Rock Waterman - Nyt Article About Online Comments

[Scott Lloyd]

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

Fair question.

 

I refer you to comments in the "Apostasy, Boundary Maintenance, And Strong Communities" thread.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

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

Yes.

 

If someone from the Church reads an online or published comment, decides that no corrective action or further investigation is warranted and thus elects to take no action, no one has "been made an offender for a word."

 

But what seems here to be the target of complaint and objection is the mere practice of fact finding. It would seem that intentional ignorance is the policy some would impose on the Church and its leaders.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

 

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 glad you listened to it. Metcalf is a pretty interesting guy. I didn't pinpoint a time because it's been months since I've heard 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.

 

But as you admitted earlier, you don't know what processes and procedures the Committee follows in gathering their data. I'm not criticizing you for this because we simply can't know. Unless the church shares details of the committees actions we'll never know but when we have stories such as the Metcalf story or stories like the Van Allens where a 70 contacts their Stake Pres. about a blog post, and people like Rock Waterman being called in for DC by leaders who haven't read his blog all we really know is that some sort of active monitoring continues. That's all I'm saying.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm glad you listened to it. Metcalf is a pretty interesting guy. I didn't pinpoint a time because it's been months since I've heard it.

 

 

But as you admitted earlier, you don't know what processes and procedures the Committee follows in gathering their data. I'm not criticizing you for this because we simply can't know.

What is before us is this link provided back on page 1.

 

What is described there is a clipping service (or the modern-day functional equivalent thereof) that is a resource for local priesthood leaders. Benign as it seems, this is what triggered your indignant reaction in which you accused the Church of Jesus Christ of being "Orwellian." Yet you indicate here that you don't know "what processes and procedures" are involved in the work of the committee, so you must draw not upon known reality but upon your own scary suppositions to justify your reaction.

 

Unless the church shares details of the committees actions we'll never know but when we have stories such as the Metcalf story or stories like the Van Allens where a 70 contacts their Stake Pres. about a blog post, and people like Rock Waterman being called in for DC by leaders who haven't read his blog all we really know is that some sort of active monitoring continues. That's all I'm saying.

 

 

 

You have a way of dropping these little one-sided, a priori bombs into the conversation that may or may not have veracity or relevance but which cannot conveniently be discussed properly without derailing the thread.

 

For now, it just seems that you are set off by the practice of fact finding and would not be content short of the Church leaders instituting a policy of self-imposed ignorance regarding public attacks from without and within.

 

Perhaps it would be prudent at this point to quote directly from the First Presidency statement given in 1992:

 

Generally, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not respond to criticism levied against its work. But in light of extensive publicity recently given to false accusations of so-called secret Church committees and files, the First Presidency has issued the following statement:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was established in 1830 following the appearance of God the Father and Jesus Christ to the Prophet Joseph Smith in upstate New York. This sacred event heralded the onset of the promised `restitution of all things.' Many instructions were subsequently given to the Prophet including Section 123 of the Doctrine and Covenants:" `And again, we would suggest for your consideration the propriety of all the saints gathering up a knowledge of all the facts, and sufferings and abuses put upon them. . . .

" `And also of all the property and amount of damages which they have sustained, both of character and personal injuries. . . .

" `And also the names of all persons that have had a hand in their oppressions, as far as they can get hold of them and find them out.

" `And perhaps a committee can be appointed to find out these things, and to take statements and affidavits; and also to gather up the libelous publications that are afloat;

" `And all that are in the magazines, and in the encyclopedias, and all the libelous histories that are published. . . . (Verses 1-5.)'

"Leaders and members of the Church strive to implement commandments of the Lord including this direction received in 1839. Because the Church has a non-professional clergy, its stake presidents and bishops have varied backgrounds and training. In order to assist their members who have questions, these local leaders often request information from General Authorities of the Church.

