Rock Waterman - Nyt Article About Online Comments

[HappyJackWagon]

Since HappyJackWagon didn't provide a source for this, but stated it a priori as though it were confirmed fact, I tried to do an Internet search on it. I found a similar assertion on the New Order Mormon discussion board, but I haven't been able to locate anything so far to indicate it is anything beyond mere rumor mongering.

 

Can anyone here give a solid source for this claim?

Listen to this podcast with Brent Metcalf. He shares this story of monitoring ERA events from when he worked for church security. http://mormonstories.org/brent-metcalfe-mark-hofmann-salamander-letter-bombings/

 

Scott, I don't have access right now but look at Handbook 1 regarding the appropriateness of surveiling members for the purpose of gathering "evidence of wrongdoing". My recollection is that physical, audio and video surveillance are all deemed inappropriate. (Does anyone out there with access have a direct quote for this?) Clearly even the church recognizes limits on monitoring its members even if you don't.

 

Also, any additional rebuttal of my use of the term Orwellian? Or do you concede my point?

[hope_for_things]

I don't dispute that it "has its place."

 

Again, the point of my post was to challenge the idea that it is somehow scandalous or "Orwellian" for the Church to keep track of who among its own membership are making defamatory statements about it in public.

 

Some possible meanings of Orwellian on Wikipedia.  The most common of which are the first two items from my experience around surveillance and the Big Brother concept from his 1984 book.    

 

 

The adjective Orwellian refers to these behaviors of The Party, especially when the Party is the State:

·         Invasion of personal privacy, either directly physically or indirectly by surveillance.

·         State control of its citizens' daily life, as in a "Big Brother" society.

·         Official encouragement of policies contributing to the socio-economic disintegration of the family.

·         The adoration of state leaders and their Party.

·         The encouragement of "doublethink", whereby the population must learn to embrace inconsistent concepts without dissent, e.g. giving up liberty for freedom. Similar terms used are "doublespeak", and "newspeak".

·         The revision of history in the favor of the State's interpretation of it.

·         A (generally) dystopian future.

·         The use of euphemism to describe an agency, program or other concept, especially when the name denotes the opposite of what is actually occurring. E.g. a department that wages war is called the "Ministry of Peace"

 

The SCMC seems to fit the description of Orwellian on the secret surveillance meaning of the term.  You may be perfectly comfortable with that, and some are comfortable with our government listening into our phone calls and reading our emails, but I’m not personally comfortable with it. 

 

It’s an interesting topic in our modern society with the data footprints that we leave everywhere.  What constitutes moral behavior for governments and private companies.  Google has admitted to keeping search data and has been criticized for it.  What do we think is fair and what will we accept as a society?  

[toon]

Thanks for posting that link, Tacenda.  It's kind of funny that they misspelled "Apostasy" in Rock's disciplinary council letter

 

I haven't listened to the podcast, have you (or anyone else)?

 

I listened last night.  Kind of wished Dehlin would sometimes shut up and, rather than pursue his particular agenda, let Rock just talk.  Rock seems like a real interesting and genuinely good guy.  Rock claims he doesn't know precisely what he said or wrote that is considered apostacy -- that it's never been pointed out to him.  He said he was interested in finding that out and then trying to answer those questions or be corrected at the disciplinary council.   He seemed to be lookding forward to the council as an opportunity to explain his views.  He wasn't concerned about it and doesn't see excommunication as any significant change.  He doesn't resign because he seems, admittedly so, to look forward to the process.  Dehlin appeared to constantly try to steer the interview toward the direction of painting the process as unfair, as stifling of free speech, etc.  But that didn't seem to be Rock's agenda.

[Scott Lloyd]

Listen to this podcast with Brent Metcalf. He shares this story of monitoring ERA events from when he worked for church security. http://mormonstories.org/brent-metcalfe-mark-hofmann-salamander-letter-bombings/

 

Well, I'm not inclined to slog through one of Dehlin's five-hour podcasts just to confirm a rumor. But Metcalf is not exactly an unbiased source, is he?

 

Scott, I don't have access right now but look at Handbook 1 regarding the appropriateness of surveiling members for the purpose of gathering "evidence of wrongdoing". My recollection is that physical, audio and video surveillance are all deemed inappropriate. (Does anyone out there with access have a direct quote for this?) Clearly even the church recognizes limits on monitoring its members even if you don't.

 

As I understand the discussion, "physical, audio and video surveillance" are not at issue here. Rather, it is observing content published or disseminated in print, broadcast, Internet or any of the other mass media that anyone might reasonably have access to. And no, I don't have a problem with that.

