Button Gwinnett Posted October 23, 2017 Author Posted October 23, 2017 29 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: Read that and it did provide the extra info. I guess I should have read that initially. Seems like the main issue was a private Facebook groups rather than the public stuff and finding out when this guy was planning on releasing the Romney stuff. I confess in this case I don't have a problem with the actions, although I can understand why some do. Particularly when actions like this are done. Were it done for different reasons - say just general keeping tabs on people - then I'd have pretty different views. Really this is no different from hiring a private detective to do something similar. It's a difficult one and I too have mixed feelings. I completely understand why the church needs to protect itself and it's sad that we've gotten to the state of affairs where the church feels the need to give a wink wink to fight its enemies. maybe that's just where we've had to go, I don't know. Its a sad state of affairs. I want to add, that I don't think the church did anything illegal, its just getting a little mud on itself were any of this to go viral.
Button Gwinnett Posted October 23, 2017 Author Posted October 23, 2017 34 minutes ago, Amulek said: So, Christlike people can't work in law enforcement? Or be undercover agents? Or work in any sort of counterintelligence capacity? Or do things like motives, intent, methods employed, etc. all need to be weighed and considered when determining whether or not something is morally permissible? I can understand those who take the principled position that these things ought to be avoided always. I guess I'm just not fully committed to the "always" part of that position just yet - though I freely admit it is something I could be mistaken about. Are you suggesting that church employees should be held to the same standards as private eyes or law enforcement officers? I don't know, I kind of always thought that the church was better than this and should be held to a higher Celestial standard. Maybe that's why I'm having a difficult time with this.
Button Gwinnett Posted October 23, 2017 Author Posted October 23, 2017 (edited) 51 minutes ago, Calm said: Button, if the guy had been a woman and had posted actual criticisms of the Church without revealing they were still committed to the Church (omissions rather than outright lying), would you still have a problem with his investigation? I'm having a problem accepting that a church employee should, with tacit approval from the church, be using the same sleazy methods as our enemies. Is it wrong of me to expect more from the church and its employees? Does this question not also apply to church employees when conducting business for the church? Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen? Or are church employees held to a lower standard when working for the church? Edited October 23, 2017 by Button Gwinnett 1
Amulek Posted October 23, 2017 Posted October 23, 2017 13 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said: Are you suggesting that church employees should be held to the same standards as private eyes or law enforcement officers? Do you believe that is a low standard? An immoral, un-Christlike standard? Can you conceive of any possible situation where 'misrepresenting' yourself as part of your job might be necessary? Or do you think all undercover investigations are immoral and ought to play out like this: Criminal: Hey, I would really like to sell you these drugs and illegal weapons, but before I do I need to ask a quick question - Are you a cop? LEO: </sigh> I was really hoping you wouldn't ask me that, but yeah - I'm actually an undercover... Criminal: <click> BLAM! 30 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said: I don't know, I kind of always thought that the church was better than this and should be held to a higher Celestial standard. Maybe that's why I'm having a difficult time with this If the story were different, I would probably feel different. I can think of plenty of examples where doing something similar to this would, in my opinion, be completely inappropriate. This just isn't one of those times. But I understand that other good-willed people feel differently. 1
Button Gwinnett Posted October 23, 2017 Author Posted October 23, 2017 9 minutes ago, Amulek said: Do you believe that is a low standard? An immoral, un-Christlike standard? Can you conceive of any possible situation where 'misrepresenting' yourself as part of your job might be necessary? Or do you think all undercover investigations are immoral and ought to play out like this: Criminal: Hey, I would really like to sell you these drugs and illegal weapons, but before I do I need to ask a quick question - Are you a cop? LEO: </sigh> I was really hoping you wouldn't ask me that, but yeah - I'm actually an undercover... Criminal: <click> BLAM! If the story were different, I would probably feel different. I can think of plenty of examples where doing something similar to this would, in my opinion, be completely inappropriate. This just isn't one of those times. But I understand that other good-willed people feel differently. By your standard a church employee wouldn't qualify for a temple recommend and would lose his job. I accept that it is a tough spot the church is in, but does that warrant compromising our standard? If it does help me understand why? And then lets add those examples to our lesson manuals so that all members can be taught to compromise their standards when in a similar situation.
phaedrus ut Posted October 23, 2017 Posted October 23, 2017 The biggest issue here is the church's dishonesty in creating fake accounts and violating the terms of service. I doubt it would happen but it possibly could include banning official church participation on the social media platform.
