Robert F. Smith Posted October 20, 2017 Posted October 20, 2017 2 hours ago, jkwilliams said: How would one verify it? I'm not sure it matters, either way. 2 hours ago, CA Steve said: I am curious, and maybe I missed it, but has anyone verified if this story is true? I have tried to get Button Gwinnet and Marginal Gains to at least recognize that such a question is germane, but then jkwilliams couldn't care less. Maybe it just doesn't matter -- because those who want to believe it will do so no matter what. Que sera, sera.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 20, 2017 Posted October 20, 2017 3 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: I guess I don't see the distinction between what a bishop would legitimately do and the church hiring someone to gather public information about what the disaffected are doing. Depends on how proactive you want to be. I have read several sci fi yarns in which such information-gathering went too far and the resulting dystopia was not worth living in at all. I recommend caution. We already have little privacy left, and the multinational corporations know everything about each of us. The late Senator Frank Church worried that a totalitarian state could easily come to fruition just based on the available surveillance technology. We have come a long way since then, and things do not look better for the future. People sometimes say that "it can't happen here." Of course, they are wrong. It can and it will.
jkwilliams Posted October 20, 2017 Posted October 20, 2017 6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: I have tried to get Button Gwinnet and Marginal Gains to at least recognize that such a question is germane, but then jkwilliams couldn't care less. Maybe it just doesn't matter -- because those who want to believe it will do so no matter what. Que sera, sera. I didn't say I didn't care. My point was that, for a lot of people here on both sides, it doesn't seem to matter whether there's any truth to it. 1
Button Gwinnett Posted October 20, 2017 Author Posted October 20, 2017 16 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: And you know this for certain!? This is an assertion being made by the blog I linked to
Marginal Gains Posted October 20, 2017 Posted October 20, 2017 (edited) 50 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: I thought that I did a pretty good job of bolding (highlighting) the items where you went rogue -- quoting your own words to you. Sorry if I misinterpreted or misunderstood you, but it should be quite simple to clarify what you actually mean. Thus far, I am not at all sure. Perhaps I’m not being clear, and perhaps we are talking a bit past each other. Let me try and be clearer. The first question is - are the claims in the OP legitimate? We have no way of answering that at this point. Sure, the guy making the claim has the right background and credentials, but that doesn’t mean we can assume the claims themselves are legitimate or not. So, absent any other information, we have to park that question and accept people can make an assumption either way. Secondly, and this is where I came in with my questions for Scott - If the claims were legitimate, would we find it acceptable/justified, for the Church to employ someone to behave in such a manner? Scotts comments suggested to me that he would find it acceptable and my questions to him sought to clarify that. As yet I haven’t given an explciit opinion as to how I would feel about the claims, were they to be found to be legitimate. But I think I’ve given enough indications to make it clear that, if it happened, and if it happened the way Mary Snap said it happened, I would find it unacceptable behaviour on the part of the individual and the Church leadership involved, regardless of what depths critics of the Church might have stooped to. My apologies if I’ve made it difficult to understand where I was coming from. Edited October 20, 2017 by Marginal Gains 3
Pete Ahlstrom Posted October 20, 2017 Posted October 20, 2017 34 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Depends on how proactive you want to be. I have read several sci fi yarns in which such information-gathering went too far and the resulting dystopia was not worth living in at all. I recommend caution. We already have little privacy left, and the multinational corporations know everything about each of us. The late Senator Frank Church worried that a totalitarian state could easily come to fruition just based on the available surveillance technology. We have come a long way since then, and things do not look better for the future. People sometimes say that "it can't happen here." Of course, they are wrong. It can and it will. I think we are talking about two different matters. I agree that the surveillance state has gone too far in its zeal to find dissenters. But the surveillance state is monitoring private communications, not just public ones. I thought we were talking about someone on facebook, publically discussing his actions. I don't think new name noah was trying to hide what he was up to. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted October 20, 2017 Posted October 20, 2017 13 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: I think we are talking about two different matters. I agree that the surveillance state has gone too far in its zeal to find dissenters. But the surveillance state is monitoring private communications, not just public ones. I thought we were talking about someone on facebook, publically discussing his actions. I don't think new name noah was trying to hide what he was up to. I would like to know just what he in fact did, and who specifically instructed him to do so -- if anyone did. Meantime, I see little difference between private corporate and governmental snooping.
cdowis Posted October 20, 2017 Posted October 20, 2017 15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: If you’re really doing all this, then good for you! It is very satisfying to have the FBI track down and arrest someone for making a terrorist threat to the President of the Church on the internet.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 20, 2017 Posted October 20, 2017 (edited) 14 hours 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? As Robert has pointed out, this question is based on an absurd assumption about the metaphorical use of the concept of war. Quote - Have you participated in “covert” activity of this nature on behalf of the Church? - If not, if asked, would you? If not, why not? Participation on the Internet under cover of a screen name is not in my DNA. That's why I post here under my real name. I note that you and I are different in that respect. Quote - 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? I will reserve comment until it is established that the "behavior outlined in the OP" has any substance or if it is merely rumor. Quote In other words, you see nothing intrinsically wrong with what Mike Norton does, other than which team he’s batting for? Beyond being utterly sleazy, what Mike Norton does amounts to trespassing and is thus objectionable on both legal and ethical grounds. I thus find it odious in any context. That said, I would have no qualms whatsoever about providing a link for an interested Church leader to publicly accessible content I found on the Internet, just as I might provide such a link for an interested reader on this message board. Furthermore, there is no meaningful similarity between this and Mike Norton's sleazy behavior. Edited October 20, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 20, 2017 Posted October 20, 2017 9 minutes ago, cdowis said: It is very satisfying to have the FBI track down and arrest someone for making a terrorist threat to the President of the Church on the internet. Indeed. Again, I say kudos to you if you have made this happen.
Button Gwinnett Posted October 20, 2017 Author Posted October 20, 2017 3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: I have tried to get Button Gwinnet and Marginal Gains to at least recognize that such a question is germane, but then jkwilliams couldn't care less. Maybe it just doesn't matter -- because those who want to believe it will do so no matter what. Que sera, sera. How exactly would someone outside of church security confirm this ?
juliann Posted October 20, 2017 Posted October 20, 2017 16 hours ago, Calm said: 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. That is what I find most amusing about this....that it would take anyone 6 months of deep cover to ID an anti-Mormon. Wasn't it this guy complaining that that other board doxxed him?
Calm Posted October 20, 2017 Posted October 20, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said: Calm called this guy "Despicable".... If you mean Norton, are you sure? Maybe in the older thread, I don't remember doing it here and a search of the topic doesn't bring it up. I think more in terms of "what a jerk". I also know nothing of his story save for a few things he has posted himself (see interview about "October Surprise") and the evidence he has intruded into the sacred space of others with no respect. Edited October 20, 2017 by Calm
Calm Posted October 20, 2017 Posted October 20, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, Button Gwinnett said: No, The church employee in question was instructed to get personal information of an anonymous poster only known at the time as "New Name Noah" whom the church had learned through means not fully explained, to have a video of Mitt Romney in the Temple. It was feared that is clandestinely made video would hurt the Romney campaign in some kind of last minute release just before voting began. The church instructed the employee to find out who this person was, I'm guessing so that they could take legal action. I find it hard to believe the Church didn't already know about Mike Norton in 2012 given his activities were announced back in 2006 and his name was associated with the NNN website. If I knew who he was as is clear in my saved emails, anyone could know. The first comment in the interview I linked to was 'this anonymous guy is Mike Norton' more or less. I can see them wanting to learn if he did have footage of Romney as claimed and what that footage involved so they could intelligently prepare for it as they once did when some guy tried to blackmail the Church over 100 years agowith pictures of the inside of the SL temple. I would be very interested to hear how Stay/Snap's supervisors perceived the instruction they gave him. From the way he describes it, he was left on his own and he just reported the results. He even states they told him they didn't condone lying. Perhaps if his story is that accurate, they were naive enough to think he had listened and did not continue in the use of a false id. Edited October 20, 2017 by Calm 2
Calm Posted October 20, 2017 Posted October 20, 2017 6 hours ago, CA Steve said: I am curious, and maybe I missed it, but has anyone verified if this story is true? It isn't going to happen. However, even if he is correct in general about investigating, I think he has exaggerated his impact as like I said above, by the time the thing came up with the Romney video, his identity was already known as someone who filmed temple ceremonies and his name was on his website. People put two and two together almost instantly. I don't see the security people in the Church as dumb (knew some who had retired from the CIA) or in Public Affairs. The ones I have met (not too many) were brilliant and familiar with how the internet worked. Google and Whois would have worked as well for them as it did the rest of us. The way he dramatizes the story as if he is this remarkable investigator with even the public stuff creates big doubt for me about the details of his story. ------- Bob C, in case it isn't obvious already, the guy making the claim is not anonymous. I and someone else have posted a link to his info if you missed it. 1
Button Gwinnett Posted October 20, 2017 Author Posted October 20, 2017 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Calm said: I find it hard to believe the Church didn't already know about Mike Norton in 2012 given his activities were announced back in 2006 and his name was associated with the NNN website. If I knew who he was as is clear in my saved emails, anyone could know. The first comment in the interview I linked to was 'this anonymous guy is Mike Norton' more or less. I can see them wanting to learn if he did have footage of Romney as claimed and what that footage involved so they could intelligently prepare for it as they once did when some guy tried to blackmail the Church over 100 years agowith pictures of the inside of the SL temple. I would be very interested to hear how Stay/Snap's supervisors perceived the instruction they gave him. From the way he describes it, he was left on his own and he just reported the results. He even states they told him they didn't condone lying. Perhaps if his story is that accurate, they were naive enough to think he had listened and did not continue in the use of a false id. It's only my speculation but I'm guessing they had heard of both newnamenoah and was aware of Mike Norton, they just were not aware that those two were linked and one and the same person. Again assuming that the former employee is telling the truth. Edited October 20, 2017 by Button Gwinnett
Calm Posted October 20, 2017 Posted October 20, 2017 3 hours ago, ksfisher said: This record you mention is still maintained. "As the Director of the Church History Library, where we hold the Church’s official archival, manuscript, and print collections, ...we also happen to have the world’s largest anti-Mormon collection and that’s because of [Doctrine and Covenants] section 123 – an instruction that counseled the early Saints to gather up libelous publications, magazines, encyclopedias, histories.[1] That’s a practice that we’ve continued through the twenty-first century. " https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2017/witnessing-book-mormon-testimonies-three-eight-millions This is another reason why I find it so hard to believe that Stay/Snap was the one who discovered Norton's identity in 2012 given Norton was known to be active at least since 2006 when I became aware of him...and I don't track antimormon behaviour (though I may investigate it if someone asks me a question). 1
Button Gwinnett Posted October 20, 2017 Author Posted October 20, 2017 31 minutes ago, Calm said: If you mean Norton, are you sure? Maybe in the older thread, I don't remember doing it here and a search of the topic doesn't bring it up. I think more in terms of "what a jerk". I also know nothing of his story save for a few things he has posted himself and the evidence he has intruded into the sacred space of others with no respect. Calm if you had called Norton despicable well you deserve some kind of reward. You were being restrained and kind compared to how I might characterize him. 1
Calm Posted October 20, 2017 Posted October 20, 2017 5 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said: It's only my speculation but I'm guessing they had heard of both newnamenoah and was aware of Mike Norton, they just were not aware that those two were linked and the same person. Again assuming that the former employee is telling the truth. If you knew the owner of the website was a guy who filmed temple ceremonies secretly and you saw video of the temple on his website, why would you assume there was another person who provided the video?
Calm Posted October 20, 2017 Posted October 20, 2017 3 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said: Calm if you had called Norton despicable well you deserve some kind of reward. You were being restrained and kind compared to how I might characterize him. well, I am not going to protest if someone calls him that. I think I just got to other words first, at least in my mind, lol. I might find enough compassion if I knew his history to understand why he justifies filming the temple. However, his plan of doing a long term con on a ward by assuming the identity of an inactive member in good standing who his ward would not know by sight is inexcusable. These people would likely have taken him in as part of their ward family.
Button Gwinnett Posted October 20, 2017 Author Posted October 20, 2017 6 minutes ago, Calm said: If you knew the owner of the website was a guy who filmed temple ceremonies secretly and you saw video of the temple on his website, why would you assume there was another person who provided the video? Have you read the former employees blog post? It's his assertion that the church didn't know who newnamenoah was. The church employee was tasked with finding out who newnamenoah was. The church employee is who discovered that newnamenoah was Mike Norton. Prior to his investigation the church hadn't connected those dots.
Button Gwinnett Posted October 20, 2017 Author Posted October 20, 2017 5 minutes ago, Calm said: well, I am not going to protest if someone calls him that. I think I just got to other words first, at least in my mind, lol. I might find enough compassion if I knew his history to understand why he justifies filming the temple. However, his plan of doing a long term con on a ward by assuming the identity of an inactive member in good standing who his ward would not know by sight is inexcusable. These people would likely have taken him in as part of their ward family. What? He did what? Sorry a lot of this is new to me. Yes despicable is being too kind. I can't imagine what experience he had in church that would cause him to be so bitter and vitriolic towards the church.
Calm Posted October 20, 2017 Posted October 20, 2017 6 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said: Have you read the former employees blog post? It's his assertion that the church didn't know who newnamenoah was. The church employee was tasked with finding out who newnamenoah was. The church employee is who discovered that newnamenoah was Mike Norton. Prior to his investigation the church hadn't connected those dots. But that is why I have a problem with his story. It doesn't match from my perception and records to what was happening online in regards to the rumors of the Romney video which is what he links his activities to.
Calm Posted October 20, 2017 Posted October 20, 2017 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said: What? He did what? Sorry a lot of this is new to me. Yes despicable is being too kind. I can't imagine what experience he had in church that would cause him to be so bitter and vitriolic towards the church. His online public request is in one of my posts in this thread. I had a record in my emails (I don't delete personal or business emails due to memory issues) of his comment asking for an id he could use back in 2006. See here: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69748-church-employee-claims-he-was-assigned-to-spy-on-online-church-critics/?do=findComment&comment=1209766438 Edited October 20, 2017 by Calm
Robert F. Smith Posted October 20, 2017 Posted October 20, 2017 1 hour ago, Button Gwinnett said: How exactly would someone outside of church security confirm this ? I don't know. Things just haven't been the same since Brent Metcalfe was with Church Security.
Recommended Posts