 

 

Also, any additional rebuttal of my use of the term Orwellian? Or do you concede my point?

 

 

Whatever gave you that idea?

 

No, I don't concede your point. I know what "Orwellian" means, and I still say that applying it in this instance is wacky.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

 

 

 

The SCMC seems to fit the description of Orwellian on the secret surveillance meaning of the term.  You may be perfectly comfortable with that, and some are comfortable with our government listening into our phone calls and reading our emails, but I’m not personally comfortable with it. 

 

What "secret surveillance" is the Church undertaking? How could reading a blog or a magazine article or listening to a podcast or radio broadcast, in any reasonable application of the term, be regarded as "secret surveillance"?

 

Do you really count reading a blog or a newspaper article as "secret surveillance"?

Edited May 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[toon]

One could look at membership in the Church as being something of a contract between the member and the institution. The Church agrees to provide whatever spiritual and/or tangible benefits that might be available with membership and the member agrees to abide by certain conditions of membership. So long as making defamatory public statements about the Church remains an offense that carries a potential penalty of disfellowshipment or excommunication, I see it as perfectly reasonable for the Church to endeavor to take steps to enforce the contract, including the monitoring of statements that are made in any public forum where substantial numbers stand to be influenced thereby.

 

I wish that had been explained to me when I was baptized at the age of 8.  I've figured it out over the years, and I also understand now that, at age 8, I probably wouldn't have understood it.  (Heck, i recollect being introduced to a couple apostles when I was baptized, but in hindsight now realize they were probably missionaries.)

 

Maybe prior to baptizing converts, as part of the pre-baptismal interview, the Church should explain that it will be monitoring their online or other public comments for any expressions of dissent or even skepticism (or defamation, as you seem to call it). 

[Scott Lloyd]

I wish that had been explained to me when I was baptized at the age of 8.  I've figured it out over the years, and I also understand now that, at age 8, I probably wouldn't have understood it.  (Heck, i recollect being introduced to a couple apostles when I was baptized, but in hindsight now realize they were probably missionaries.)

 

Maybe prior to baptizing converts, as part of the pre-baptismal interview, the Church should explain that it will be monitoring their online or other public comments for any expressions of dissent or even skepticism (or defamation, as you seem to call it). 

So, do I correctly understand you to say that refraining from public defamation of the Church and its leadership, or refraining from public statements that tend to hinder the Church in the fulfillment of its divine mission, are not part of the obligation of being a Church member as you see it?

Edited May 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[toon]

So, do I correctly understand you to say that refraining from public defamation of the Church and its leadership is not part of the obligation of being a Church member as you see it?

 

Sigh. 

 

Obviously, refraining from defamation is implicit.

 

But you seem to have a very broad definition of the term

[Scott Lloyd]

Sigh. 

 

Obviously, refraining from defamation is implicit.

 

But you seem to have a very broad definition of the term

Well, if we agree in principle that "refraining from defamation is implicit," then I don't see that you have a solid case in objecting to the Church keeping track of published, broadcasted or publicly accessible recorded statements pursuant to determining whether such defamation does occur or has occurred.

 

But you seem to have a very broad definition of the term.

 

I went back into my post and added the phrase "or refraining from public statements that tend to hinder the Church in the fulfillment of its divine mission."

 

For example, in the 1970s infamous Mormon dissident Sonia Johnson was trying to get people not to listen or respond to the Church's missionaries.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

So, do I correctly understand you to say that refraining from public defamation of the Church and its leadership, or refraining from public statements that tend to hinder the Church in the fulfillment of its mission, are not part of the obligation of being a Church member as you see it?

 

 We seem to be using different terms. The difference matters quite a bit.

defame

  1. to attack the good name or reputation of, as by uttering or publishing maliciously or falsely anything injurious; slander or libel; calumniate:

dissent

 1.  to differ in sentiment or opinion, especially from the majority; withhold assent; disagree (often followed by from):

2.  to disagree with the methods, goals, etc., of a political party or government; take an opposing view.

3.  to disagree with or reject the doctrines or authority of an established church.

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

What "secret surveillance" is the Church undertaking? How could reading a blog or a magazine article or listening to a podcast or radio broadcast, in any reasonable application of the term, be regarded as "secret surveillance"?

 

Do you really count reading a blog or a newspaper article as "secret surveillance"?

We seem to be quibbling over many simple terms and phrases. This time "Secret Surveillance" is being challenged so lets look to see if it fits.