"The Strengthening Church Members Committee was appointed by the First Presidency to help fulfill this need and to comply with the cited section of the Doctrine and Covenants. This committee serves as a resource to priesthood leaders throughout the world who may desire assistance on a wide variety of topics. It is a General Authority committee, currently comprised of Elder James E. Faust and Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. They work through established priesthood channels, and neither impose nor direct Church disciplinary action.

"Members who have questions concerning Church doctrine, policies, or procedures have been counseled to discuss those concerns confidentially with their local leaders. These leaders are deeply aware of their obligation to counsel members wisely in the spirit of love, in order to strengthen their faith in the Lord and in His great latter-day work."

- The First Presidency

 

Edited May 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

Section 123 was certainly given in a different time and for a different purpose than would be needed today. The church was defending against lawsuits, murder, theft, mobbery, "diabolical rascality", and all sorts of awful things. It's also important to remember that as the church gathered their information during the time of Section 123 (1830-40's) when the Danites were involved in their own diabolical rascality.

 

So what was the church's intention with gathering names of all their persecutors? First, this was intended for non-mormon persecutors so they could be turned into the government or possibily even to the Danites for retaliation. Here's the link to the church's essay on Peace and Violence in the 19th Century. https://www.lds.org/topics/peace-and-violence-among-19th-century-latter-day-saints?lang=eng . The church faced huge persecutions but also was not innocent during this period. I'm not suggesting the church today is involved in Danite style retaliation, or oaths and cursings against peoples and governments like they were earlier in the church, but I am suggesting that Section 123 from this time period may not be a standard of innocence and can actually illustrate the problem.

[Scott Lloyd]

Section 123 was certainly given in a different time and for a different purpose than would be needed today. The church was defending against lawsuits, murder, theft, mobbery, "diabolical rascality", and all sorts of awful things. It's also important to remember that as the church gathered their information during the time of Section 123 (1830-40's) when the Danites were involved in their own diabolical rascality.

 

So what was the church's intention with gathering names of all their persecutors? First, this was intended for non-mormon persecutors so they could be turned into the government or possibily even to the Danites for retaliation. Here's the link to the church's essay on Peace and Violence in the 19th Century. https://www.lds.org/topics/peace-and-violence-among-19th-century-latter-day-saints?lang=eng . The church faced huge persecutions but also was not innocent during this period. I'm not suggesting the church today is involved in Danite style retaliation, or oaths and cursings against peoples and governments like they were earlier in the church, but I am suggesting that Section 123 from this time period may not be a standard of innocence and can actually illustrate the problem.

Most of scripture comes from revelation that was given in response to a specific need. The revelation remains in the scriptural canon because it reflects principles and doctrine that have timeless application.

 

I would submit that such is the case with Section 123.

 

I would further posit that if the First Presidency, acting in their authority as a presiding body, may not apply scripture to a current need (such as the need met by the Strengthening Church Members Committee), then no one has that right or authority.

 

Regarding the purpose of 123 being "so [persecutors] could be turned into the government or possibily even to the Danites for retaliation," I will quote from the essay to which you have linked:

 

At the Latter-day Saint settlement of Far West, some leaders and members organized a paramilitary group known as the Danites, whose objective was to defend the community against dissident and excommunicated Latter-day Saints as well as other Missourians. Historians generally concur that Joseph Smith approved of the Danites but that he probably was not briefed on all their plans and likely did not sanction the full range of their activities. Danites intimidated Church dissenters and other Missourians; for instance, they warned some dissenters to leave Caldwell County. During the fall of 1838, as tensions escalated during what is now known as the Mormon Missouri War, the Danites were apparently absorbed into militias largely composed of Latter-day Saints. These militias clashed with their Missouri opponents, leading to a few fatalities on both sides. In addition, Mormon vigilantes, including many Danites, raided two towns believed to be centers of anti-Mormon activity, burning homes and stealing goods.²² Though the existence of the Danites was short-lived, it resulted in a longstanding and much-embellished myth about a secret society of Mormon vigilantes.

