consiglieri Posted January 8, 2016 Author Posted January 8, 2016 12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: What evidence do you have that the Church's behavior is as you characterize it? John Dehlin.
ksfisher Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 7 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Think higher. You're Nehor's mother?
consiglieri Posted January 8, 2016 Author Posted January 8, 2016 9 minutes ago, bluebell said: Did the member in the inner circle know your real name? How could the FAIRMormon member report to HJW's stake president without knowing his real name?
consiglieri Posted January 8, 2016 Author Posted January 8, 2016 Just now, ksfisher said: You're Nehor's mother? Since the time he was on my (k)ne(e). 1
bluebell Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 6 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Thanks, Bluebell! I admit that I struggled to come up with a verb for the title of the OP that would be concise enough to fit, and "spies" seemed to fit the bill. I'm guessing that the word spy seemed to be concise enough because it also typically denotes something clandestine and illicit, which is how you personally interpret the events. You weren't just asking a question, you were using the title to editorialize the action. Nothing wrong with that in and of itself but it does explain why some of us disagree with the choice of word. 1
Guest Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 17 hours ago, consiglieri said: I listened to the podcast interview with FAIRMormon chairperson John Lynch the other night. http://blog.fairmormon.org/2015/12/10/purposemission/ I was surprised to hear him say that the LDS Church has occasionally asked FAIRMormon for internet posting information on certain unnamed persons of interest. And that FAIRMormon happily complied with their request. It sounds to me like FAIRMormon is at the beck and call of Church leaders to help them spy on members. Do I have that about right? All the Best! --Consiglieri I do not believe the Church would ask them to spy on members, nor they would do so. Every word of this podcast is suspect. Most people have screen names and FAIRMormon would not even know most identies. So, in short...not buying it. Also methinks this person is looking for his 15 mins.
stemelbow Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: What evidence do you have that the Church's behavior is as you characterize it? And what is the severest penalty the Church can impose on someone? Withholding membership. Why is it justifiable for someone to claim membership privileges in an organization he publicly vilifies? Hey Scott, perhaps we're talking past each other a bit here. As for your request for a reference. I'm not sure what you mean. I said it's petty for the Church to go after members on the basis of differing beliefs. I'm not so sure that's what the Church is doing, but if it is, then that is petty behavior. That'd be my conclusion about the activity if indeed the Church is doing that activity. I'm not sure who you have in mind when you talk about "defaming" and "publicly vilifies". I'm also not sure what you mean by those. I haven't seen anyone posting here doing anything near "defaming" and "publicly vilifying". Even if, it'd seem petty for the Church to make an issue out of a member who "defamed" it or "publically vilified" the Church, after all, is larger than any one member.
bluebell Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 6 minutes ago, consiglieri said: How could the FAIRMormon member report to HJW's stake president without knowing his real name? Well, HJW's point seemed to be that it's only spying if the person divulged confidential IRL info such as a person's actual name connected with an alias. But then his example seemed to be of someone who already knew his actual name thru non-nefarious means. So I was confused on how the example fit with his point and thought maybe i misunderstood something. Hence the clarifying question.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 2 hours ago, consiglieri said: There was no ambush, Scott. The reporter was invited into Elder Holland's office. Then the reporter asked Elder Holland some questions. The fact Elder Holland flubbed the questions badly does not turn the event into an "ambush." The "reporter" came in with a hostile, attack-dog attitude and approach that clearly blind-sided Elder Holland. As I indicated earlier, it is quite telling that you approve of that sort of thing. 1
consiglieri Posted January 8, 2016 Author Posted January 8, 2016 6 minutes ago, Pa Pa said: I do not believe the Church would ask them to spy on members, nor they would do so. Every word of this podcast is suspect. Most people have screen names and FAIRMormon would not even know most identies. So, in short...not buying it. Also methinks this person is looking for his 15 mins. When you say "every word of this podcast is suspect," what is it you mean? Is it John Lynch (the person interviewed) the person you think is looking for his 15 minutes?
consiglieri Posted January 8, 2016 Author Posted January 8, 2016 7 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I'm not sure who you have in mind when you talk about "defaming" and "publicly vilifies". I'm also not sure what you mean by those. I haven't seen anyone posting here doing anything near "defaming" and "publicly vilifying". Even if, it'd seem petty for the Church to make an issue out of a member who "defamed" it or "publically vilified" the Church, after all, is larger than any one member. You are right that the Church is much larger than any one member. This is one of the things that makes it so unseemly. It is as if an elephant is scared of a mouse. And must squash it at all costs. 1
consiglieri Posted January 8, 2016 Author Posted January 8, 2016 5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: The "reporter" came in with a hostile, attack-dog attitude and approach that clearly blind-sided Elder Holland. As I indicated earlier, it is quite telling that you approve of that sort of thing. The reporter was invited in and asked some questions. The reporter was not hostile at all. Have you actually watched the interview? The fact Elder Holland was blind-sided says more about Elder Holland than the reporter.