 

 

 

SECRET

1

a :  kept from knowledge or view :  hidden

b :  marked by the habit of discretion :  closemouthed

c :  working with hidden aims or methods :  undercover <a secret agent>

d :  not acknowledged :  unavowed <a secret bride>

e :  conducted in secret <a secret trial>

2

:  remote from human frequentation or notice :  secluded

3

:  revealed only to the initiated :  esoteric

 

 

surveillance

 

noun

1.

a watch kept over a person, group, etc., especially over a suspect, prisoner, or the like:

The suspects were under police surveillance.

2.

continuous observation of a place, person, group, or ongoing activity in order to gather information:

video cameras used for covert surveillance.

See also electronic surveillance.

 

So is a practice of observation of the church and people within it going on? Yes. Are all members aware of this? No. Therefore we can accurately make the claim there is a level of secret surveillance going on in the church. That doesn't mean it's inherently bad. That judgement is left to each individual. But the practice does exist.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

 We seem to be using different terms. The difference matters quite a bit.

defame

  1. to attack the good name or reputation of, as by uttering or publishing maliciously or falsely anything injurious; slander or libel; calumniate:

 

dissent

 1.  to differ in sentiment or opinion, especially from the majority; withhold assent; disagree (often followed by from):

2.  to disagree with the methods, goals, etc., of a political party or government; take an opposing view.

3.  to disagree with or reject the doctrines or authority of an established church.

 

Did you see the part I added about making statements that hinder the Church in its mission? I cited Sonia Johnson as an example.

 

At any rate, what is at issue here is whether it is proper for the Church to keep track of public statements made by certain of its members. How can a proper determination be made as to whether such statements are defamatory (or otherwise injurious) if there is no effort made to keep track of them?

[Scott Lloyd]

We seem to be quibbling over many simple terms and phrases. This time "Secret Surveillance" is being challenged so lets look to see if it fits.

 

 

So is a practice of observation of the church and people within it going on? Yes. Are all members aware of this? No. Therefore we can accurately make the claim there is a level of secret surveillance going on in the church. That doesn't mean it's inherently bad. That judgement is left to each individual. But the practice does exist.

So, to be clear, are you saying that reading a publicly accessible blog or Internet site or reading a newspaper or magazine or listening to a radio broadcast or Internet podcast amounts to "secret surveillance"?

 

So is a practice of observation of the church and people within it going on? Yes. Are all members aware of this? No.

 

So, to be clear, is it your assertion that unless each and every member of the Church is aware of a thing, it is, by definition, secret?

 

(And let's bear in mind here that all this business about "secret surveillance" stems from your recollection of what's in the handbook, and that you are going strictly by memory. I don't have access to the handbook at the moment and, hence, cannot confirm the accuracy of your recollection.)

Edited May 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

So, to be clear, are you saying that reading a publicly accessible blog or Internet site or reading a newspaper or magazine or listening to radio broadcast or Internet podcast amounts to "secret surveillance"?

If these things are ststematically sought out and done as a method of monitoring others activities with the possible consequence of submitting them to discipline, YES. Absolutely.

 

ETA: It's surveillance because the actions of others are being purposely monitored. It is Secret because it is done without the knowledge of most/majority/all/ or at least some of the members.

 

ETA 2- responding to Scott's edit - "

(And let's bear in mind here that all this business about "secret surveillance" stems from your recollection of what's in the handbook, and that you are going strictly by memory. I don't have access to the handbook at the moment and, hence, cannot confirm the accuracy of your recollection.)"

 

No. that's incorrect. It's based on the church's reluctant acknowledgement that they have a committee in place to monitor this type of activity by its members.

 

Edited May 28, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[Scott Lloyd]

If these things are ststematically sought out and done as a method of monitoring others activities with the possible consequence of submitting them to discipline, YES. Absolutely.

 

 

I don't know what "ststematically" means, but I would pose the same question to you as I did to someone else: Would you have the Church administer discipline without documenting that an offense had occurred? That hardly seems just.

[Scott Lloyd]

ETA 2- responding to Scott's edit - "

(And let's bear in mind here that all this business about "secret surveillance" stems from your recollection of what's in the handbook, and that you are going strictly by memory. I don't have access to the handbook at the moment and, hence, cannot confirm the accuracy of your recollection.)"

 

No. that's incorrect. It's based on the church's reluctant acknowledgement that they have a committee in place to monitor this type of activity by its members.

"Reluctant" (your term) or not, if it has been acknowledged (and it has, several years ago in published newspaper reports), it is hardly secret, is it?

