MormonLeaks Releases Another 8 Documents Today

[JulieM]

29 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Learning that the GA "stipend" is equivalent to a six-figure salary (very wealthy by the standards of many) can now be added to that list.

And from the discussions I've heard with church members here (my ward and also other family & friends), this has caused them to think differently about the general church leaders or at least see them in a different light.   Maybe not so much hero worship as before?  

Edited January 25, 2017 by JulieM

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

OK you win!

(...but was your mission closed?)

Don't give up! It's great to try to one-up mission lies, well some of them were lies. OK. Most of them were lies.

No, our mission wasn't closed. That would not be cool at all!

 In fact, at the time we had 7 countries....Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Venezuela, and Colombia in our mission. That meant as financial secretary I had to deal with 8 currencies, most of which had floating rates. The president spent a lot of time on the road or in the air.

Edited January 25, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Points for the vampire bats.

True story. The don't actually suck it, but make a small incision and lap up the blood while you sleep. Happened to friends and members, not to me.

Edited January 25, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Don't give up! It's great to try to one-up mission lies, well some of them were lies. OK. Most of them were lies.

No, our mission wasn't closed. That would not be cool at all!

 In fact, at the time we had 7 countries....Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Venezuela, and Colombia in our mission. That meant as financial secretary I had to deal with 8 currencies, most of which had floating rates. The president spent a lot of time on the road or in the air.

I wouldn't be able to keep up with the $... or is it ₡...?

We had to close and evacuate our mission (due to violence). It was closed for several years, and only a couple of those allowing stake missions. Open now though, with multiple missions! Hooray!

I was in Costa Rica as an exchange student in the early 70s. Beautiful country, great adventure with only minor injuries; visited Panama at the same time, stepped off the plane in Nicaragua.

[rockpond]

24 minutes ago, rongo said:

No, but it does make it their priesthood leaders' business. 

And, the "sunshine is the best disinfectant" people will lose their minds if they are ever disciplined by the Church. 

You said you'd seek excommunication.  Can I ask on what grounds you feel that excommunication is warranted for someone who leaks confidential documents to be published online?

(I'm not saying what they did was right/moral/ethical... just wondering how you feel excommunication is fitting per the handbook guidelines.)

[VideoGameJunkie]

I'd be more interested in leaks about who the apostles thought go to the 2 lower levels of the Celestial Kingdom.

[mapman]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But we don't know that any of those things happened.

As a church volunteer (in callings) I don't recall ever signing any kind of non-disclosure agreement so I think it's safe to say that clerks don't sign non-disclosure agreements either. That means the leaks about stake info would have been obtained legally with no legal reason why they couldn't be shared. Church employees may or may not sign a non-disclosure agreement. I don't really know.

Does anyone have information about non-disclosures for church employees? Would every level employee sign, or just certain employees with a security access to sensitive information?

I signed one when I was an intern with the Joseph Smith Papers Project, and my impression was that it was a general thing in the history department to not discuss details of unpublished projects without permission first. I have no idea if people sign agreements in other departments though.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Unless it's their personal information, it's jerky to leak it.  I mean, if you ended up with your neighbor's financial statements, does that mean it would be moral for you to publish them?  If your neighbor ended up with your's through no wrong doing on his part, would it be moral for him to publish them, even if there were a LOT of people who wanted to know?  

I don't believe so.  Keeping things confidential when they aren't your's to disclose (and no one is being harmed) is part of my basic definition of being a decent human being.  We all know those people who can't be trusted to keep information to themselves-no one usually likes them, for good reason.  

 

What about my grandfather's information after he's deceased? Is it jerky to release?

This isn't really about leaking personal information. It's about institutional information. The leakers have actually redacted a lot of personal info that would be jerky to release, like SSN's and the names of church employees who don't matter in the context of the institutional information.

[HappyJackWagon]

50 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't know the legality, but isn't it essentially stealing others' property whether or not surreptitiously obtained?

If one walked into a company and walked out with a folder they had been given to read, but not to own, stealing,right?  Something about intellectual property?

Not necessarily. It totally depends on how the information was obtained. You're focused on only one possibility, ie a church employee stealing info. I'm suggesting that there are many other ways information could be gathered.

I wonder what this group would think about a private investigator who takes pictures and goes through trash etc in gathering info for a client. Illegal? Immoral? Unworthy of a TR? Needs a disciplinary council? Or is it only offensive if it impacts the church?

 

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Not necessarily. It totally depends on how the information was obtained. You're focused on only one possibility, ie a church employee stealing info. I'm suggesting that there are many other ways information could be gathered.

I wonder what this group would think about a private investigator who takes pictures and goes through trash etc in gathering info for a client. Illegal? Immoral? Unworthy of a TR? Needs a disciplinary council? Or is it only offensive if it impacts the church?

 

No, I was thinking about what would have happened if I as a store clerk had walked out and published information I had come across such as employee benefits and salaries, purchases and price markups, heating bills, etc.  I always saw the info as my boss' property and therefore not mine to do with what I wanted.

Trash is something people have relinquished control over once it leaves their property, in my view.  Until it does that, they may change their mind and have it destroyed rather than thrown out.

I find taking pictures without someone knowing as morally wrong, but understand it is legal in public areas...it makes sense in that if one can see it legally without restriction or condition imposed, one can then record what one can see.

I considered it might be a garbage source, but the copies I saw showed no sign of the likely damage that would have occurred.

Edited January 25, 2017 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

50 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm interested in Cinepro's impression but here is mine:

Over the past few years, many members have been facing continual "hits" against things they thought they knew about the church:

What they were taught about how polygamy was practiced - wrong.

What they learned about the reasons for the priesthood ban - disavowed.

How they understood the Book of Mormon to have been translated - false.

Origins of the Book of Abraham - not what they were told.

Etc.

Learning that the GA "stipend" is equivalent to a six-figure salary (very wealthy by the standards of many) can now be added to that list.

Good point.

But I haven't heard a peep about the leeks on my social media. I don't think it's having much impact.

[rongo]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You said you'd seek excommunication.  Can I ask on what grounds you feel that excommunication is warranted for someone who leaks confidential documents to be published online?

(I'm not saying what they did was right/moral/ethical... just wondering how you feel excommunication is fitting per the handbook guidelines.)

It would all depend on how the council went, and on their penitence. If defiant, I definitely think excommunication should be considered because:

--- They knowingly transmitted and publicized what they knew to be confidential institutional Church information.

--- I think the very existence of "MormonLeaks" (there was discussion on reddit over why they are trademarking it) is seditious and an act of rebellion against the Church. I consider that to be apostasy. That's a bold step that means you have crossed the Rubicon. 

--- This would come out in the council, in either direction, but I would want them to discuss their motives. Desire to harm members' faith would be crucial. I'm sure the claim would be that they just wanted to force transparency, they don't want to hurt anyone's faith, they believe in the Brethren, etc. But, it becomes pretty clear in such councils where people are at, and there are ways of talking for people whose primary consideration is remaining in the Church and remaining in decent standing. Hypothetically, of course, since these people are not under me and I don't know any of the above firsthand ---- I am confident that those behind WikiLeaks mean the Church ill-will, and want to see it suffer --- and people's faith in the restored gospel suffer. If that came out in spades in the council, then I would lean strongly towards ex- or dis-. Ultimately, the prayers for revelation are the key.

--- What lengths are the people willing to go to try to repair the damage they have caused to people's faith and to the Church's good name? Or, are they unwilling to do much of anything to enact a Paul/Alma the Younger turnaround?

 

[rongo]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Not necessarily. It totally depends on how the information was obtained. You're focused on only one possibility, ie a church employee stealing info. I'm suggesting that there are many other ways information could be gathered.

I think how the information was gotten at its terminal point is irrelevant. The MormonLeaks people are taking that information and publishing it. They're just as guilty as the people who wrongly provided it to them.

I wonder what this group would think about a private investigator who takes pictures and goes through trash etc in gathering info for a client. Illegal? Immoral? Unworthy of a TR? Needs a disciplinary council? Or is it only offensive if it impacts the church?

Well, yes. TR worthiness or membership status would only apply if it impacts the church. The seedy part of PI work wouldn't unless it were undertaken to undermine the Church and its leaders, in my book.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

It would all depend on how the council went, and on their penitence. If defiant, I definitely think excommunication should be considered because:

--- They knowingly transmitted and publicized what they knew to be confidential institutional Church information.

--- I think the very existence of "MormonLeaks" (there was discussion on reddit over why they are trademarking it) is seditious and an act of rebellion against the Church. I consider that to be apostasy. That's a bold step that means you have crossed the Rubicon. 

--- This would come out in the council, in either direction, but I would want them to discuss their motives. Desire to harm members' faith would be crucial. I'm sure the claim would be that they just wanted to force transparency, they don't want to hurt anyone's faith, they believe in the Brethren, etc. But, it becomes pretty clear in such councils where people are at, and there are ways of talking for people whose primary consideration is remaining in the Church and remaining in decent standing. Hypothetically, of course, since these people are not under me and I don't know any of the above firsthand ---- I am confident that those behind WikiLeaks mean the Church ill-will, and want to see it suffer --- and people's faith in the restored gospel suffer. If that came out in spades in the council, then I would lean strongly towards ex- or dis-. Ultimately, the prayers for revelation are the key.

--- What lengths are the people willing to go to try to repair the damage they have caused to people's faith and to the Church's good name? Or, are they unwilling to do much of anything to enact a Paul/Alma the Younger turnaround?

 

Wow, man!

Are you speaking only of the people running the website that leaks the docs, or the people who provide the leaked information to the website?

You are generally assuming a motive of harm from those leaking the docs whereas it could be a belief that transparency is best for the church. Sedition is a very strong and loaded term. A bit hyperbolic really.

Here's a podcast discussion with the individual heading up the leak website. http://infantsonthrones.com/mormon-leaks/

I'm curious why sharing accurate information is seditious and damaging to the church? If they were making up info, that would be a different story, but I haven't heard anyone legitimately challenge the authenticity of the information being leaked. You seem to be assuming that the truth will hurt people's testimonies.

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

Well, yes. TR worthiness or membership status would only apply if it impacts the church. The seedy part of PI work wouldn't unless it were undertaken to undermine the Church and its leaders, in my book.

So it's not about the methods or behavior but rather who it impacts?

I guess these kind of practices are only immoral/unethical if church leaders are the only ones affected? At least you're honest about it.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Wow, man!

Are you speaking only of the people running the website that leaks the docs, or the people who provide the leaked information to the website?

You are generally assuming a motive of harm from those leaking the docs whereas it could be a belief that transparency is best for the church. Sedition is a very strong and loaded term. A bit hyperbolic really.

Here's a podcast discussion with the individual heading up the leak website. http://infantsonthrones.com/mormon-leaks/

I'm curious why sharing accurate information is seditious and damaging to the church? If they were making up info, that would be a different story, but I haven't heard anyone legitimately challenge the authenticity of the information being leaked. You seem to be assuming that the truth will hurt people's testimonies.

How can we know if the info is made up or not? The original leaks included some things that were generally agreed as false info, iirc, including a picture claiming to be church security which was another company/government iirc.

 If the Church responds to false information, they can then claim anything not responded to is true even though a choice may be made to not respond for other reasons.

Edited January 25, 2017 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

Just now, Calm said:

How can we know if the info is made up or not?  If the Church responds to false information, they can then claim anything not responded to is true even though a choice may be made to not respond for other reasons.

Well, after site leaked the paystubs the church came out with a newsroom statement stating that it has long been known that GA's receive a modest stipend. They seemed to be responding directly to the leaks and didn't refute anything.

But you're right. There's no guarantee that every leak the site receives and posts will be authentic/accurate.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So it's not about the methods or behavior but rather who it impacts?

I guess these kind of practices are only immoral/unethical if church leaders are the only ones affected? At least you're honest about it.

