Rock Waterman - Nyt Article About Online Comments

[HappyJackWagon]

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. 

If he was here as an employee of the church so he could report back, yeah, that would be a problem. Fortunately for us Hope seems to participate with the conversation rather than report on it.

[Scott Lloyd]

If he was here as an employee of the church so he could report back, yeah, that would be a problem. Fortunately for us Hope seems to participate with the conversation rather than report on it.

Many of those over on the Mormon Defamation Board take great sport in observing what is posted here and then holding it up for derision over there. Does that amount to spying and secret surveillance as well?

Maybe you need to go upbraid them.

 

A while ago, you were asserting that the Church engaged in nefarious activities during the ERA rallies of the '70s, this based on hearsay you heard in a podcast. Is that surveillance too?

Edited May 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Damien the Leper]

I think that's a reasonable analysis.

 

In other words, whether or not one thinks a person ought to be able to make derogatory public statements about the Church of Jesus Christ and not be held accountable for them.

 

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.

 

Again, to say that is Orwellian is overwrought nonsense.

 

 

 

I'm not willing to concede that such a thing happens often or even that it happens at all. My understanding is that it is the local leadership that conducts the disciplinary councils, and that the determination rests with those councils or, in the case of an appeal, with the First Presidency.

Except in the case where Steve Benson caught Dallin Oaks in a lie concerning Boyd Packer's involvement in Paul Toscano's excommunication. Benson still has the recorded conversation where Oaks lied and has transcribed it and allowed it for public hearing.

[HappyJackWagon]

Many of those over on the Mormon Defamation Board take great sport in observing what is posted here and then holding it up for derision over there. Does that amount to spying and secret surveillance as well?

Maybe you need to go upbraid them.

 

Like the church...

 

Do they hold any position of power over me? No.

Can they impact my life negatively in any way if they don't like what I say? No

  -Can they decide to discipline me if they don't like my comments? No

  -Can they tattle on my to my local leaders or family members? No

 

So, as usual, your comparison is lacking.

[Damien the Leper]

Wow. Government tapping of phones. Intrusion. Invasion of privacy. "Dire consequences"

 

So much sophistry, hyperbole, unsubstantiated assertion and inapplicable comparison and allusion going on here, it's hard to know where and how to start to deal with all of this.

 

Some things to bear in mind: The Church of Jesus Christ is not the government. Membership therein is strictly voluntary and is a sort of contract that, like all contracts, is sustained by conditions, a point I made previously that you conveniently avoided addressing. Just as you have steadfastly avoided answering the question of whether you believe one should be able to make derogatory public statements about the Church without being accountable for them, with the associated "dire" consequences of such accountability being limited in their severity to the withholding of membership privileges, which privileges are conditioned in any event upon contractual (read "covenantal") obligations.

 

Just as you are not compelled to belong to the Church, the Church is not compelled to extend membership to you and is justified in every reasonable sense in setting forth (and, if it comes to it, enforcing) conditions for such membership.

Yep. Edward Snowden made it all up.

[Scott Lloyd]

Like the church...

 

Do they hold any position of power over me? No.

To the extent that they engage in  ridicule of you on a publicly accessible message board, they hold power.

 

Can they impact my life negatively in any way if they don't like what I say? No

 

Being held up for public ridicule might be viewed as a negative. Ask Dr. Peterson, who tends to be the target of much of their bile.

 

-Can they decide to discipline me if they don't like my comments? No

 

So you don't want to be held accountable for your public comments then, even when the  severity of the consequences is limited to your membership being withdrawn?

 

 

  -Can they tattle on my to my local leaders or family members? No

 

Conceivably, their message board is accessible to your local leaders and family members along with everyone else. At least the Church holds things in confidence.

 

 

So, as usual, your comparison is lacking.

 

I think this whole gripe session is lacking.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Except in the case where Steve Benson caught Dallin Oaks in a lie concerning Boyd Packer's involvement in Paul Toscano's excommunication. Benson still has the recorded conversation where Oaks lied and has transcribed it and allowed it for public hearing.

Ironic you should bring up Benson's action favorably in a discussion where people are griping about "secret surveillance" and "tattling."