Amulek Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 36 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said: By your standard a church employee wouldn't qualify for a temple recommend and would lose his job. Huh? I'm one of the few people who thinks the church employee didn't really do anything wrong. What makes you think I believe he wouldn't qualify for a temple recommend (or that by "my standard" he wouldn't qualify for a recommend)? Because he 'told a lie'? I have known plenty of people in law enforcement and in the intelligence community who, due to the nature of their jobs, have had to 'lie' about things much more substantive than a stupid Facebook profile. They were all temple recommend holders, and many of them served in leadership positions (e.g., Bishops, Counselors in Bishoprics / Stake Presidencies, etc.). Quote I accept that it is a tough spot the church is in, but does that warrant compromising our standard? Which standard? Maybe it would help if we clearly identify the standard in question first, and then we can move to determining whether or not it was actually compromised. Quote If it does help me understand why? And then lets add those examples to our lesson manuals so that all members can be taught to compromise their standards when in a similar situation. Standards tend to be general rules to live by, but they don't always deal with every possible situation that may arise. Acknowledging that there might be exceptions to a general rule isn't the same thing as teaching members to compromise their standards. For example, we generally teach that keeping the Sabbath day holy involves avoiding work on Sunday. Of course, we also acknowledge that there are times where this might not be possible - say, for example for those members of the church who work in hospitals or who provide other kinds of emergency services (e.g., firefighters and police). That isn't telling people that they should compromise their standards. That is merely recognizing that the general rule might not apply in every possible situation. At the end of the day, you are the one is is going to bear the full weight of your decisions, so you should be honest with yourself, seek the Lord's guidance, and then govern your life accordingly. 2
Button Gwinnett Posted October 24, 2017 Author Posted October 24, 2017 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Amulek said: Huh? I'm one of the few people who thinks the church employee didn't really do anything wrong. What makes you think I believe he wouldn't qualify for a temple recommend (or that by "my standard" he wouldn't qualify for a recommend)? Because he 'told a lie'? I have known plenty of people in law enforcement and in the intelligence community who, due to the nature of their jobs, have had to 'lie' about things much more substantive than a stupid Facebook profile. They were all temple recommend holders, and many of them served in leadership positions (e.g., Bishops, Counselors in Bishoprics / Stake Presidencies, etc.). Which standard? Maybe it would help if we clearly identify the standard in question first, and then we can move to determining whether or not it was actually compromised. Standards tend to be general rules to live by, but they don't always deal with every possible situation that may arise. Acknowledging that there might be exceptions to a general rule isn't the same thing as teaching members to compromise their standards. For example, we generally teach that keeping the Sabbath day holy involves avoiding work on Sunday. Of course, we also acknowledge that there are times where this might not be possible - say, for example for those members of the church who work in hospitals or who provide other kinds of emergency services (e.g., firefighters and police). That isn't telling people that they should compromise their standards. That is merely recognizing that the general rule might not apply in every possible situation. At the end of the day, you are the one is is going to bear the full weight of your decisions, so you should be honest with yourself, seek the Lord's guidance, and then govern your life accordingly. I posted earlier the one TR question that comes into play here, are you honest in your dealings with your fellow man? This is the standard we're expected to live our lives by, if it no longer applies when working for the church then the church should say so so that the rest of us can live dishonest lives as well. It either means something or it does not. By allowing an employee to use dishonest means to achieve its ends the church has undermined its own moral authority. Edited October 24, 2017 by Button Gwinnett
Calm Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 (edited) 52 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said: The biggest issue here is the church's dishonesty in creating fake accounts and violating the terms of service. I doubt it would happen but it possibly could include banning official church participation on the social media platform. That is if they did it. I find this assumption that it is certain they did ( at least that is how you and others are talking) as opposed to this one employee who has already shown a high comfort, even bragging level with lying misrepresenting, intentionally or unintentionally, his supervisors' responses rather pushing it. Edited October 24, 2017 by Calm 4
Jeanne Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 8 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said: I'm having a problem accepting that a church employee should, with tacit approval from the church, be using the same sleazy methods as our enemies. Is it wrong of me to expect more from the church and its employees? I don't discount the ill will of what NNN has done...but it sort of breaks my heart that any church that teaches principles of honesty. forgiveness and turning the other cheek would put themselves in the same level as the one who they are discounting..so I understand what you mean. 1
Button Gwinnett Posted October 24, 2017 Author Posted October 24, 2017 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Jeanne said: I don't discount the ill will of what NNN has done...but it sort of breaks my heart that any church that teaches principles of honesty. forgiveness and turning the other cheek would put themselves in the same level as the one who they are discounting..so I understand what you mean. I'm rather surprised so many posters are supporting the dishonest behavior of the church employee. It seems hypocritical to me that they support us using dishonest means just because our enemies use dishonest means. It's a slippery slope when we allow compromises in our standards just so we can keep up with our enemies. Edited October 24, 2017 by Button Gwinnett
Calm Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 There are those of us who do not care, but I think more doubt the accuracy of the account given the man's own admissions of lying and being told that wasn't condoned. 3
Button Gwinnett Posted October 24, 2017 Author Posted October 24, 2017 4 minutes ago, Calm said: There are those of us who do not care, but I think more doubt the accuracy of the account given the man's own admissions of lying and being told that wasn't condoned. And if he is being truthful then what? Do you still condone his dishonest means used to acquire the information?
Calm Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 5 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said: And if he is being truthful then what? Do you still condone his dishonest means used to acquire the information? No, I do not. 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 1 hour ago, Button Gwinnett said: I posted earlier the one TR question that comes into play here, are you honest in your dealings with your fellow man? This is the standard we're expected to live our lives by... Can we safely assume, Bro 'Gwinnett', that you have been perfectly honest in everything you have done and presented to us on this forum during your short sojourn here? Just curious. And do you currently hold a valid temple recommend? 1
kiwi57 Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 1 hour ago, Jeanne said: I don't discount the ill will of what NNN has done...but it sort of breaks my heart that any church that teaches principles of honesty. forgiveness and turning the other cheek would put themselves in the same level as the one who they are discounting..so I understand what you mean. More weaponised feelings. 2 hours ago, phaedrus ut said: The biggest issue here is the church's dishonesty in creating fake accounts and violating the terms of service. I doubt it would happen but it possibly could include banning official church participation on the social media platform. I agree. The biggest issue is whether the Church was being dishonest in creating fake accounts and violating the terms of service. That's what you meant, right? Because Button's source admits that when he told his supervisor what he was up to, he was told that that behaviour wasn't condoned.
Button Gwinnett Posted October 24, 2017 Author Posted October 24, 2017 8 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Can we safely assume, Bro 'Gwinnett', that you have been perfectly honest in everything you have done and presented to us on this forum during your short sojourn here? Just curious. And do you currently hold a valid temple recommend? I fail to see how my personal life has anything to do with whether or not it is appropriate for a church employee to use less than honest means to achieve his goals of discovering who NNN is? So maybe you can help me understand what one has to do with the other. I'm not side stepping your question I just don't know why it related to the topic.
kiwi57 Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 1 minute ago, Button Gwinnett said: I fail to see how my personal life has anything to do with whether or not it is appropriate for a church employee to use less than honest means to achieve his goals of discovering who NNN is? So maybe you can help me understand what one has to do with the other. I'm not side stepping your question I just don't know why it related to the topic. I guess Hamba is asking whether you are living up to the standard you wish to impose upon others, or is there some degree of hypocrisy in view?