Finally, as has been abundantly shown throughout the history of the Church, a person can be a persecutor and/or a critic of the Church even while he holds nominal membership therein.

 

Joseph Smith spoke on occasion of "false brethren." That may well be an appellation with application that transcends his life and times.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[canard78]

Any chance that the british spell it with a "c" ?

LOL... Afraid not.

It's because it comes from a Greek root with an 'S'

"Middle English: from ecclesiastical Latin apostasia, from a late Greek alteration of Greek apostasis 'defection'."

[Tacenda]

I'm glad you listened to it. Metcalf is a pretty interesting guy. I didn't pinpoint a time because it's been months since I've heard it.

 

 

But as you admitted earlier, you don't know what processes and procedures the Committee follows in gathering their data. I'm not criticizing you for this because we simply can't know. Unless the church shares details of the committees actions we'll never know but when we have stories such as the Metcalf story or stories like the Van Allens where a 70 contacts their Stake Pres. about a blog post, and people like Rock Waterman being called in for DC by leaders who haven't read his blog all we really know is that some sort of active monitoring continues. That's all I'm saying.

Brent has some interesting stories of his days working for church security.

[Kenngo1969]

... 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. ...

CFR from a reliable source in law enforcement.  Use of the databases that would be consulted in such a case for such a non-law-enforcement purpose would land the personnel involved in very hot water really quickly.  I know: I used to access those databases routinely, and the consequences of such misuse likewise were routinely hammered into my brain.

[Kenngo1969]

Brent has some interesting stories of his days working for church security.

I'm sure he does: How many of them are true, on the other hand ...

[Tacenda]

I'm sure he does: How many of them are true, on the other hand ...

I think the guy has more integrity than that. Unless working in Security is akin to serving as an Apostle or Prophet, where there may arise a need to "lie for the Lord" or tell a better story such as Paul Dunn tried to do, to help feel the spirit.

[ERayR]

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.

 

But all should be awarded respect and honesty not bias and bigotry.

[ERayR]

I think the guy has more integrity than that. Unless working in Security is akin to serving as an Apostle or Prophet, where there may arise a need to "lie for the Lord" or tell a better story such as Paul Dunn tried to do, to help feel the spirit.

 

Tacenda are you calling all the GA's liars?

[Tacenda]

Tacenda are you calling all the GA's liars?

No, but past leaders have omitted the truth or have lied. Remember that truth is not always useful. Or JS saying he had only one wife, but that wasn't the truth. Or.....too many to list.

Why did the insinuation that Brent lied occur?

[Kenngo1969]

I think the guy has more integrity than that. Unless working in Security is akin to serving as an Apostle or Prophet, where there may arise a need to "lie for the Lord" or tell a better story such as Paul Dunn tried to do, to help feel the spirit.

Nice low blow.  And I think most people in law enforcement have more integrity than that, or at least, if they don't, they're still not dumb enough to risk throwing away their careers by using law enforcement databases for non-law-enforcement purposes. Interesting the lengths to which people go to defend people when they want what those people say to be true.

 

P.S.: And yes, if one of his "stories" is that law enforcement personnel, widely and on a regular basis, misused law enforcement databases to find out who owned vehicles seen parked at pro-ERA rallies so that information could be passed on to leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for reasons I explained in my previous post, I think such a "story" is just that: that is to say, that it's highly suspect.

 

P.P.S.: And "the insinuation that Brent lied" occurred because use of law enforcement databases for non-law-enforcement purposes could be subject to criminal prosecution.

Edited May 30, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[jwhitlock]

No, but past leaders have omitted the truth or have lied. Remember that truth is not always useful. Or JS saying he had only one wife, but that wasn't the truth. Or.....too many to list.

 

 

Have you ever lied, Tacenda?  And have you ever felt that you were justified in lying and that you would do it again if needed?