I got the idea it was about what the Church had jurisdiction over to discipline.  They don't usually hold disciplinary hearings when people sue each other or misdemeanors are committed, right?

Edited January 25, 2017 by Calm

[rongo]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Wow, man!

Good questions!

Quote

Are you speaking only of the people running the website that leaks the docs, or the people who provide the leaked information to the website?

Both. I believe that all people in the supply chain are as guilty as the end distributor.  Leaks are bad, man . . .  

Quote

You are generally assuming a motive of harm from those leaking the docs whereas it could be a belief that transparency is best for the church. Sedition is a very strong and loaded term. A bit hyperbolic really.

I don't think so. They think they're doing this for the greater good, and people should act on the courage of their convictions. But they need to be prepared to accept the consequences. I believe in the cause of the American Revolution, but think that the Crown was fully right to contest the breaking away of its colonies. It was an act of sedition that we did. 

Quote

I'm curious why sharing accurate information is seditious and damaging to the church?

It's seditious because it doesn't belong to them. Why are they anonymous? Because they a) want to avoid Church action and b) want to avoid legal problems. 

That should tell you something.

Quote

If they were making up info, that would be a different story, but I haven't heard anyone legitimately challenge the authenticity of the information being leaked.

Whether or not the information is accurate and legitimate is irrelevant to the question of whether it is illegal or a betrayal of the Church. People with a controlling interest have the right for their confidential information to remain confidential, and trying to anonymously circumvent this doesn't mean that it isn't an act of disloyalty.

The accuracy of the information doesn't have a bearing on whether it is actionable from a church discipline standpoint, in my view.

Quote

You seem to be assuming that the truth will hurt people's testimonies.

People's mileage will vary, but I think it's without question that the intent of the leak pipeline and the faucet are to hurt people's testimonies. Whether or not it succeeds is going to depend on the person. 

Edited January 25, 2017 by rongo

[Jeanne]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Wow, man!

Are you speaking only of the people running the website that leaks the docs, or the people who provide the leaked information to the website?

You are generally assuming a motive of harm from those leaking the docs whereas it could be a belief that transparency is best for the church. Sedition is a very strong and loaded term. A bit hyperbolic really.

Here's a podcast discussion with the individual heading up the leak website. http://infantsonthrones.com/mormon-leaks/

I'm curious why sharing accurate information is seditious and damaging to the church? If they were making up info, that would be a different story, but I haven't heard anyone legitimately challenge the authenticity of the information being leaked. You seem to be assuming that the truth will hurt people's testimonies.

 

Why would the church ex communicate anyone if they are not afraid of harm?  Something to think about.

 

[Calm]

I know several people excommunicated who were incapable of harming the Church except perhaps with a few fringers like themselves who were already in dangerous territory.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

Good questions!

Both. I believe that all people in the supply chain are as guilty as the end distributor.  Leaks are bad, man . . .  

I don't think so. They think they're doing this for the greater good, and people should act on the courage of their convictions. But they need to be prepared to accept the consequences. I believe in the cause of the American Revolution, but think that the Crown was fully right to contest the breaking away of its colonies. It was an act of sedition that we did. 

So you're suggesting that sometimes sedition (as you define it) leads to a positive outcome? Sometimes sedition is justified, right?

It's seditious because it doesn't belong to them. Why are they anonymous? Because they a) want to avoid Church action and b) want to avoid legal problems. 

The main guy running the website isn't anonymous. I think there are many reasons why leakers may be anonymous. Fear of church or legal action is definitely a good reason to worry. But they also might fear hurting personal relationships with friends or family. They may worry about losing their job. They may be afraid of losing clients. Maybe they're afraid of publicity. Anonymity helps to mitigate many negative consequences, whether or not the consequences are justified.

Why is it sedition? Doesn't wanting to avoid Church and legal sanctions tell you something. It's totally seditious what they're doing, and it's obvious on its face.

Not really. Anonymity seems smart.

I understand why it seems disloyal but I think it's possible the people leaking truly think that forcing the church into greater transparency will ultimately be good for the church.

Whether or not the information is accurate and legitimate is irrelevant to the question of whether it is illegal or a betrayal of the Church. People with a controlling interest have the right for their confidential information to remain confidential, and trying to anonymously circumvent this doesn't mean that it isn't an act of disloyalty.

Consider it tough love for the church.  Open their eyes and teach them a lesson that will help them be better in the future.

The accuracy of the information doesn't have a bearing on whether it is actionable from a church discipline standpoint, in my view.

It seems strange to suggest "Protecting the good name of the church" requires punishing people who share accurate information. How does accurate information damage the good name of the church?

People's mileage will vary, but I think it's without question that the intent of the leak pipeline and the faucet are to hurt people's testimonies. Whether or not it succeeds is going to depend on the person. 

 

[rongo]

26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So you're suggesting that sometimes sedition (as you define it) leads to a positive outcome? Sometimes sedition is justified, right?

It can, and it sometimes it does, yes. But, the "rebel scum"  (justified or not) shouldn't feel ill-used if "The Man" asserts his rights and defends himself.

Quote

 I think there are many reasons why leakers may be anonymous. Fear of church or legal action is definitely a good reason to worry. But they also might fear hurting personal relationships with friends or family. They may worry about losing their job. They may be afraid of losing clients. Maybe they're afraid of publicity. Anonymity helps to mitigate many negative consequences, whether or not the consequences are justified.

Fear of church or legal action. Fear of hurting personal relationships with friends or family. Fear of losing their job (at the COB or CES or something else like that, in this case). Fear of losing clients. Fear of publicity. You came up with a good list. Probably more could be added.

Justified or not, leakers have to count the cost. And hopefully think long and hard about whether the cost is worth it. And whether the effects are worth it. 

It sounds like if Church or legal action follows, the fears were not misplaced.

Quote

Anonymity seems smart.

Given the above, uh, yeah [/valley girl] When you have to be anonymous for all those reasons, especially legal or Church sanctions, to me, that signals that you're on thin ice. 

Quote

I understand why it seems disloyal but I think it's possible the people leaking truly think that forcing the church into greater transparency will ultimately be good for the church.

I don't think it matters what the people leaking truly think. I think it matters what the institutional Church really thinks (as pertains to church discipline). John Dehlin and Kate Kelly "really thought" they were doing the Church and its people a real service, too.

Quote

Consider it tough love for the church.  Open their eyes and teach them a lesson that will help them be better in the future.

The Church can also dish out some tough love.  

Quote

It seems strange to suggest "Protecting the good name of the church" requires punishing people who share accurate confidential, sensitive information. How does confidential, sensitive accurate information damage the good name of the church?

Fixed it for you. Because they don't go about it the right way, and because it's confidential, sensitive, and the Church's property. How is this being used to hurt the good name of the Church? In a myriad of ways. That's why people who do not like the Church or its people are gleeful about this.

Edited January 25, 2017 by rongo

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

What about my grandfather's information after he's deceased? Is it jerky to release?

This isn't really about leaking personal information. It's about institutional information. The leakers have actually redacted a lot of personal info that would be jerky to release, like SSN's and the names of church employees who don't matter in the context of the institutional information.

In regards to your grandfather, it could be. 

And I don't see a lot of difference between being trustworthy with institutional confidences and being trustworthy with personal confidences.  If it isn't your information to share (and it's not hurting anyone) then i don't think people should cross that line.

 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I'm interested in Cinepro's impression but here is mine:

Over the past few years, many members have been facing continual "hits" against things they thought they knew about the church:

What they were taught about how polygamy was practiced - wrong.

What they learned about the reasons for the priesthood ban - disavowed.

How they understood the Book of Mormon to have been translated - false.

Origins of the Book of Abraham - not what they were told.

Etc.

Learning that the GA "stipend" is equivalent to a six-figure salary (very wealthy by the standards of many) can now be added to that list.

It seems that adding that to "the list" is indicative of more people becoming more dysfunctionally sensitive, contributing to the fulfillment of prophesy (their hearts shall fail them).