Button Gwinnett Posted October 24, 2017 Author Posted October 24, 2017 30 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: I guess Hamba is asking whether you are living up to the standard you wish to impose upon others, or is there some degree of hypocrisy in view? When did this thread become about me? FWIW, yes I'm honest, I value honesty, have I ever been dishonest? Yes, I'm far from perfect. Am I employed by the church and required to hold a temple recommend where in I have to answer in the affirmative that I am honest in all of my dealings in order to hold my job? No. But again I don't see what any of this has to do with me? Am I wrong to hold a church employee to his vowe of honesty in his capacity as a representative of the church or to be disappointed when he discloses that he was being dishonest while in church employment?
Hamba Tuhan Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 8 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said: Am I employed by the church and required to hold a temple recommend where in I have to answer in the affirmative that I am honest in all of my dealings in order to hold my job? No. Nice dodge.
Button Gwinnett Posted October 24, 2017 Author Posted October 24, 2017 14 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Nice dodge. Again I fail to see how I have anything to do with this church employees actions. Diverting attention away from the subject and directing it towards me is the actual "nice dodge". 1
kiwi57 Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 10 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said: Again I fail to see how I have anything to do with this church employees actions. Diverting attention away from the subject and directing it towards me is the actual "nice dodge". According to you, the "Church employee" is no longer. According to you, he undertook his claimed dishonest actions at his own initiative. According to you, when he ran his actions past his supervisor (and I rather suspect it was put in such a way that the supervisor would think it was a hypothetical case) he was told that such actions were "not condoned." Perhaps that sounds tame. In office-speak it's equivalent to reading the riot act. According to your self-proclaimed whistle-blower, he has blown the whistle on his own somewhat questionable dealings, and nobody else's. And Mister Norton is still vastly less ethical.
Button Gwinnett Posted October 24, 2017 Author Posted October 24, 2017 2 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: According to you, the "Church employee" is no longer. According to you, he undertook his claimed dishonest actions at his own initiative. According to you, when he ran his actions past his supervisor (and I rather suspect it was put in such a way that the supervisor would think it was a hypothetical case) he was told that such actions were "not condoned." Perhaps that sounds tame. In office-speak it's equivalent to reading the riot act. According to your self-proclaimed whistle-blower, he has blown the whistle on his own somewhat questionable dealings, and nobody else's. And Mister Norton is still vastly less ethical. According to me? Again I'm not part of this story. I only shared what I read on FB here. Again I have nothing to do with this story other than posting the OP. Listen just before hamba's post I was ready to ask the moderators to lock it down. I really don't understand Why so many are upset with me for expressing disappointment.
kiwi57 Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 2 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said: According to me? Again I'm not part of this story. I only shared what I read on FB here. Again I have nothing to do with this story other than posting the OP. Listen just before hamba's post I was ready to ask the moderators to lock it down. I really don't understand Why so many are upset with me for expressing disappointment. According to you, meaning that you are the one who is telling us what you've read. I'm not trying to imply that you're making stuff up. I do think you might be heading towards conclusions that the evidence is insufficient to support.
Five Solas Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 2 hours ago, kiwi57 said: I guess Hamba is asking whether you are living up to the standard you wish to impose upon others, or is there some degree of hypocrisy in view? Wow. As a side note, I had a couple of bishops do this sort of thing to me back in the day when I had questions they didn't appreciate and offered a different point of view--they turned the tables and made it about me, about my "worthiness" (meaning my lack thereof). Had no idea I was going to get to indulge such nostalgia by having a peak at this thread. ;0) --Erik PS. But I think it does you no credit, kiwi57 (nor you, Hamba Tuhan). You should really consider how this looks to any non-partisan readers out there.
Recommended Posts