FAIRMormon Spies on Members for Church?

[Zakuska]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

Apples and kiwis.  

expressing ones self verbally and some one collecting them and turning them in is not the same as physically abusing ones spouse.

 

Edited January 8, 2016 by Zakuska

[Bob Crockett]

One of the problems the Church faces is that the D&C requires it to assemble all anti-Mormon literature as a testimony against persecutors of the Church and the Saints in the final days.  The Church does take this mandate somewhat seriously, as Arrington talks about getting access to that collection, in its dusty and somewhat disorganized form.  So that mandate is probably continually carried out today amongst electronic media.   Is that spying?   Are the Saints still persecuted?  As to the second question, I think so; I think John Dehlin persecutes the Church and a few posters here persecute the church and its members.  The fact they do so anonymously puts them in direct conflict with God's word in Proverbs.  Would I want to be involved in collecting anti-Mormon material?  No, but if asked I would have to respond.

Edited January 8, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[Calm]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It is if they ask for personal IRL information about people posting under pseudonyms. Obviously anyone can see what HappyJackWagon writes on a public board but they don't know my real name and contact info unless it is shared by the board admins.

When I was on the Fair Mormon Support board I was told by a member in their inner circle that they were discussing contacting my SP to make him aware of my thoughts and ideas.

While I wasn't overly concerned because my SP already knew my position on SSM, female ordination etc, But the idea that FAIR Mormon was even considering reaching out to my SP (unsolicited) to tattle on me is absurd and troubling.

What member of the inner circle claimed this?  I was a moderator for that board and was not involved in any such discussions.  PM me if you don't want to share the info publicly.

"It is if they ask for personal IRL information about people posting under pseudonyms". 

Unless someone had publicly revealed their name, how would anyone from FM know (save perhaps the few from the support board who gave real names)?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

It's a big mistake for the Church to go out of it's way to find members who think in a way they don't like, in order to discipline them.  Sure it's a problem that FairMormon would do that, but the larger problem is clearly that the Church wants to dig up info about it's own members. 

You are wrong if you think this is what is being done.  Go back and read my post again.  What is done for church leaders, I have done the same for people on this board and others have too all the time.  See the thread on Nemelka for example.  If you have a problem with FM, you have a provlem with what people do on this board and anytime someone googles a name.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Mostly because it's petty.  Defaming, speaking the truth, drawing different conclusions, I guess it depends on what your perspective is.  It's ridiculously, in my mind, petty for the Church to try and penalize a lonely member who disagrees with it.  I mean "defaming" in this context sounds silly/petty to me. 

Has it occurred to you they may want information that is balanced?  That there may be complaints sent in and they want the whole picture rather than just respond to claims being made against a person?

I cannot give details for whatever took place on the elist, but I am a very high privacy advocate as anyone can see from past postings on the subject if they care to go dig and there was nothing done that ever concerned me either for people who were total strangers asking for info about people, websites, etc., friends and family members doing the same or church leaders.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Agreed.

FAIRMormon is just aiding and abetting this odious practice.

 

So you have never asked someone for information about a person you have come across somewhere?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Think higher.

Oh, Satan's claimed priesthood. Hello tempter devil, how are you doing?

Nice try on the getting me to murder that stupid dog that will not shut up, I almost went with it.

[Calm]

1 hour 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. 

 

 

Thank you, PaPa.  I described what we do in my first post.  Same thing I have done here that no one has ever protested about.

The podcast is from John Lynch, the chairman of FM so it is fine.  It is the extremes what he said is being taken to by others that is ridiculous.

Edited January 8, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

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.

But what actually happened to him?  Nothing as far as I can tell from my end as a moderator and part of the inner circle that discussed the support board.  There might have been a misunderstanding or even a threat made that was totally inappropriate because it would not have been approved of given the confidential nature of the support board.  But I would really like to know the name of the guy he claims made it.  

I ask on the assumption this was a public conversation.  If no, no need to pass on the info to me.  Don't want to know private conversations

[Calm]

57 minutes ago, Zakuska said:

Going out of ones way to collect said public statments

Is using google "going out of one's way" in your opinion?

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So you are reacting to rumors then. 

Not really.  I'm hardly reacting, other than to say it'd be a petty activity for the Church to get involved in.