 

Or am I the only one who noticed that? I doubt it.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Avatar4321]

In my experience, the vast majority of times that bishops meet with members to discuss their online comments, those comments became known to the bishop not because of a committee in SLC but by being forwarded the comments from other members in the area. For example, a member makes a FB post supporting same-sex marriage and another member, who is FB friends, forwards that post to the bishop saying "I'm worried about Sister Smith teaching my kids in primary." Happens all the time.

It still doesn't answer the obvious question on how they would know who says something anonymously.

[Damien the Leper]

Ironic you should bring up Benson's action favorably in a discussion where people are griping about "secret surveillance" and "tattling."

 

Or am I the only one who noticed that? I doubt it.

Benson informed Oaks that he was recording. That's nothing new.

[Scott Lloyd]

Benson informed Oaks that he was recording. That's nothing new.

Whatever. Not clear on the relevance of that to this conversation.

 

And I'm quickly losing interest in it anyway. One can only point out so many times, to no avail, until boredom begins to set in, that reading content in the mass media does not amount to "secret surveillance."

Edited May 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Whatever. Not clear on the relevance of that to this conversation.

 

And I'm quickly losing interest in it anyway. One can only point out so many times, to no avail, that reading content in the mass media does not amount to "secret surveillance" until boredom begins to set in.

It is not the mere reading, but the intentional looking for and searching out, making a man an offender for a word, that is wrong.

[smac97]

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.

 

In your view, does reading a newspaper article written by another Latter-day Saint qualify as "secret surveillance?"  

 

Also, is such loaded, risible terminology really appropriate here?  I'm not sure Person A reading an article written by Person B and published to the world has just done anything that merits the appellation "secret."  As far as "surveillance" (defined as "1. a watch kept over a person, group, etc., especially over a suspect, prisoner, or the like", "2. continuous observation of a place, person, group, or ongoing activity in order to gather information," and "3. attentive observation, as to oversee and direct someone or something") I'm not sure that's apt, either.  I frequently read Jana Reiss's blog, but I think it would be absurd to say that I am "surveilling" her.  Likewise, if a Latter-day Saint publishes statements to the world that contain problematic statements, and if that person's bishop hears about it, I'm not persuaded that this would be "surveillance," either.

 

I've heard of allegations of a bishop monitoring anonymous postings by a person in his flock and confronting that person regarding those anonymous postings.  I fairly skeptical about such things.  Anonymous postings are . . . well, anonymous.  So unless the LDS Church has some vast surveillance and intrusion network scouring the web looking for whiffs of apostasy, I'm not inclined to give such claims of sinister "surveillance" much credence.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

In your view, does reading a newspaper article written by another Latter-day Saint qualify as "secret surveillance?"  

 

Also, is such loaded, risible terminology really appropriate here?  I'm not sure Person A reading an article written by Person B and published to the world has just done anything that merits the appellation "secret."  As far as "surveillance" (defined as "1. a watch kept over a person, group, etc., especially over a suspect, prisoner, or the like", "2. continuous observation of a place, person, group, or ongoing activity in order to gather information," and "3. attentive observation, as to oversee and direct someone or something") I'm not sure that's apt, either.  I frequently read Jana Reiss's blog, but I think it would be absurd to say that I am "surveilling" her.  Likewise, if a Latter-day Saint publishes statements to the world that contain problematic statements, and if that person's bishop hears about it, I'm not persuaded that this would be "surveillance," either.

 

I've heard of allegations of a bishop monitoring anonymous postings by a person in his flock and confronting that person regarding those anonymous postings.  I fairly skeptical about such things.  Anonymous postings are . . . well, anonymous.  So unless the LDS Church has some vast surveillance and intrusion network scouring the web looking for whiffs of apostasy, I'm not inclined to give such claims of sinister "surveillance" much credence.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

You're late to the conversation. Go back and read the last few pages.

[smac97]

It is not the mere reading, but the intentional looking for and searching out, making a man an offender for a word, that is wrong.

 

Do you have examples of Latter-day Saints who have been made "offender(s) for a word?"

 

Surely Rock Waterman (!) is not so described.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[smac97]

You're late to the conversation. Go back and read the last few pages.

