Recent Church Actions (Nyt Link)

[Madmardigan]

Most likely. I don't like the idea of keeping tabs on people for their belief, lack thereof, or opinions that differ from doctrine or policy. Isn't enough to call them in for interviews and asking them? Not sure it's a good idea to engage in such monitoring.

 

I highly doubt the church monitors anyone.  It's most likely someone from the ward or a family member that snitches.  

 

It takes way too much time to monitor peoples activities and it is really boring.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I highly doubt the church monitors anyone.  It's most likely someone from the ward or a family member that snitches.  

 

It takes way too much time to monitor peoples activities and it is really boring.

 

While not monitoring everyone, the church "Strengthening Church Members Committee" absolutely monitors high profile members. Wiki has Dallin H. Oaks describing it as a "clipping service" that has "monitored speeches, writings and activities of those suspected of apostasy and passed on material to church officials."

[Duncan]

While not monitoring everyone, the church "Strengthening Church Members Committee" absolutely monitors high profile members. Wiki has Dallin H. Oaks describing it as a "clipping service" that has "monitored speeches, writings and activities of those suspected of apostasy and passed on material to church officials."

 

 

is it just apostasy? sometimes we get members passing through or people claiming to be members who want the Church to do XYZ for them, come to find out later....we had a situation like that last summer with a lady. 

 

Plus

 

Elder Carlos E. Asay, Former member of the Seventy wrote at the 1986 Sperry Symposium

 

 “Several months ago, a special committee considered the subject of strengthening Church members. I was privileged to chair this committee in its closing stages as it prepared its final report. The group, after hours of prayerful study, submitted to the brethren its recommendations for needed approaches and resources materials. However, the most significant part of the report, I feel, centered upon five upon simple actions-actions that, if taken, would cause a person to become rooted and built up in Christ. the five actions are: Learn of the Lord, Love and obey the Lord, Converse with Hod in the name of the Lord, Worship the Lord and Serve the Lord” pg 5, 1986 Sperry Symposium.

Edited June 19, 2014 by Duncan

[Freedom]

This too will pass. They have come before and they will come again in the future. If you don't want to play according to the rules of the playground, find another playground. They are welcome to their opinion, they just need to stop forcing it on the rest of us. If we could say a mistake was make, it was to allow it to go on for so long. This type of action is a local matter and since local leaders rarely have experience with this sort of thing, they may not have taken action when they should have. I do not envy their position. But in the end, the church will carry on growing and will forever be stronger than what ever weapons Satan chooses to use against it. 

[stemelbow]

I highly doubt the church monitors anyone.  It's most likely someone from the ward or a family member that snitches.  

 

It takes way too much time to monitor peoples activities and it is really boring.

Depends on the person, I guess. We're set up to monitor each other's activities and many people seem to have a good time doing it. Nearly each week I'm at Church someone asks me about something that I know I didn't mention to anyone. Where they getting their info? my wife's facebook or instragram. I realize I live an exceptionally exciting life, but there are others. It seems Dehlin get's monitored by people too. I hear many a comment about what he said here or there, offering criticisms and complaints or praises and support. People at another site, not to be named, are seemingly obsessed with Dan Peterson and others, ready to pounce upon anything they feel ought to be mocked or derided. I don't know how people have the time or interest either, but it's fairly common, it seems to me.

I wouldn't doubt there are bishops eager to learn the thoughts of certain ward members so they take to social media to find out what they're saying. If interested they start to "follow". Soon monitoring could take place. Can't say I'd put it past local leaders.

[stemelbow]

While not monitoring everyone, the church "Strengthening Church Members Committee" absolutely monitors high profile members. Wiki has Dallin H. Oaks describing it as a "clipping service" that has "monitored speeches, writings and activities of those suspected of apostasy and passed on material to church officials."

This speaks to how far do they go? Who could be considered high profile members? Was information passed from SCMC to area leaders, passed on to local leaders?

my goodness, why can't personal interviews be enough? Worried about too many people lying or something?

[bluebell]

is it just apostasy? sometimes we get members passing through or people claiming to be members who want the Church to do XYZ for them, come to find out later....we had a situation like that last summer with a lady.

Plus

Elder Carlos E. Asay, Former member of the Seventy wrote at the 1986 Sperry Symposium

“Several months ago, a special committee considered the subject of strengthening Church members. I was privileged to chair this committee in its closing stages as it prepared its final report. The group, after hours of prayerful study, submitted to the brethren its recommendations for needed approaches and resources materials. However, the most significant part of the report, I feel, centered upon five upon simple actions-actions that, if taken, would cause a person to become rooted and built up in Christ. the five actions are: Learn of the Lord, Love and obey the Lord, Converse with Hod in the name of the Lord, Worship the Lord and Serve the Lord” pg 5, 1986 Sperry Symposium.

This makes it sound like the SMC finished its work in 1986.

[Kaleb Webb]

This is reminding me a bit of the controversy that arose in the late 80's and early 90's when people found out that the SMC was keeping files on individual members

[CA Steve]

If it is okay to hold people accountable for what they say in public is it also okay to publish the names of those holding people accountable?

[Buckeye]

It's a problem when a Bishop is tweeting and and posting on Facebook opinions that are contrary to church doctrine.

 

It's also possible you may be called into a Bishops office if you tweet things contrary to church doctrine and depending on what you say in the interview things will play out from there.  I highly doubt if you are critical every once in a while the church does anything.  Its the constant nitpicking that seems to do it.  All of the people in the article seemed to have a problem with how often they did it.

 

The NYT article states that Kloosterman is not currently a bishop.  He was released in 2012 after serving 5 years.  I hope that the reason his current bishop pulled his recommend has some reason in addition to just his support of civil SSM.  Nothing in the article suggests he opposed the church. All he is purported to have done is show support for a same-sex couple who married.  If that alone is sufficient ground to pull a recommend, it would signal a stark change in policy.  There are many members with recommends who support civil SSM.  Here is just one who was interviewed earlier this year:

 

Spencer W. Clark, executive director of Mormons for Marriage Equality, has faced no church censure for his public support of gay marriage.

Clark, an expert with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, is married to a woman, has two children, is active in a French-speaking LDS branch in Maryland, and is an ordinance worker in his faith’s Washington, D.C., temple.

"My branch president and I disagree on same-sex marriage but my support for it has never come up in a temple recommend interview," Clark said. "Worthiness is all based on your own assessment. That’s how it should be."

Clark does not see his group as "opposing the church," he said. "The church can define what it views as marriage. The question is how we determine the best policy for the country. It’s a political question, not a doctrinal one."

 

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57396344-78/church-lds-marriage-mormons.html.csp

[sethpayne]

I find this funny:

“It feels scary to have all the words I say on Facebook and Twitter monitored,” said Kevin Kloosterman

Umm, what do you think those two websites are for? I'm pretty sure its not supposed to be private but I could be wrong.

 

I'm pretty sure that FB, at least, isn't designed to allow your priesthood leaders to keep tabs on you.

 

Twitter, of course, is a free-for-all.

Edited June 19, 2014 by sethpayne

[bluebell]

I'm pretty sure that FB, at least, isn't designed to allow your priesthood leaders to keep tabs on you.

Only if you friend him, or his wife.

Usually the problem stems from being friends with people in the ward, and then having one of them talk to your leader. That's what I hear about the most, when I hear about this subject at all.

[The Nehor]

Holy shmolies...now we can't share our personal thoughts online if they disagree with Church policy/doctrine?This is toeing a ridiculous line, if you ask me. Its one thing to call a court for someone who has been uncompromising (at least that's how the Church views Kelly) and persists to use her activity as a means of agitation. It's another to call a court because he/she twitters his/her support for gay marriage.There has to be some room to play. Otherwise we'll truly be part of a controlling organization. I don't get the impression, from the Church's public statements that monitoring individuals online activity is an encouraging avenue for the church to take.

The idea that there should be room to 'play' with apostasy is a new one to me.

If you are worried about privacy you should probably worry about the government who have massive amounts of data collected to 'protect us' and has power to do things to you and less about the church who occasionally looks at things you make public voluntarily.

[Zakuska]

The idea that there should be room to 'play' with apostasy is a new one to me.

If you are worried about privacy you should probably worry about the government who have massive amounts of data collected to 'protect us' and has power to do things to you and less about the church who occasionally looks at things you make public voluntarily.

I want to know when the church got into the business of policing thoughts public or otherwise. Rather than helping people repent for actual sins (actions) such as adultury?

 

In the judgement We are Judged for what we DO not for our opinions public or otherwise.