consiglieri Posted January 8, 2016 Author Posted January 8, 2016 8 minutes ago, bluebell said: Well, HJW's point seemed to be that it's only spying if the person divulged confidential IRL info such as a person's actual name connected with an alias. But then his example seemed to be of someone who already knew his actual name thru non-nefarious means. So I was confused on how the example fit with his point and thought maybe i misunderstood something. Hence the clarifying question. I hope HJW will return to clarify. But even if FAIRMormon knew his name through non-clandestine means, I think what happened to him is a cause for concern.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 (edited) 12 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Hey Scott, perhaps we're talking past each other a bit here. As for your request for a reference. I'm not sure what you mean. I said it's petty for the Church to go after members on the basis of differing beliefs. I'm not so sure that's what the Church is doing, but if it is, then that is petty behavior. That'd be my conclusion about the activity if indeed the Church is doing that activity. I'm not sure who you have in mind when you talk about "defaming" and "publicly vilifies". I'm also not sure what you mean by those. I haven't seen anyone posting here doing anything near "defaming" and "publicly vilifying". Even if, it'd seem petty for the Church to make an issue out of a member who "defamed" it or "publically vilified" the Church, after all, is larger than any one member. So it appears you are waxing indignant about behavior that, for now at least, exists in theory only. I think this is what they call straw man argumentation. If you acknowledge that there may theoretically be circumstances in which the Church would have a legitimate or ethical interest in tracking what someone is publicly saying or doing in reference to it, then I really don't think you and I have much of a quarrel. Edited January 8, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
consiglieri Posted January 8, 2016 Author Posted January 8, 2016 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: So it appears you are waxing indignant about behavior that, for now at least, exists in theory only. I think this is what they call straw man argumentation. That's not a straw man argument. For someone who uses them so often, I would think you would know that.
Guest Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 2 minutes ago, consiglieri said: When you say "every word of this podcast is suspect," what is it you mean? Is it John Lynch (the person interviewed) the person you think is looking for his 15 minutes? Forgive me...the spying comments suspect. I don't know John Lynch, but if he has been spying (which I do not believe) then he should be ashamed. If there were a universe when the Church would ask me to spy on anyone...my answer would be; no! Also the Church could easily read the comments of others without his aid.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 (edited) 38 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Thanks, Bluebell! I admit that I struggled to come up with a verb for the title of the OP that would be concise enough to fit, and "spies" seemed to fit the bill. But going back and checking the dictionary, "spies" appears to fit the definition, as well. If you are doing something in your front yard and I walk by and see it, I agree I am not spying. But if you are doing something in your front yard and I am peering from behind the hedges, then I am spying on you. Not that I would ever do such a thing, of course. Regardless of what it is you are doing in your front yard. Extremely poor analogy. Working in one's front yard is not intended as a public display; posting something on a blog or message board is. That said, it would be more than a little bizarre to hide behind a hedge to view activity that could easily be seen from the street. Edited January 8, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
stemelbow Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: So it appears you are waxing indignant about behavior that, for now at least, exists in theory only. I think this is what they call straw man argumentation. If you acknowledge that there may theoretically be circumstances in which the Church would have a legitimate or ethical interest in tracking what someone is publicly saying or doing in reference to it, then I really don't think you and I have much of a quarrel. I am not sure that there is an effort by the Church to go after members. But I have heard that it happens. I do believe many members and former members have suggested as much. I think back to the Avraham Gileadi episode and it if happened anywhere near as it was reported, I'd say that is a tragic incident that was, for all intents and purposes, rectified, luckily. It took a few years for the rectifying to come around, but it happened. Anyway his wouldn't be the only case where it is accused the Church dug up info in hopes to incriminate. Edited January 8, 2016 by stemelbow
Scott Lloyd Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 7 minutes ago, consiglieri said: That's not a straw man argument. For someone who uses them so often, I would think you would know that. Substance-to-noise ratio: low to very low. Railing against theoretical behavior is the very definition of straw man argumentation. 1
consiglieri Posted January 8, 2016 Author Posted January 8, 2016 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: Substance-to-noise ratio: low to very low. Railing against theoretical behavior is the very definition of straw man argumentation. Wrong again, Scott. A straw man argument is what you do to me all the time. You first mischaracterize what I say so as to make it easy to defeat. You then defeat it and proclaim victory. Whereas you haven't actually addressed my argument at all. That is a straw man argument.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 9 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I am not sure that there is an effort by the Church to go after members. But I have heard that it happens. I do believe many members and former members have suggested as much. I think back to the Avraham Gileadi episode and it if happened anywhere near as it was reported, I'd say that is a tragic incident that was, for all intents and purposes, rectified, luckily. It took a few years for the rectifying to come around, but it happened. Anyway his wouldn't be the only case where it is accused the Church dug up info in hopes to incriminate. So you are reacting to rumors then.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 (edited) 8 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Wrong again, Scott. A straw man argument is what you do to me all the time. You first mischaracterize what I say so as to make it easy to defeat. You then defeat it and proclaim victory. Whereas you haven't actually addressed my argument at all. That is a straw man argument. Stripping away sophistry and spin to get to the essence of a thing is not mischaracterization. Example: When Elder Ballard says something to a congregation of young single adults, and you say he's blowing smoke and he doesn't really mean it, you have in effect accused him of lying, regardless of how strenuously you object to being so characterized. Edited January 8, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 1
MorningStar Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 If my neighbor beats his wife in the middle of the street and I report it, was I spying on them? If you post stuff publically and someone reports it, it's not spying. 1
Zakuska Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 (edited) 12 minutes ago, MorningStar said: If you post stuff publically and someone reports it, it's not spying. Going out of ones way to collect said public statments and then make sure it gets into Authoritative hands with the anonymous identity , in effect "tattling" is spying. Its also being a busy Body. Paul had some pretty choice words to the Busy Bodies in the church in Asia Minor. Edited January 8, 2016 by Zakuska
Scott Lloyd Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 6 minutes ago, Zakuska said: Going out of ones way to collect said public statments and then make sure it gets into Authoritative hands with the anonymous identity , in effect "tattling" is spying. Its also being a busy Body. Paul had some pretty choice words to the Busy Bodies in the church in Asia Minor. So taking Bluebell's example, reporting domestic abuse that one saw on a public street would be, according to your logic, tantamount to being a "busy body." If that's the case, we need a lot more busy bodies.
Recommended Posts