Church Employee Claims He Was Assigned to Spy on Online Church Critics

[Button Gwinnett]

A former church employee is claiming that he was given the assignment to spy on  (his words) church critics online.  The church was aware of his activity and he reported his work directly to general authorities.  The church also gave approval for him to use fake Facebook accounts , create fake profiles in as effort to gain personal information on these critics.   His man target was someone named Mike Norton who had threaten to release videos of Mitt Romney in the temple as an October surprise to undermine his candidacy.

These charges, if true, raise several troubling issues for the church.  Should the church be involved in spying on both current and former members?  Should the church use lies and misinformation in their covert online activities? Should the church be infiltrating message boards where critics post?  If found to be true, does any of this make you proud to be LDS?

Personally, I'm troubled by this.  I'm sure there will be an article in the trib within the next few days, until then this is coming from a post from Bill Reels FB page. 

 

A blog post I found by the claimed former church employee https://medium.com/@marysnap/im-mary-snap-and-i-tracked-mike-norton-newnamenoah-at-the-lds-church-b9937127a071

[Duncan]

Are they still a member? I was under the impression they left, is why they went public with this

[Calm]

Mike Norton is a well known antimormon who claims to illegally trespass into LDS temples using false IDs to secretly film temple ceremonies.  He posts said videos.  He brags about it and shares information on what places he is going to hit.  I don't know if he is lying or for real with his claims (people could be sending him videos instead of valid temple recommends to use).

I would not be the least bit surprised if the Church had someone keep track of him. 

As far as fake accounts and fake profiles, I would like to see the actual evidence that they knew what she was doing,  I see no reason to just accept that she told them she was and they said nothing.  I have created alternate FB profiles to use with games so I don't flood my followers with useless announcements of game achievements.  I use variations on my name.  No lying required.

If someone is having a cow because false ids are being used to keep track of his activities but are supportive of what he does, it is completely hypocritical.

I am not saying I personally am okay with lying in this situation.

Edited October 20, 2017 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

Probably true, or half true, or slightly true.

Who cares?  Church has been keeping an eye on members since forever.  Strengthening members and all that.

God sees all we do.  Privacy is an illusion.

[stemelbow]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

Mike Norton is a well known antimormon who claims to illegally trespass into LDS temples using false IDs to secretly film temple ceremonies.  He posts said videos.  He brags about it and shares information on what places he is going to hit.  I don't know if he is lying or for real with his claims.

I would not be the least bit surprised if the Church had someone keep track of him. 

As far as fake accounts and fake profiles, I would like to see the actual evidence that they knew what she was doing,  I see no reason to just accept that she told them she was and they said nothing.  I have created alternate FB profiles to use with games so I don't flood my followers with useless announcements of game achievements.  I use variations on my name.  No lying required.

If someone is having a cow because false ids are being used to keep track of his activities but are supportive of what he does, it is completely hypocritical.

That’s not the definition of hypocritical.  If someone doesn’t like that the church paid for spying then that someone could also be one who doesn’t approve of mike Norton’s activities too.  

Hypocritical as you know would suggest the person is concerned about something he/ she does.  

[kiwi57]

Norton is a sleazy individual who surreptitiously films people without their permission when they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. A nasty fellow who thinks that our sacred observances should be turned into some kind of spectator sport for religious voyeurs.

If that low-life thinks we should be respecting his privacy while he is loudly, gleefully and publicly invading ours, then his spite is only exceeded by his hypocrisy.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That’s not the definition of hypocritical.  If someone doesn’t like that the church paid for spying then that someone could also be one who doesn’t approve of mike Norton’s activities too.  

You didn't read very closely.  I said if they were supportive of Norton (his false ids), it would be hypocritical to condemn someone else for using false ids.

"Hypocritical as you know would suggest the person is concerned about something he/ she does."

I have no clue what you saying here...unless I misspelled something, got a migraine going, so that may be it.  Will check.

Nope, I spelled it correctly:

"Hyp·o·crit·i·cal

ˌhipəˈkridək(ə)l/

adjective

1. behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.

   "we don't go to church and we thought it would be hypocritical to have him christened""

Edited October 20, 2017 by Calm

[Wiki Wonka]

58 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

A former church employee is claiming that he was given the assignment to spy on  (his words) church critics online.  The church was aware of his activity and he reported his work directly to general authorities.  The church also gave approval for him to use fake Facebook accounts , create fake profiles in as effort to gain personal information on these critics.   His man target was someone named Mike Norton who had threaten to release videos of Mitt Romney in the temple as an October surprise to undermine his candidacy.

These charges, if true, raise several troubling issues for the church.  Should the church be involved in spying on both current and former members?  Should the church use lies and misinformation in their covert online activities? Should the church be infiltrating message boards where critics post?  If found to be true, does any of this make you proud to be LDS?

Personally, I'm troubled by this.  I'm sure there will be an article in the trib within the next few days, until then this is coming from a post from Bill Reels FB page. 

 

A blog post I found by the claimed former church employee https://medium.com/@marysnap/im-mary-snap-and-i-tracked-mike-norton-newnamenoah-at-the-lds-church-b9937127a071

I'm not buying her story at all. She said: "I started by joining just about every Ex-Mormon community on the web, creating fake accounts on each to be able to search and track what was within."

All of the major ex-Mormon online forums are publicly accessible and viewable by anyone. You can read and search them freely without joining them. (How does one "spy" on a public forum?)

 

 

Edited October 20, 2017 by Wiki Wonka

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Wiki Wonka said:

I'm not buying her story at all. She said: "I started by joining just about every Ex-Mormon community on the web, creating fake accounts on each to be able to search and track what was within."

All of the major ex-Mormon online forums are publicly accessible and viewable by anyone. You can read and search them freely without joining them. 

 

 

That is what I thought.  Thanks for confirming.

I have certainly visited a number of them when checking to make sure claims are accurately presented or wanting to know more than one side of a story.

[Button Gwinnett]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

Mike Norton is a well known antimormon who claims to illegally trespass into LDS temples using false IDs to secretly film temple ceremonies.  He posts said videos.  He brags about it and shares information on what places he is going to hit.  I don't know if he is lying or for real with his claims (people could be sending him videos instead of valid temple recommends to use).

I would not be the least bit surprised if the Church had someone keep track of him. 

As far as fake accounts and fake profiles, I would like to see the actual evidence that they knew what she was doing,  I see no reason to just accept that she told them she was and they said nothing.  I have created alternate FB profiles to use with games so I don't flood my followers with useless announcements of game achievements.  I use variations on my name.  No lying required.

If someone is having a cow because false ids are being used to keep track of his activities but are supportive of what he does, it is completely hypocritical.

I am not saying I personally am okay with lying in this situation.

This Mike Norton you speak of, sounds like a despicable person.  Truly a poster child for what all would consider an anti Mormon.  That said, should the church be getting down and dirty with his ilk?  I kinda thought we played by a higher set of rules 

[Duncan]

9 minutes ago, Wiki Wonka said:

I'm not buying her story at all. She said: "I started by joining just about every Ex-Mormon community on the web, creating fake accounts on each to be able to search and track what was within."

All of the major ex-Mormon online forums are publicly accessible and viewable by anyone. You can read and search them freely without joining them. (How does one "spy" on a public forum?)

 

 

Didn't she do that just to create "cred" to join other exmormon's FB profiles i.e. Mike Norton's?

[Button Gwinnett]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

Didn't she do that just to create "cred" to join other exmormon's FB profiles i.e. Mike Norton's?

For the record, the "she" was a male church employee posing as a female while online in message boards frequented by Church critics 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Button Gwinnett said:

A former church employee is claiming that he was given the assignment to spy on  (his words) church critics online.  The church was aware of his activity and he reported his work directly to general authorities.  The church also gave approval for him to use fake Facebook accounts , create fake profiles in as effort to gain personal information on these critics.   His man target was someone named Mike Norton who had threaten to release videos of Mitt Romney in the temple as an October surprise to undermine his candidacy.

These charges, if true, raise several troubling issues for the church.  Should the church be involved in spying on both current and former members?  Should the church use lies and misinformation in their covert online activities? Should the church be infiltrating message boards where critics post?  If found to be true, does any of this make you proud to be LDS?

Personally, I'm troubled by this.  I'm sure there will be an article in the trib within the next few days, until then this is coming from a post from Bill Reels FB page. 

 

A blog post I found by the claimed former church employee https://medium.com/@marysnap/im-mary-snap-and-i-tracked-mike-norton-newnamenoah-at-the-lds-church-b9937127a071

I find this very heartening. There is much that goes on on the Internet that Church authorities should be made aware of. 

And make no mistake: The Internet is a very public place. There should be no presumption of privacy with Internet postings. 

I have little sympathy for those who feel ill-used when something they posted ends up being seen by someone for whom it wasn’t intended. What in the world were they thinking when they posted the thing in the first place?

Wiki Wonka said it well: How can you spy on a public message forum?

Edited October 20, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[cinepro]

22 minutes ago, Wiki Wonka said:

I'm not buying her story at all. She said: "I started by joining just about every Ex-Mormon community on the web, creating fake accounts on each to be able to search and track what was within."

All of the major ex-Mormon online forums are publicly accessible and viewable by anyone. You can read and search them freely without joining them. (How does one "spy" on a public forum?)

 

 

That's what I don't get.  Anyone could be reading this thread right now.  If tomorrow someone came up to me and said "Cinepro, I read that post you made yesterday at MDDB", I wouldn't ask why they were spying on me.

Now, if I were in a private building like my home and someone sneaked in and video recorded what I was doing and then put it on the internet, I might find that a little more like "spying."  But I don't know who would ever do something like that. 

[sunstoned]

21 minutes ago, Wiki Wonka said:

I'm not buying her story at all. She said: "I started by joining just about every Ex-Mormon community on the web, creating fake accounts on each to be able to search and track what was within."

All of the major ex-Mormon online forums are publicly accessible and viewable by anyone. You can read and search them freely without joining them. (How does one "spy" on a public forum?)

 

 

Relax. To post on these sites you need to have an account.  There is no reason to double her story.  In fact, I see nothing really controversial about this whole thing it at all.  A church employee is tracking a person who has admitted to trespassing on church property.   Accounts were created on social media sites.  Perhaps a mid level manager in the COB knew about it.  So what?  This is not a church wide inquisition. 

[JarMan]

I would be disappointed if the church was not involved in counterintelligence. 

[Duncan]

Spying on the spy, I feel like this is a M*A*S*H episode with Col. Flagg 

Edited October 20, 2017 by Duncan

[Calm]

48 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

This Mike Norton you speak of, sounds like a despicable person.  Truly a poster child for what all would consider an anti Mormon.  That said, should the church be getting down and dirty with his ilk?  I kinda thought we played by a higher set of rules 

Again, I would like to see actual evidence beyond a former member who states they didn't tell her to engage in lying, just didn't tell her to stop.  I have doubts about her accuracy because I know it is easy to read many of the major antimormon sites without having to create an identity.  

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Relax. To post on these sites you need to have an account.  There is no reason to double her story.  In fact, I see nothing really controversial about this whole thing it at all.  A church employee is tracking a person who has admitted to trespassing on church property.   Accounts were created on social media sites.  Perhaps a mid level manager in the COB knew about it.  So what?  This is not a church wide inquisition. 

Yeah, but you don't have to post on the sites to track information.

Edited October 20, 2017 by Calm

[smac97]

On 10/19/2017 at 8:48 PM, Calm said:

Mike Norton is a well known antimormon who claims to illegally trespass into LDS temples using false IDs to secretly film temple ceremonies.  He posts said videos.  He brags about it and shares information on what places he is going to hit.  I don't know if he is lying or for real with his claims (people could be sending him videos instead of valid temple recommends to use).

I would not be the least bit surprised if the Church had someone keep track of him. 

As far as fake accounts and fake profiles, I would like to see the actual evidence that they knew what she was doing,  I see no reason to just accept that she told them she was and they said nothing.  I have created alternate FB profiles to use with games so I don't flood my followers with useless announcements of game achievements.  I use variations on my name.  No lying required.

If someone is having a cow because false ids are being used to keep track of his activities but are supportive of what he does, it is completely hypocritical.

I am not saying I personally am okay with lying in this situation.

"And {Moroni} also knowing that it was the only desire of the Nephites to preserve their lands, and their liberty, and their church, therefore he thought it no sin that he should defend them by stratagem; therefore, he found by his spies which course the Lamanites were to take."  (Alma 43:30).

Of course, that was during a war...

-Smac

Edited October 25, 2017 by smac97

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

For the record, the "she" was a male church employee posing as a female while online in message boards frequented by Church critics 

Ah, his real name could be either.  My mistake.

It is this guy, for those curious:

http://www.mormonstories.org/jesse-stay/

Edited October 20, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

54 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Didn't she do that just to create "cred" to join other exmormon's FB profiles i.e. Mike Norton's?

If he did, it was probably overkill.

Edited October 20, 2017 by Calm

[Button Gwinnett]

55 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I find this very heartening. There is much that goes on on the Internet that Church authorities should be made aware of. 

And make no mistake: The Internet is a very public place. There should be no presumption of privacy with Internet postings. 

I have little sympathy for those who feel ill-used when something they posted ends up being seen by someone for whom it wasn’t intended. What in the world were they thinking when they posted the thing in the first place. 

Wiki Wonka said it well: How can you spy on a public message board?

Granted, but this male church employee was impersonating a female, used trickery to gain access to critics closed FB pages, sent and accepted friend requests to gain access to personal information on critics all for a good cause to protect the church. I guess I just find it disappointing that we, the good guys, had to lower our standards, get in their gutter to take them on.  It's odd behavior for a church.  Am I the only one who feels icky about this? It feels so Nixonian.  This is one of those, do the ends justify the means?

Edited October 20, 2017 by Button Gwinnett

[sunstoned]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yeah, but you don't have to post on the sites to track information.

True.  But I don't (IMO) think the church employee did anything really wrong.

[ksfisher]

1 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 by the people of this State;
2 And also of all the property and amount of damages which they have sustained, both of character and personal injuries, as well as real property;
3 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.
4 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;
5 And all that are in the magazines, and in the encyclopedias, and all the libelous histories that are published, and are writing, and by whom, and present the whole concatenation of diabolical rascality and nefarious and murderous impositions that have been practiced upon this people--

D&C 123