Edited June 19, 2014 by Zakuska

[The Nehor]

I want to know when the church got into the business of policing thoughts public or otherwise. Rather than helping people repent for actual sins (actions) such as adultury?

 

We are Judge for what we DO not for what we think about doing,

King Benjamin disagreed and said our thoughts will condemn us.

In any case this is not policing thought. It is looking at what someone is saying and you are free to say whatever you like just like the church is free to kick you out lest you use your membership as some kind of shield or convincing argument while spewing apostasy.

[smac97]

You see nothing wrong with church leaders monitoring members FB and Twitter pages?

"Monitoring" meaning "reading words published online to the entire world?" No, I don't see anything wrong with that. Do you?

Thanks,

-Smac

[sethpayne]

I highly doubt the church monitors anyone.  It's most likely someone from the ward or a family member that snitches.  

 

It takes way too much time to monitor peoples activities and it is really boring.

 

You have heard of the Strengthening Church Member Committee, right?

 

That's ALL THEY DO.  Monitor and keep files on Church members that could become problematic.  They supply these files to local leaders to help them build cases against members in local disciplinary councils.

[Zakuska]

King Benjamin disagreed and said our thoughts will condemn us.

In any case this is not policing thought. It is looking at what someone is saying and you are free to say whatever you like just like the church is free to kick you out lest you use your membership as some kind of shield or convincing argument while spewing apostasy.

Christ also said that if we even think about adultury we've commited the sin. But why are our Bishops Area Authorities and even Apostles usurping Gods proper place in judgment?

 

If God doesnt strike us down who gave them the right to?

Edited June 19, 2014 by Zakuska

[The Nehor]

Christ also said that if we even think about adultury we've commited the sin. But why are our Bishops usurping Gods proper place in judgment?

He is not. He is taking action to help the person repent so they do not have to face said judgment (and to protect others from the sinner as necessary).

[sethpayne]

Only if you friend him, or his wife.

Usually the problem stems from being friends with people in the ward, and then having one of them talk to your leader. That's what I hear about the most, when I hear about this subject at all.

 

I hope I'm not the only one who thinks it absurd that we have a Church culture where members "tattle" on each other like 3rd graders.

 

People know I love and support Mormonism.  But when people accuse us of cult-like behavior, it is this type of "tattling" and monitoring by the SCMC that make the charge tough to counter.  Sure, we are not The People's Temple.  But we are monitored, "tattled on", and disciplined for expressing opinions that run counter to Church leaders.  

 

Don't get me wrong.  I think that expressing disagreement with Church leadership needs to be done respectfully and with kindness.  And so I do differentiate between "antagonistic criticism" and "helpful criticism" or mere simple disagreement.

[Zakuska]

He is not. He is taking action to help the person repent so they do not have to face said judgment (and to protect others from the sinner as necessary).

 

Is it his place to force someone to repent and save them from something that rightfully belongs only to the Lord?

 

 41 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;

 42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

Edited June 19, 2014 by Zakuska

[stemelbow]

The idea that there should be room to 'play' with apostasy is a new one to me.

It'd be new to anyone. I didn't argue for room to play with apostasy at all. We should have some room to disagree with each other, and be able to discuss our thoughts.

If you are worried about privacy you should probably worry about the government who have massive amounts of data collected to 'protect us' and has power to do things to you and less about the church who occasionally looks at things you make public voluntarily.

What is the concern regarding government data collecting?

[The Nehor]

Is that his place to force someone to repent?

 

 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;

 42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

The bishop does not force repentance. It is easy to avoid a bishop's help. Cease contact with the bishop or refuse to talk to them.

[Zakuska]

The bishop does not force repentance. It is easy to avoid a bishop's help. Cease contact with the bishop or refuse to talk to them.

 

What would you call Bishops going out of there way, following peoples face book accounts and calling people in for disciplinary actions threatening excommunication or disfellowship or yanking Temple recommends as seems to be the case with the person in the OP of this thread for things they post online other than "forced Repentance"?

 

Is the church becoming a Police state now?

 

Are new converts going to start getting the same screening?

 

Whats next?  Background checks for membership in the church?

Edited June 19, 2014 by Zakuska

[The Nehor]

What would you call Bishops going out of there way, following peoples face book accounts and calling people in for disciplinary actions threatening excommunication or disfellowship or yanking Temple recommends as seems to be the case with the person in the OP of this thread for things they post online other than "forced Repentance"?

I would call it concern motivated by love.