[Jeanne]

Have you ever lied, Tacenda?  And have you ever felt that you were justified in lying and that you would do it again if needed?

You know...probably and most likely, ALL of us have.  But then , we don't claim to be apostles or that you can rely on us for truth and guidance. Some of my MIA and lots of firesides were all stories from Paul H. Dunn.  Tears in our eyes..a sustaining nod from our ward leaders..and to as Tacienda if she lies?   Is there a different set of rules somewhere..??

Edited May 31, 2015 by Jeanne

[carbon dioxide]

No, but past leaders have omitted the truth or have lied. Remember that truth is not always useful. Or JS saying he had only one wife, but that wasn't the truth. Or.....too many to list.

Why did the insinuation that Brent lied occur?

Is 'lying" always wrong?  I don't believe it is.  If lying is to cover up our actions that are wrong, then lying is wrong.  If one lies to protect a greater cause, an innocent person from harm, ect then it may not be the wrong things to do.  The wicked do not deserve to know the truth of something if they can't handle the truth in the proper manner.  If some guy with a gun comes up to me and in an angry voice asks where my wife is, I am not going to tell him the truth if lying would spare her life.   The truth truly is not always useful.

 

I will give an example of my wife telling the truth and it has come back to bite her.  One her drivers license application she told the truth that she suffers from occasional asthma.  As of result of her innocent declaration of telling the truth, she gets a yearly letter from the DMV where she has to go to the doctor to get clearance that she can drive. Even though her symptoms have never caused an issue with her driving.  She is not be punished for telling the truth by having to go through this garbage every year.  I have learned from this.  If I ever get a condition that does not affect my driving but they ask it on the DMV questions, I will probably lie.  Its not worth it to me to tell the truth because once I tell the truth, I get to be punished for it for the rest of my life. 

Edited May 31, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Tacenda]

You know...probably and most likely, ALL of us have. But then , we don't claim to be apostles or that you can rely on us for truth and guidance. Some of my MIA and lots of firesides were all stories from Paul H. Dunn. Tears in our eyes..a sustaining nod from our ward leaders..and to as Tacienda if she lies? Is there a different set of rules somewhere..??

I just have no tact sometimes. It might have been a low blow, but Ken made a low blow comment too, IMO. I happen to believe Brent. And haven't got full truth from past church leaders. So it just irked me. But thanks for the help Jeanne! Edited May 31, 2015 by Tacenda

[Kenngo1969]

You can call it a low blow if you want Ma'am.  (Your response simply seems like lashing out in defensiveness to me, but ... whatever. )   I have law enforcement policy on my side.  If Mr. Metcalfe has any credible corroboration (a law enforcement source ... and heck, I'll even settle for an anonymous one, as long as s/he's directly quoted ... would be nice), he's welcome to bring it forward.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[jwhitlock]

You know...probably and most likely, ALL of us have.  But then , we don't claim to be apostles or that you can rely on us for truth and guidance. Some of my MIA and lots of firesides were all stories from Paul H. Dunn.  Tears in our eyes..a sustaining nod from our ward leaders..and to as Tacienda if she lies?   Is there a different set of rules somewhere..??

 

Probably? The short answer is "yes", all of us have.

 

Tacenda mentioned specifically "omitting the truth". Do you think Jesus was not particularly honest when He used parables to hide the full truth from those who weren't ready to receive it? Did God err when He told Abraham to say Sarah was his sister and not his wife?

 

I'm pretty sure that some people hold the leaders of the church to an artificial standard that they themselves are unwilling to follow. They rationalize that because leaders are in the positions they're in, they're not allowed to be like the rest of us - even though God has made it pretty clear that's not the case.

[jwhitlock]

I just have no tact sometimes. It might have been a low blow, but Ken made a low blow comment too, IMO. I happen to believe Brent. And haven't got full truth from past church leaders. So it just irked me. But thanks for the help Jeanne!