 

Fair enough.  Thanks!

 

-Smac

[Avatar4321]

That could be because there's not much substance to the comment.

 

We each have limits to what we think is proper and what is not. Some people are just fine with the concept of NSA data mining from phone, email, online communications without a warrant. Others get upset because they feel it is intrusive. It's about individual comfort level. The concept of monitoring citizens (or members) with the possibility of inflicting dire consequences is Orwellian. Whether or not its appropriate is another question.

 

During ERA rallies in Utah the church would monitor attendance, take down licence plate numbers and have the police check the records for names which would then allow the church to compare the names of attendees to memership records. Is that kind of monitoring going too far. For some yes. For others...I guess its possible some people may still think that is appropriate. Regardless of your opinion about appropriateness, it is Orwellian.

 

Having an official committee within the church that monitors the speach of its members is Orwellian. We can disagree about whether or not it is appropriate, but the fact that the monitoring is taking place is Orwellian. If this were a governement practice of monitoring to crack down against perceived dissent I doubt there would be much disagreement, though there probably would be some. Some people just like to lace the gloves and find a fight.

Yeah. I believe that as much as I believe we worship the lizard people living in the tunnels under the great salt lake

[Scott Lloyd]

You're late to the conversation. Go back and read the last few pages.

There hasn't been anything in the last few pages that would rebut anything he said here. In fact the complaints and charges against the Church have been tediously repetitive.

[Yirgacheffe]

That could be because there's not much substance to the comment.

 

We each have limits to what we think is proper and what is not. Some people are just fine with the concept of NSA data mining from phone, email, online communications without a warrant. Others get upset because they feel it is intrusive. It's about individual comfort level. The concept of monitoring citizens (or members) with the possibility of inflicting dire consequences is Orwellian. Whether or not its appropriate is another question.

 

During ERA rallies in Utah the church would monitor attendance, take down licence plate numbers and have the police check the records for names which would then allow the church to compare the names of attendees to memership records. Is that kind of monitoring going too far. For some yes. For others...I guess its possible some people may still think that is appropriate. Regardless of your opinion about appropriateness, it is Orwellian.

 

Having an official committee within the church that monitors the speach of its members is Orwellian. We can disagree about whether or not it is appropriate, but the fact that the monitoring is taking place is Orwellian. If this were a governement practice of monitoring to crack down against perceived dissent I doubt there would be much disagreement, though there probably would be some. Some people just like to lace the gloves and find a fight.

I find that highly inappropriate, an utter waste of taxpayers money, the police have no business spending time aiding the church in discovering dissidents.

[Duncan]

I find that highly inappropriate, an utter waste of taxpayers money, the police have no business spending time aiding the church in discovering dissidents.

 

I agree, I can see though if on certain occasions if threats were received then Church security helping the Police on cases and doing searches and junk

[Scott Lloyd]

I find that highly inappropriate, an utter waste of taxpayers money, the police have no business spending time aiding the church in discovering dissidents.

assuming that it happened.

The account seems to have a pretty tenuous basis in fact.

[Scott Lloyd]

In your view, does reading a newspaper article written by another Latter-day Saint qualify as "secret surveillance?"  

 

Also, is such loaded, risible terminology really appropriate here?  I'm not sure Person A reading an article written by Person B and published to the world has just done anything that merits the appellation "secret."  As far as "surveillance" (defined as "1. a watch kept over a person, group, etc., especially over a suspect, prisoner, or the like", "2. continuous observation of a place, person, group, or ongoing activity in order to gather information," and "3. attentive observation, as to oversee and direct someone or something") I'm not sure that's apt, either.  I frequently read Jana Reiss's blog, but I think it would be absurd to say that I am "surveilling" her.  Likewise, if a Latter-day Saint publishes statements to the world that contain problematic statements, and if that person's bishop hears about it, I'm not persuaded that this would be "surveillance," either.

 

I've heard of allegations of a bishop monitoring anonymous postings by a person in his flock and confronting that person regarding those anonymous postings.  I fairly skeptical about such things.  Anonymous postings are . . . well, anonymous.  So unless the LDS Church has some vast surveillance and intrusion network scouring the web looking for whiffs of apostasy, I'm not inclined to give such claims of sinister "surveillance" much credence.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

I suppose the Church could crowd-source such a thing the way they do with indexing of genealogical records on FamilySearch. But how would you keep a thing like that secret with all the recruiting that would have to be done and thousands of people using their home computers and such?

[Damien the Leper]

Whatever. Not clear on the relevance of that to this conversation.

 

And I'm quickly losing interest in it anyway. One can only point out so many times, to no avail, that reading content in the mass media does not amount to "secret surveillance" until boredom begins to set in.

You attempted a response of irony concerning Benson and surveillance. I corrected the false assumption.

But I agree with the latter. The internet is public domain. Anything said or written publically or on the internet by any person, business, church, entity, etc. is subject to reproach, criticism, scrutiny, or praise. None is above.

[Yirgacheffe]

It is not the mere reading, but the intentional looking for and searching out, making a man an offender for a word, that is wrong.

Shouldn't a church and it's members have better things to do?

[HappyJackWagon]

assuming that it happened.

The account seems to have a pretty tenuous basis in fact.

Tenuous because you choose not to take the time to review the reference given and because you dismiss Brent Metcalf as an unreliable source. That's fine. I'm curious though, why is Metcalf unreliable? Do you have reason to believe he would lie about that kind of thing? Do you have examples of other lies he has told? (I'm not talking about disagrements about conclusions of faith- but actual lies).

 

If he's an unreliable source because he is notably dishonest I'd like to know that. Or is this just a way to dismiss the claim without having to deal with it?

[Scott Lloyd]

Tenuous because you choose not to take the time to review the reference given and because you dismiss Brent Metcalf as an unreliable source. That's fine. I'm curious though, why is Metcalf unreliable? Do you have reason to believe he would lie about that kind of thing? Do you have examples of other lies he has told? (I'm not talking about disagrements about conclusions of faith- but actual lies).

 

If he's an unreliable source because he is notably dishonest I'd like to know that. Or is this just a way to dismiss the claim without having to deal with it?

I actually did take time to listen to part of the podcast last night. Took me a while to come upon the account you referenced (it is, perhaps, 35 or so minutes into Part 1 of the podcast) though I could probably find it fairly quickly now that I have listened to most of Part 1 -- which makes me wonder why you, having listened to it, could not have been a bit more helpful in pinpointing its location on the recording, if not providing a partial transcript (the account is fairly brief).

 

I'm curious though, why is Metcalf unreliable? Do you have reason to believe he would lie about that kind of thing? Do you have examples of other lies he has told? (I'm not talking about disagrements about conclusions of faith- but actual lies).

 

 

 

 

The account itself is pretty much as you have summarized it.

 

The alleged incicdent occurred roughly 35 years ago. It would be difficult-to-impossible to falsify at this point. It occurs to me that if one were anxious to portray the Church as heavy-handed or oppressive, making up a tale such as this might serve that purpose. Just sayin'.

 

If he's an unreliable source because he is notably dishonest I'd like to know that.

 

Maybe not dishonest. After 35 years memories become cloudy, details are often misremembered, mistaken impressions become solidified in the mind as fact, that sort of thing. Or there may be heretofore unknown or undisclosed facts that would put a different tenor on the matter. Suppose, for example, that there had been threats against Church leaders from one or more individuals identifying themselves as Church members supporting the ERA. It would then become vital to try to identify the source(s) of the threats.

 

 

Or is this just a way to dismiss the claim without having to deal with it?

 

So now I've dealt with it.

 

But even if it did happen as recounted, it was 35 years ago. And it seems a stretch to compare something like that with the acknowledged practice of reading what is publicly available in the mass media which you are determined to portray as being "Orwellian". I still wonder that in your mind the practice suddenly becomes so nefarious if someone from the Church happens to read  or is made aware of a thing as opposed to any of potentially millions of others who might encounter it.

 

I notice Valentinus agrees with me on that point. I like the common-sense way he put it:

 

The internet is public domain. Anything said or written publically or on the internet by any person, business, church, entity, etc. is subject to reproach, criticism, scrutiny, or praise. None is above.

 

 

Edited May 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd