about nada, cape enchilada.

[Lightbearer]

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 you have acted with common sense. "Be wise as serpents but harmless as doves..."

In fact it is Cornelius who has acted unethically and to hell with his privacy! I would go further by exposing this person as the fraud he obviously is by reporting him to the proper authorities.

[stemelbow]

No you have acted with common sense. "Be wise as serpents but harmless as doves..."

In fact it is Cornelius who has acted unethically and to hell with his privacy! I would go further by exposing this person as the fraud he obviously is by reporting him to the proper authorities.

 

Who would be proper authorities?  This dude Dan is talking about is an absolute weenie.  he searches out Dan's words in all sorts of venues, including here, to go back to his gang of miscreants so they can pick apart his words to paint him as some vicious dude who is out to hurt people.  He also makes up anything he feels will help sale his stories.  Their seemingly favorite way to characterize him is to say he is hurting people and hurting the church or some such thing.  They're trying to hit him where it hurts worst since it's apparent what is in Dan's heart is to help people and help the Church--=which of course, nobody is perfect at. 

 

Anyway, I've been in the unfortunate spot to witness this crap.  Its pathetic and oddly enough has given me reason to pity the aggressors here moreso than I pity Dan--mostly because Dan is a big boy who can take care of himself.  But something is wrong with this dude and his crowd's approach and people need to say something and acknowledge that, I'd say, for their sake as much as for anyone's.