 

You happen to believe Brent because doing so validates your negative viewpoint of the church and its leaders. Kenngo raises valid concerns about his statement, and you term it a low blow.

 

Tell me, Tacenda, since you wouldn't respond to me directly before. Was Jesus wrong in withholding the full truth from most people by teaching in parables? 

 

Since ultimately your salvation is between you and the Savior, why hasn't He deemed it necessary to reveal everything about your pre-mortal life and about this life to you personally?

 

Do you really think that the church and its leaders are all about "full disclosure" of absolutely everything to you? Does any sane person think that's even possible?

 

And do you really think that church leaders lie and deceive as a matter of course in their lives?

[rhythm]

HappyJackWagon, on 28 May 2015 - 11:20 AM, said:

... 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. ...

 

CFR from a reliable source in law enforcement.  Use of the databases that would be consulted in such a case for such a non-law-enforcement purpose would land the personnel involved in very hot water really quickly.  I know: I used to access those databases routinely, and the consequences of such misuse likewise were routinely hammered into my brain.

I listened to the podcast the other day.  Brent explained that they weren't calling the police and saying "Hey, we're checking plate numbers of cars at the ERA rally", they would just call and give the plate number, and the police would check without asking questions.  This was because they had a direct line to the police and regularly called in plates because of improperly parked cars, etc.  I find that plausible.

[Scott Lloyd]

I listened to the podcast the other day.  Brent explained that they weren't calling the police and saying "Hey, we're checking plate numbers of cars at the ERA rally", they would just call and give the plate number, and the police would check without asking questions.  This was because they had a direct line to the police and regularly called in plates because of improperly parked cars, etc.  I find that plausible.

So what resulted from this alleged nefarious behavior? How many people who were allegedly detected in this way as being rally attendees had action taken against them? I'm old enough to remember clearly those days, and I can't remember even one incident in which someone was disciplined for public support of ERA. The closest is Sonia Johnson, and she was excommunicated not for her support of ERA but because of the vicious things she said about the Church and its leaders due to their opposition to it.

There were high-profile Church members on record as being ERA supporters, and their Church membership was never in jeopardy. I can't conceive of why Church security would be gathering names of rally attendees when attending a rally would not be enough all by itself to warrant Church discipline.

Which is why the story sounds hinky to me and why I suspect there is more to it that Brent either doesn't know or is choosing not to tell.

Edited to add:

Here is a link to an Ensign magazine article from 1980 about Church opposition to ERA.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1980/03/the-church-and-the-proposed-equal-rights-amendment-a-moral-issue?lang=eng

Scroll down to Question 20, both the summary version in the first part and the longer version in the second part.

It clearly states that favoring the ERA was not grounds for Church discipline but that using it as a pretext for attacking the Church might be. This is comparable to the Church's present-day position with regard to its members favoring gay "marriage."

So again I am skeptical about tales of Church security surveiling members merely for attending a rally.

 

Edited to add:

 

Here's an enlightening FairMormon essay about the Church's opposition to the ERA.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

So what resulted from this alleged nefarious behavior? How many people who were allegedly detected in this way as being rally attendees had action taken against them? I'm old enough to remember clearly those days, and I can't remember even othat one about Apple Computerne incident in which someone was disciplined for public support of ERA. the closest is So its how great leadersnia Johnson, and she was excommunicated not for her support of ERA but because of the vicious things she said about the Church and its leaders because of their opposition to it.

There were high-profile Church members on record as being ERA supporters, and their Church membership was never in jeopardy. I can't conceive of why Church security would be gathering names of rally attendees when attending a rally would not be enough all by itself to warrant Church discipline.

Which is why the story sounds hinky to me and why I suspect there is more to it that Brent either doesn't know or is choosing not to tell.

I think you're right and think it's more that Brent doesn't know. Maybe the church was curious to know if there were many LDS supporters. Much like the church puts out questionnaires so often. It's like they want to know the pulse of the church. Maybe this is a good thing or a bad thing.