Edited May 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

"Reluctant" (your term) or not, if it has been acknowledged (and it has, several years ago in published newspaper reports), it is hardly secret, is it?

This is getting silly. Would you like me to define reluctant and ststematically (or could a reasonable person recognize a typo of a t instead of a y)?

 

Can you tell me all the methods the church uses to monitor member's speach in personal and public arenas? If not, it seems like there may still be some secrets to the program.

[hope_for_things]

What "secret surveillance" is the Church undertaking? How could reading a blog or a magazine article or listening to a podcast or radio broadcast, in any reasonable application of the term, be regarded as "secret surveillance"?

 

Do you really count reading a blog or a newspaper article as "secret surveillance"?

If someone reports on another person’s activity especially when that person is using anonymous user names, of course that is surveillance of their activities in secret ways.  Not sure how you could categorize it otherwise.  

 

I’ve also heard accounts from reliable people of individuals joining Facebook groups to monitor comments being made and report on behavior of members. This kind of activity is deeply disturbing to many people, and I agree with it being called Orwellian.  

[ttribe]

This is getting silly. Would you like me to define reluctant and ststematically (or could a reasonable person recognize a typo of a t instead of a y)?

 

Uh...oh.

[Scott Lloyd]

This is getting silly.

 

No one's forcing you to continue with it.

 

Would you like me to define reluctant and ststematically (or could a reasonable person recognize a typo of a t instead of a y)?

 

With the garbled spelling, I couldn't be certain whether you were trying to write systematically or systemically, two words that do not mean precisely the same thing. And I wasn't clear on your meaning in either case.

 

And I don't know whether the acknowledgement by the Church was "reluctant" or not. I wanted to make clear that it was you, not I, who was using that modifier.

 

 

 

Can you tell me all the methods the church uses to monitor member's speach in personal and public arenas?

 

No. Can you?

 

 

If not, it seems like there may still be some secrets to the program.

 

You don't know whether there are secrets or not. And I'm not willing to go by your conjecture.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Uh...oh.

[Scott Lloyd]

If someone reports on another person’s activity especially when that person is using anonymous user names, of course that is surveillance of their activities in secret ways.  Not sure how you could categorize it otherwise.  

 

 

Do you know that the Church is doing that?

 

 

I’ve also heard accounts from reliable people of individuals joining Facebook groups to monitor comments being made and report on behavior of members. This kind of activity is deeply disturbing to many people, and I agree with it being called Orwellian.

 

More rumor mongering.

[Scott Lloyd]

hope_for_things appears to be monitoring my posts closely and then commenting on them. He appears to have placed me under surveillance (by his definition).

 

And I don't know his identity, so he's doing it in secret.

 

Secret surveillance.    Stop it, I say. Stop it this instant. 

Edited May 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[hope_for_things]

Do you know that the Church is doing that?

 

More rumor mongering.

 

Is it accurate to characterize the events being reported in the NYT article and elsewhere as Orwellian or not was the original point you challenged, it sounds like you’re conceding that point.  

 

 

hope_for_things appears to be monitoring my posts closely and then commenting on them. He appears to have placed me under surveillance (by his definition).

 

And I don't know his identity, so he's doing it in secret.

 

 

Secret surveillance.     Stop it, I say. Stop it this instant.  

 

Some aren’t concerned about privacy or spying, I can respect that, but I don't agree.  I am concerned, and I don’t like the idea of the church that I donate my tithing dollars to, using that money to fund departments for the sole purpose of spying on members and reporting their private activities to local leaders for disciplinary purposes.  The church needs to grow up a little, this is the 21^st century.  

[Scott Lloyd]

Is it accurate to characterize the events being reported in the NYT article and elsewhere as Orwellian or not was the original point you challenged, it sounds like you’re conceding that point.  

 

 

That you would draw such a conclusion from anything I've said here mystifies me.

 

Some aren’t concerned about privacy or spying, I can respect that, but I don't agree.  I am concerned, and I don’t like the idea of the church that I donate my tithing dollars to, using that money to fund departments for the sole purpose of spying on members and reporting their private activities to local leaders for disciplinary purposes.  

 

Still not clear how reading what is publicly available in the mass media amounts to "spying on members and reporting their private activities." I've asked this question multiple times now, and at this point I've about given up hope on ever getting a straight answer.

 

Are you saying their statements made via the mass media aren't public unless someone from the Church happens to see them or hear about them?

 

The church needs to grow up a little, this is the 21^st century.

 

 

Some of the complainers and faultfinders on the fringe need to develop a bit of maturity, but from where I sit, the Church as in institution is doing fine.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd