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

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

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?

Again, he made the decision himself, he wasn't told to do it.  When they didn't specifically condemn him (if one assumes he is accurate) after the fact, it could have been because they approved, didn't care, weren't paying that much attention, didn't want to make him feel bad as he did it to help, or some other reason.  He doesn't specify when he told them or the exact words used, which could have been much stronger than he portrays or not.  Maybe the supervisor he told thought he was telling him they didn't condone creation of fake profiles was enough to stop him, but he took it as passive permission to keep going.  I can easily see someone saying something along the lines of "we don't condone lying, but we appreciate your passion".

"I was also told they don’t necessarily condone the creation of fake profiles like I do, but they never told me to stop when I said I was doing it."

Edited October 20, 2017 by Calm

[cdowis]

2 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.

Spying???????????v   Looking online and spying??  Do they take control of their webcam and stare at them or listen to their skype conversations?  This is antiMormorn garbage ====>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.. He was doing this himself and the church found noting wrong with his activities.

Sirrah, then I am a online spy.  I engage the antiMornmons in forum discussions, and SPY on their youtube videos.  When they make direct physical threats to church leaders, I report them and they get arrested.  When they violate our copyrighted material, I report them to Intellectual Property and the material is removed.

When they engage in hate mongering videos, I report them to youtube for violating their rules.

I do not report to anyone, but I guess that makes me a spy.

Edited October 20, 2017 by cdowis

[readstoomuch]

This is about the 4th topic posted on this message board lately that seems chronologically to follow the very topic being posted on the MormonDiscussionPodcast Facebook page.  Lately there seems to be an increasing vitriol to that Facebook page.  Sort of a cross between the Tanners, MormonStories, MormonThink and Richard Abanes.  Bits and pieces of rhetoric and innuendo from the past with an occasional real fact.  The research to get some kind of understanding of the subtleties involved is intense.  It is sad how many are deceived by this anti-Mormon rehash.  The people who seem to follow this blindly is amazing

[Robert F. Smith]

2 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.   .........................

But was the creation of "fake Facebook accounts," etc., actually his idea or that of the Brethren?  And does that mean that we should condemn all the participants on this board who use pseudonyms?  If he is now a hostile ex-Mormon, should we automatically credit his characterization of the entire matter?  After all, he knows that the Brethren are unlikely to respond publicly, thus giving him permission to say anything in his attack mode.

2 hours ago, Button Gwinnett said:

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.

One has to ask whether this is just a tempest in a teapot, or that gathering information on one's self-declared enemies is smart, stupid, or diabolical.  The LDS Church has been deliberately gathering information on anti-Mormons since the early days of the Church, and has been doing so openly and with good cause. It would be quite foolish not to do so.  How is it that you are troubled by that, even though you don't actually know the details?  -- "spying," "lies and misinformation," "covert online activities," "infiltrating," etc.  Is that really what we have here?

2 hours ago, Button Gwinnett said:

 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

Bill Reel.  Uh-huh.

[Calm]

As to finding out who Norton was, apparently all you had to do was use Whois.  See first comment:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/philosophicalfragments/2012/10/23/october-surprise-interview-with-newnamenoah-about-his-mormon-temple-videos/

He doesn't mention in the Snap post when he was employed by the Church for Social Media.  The investigation into NNN could have been one of many things he was involved in, though I won't have an issue with a full time investigator into someone intending to desecrate temples and those intending to help him.  I am just pointing out he is less than fully forthcoming (as in providing details) in this post.  He may have provided the info elsewhere such as the MS podcast.

Edited October 20, 2017 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

"And he 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

This is a war. It’s a continuation of the war in heaven. Good vs evil and all that. 

[Scott Lloyd]

47 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Spying???????????v   Looking online and spying??  Do they take control of their webcam and stare at them or listen to their skype conversations?  This is antiMormorn garbage ====>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.. He was doing this himself and the church found noting wrong with his activities.

Sirrah, then I am a online spy.  I engage the antiMornmons in forum discussions, and SPY on their youtube videos.  When they make direct physical threats to church leaders, I report them and they get arrested.  When they violate our copyrighted material, I report them to Intellectual Property and the material is removed.

When they engage in hate mongering videos, I report them to youtube for violating their rules.

I do not report to anyone, but I guess that makes me a spy.

If you’re really doing all this, then good for you!

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours 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.  

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

What about people who use pseudonyms on this board?  Are they liars and hypocrites, or are they simply being reasonably cautious in trying to avoid certain types of blowback for freely expressing their views?  Particularly if their views are non-standard and controversial.  It might be wise to avoid trouble and persecution.  Does that constitute a nefarious purpose?

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

But was the creation of "fake Facebook accounts," etc., actually his idea or that of the Brethren?  And does that mean that we should condemn all the participants on this board who use pseudonyms?  If he is now a hostile ex-Mormon, should we automatically credit his characterization of the entire matter?  After all, he knows that the Brethren are unlikely to respond publicly, thus giving him permission to say anything in his attack mode.

One has to ask whether this is just a tempest in a teapot, or that gathering information on one's self-declared enemies is smart, stupid, or diabolical.  The LDS Church has been deliberately gathering information on anti-Mormons since the early days of the Church, and has been doing so openly and with good cause. It would be quite foolish not to do so.  How is it that you are troubled by that, even though you don't actually know the details?  -- "spying," "lies and misinformation," "covert online activities," "infiltrating," etc.  Is that really what we have here?

Bill Reel.  Uh-huh.

It’s scarcely surprising that Reel is the one who is spun up about this. 

He on one occasion sent me a Message in my PM box. I chose to respond to him in a publicly accessible thread. He cried foul. 

I explained that I don’t give an automatic guarantee of confidentiality to communication sent to me unsolicited, nor do I believe that I should. 

[Marginal Gains]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is a war. It’s a continuation of the war in heaven. Good vs evil and all that. 

Hello Scott,

On the basis that you seem to find the behaviour outlined in the OP acceptable, on the basis that “we are still at war”:

- Where would you draw the line interns of what is or is not acceptable behaviour in this war?

- Have you participated in “covert” activity of this nature on behalf of the Church?

- If not, if asked, would you? If not, why not?

- If the type of behaviour outlined in the OP is acceptable for defenders of the Church, would you consider it legitimate and fair for critics of the Church to behave likewise? In other words, you see nothing intrinsically wrong with what Mike Norton does, other than which team he’s batting for?

[Calm]

A thread (see below) from 2012 that might interest some.  It contains a comment from MormonMason that Mike Norton was known about for a long time.  He had posted on the FAIR board in 2006,  I believe.  I even have a copy of something he posted about his activities somewhere online due to a friend asking for info about him back in 2006.  So he was hardly unknown before Stay/Snap started looking into him.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/59208-coward-member-secretly-filmed-a-temple-session-in-slc/

From my files (I never delete personal emails, in part because my memory is at times nonexistent due to medication, for example by the time of the 2012 thread, I had apparently forgotten that I had heard of Norton's temple trespasses long before). 

"For a long term project I'm working on, I need to

borrow the name of a guy who is between the ages of

30 and 40 and has been ordained to the office of

Elder. He must be PAINFULLY inactive and, in fact,

so inactive that his local Ward leaders might not

even know he exists and certainly wouldn't miss him

if he moved. 

 

I need someone who, other than being inactive, is

still a member in good standing. 

 

If you are such a person and/or know of such a

person that might be willing to let me assume his

identity in the Mormon Church for a long period of

time, please contact me privately at

mike@-------[had to edit due to the censor not allowing me to post]

 

Norton

 

P.S. Don't bother responding to this just to ask

what I'm up to. I can't tell but, rest assured,

it'll be a doozey."

Edited October 20, 2017 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

44 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Hello Scott,

On the basis that you seem to find the behaviour outlined in the OP acceptable, on the basis that “we are still at war”:

- Where would you draw the line interns of what is or is not acceptable behaviour in this war?

- Have you participated in “covert” activity of this nature on behalf of the Church?

- If not, if asked, would you? If not, why not?

- If the type of behaviour outlined in the OP is acceptable for defenders of the Church, would you consider it legitimate and fair for critics of the Church to behave likewise? In other words, you see nothing intrinsically wrong with what Mike Norton does, other than which team he’s batting for?

We also sing "Onward Christian Soldiers" sometimes at church.  Does that mean to you that that reflects a belief in using AK-47s on anti-Mormons?  Is that really what is being contemplated?  Or is the kind of "war" referred to by Scott more like something mythical (War in Heaven) and distant from a real world conception, and justifying any sort of skulduggery?  Why do you automatically accept as fact all the horrid and diabolical claims being made in the OP?  Why is it that Jerald & Sandra Tanner never experienced any drive-by shootings in SLC?  Could it be that Mormons are generally quite gracious and well-behaved?  Do you have a rational sense of perspective on this?

In fact, many instances can be cited in which the anti-Mormons did not evince gracious and honest behavior, from purloining documents from the LDS archives to infiltrating LDS temples with recording devices.  Deliberate and systematic lies and deceit have in fact been the stock in trade of many anti-Mormons, while the Mormons have not responded in kind.  Time and again we have had trolls and sock-puppets on this board -- in search of anything but honest dialogue.

[MorningStar]

Everyone reading this thread is a spy.  

[Bobbieaware]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We also sing "Onward Christian Soldiers" sometimes at church.  Does that mean to you that that reflects a belief in using AK-47s on anti-Mormons?  Is that really what is being contemplated?  Or is the kind of "war" referred to by Scott more like something mythical (War in Heaven) and distant from a real world conception, and justifying any sort of skulduggery?  Why do you automatically accept as fact all the horrid and diabolical claims being made in the OP?  Why is it that Jerald & Sandra Tanner never experienced any drive-by shootings in SLC?  Could it be that Mormons are generally quite gracious and well-behaved?  Do you have a rational sense of perspective on this?

In fact, many instances can be cited in which the anti-Mormons did not evince gracious and honest behavior, from purloining documents from the LDS archives to infiltrating LDS temples with recording devices.  Deliberate and systematic lies and deceit have in fact been the stock in trade of many anti-Mormons, while the Mormons have not responded in kind.  Time and again we have had trolls and sock-puppets on this board -- in search of anything but honest dialogue.

Tolls and sock-puppets. I like that line, Robert. Made me laugh...

[CV75]

9 hours 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 

That's why they use the term "man target" per your OP.

[Atheist Mormon]

10 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

Who cares is is right......What I'd like to know is how much she was paid (if true).

[Duncan]

5 hours ago, MorningStar said:

Everyone reading this thread is a spy.  

I have the cone of silence on about such matters

Edited October 20, 2017 by Duncan

[Marginal Gains]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We also sing "Onward Christian Soldiers" sometimes at church.  Does that mean to you that that reflects a belief in using AK-47s on anti-Mormons?  Is that really what is being contemplated?  Or is the kind of "war" referred to by Scott more like something mythical (War in Heaven) and distant from a real world conception, and justifying any sort of skulduggery?  Why do you automatically accept as fact all the horrid and diabolical claims being made in the OP?  Why is it that Jerald & Sandra Tanner never experienced any drive-by shootings in SLC?  Could it be that Mormons are generally quite gracious and well-behaved?  Do you have a rational sense of perspective on this?

In fact, many instances can be cited in which the anti-Mormons did not evince gracious and honest behavior, from purloining documents from the LDS archives to infiltrating LDS temples with recording devices.  Deliberate and systematic lies and deceit have in fact been the stock in trade of many anti-Mormons, while the Mormons have not responded in kind.  Time and again we have had trolls and sock-puppets on this board -- in search of anything but honest dialogue.

I’m not sure why you are asking me to clarify what Scott means when he says “we are still at war”, but for clarity I was working on the assumption that he wasn’t meaning the weaponised kind you seem to be suggesting. *In terms of your suggestion that the War In Heaven was mythical, rather than one that actually happened, I’d be interested in exploring that suggestion, but perhaps on a different thread.

I don’t automatically accept the claims in the OP, I was responding to Scotts suggestion that the actions claimed in the OP were justified because “we are still at war”.

Drive-by shootings? Where, in any way, have I or any one else referenced drive-by shootings?

Mormons are generally quite gracious and well-behaved. Where have I suggested otherwise?

You are quite correct to state that instances can be cited where anti-Mormons have not evinced gracious and honest behaviour, including the examples you give. The question is whether it is acceptable for the Church to request/encourage/allow its employees to behave in a manner outlined in the OP. The wording of Scott’s post suggests to me he thinks it is. Do you?

I’m absolutely sure this board has had trolls and sock puppets in search of anything but honest dialogue. But the OP isn’t talking about board trolls or sock puppets. Nor am I. It’s talking about a Church employee utilising a sock puppet as part of their Church employment to seek out personal information on Church critics to be fed back to their employer so it can be used IRL against an individual. I’m sure you see the difference.

[HappyJackWagon]

I sure don't have any problem with anyone reading what is written on a public forum. It would be silly to be upset by that.

However, it seems just as silly to suggest that gaining access to private groups using false identities & using social engineering techniques of using false ID's to build fake relationships with others so that you can gain access to your target, is not spying. Obviously these tactics are not illegal, but something doesn't have to be illegal to be distasteful.

I know personally of one very specific example on a closed group geared towards people experiencing faith transitions, where an individual gained access to the group using a false identity which was in violation of both group and FB rules. This individual then used access to that group to befriend others in the group. He monitored what was said in the group & took screen shots. He then used personal profiles to determine where people lived so he could determine which ward they belonged to. He then sent information (including screenshots of comments) to ecclesiastical leaders in an effort to try to instigate disciplinary actions.

Now, I don't know if he was an employee of the church. In fact, I'm fairly certain this person was doing it on his own. Was his behavior proper? Or was his spying a breach of trust and were his actions distasteful and unethical? To me, it doesn't make a difference if the church had put him up to it. I view it as a scumbag move whether the church was involved or not. I find it unfortunate that some would choose to defend behavior from the church that they would otherwise reject.

[jkwilliams]

10 hours ago, cinepro said:

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.

There are a number of private groups and message boards out there for ex-Mormons, as there are for people with interests ranging from politics to knitting. I think the point "Mary Snap" was trying to make was that he officially joined the public groups to establish credibility in hopes of being invited into these private groups and social-media circles. Seems like he was successful.

Quote

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. 

I'm not sure why anyone should be surprised by any of this. Back when I was blogging (on my now-dormant blog) several years ago, a friend called me from the Church Office Building to tell me he'd just come out of a meeting where they had been discussing different sites and message boards. He was quite surprised to see my little blog projected on the big screen in the room. He said they decided I wasn't worth bothering with (no kidding), and we both had a good laugh about it. But I used to get regular hits from the Church Office Building and the "More Good Foundation." Never worried me. If you're going to publish opinions about the LDS church, you should expect them to take notice.

As for Mike Norton, about 5 years ago I posted "Happy Birthday" on his Facebook timeline. He replied with a video link. I had no idea what he was up to, but when I watched the brief video, it was obviously shot inside an LDS temple. I didn't think anything of it until he mentioned publicly that he had shot video inside the temple, and if anyone wanted confirmation, they could ask me. Thus, I was accused of being involved in the temple filming project and still am sometimes. For the record, I did not and do not support that kind of behavior and had no part in it. 

My interest in videos is strictly for entertainment. For my money, a video of the endowment is not entertaining. This, on the other hand, has been stuck in my head all morning.

 

Edited October 20, 2017 by jkwilliams

[Johnnie Cake]

Ironic that this has come out. I had lunch with Mike Norton several years ago. I found him to be friendly, personable yet very focused in his conclusions regarding the church.  As someone this board has felt to also call a critic, I personally disapprove of virtually everything Norton has done in using his disguises and secret cameras to circumvent church security in order to expose the temple endowment to the world. My feeling is he went way too far and lost the respect of many whom he might have other wise found as sympathetic.

 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Ironic that this has come out. I had lunch with Mike Norton several years ago. I found him to be friendly, personable yet very focused in his conclusions regarding the church.  As someone this board has felt to also call a critic, I personally disapprove of virtually everything Norton has done in using his disguises and secret cameras to circumvent church security in order to expose the temple endowment to the world. My feeling is he went way too far and lost the respect of many whom he might have other wise found as sympathetic.

Yup. I've never understood his obsession with publicizing the temple ceremonies. 

[Button Gwinnett]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Again, he made the decision himself, he wasn't told to do it.  When they didn't specifically condemn him (if one assumes he is accurate) after the fact, it could have been because they approved, didn't care, weren't paying that much attention, didn't want to make him feel bad as he did it to help, or some other reason.  He doesn't specify when he told them or the exact words used, which could have been much stronger than he portrays or not.  Maybe the supervisor he told thought he was telling him they didn't condone creation of fake profiles was enough to stop him, but he took it as passive permission to keep going.  I can easily see someone saying something along the lines of "we don't condone lying, but we appreciate your passion".

"I was also told they don’t necessarily condone the creation of fake profiles like I do, but they never told me to stop when I said I was doing it."

I own a company.  I have employees.  If I discover that one of my employee is operating outside of their defined boundaries I manage their conduct, take remedial action or dismiss them.  Once the church became aware of his activities there are no longer excuses, its on them.  If they then do nothing they are condoning his actions and are responsible for his activities..

[rongo]

38 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I think the point "Mary Snap" was trying to make was that he officially joined the public groups to establish credibility in hopes of being invited into these private groups and social-media circles. Seems like he was successful. I'm not sure why anyone should be surprised by any of this.

What just kills me about the howling from ex-Mormon critics about this is the hypocrisy. Those who delight in surreptitious recording of interviews, disciplinary councils, temple, etc. tend to ditch their "all is fair in hate and war" justification when . . . a Mormon poses as an exxie to gain trust and acceptance and then turns the tables and goes all exposè? 

Tone deaf to irony. And, it's not bad for them to have to have the same thing in the back of their minds that a priesthood leader does when talking with someone who might be recording him. This is even worse for them, because they crave "likes," "friend requests," exposure, and prominence. The price of going for high numbers is that there might be some Trojan horses or moles. 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

What just kills me about the howling from ex-Mormon critics about this is the hypocrisy. Those who delight in surreptitious recording of interviews, disciplinary councils, temple, etc. tend to ditch their "all is fair in hate and war" justification when . . . a Mormon poses as an exxie to gain trust and acceptance and then turns the tables and goes all exposè? 

Tone deaf to irony. And, it's not bad for them to have to have the same thing in the back of their minds that a priesthood leader does when talking with someone who might be recording him. This is even worse for them, because they crave "likes," "friend requests," exposure, and prominence. The price of going for high numbers is that there might be some Trojan horses or moles. 

On the flip side, it's ironic that a church employee engaged in some of the same behaviors people criticize Mike Norton for doing. Is it hypocritical to note that neither side's hands are totally clean?