Zakuska Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 7 minutes ago, Calm said: i hope you are joking. Our service is confidential. We may direct people to contact their bishop if they ask us questions that are inappropriate for us to answer, but we do not ever contact anyone ourselves. If someone were to do so, they would be booted from FM. The only exception that might be considered if it were to ever happen is if someone wrote in talking suicide or violence to others. I know we sign up and provide our real names but I am unsure if that info is ever really available. I was reading the board guidelines but I did not see any disclaimer on how that info can/does get used. Would it be against board guidlines for a Mod to provide an anonimous posters real name to some one off the board?
smac97 Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 (edited) A few thoughts: 1. I concur with Scott's statement about Consig's accusations being "overwrought nonsense." 2. However, I can see Consig's point about there being a possible concern relating not to published-to-the-world postings on this board, but to the identity of posters who, like Consig, choose to hide behind pseudonyms. My sense is that Latter-day Saints who hide their IRL identity so that they can come to this board and profane sacred things, demean the Church and its leaders, etc., are engaging in spectacularly inappropriate behavior (I had stronger descriptors in mind, but we'll leave it with "inappropriate"). 3. The board's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy require posters to grant permission to the board "to use any material posted on this site whether it is multimedia or print," that the "you are the rightful owner of said material," and that "you agree to ... and assign the message board absolute permission to use any part or entire portions of material you post on the Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board," but I don't see anything about users granting permission to the board to divulge IRL personal information to third parties (such as the LDS Church). Nevertheless, I think there has probably been an unspoken understanding that a poster's IRL information would not be disseminated willy-nilly by the board. 4. That said, there is also nothing that constrains or prohibits the board from disseminating IRL information. I'm not sure if any of this would amount to a legal issue for the board, but perhaps the board should include some sort of statement regarding how it treats IRL information. 5. There is no evidence that the LDS Church has asked for such private information. 6. If "the Church" has asked for, as the OP puts it, "posting information," I rather suspect the request is for a consolidated list of posts made by a particular poster. Such information belongs to the board per the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, so I don't see anything wrong with complying with such a request (I've thought occasionally of making such a request myself). 7. I would be a bit less comfortable with the board divulging IRL information about a poster (real name or email address) to third parties (including but not limited to the LDS Church), or to other posters without either A) the consent of the poster whose IRL information is to be released, or B) revising the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to clarify how much privacy, if any, is to be accorded to IRL information. Releasing such information to comply with a court order would, of course, also be a possibility. Thanks, -Smac Edited January 8, 2016 by smac97
Calm Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 4 minutes ago, Zakuska said: I know we sign up and provide our real names but I am unsure if that info is ever really available. I was reading the board guidelines but I did not see any disclaimer on how that info can/does get used. Would it be against board guidlines for a Mod to provide an anonimous posters real name to some one off the board? I was talking about FM. I am not a part of the board's admin, just a poster.
Zakuska Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 (edited) 8 minutes ago, smac97 said: A few thoughts: 1. I concur with Scott's statement about Consig's accusations being "overwrought nonsense." 2. However, I can see Consig's point about there being a possible concern relating not to published-to-the-world postings on this board, but to the identity of posters who, like Consig, choose to hide behind pseudonyms. My sense is that Latter-day Saints who hide their IRL identity so that they can come to this board and profane sacred things, demean the Church and its leaders, etc., are engaging in spectacularly inappropriate behavior (I had stronger descriptors in mind, but we'll leave it with "inappropriate"). 3. The board's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy require posters to grant permission to the board "to use any material posted on this site whether it is multimedia or print," that the "you are the rightful owner of said material," and that "you agree to ... and assign the message board absolute permission to use any part or entire portions of material you post on the Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board," but I don't see anything about users granting permission to the board to divulge IRL personal information to third parties (such as the LDS Church). Nevertheless, I think there has probably been an unspoken understanding that a poster's IRL information would not be disseminated willy-nilly by the board. 4. That said, there is also nothing that constrains or prohibits the board from disseminating IRL information. I'm not sure if any of this would amount to a legal issue for the board, but perhaps the board should include some sort of statement regarding how it treats IRL information. 5. There is no evidence that the LDS Church has asked for such private information. 6. If "the Church" has asked for, as the OP puts it, "posting information," I rather suspect the request is for a consolidated list of posts made by a particular poster. Such information belongs to the board per the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, so I don't see anything wrong with complying with such a request (I've thought occasionally of making such a request myself). 7. I would be a bit less comfortable with the board divulging IRL information about a poster (real name or email address) to third parties (including but not limited to the LDS Church), or to other posters without either A) the consent of the poster whose IRL information is to be released, or B) revising the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to clarify how much privacy, if any, is to be accorded to IRL information. Releasing such information to comply with a court order would, of course, also be a possibility. Thanks, -Smac Oh the Irony! "smac97" LOL Edited January 8, 2016 by Zakuska
Zakuska Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 Just now, Calm said: Explain the irony, Zak. smac97 is a pseudonym not a real name.
consiglieri Posted January 8, 2016 Author Posted January 8, 2016 12 minutes ago, Zakuska said: I know we sign up and provide our real names but I am unsure if that info is ever really available. I was reading the board guidelines but I did not see any disclaimer on how that info can/does get used. Would it be against board guidlines for a Mod to provide an anonimous posters real name to some one off the board? I want to be clear I am not accusing the moderators of anything here. I am just saying that proprietors of this board (as well as others) have access to certain otherwise confidential information of those who post there. And if you are a TBM and a GA asks you to give them some information, are you really going to say no?
Avatar4321 Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 The church is recruiting spies? Sweet. I've wanted to be called as a spy for the house of Israel since I heard Joseph called a few. Sign me up. 2
consiglieri Posted January 8, 2016 Author Posted January 8, 2016 I would just add that the link between the LDS Church and FAIR was suggested last summer when Brother Otterson was the keynote speaker at the FAIRMormon conference.
consiglieri Posted January 8, 2016 Author Posted January 8, 2016 45 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Oh, you mean the nasty ambush that was done on Elder Holland. Somehow It doesn't surprise me that you appear to approve of it. I don't approve of Church leaders pretending they haven't heard of the SCMC and then flip-flopping and admitting they do know about it.
consiglieri Posted January 8, 2016 Author Posted January 8, 2016 43 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Well that explains it! I've been treated like I'm germ for a few years. And it just so happens to correlate to about the same time I posted a question to FAIRLDS and had an ongoing dialogue with Greg Smith. Often wonder if things get back to my ward bishop. I'm not saying Greg said anything though! Greg Smith!!?? Say no more!
Calm Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 (edited) If I have not specfically stated that I can share the information, yes, I will say "no" to anyone asking save if I see threatened bodily harm or abuse and even then I would have to be pretty certain and it would not be church, but medical or emergency authorities I would be sharing info with. Edited January 8, 2016 by Calm
consiglieri Posted January 8, 2016 Author Posted January 8, 2016 43 minutes ago, The Nehor said: CFR You will have to ask Elder Holland for that. He is the one I was quoting.
Calm Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 6 minutes ago, consiglieri said: I would just add that the link between the LDS Church and FAIR was suggested last summer when Brother Otterson was the keynote speaker at the FAIRMormon conference. Big news. Sharon Eubank was the first active LDS official to speak at a FM conference, iirc. Haven't you noticed the Church News articles about FM for the past decade or more? 1
Popular Post smac97 Posted January 8, 2016 Popular Post Posted January 8, 2016 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Zakuska said: smac97 is a pseudonym not a real name. Each and every post I publish on this board includes my real name. And although I am a flawed person in many ways, I do not think I can reasonably be accused of coming to this board and profaning things sacred to Latter-day Saints, or of demeaning the LDS Church or its leaders. So again, whence the "irony?" Thanks, -Smac Edited January 8, 2016 by smac97 5
Zakuska Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 (edited) 2 minutes ago, smac97 said: Each and every post I publish on this board includes my real name. And although I am a flawed person in many ways, I do not think I can reasonably be accused of coming to this board and profaning things sacred to Latter-day Saint, or of demeaning the LDS Church or its leaders. So again, whence the "irony?" Thanks, -Smac My name is Spencer Macdonald I stand corrected. My appologize. Edited January 8, 2016 by Zakuska
The Nehor Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 9 minutes ago, consiglieri said: You will have to ask Elder Holland for that. He is the one I was quoting. Yet you sympathized enough to quote it which is suspicious. So can you prove that you also are not a dodo?
The Nehor Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 12 minutes ago, consiglieri said: I don't approve of Church leaders pretending they haven't heard of the SCMC and then flip-flopping and admitting they do know about it. I do not approve of your disapproval.
Zakuska Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 (edited) 15 minutes ago, consiglieri said: I don't approve of Church leaders pretending they haven't heard of the SCMC and then flip-flopping and admitting they do know about it. " The existence of the committee became national news. Speaking to the New York Times, LeFevre stated that the committee "provides local church leadership with information designed to help them counsel with members who, however well-meaning, may hinder the progress of the church through public criticism.".[6]He denied that such referrals were intended to intimidate scholars. The First Presidency then issued a statement on August 22, 1992, defending the committee based on an 1839 letter from Joseph Smith while he was in prison after a period of intense persecution (see 1838 Mormon War), now canonized by the church (D&C 123), that directed church leaders to establish a committee for "gathering up a knowledge of all the facts, and sufferings and abuses put on" church members, and the "names of all persons that have had a hand in their oppressions".[7] The statement indicated that the members were then James E. Faustand Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.[7] In 1993, apostle Dallin H. Oaks characterized the committee as a "clipping service" that "may have monitored speeches, writings and activities of those suspected of apostasy and passed on material to church officials".[8] " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strengthening_Church_Members_Committee A continuation of the Danites? Edited January 8, 2016 by Zakuska
Calm Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 11 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Greg Smith!!?? Say no more! So Greg takes time away from his insane schedule as a doctor and bishop and answers personal inquiries and usually with significant thought and concern from what I have seen and he gets this, Very impressive, Tac and Consig. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 36 minutes ago, consiglieri said: I want to be clear I am not accusing the moderators of anything here. I am just saying that proprietors of this board (as well as others) have access to certain otherwise confidential information of those who post there. And if you are a TBM and a GA asks you to give them some information, are you really going to say no? Of course I would say "no," and so would you.
salgare Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: No one here is monitoring all of you and passing the information on and if there were such a person it would not be me. ain't that what you say, ain't that way you say, ain't that what you saaaaay ...
Nemesis Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 Just so you all know the mods really don't care who you are, and trying to implicate this board with another groups action that has nothing to do with this board is pretty lame. Nemesis
Tacenda Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 3 hours ago, Calm said: So Greg takes time away from his insane schedule as a doctor and bishop and answers personal inquiries and usually with significant thought and concern from what I have seen and he gets this, Very impressive, Tac and Consig. Not from me, if you read my post again. Who's to say someone else didn't see my name. But I really didn't need to mention him, my bad. Plus, I'm fine with the bishop knowing of my chagrin over church history. My SP, my bishop before him, already knows of my misgivings. Didn't mean to paint Greg in a bad light. He was great, and to think he took time away from his family or work to help people like me.
Recommended Posts