More Good Foundation

[_I have a question]

I know for fact that the critical postings on Mormon Discussions are scrutinised by the Church to try and identify individuals. Once the observers have zeroed in on geography, communication is made with key people within the Church from that geography to try and narrow down who the poster might be. Even going so far as having those key people have “general” conversations with the suspected poster during which they drop in things to test reaction and to see if the in real life persons answers tally with comments made by the poster of whom they are suspected of being. It’s subtle, but it happens.

[_Kishkumen]

I know for fact that the critical postings on Mormon Discussions are scrutinised by the Church to try and identify individuals. Once the observers have zeroed in on geography, communication is made with key people within the Church from that geography to try and narrow down who the poster might be. Even going so far as having those key people have “general” conversations with the suspected poster during which they drop in things to test reaction and to see if the in real life persons answers tally with comments made by the poster of whom they are suspected of being. It’s subtle, but it happens.

I once got an interesting PM here on MDB from someone who claimed to know me but had garbled information. The person, in fact, claimed to be a relative of my spouse. I said something about them having some of the information wrong, and I never heard from this person again. I doubt this person was one of my spouse's relatives. Pretty sure that it was someone doing some kind of research on me for the apologists or the LDS Church. Who knows?

Res Ipsa asked what kind of evidence I have that Simon Belmont worked for the Church. Well, I went back through my old messages and found one in which another poster on this board who got to know Simon a little reported that Simon himself reported to this person that he had worked for the LDS Church in assisting the Committee for the Strengthening of the Membership. So, there you go. I think that qualifies as evidence.

My bet is that Doctor Scratch has a much stronger recollection of Simon Belmont than I do.

[Guest]

I don't think there is anything wrong with being aware of the possibilities and being vigilant. Some on sic et non or MD&D would not think twice in contacting family or church leaders, etc., for the cause no doubt, if they got a hold of someone's identity. Also, the Strengthening the Members Committee is a thing and has a file on Consiglieri and probably many that frequent this site. I tried to find the reference where Consig talks about his brush with the committee but could not. Maybe someone here or Consig himself can provide the reference?

Oh, I'm all for vigilance. If I were still a member and was maintaining my membership for family or personal reasons, I'd be hyper-vigilant about protecting my online identity. I have no trouble believing that there are fanatical members who take on the mission of "exposing the apostate." And, given the degree of rancor between monologists and critics here in the past, I wouldn't be surprised if doxxing occurred because of a personal vendetta.

The Church has a vested interest in rooting out members who are publicly teaching against doctrine. So it doesn't surprise me at all that folks like Dehlin, Denver Snuffer, Bill Reel, and Consig have drawn the church's attention and taken active efforts to discover who they are.

What surprised me was the notion of this foundation hiring paid trolls to disrupt the board. That's why I asked about it.

-------

IHAQ, may I ask how you know all this?

------

Kish, that does sound like someone was fishing for information. Hard to tell whether it was an individual or organized effort.

Thanks for digging up the information on Belmont. Did he strike you as a trustworthy guy? Or did he present as a guy who would say something like that to yank somebody's chain?

-------

In thinking about this, I tried analogize this site to the Foundation. Folks who post also post at LDS related websites, and I suspect that at least of the regulars at those sites think that at least part of the intent is to disrupt. Is that enough for them to worry that we are paid or volunteer trolls for CARM or Mormon Think, or some other organized anti-mormon group? I don't think so. But maybe the level of suspicion is so heightened among monologists and critics that we should expect suspicions that some intelligent agent is behind what we observe. Dunno.

[_Kishkumen]

What surprised me was the notion of this foundation hiring paid trolls to disrupt the board. That's why I asked about it.

I am a little surprised you would say so. After all, as the apologists have openly admitted that they view the Church’s efforts to keep a record of the words of their enemies to be a commandment of God. They have also been very open about efforts to bury this board in search results.

There is a reason DCP routinely characterizes this place very negatively and yet never links to it. The apologists view this place as a blight. I think it would be perfectly consistent with their beliefs and practices to take organized measures against it.

Consider this: how many active or formerly active members of this board are former apologists? How many amateur defenders of the faith have we seen lose their testimonies or go less active in the time they have interacted with us here?

Now, I do not mistake correlation with causation, and I do not rejoice in or take credit for these disaffections, but I doubt the apologists and the Church itself think nothing of these facts.

[_Res Ipsa]

What surprised me was the notion of this foundation hiring paid trolls to disrupt the board. That's why I asked about it.

I am a little surprised you would say so. After all, as the apologists have openly admitted that they view the Church’s efforts to keep a record of the words of their enemies to be a commandment of God. They have also been very open about efforts to bury this board in search results.

There is a reason DCP routinely characterizes this place very negatively and yet never links to it. The apologists view this place as a blight. I think it would be perfectly consistent with their beliefs and practices to take organized measures against it.

Consider this: how many active or formerly active members of this board are former apologists? How many amateur defenders of the faith have we seen lose their testimonies or go less active in the time they have interacted with us here?

Now, I do not mistake correlation with causation, and I do not rejoice in or take credit for these disaffections, but I doubt the apologists and the Church itself think nothing of these facts.

Oh, you shouldn't be surprised. Much of the time you were in the trenches with the apologists here, I was on a different website whose mission was helping LDS folk who were questioning or transitioning away from Mormonism. It was not a debate forum, and those who wouldn't accept that were shown the door. So I didn't observe the worst of the knock down-drag out confrontations here. Also, the church can't hurt me. I resigned years ago and my LDS family and friends all know that I'm no longer a believer. So it's entirely possible I've simply missed some things because I have no reason to suspect the church takes any sort of interest in me.

Thanks for all the information. Based on what you've told me, I'm no longer surprised. I do appreciate you taking the time to share your thinking. That's how I learn stuff (at least I hope I do).

[_Kishkumen]

Oh, you shouldn't be surprised. Much of the time you were in the trenches with the apologists here, I was on a different website whose mission was helping LDS folk who were questioning or transitioning away from Mormonism. It was not a debate forum, and those who wouldn't accept that were shown the door. So I didn't observe the worst of the knock down-drag out confrontations here. Also, the church can't hurt me. I resigned years ago and my LDS family and friends all know that I'm no longer a believer. So it's entirely possible I've simply missed some things because I have no reason to suspect the church takes any sort of interest in me.

Thanks for all the information. Based on what you've told me, I'm no longer surprised. I do appreciate you taking the time to share your thinking. That's how I learn stuff (at least I hope I do).

Thank you for sharing that, RI. I know I may be a little paranoid, but back in the day people at BYU told me that the apologists were trying to interfere with my in real life job. Bill Hamblin sent a truly venomous and accusatory message to my work email account.

The thing is, I don’t really have a problem with the Church such that I want to drive people out of it or embarrass it. I disagree with it. I do not like what I understand it to be. I am here to support people in their choice to leave, but I don’t intervene to push people into leaving. It bothers me that I have really stayed in my own lane and endeavored to keep a low profile, but some apologists seemed upset about my criticisms to the point that they wanted me to pay a price.

My public writings and presentations on Mormonism have all been relatively positive or at least neutral. That did not stop the apologists from attacking me or seeking to bar my influence to a degree.

Now, to be fair, they could have been a lot harsher on me than they were. I appreciate the fact that they tended to keep things in check, for the most part. DCP has not blogged about me by name on SeN. I have asked him not to, and, as far as I know, he has not done so. Again, I am thankful.

I don’t want to be a public critic of Mormonism or the LDS Church. I want to be a Mormon who does not affiliate with the LDS Church for reasons of conscience. I also stick up for Mormons sometimes too.

[_Res Ipsa]

Thanks, Kish. I can’t imagine having to worry about being fired for something I said here. And it’s even harder for me to imagine singling you out, as you’ve been one of the more measured critics I’ve encountered. Trying to place myself in your shoes, I’m pretty sure I’d be much more wary than I am in mine.

[_Kishkumen]

Thanks, Kish. I can’t imagine having to worry about being fired for something I said here. And it’s even harder for me to imagine singling you out, as you’ve been one of the more measured critics I’ve encountered. Trying to place myself in your shoes, I’m pretty sure I’d be much more wary than I am in mine.

Aspects of Mormon history practically breed paranoia and conspiracy narratives. The apologists did not help when they documented John Dehlin’s activities in order to attack him publicly. There is much fodder for cloak a dagger narratives in all of this. Reactions may be overreactions at times, but it would sure be nice, if a little less interesting, if there had never been any cause for worry in the first place.