NOM

I'm about half way through Mike Norton's Mormon Stories interview (it's one of those looooong ones) and it's fascinating. Has anyone else listened to it? What do you think? Is Mike a hero or a demon?

While googling infrormation about Mike I ran across this blog by Jesse Stay, the former church Social Media Lead who was paid to stalk Mike, which he did via a fake female Facebook identity - Mary Snap: https://medium.com/@marysnap/im-mary-sn ... 937127a071

Long story short, the stalking of Mike led to Jesse's own faith crisis, and his own Mormon Stories interview (which I have yet to listen to): http://www.mormonstories.org/jesse-stay/

Two interesting pieces I got from Jesse's (Mary's) blog:
1- The video that the church released about garments was created as a direct response to Jesse's discovery that Mike had video of Mitt Romney the temple. They wanted to get the message out that those secret underwear that Mitt might be wearing in the Oval Office aren't really as culty and creepy as they sound.

2-The church really IS spying on people in forums and private Facebook groups (Hi COB! you don't have to be sneaky, please just introduce yourselves and let's have an honest conversation. I'll even tell you my real name if you'll tell me yours!)

Also interesting, Jesse says he never heard the words Strengthening Church Members Committee associated with the COB cyberstalking.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2017 3:53 pm I'm about half way through Mike Norton's Mormon Stories interview (it's one of those looooong ones) and it's fascinating. Has anyone else listened to it? What do you think? Is Mike a hero or a demon?

While googling infrormation about Mike I ran across this blog by Jesse Stay, the former church Social Media Lead who was paid to stalk Mike, which he did via a fake female Facebook identity - Mary Snap: https://medium.com/@marysnap/im-mary-sn ... 937127a071

Long story short, the stalking of Mike led to Jesse's own faith crisis, and his own Mormon Stories interview (which I have yet to listen to): http://www.mormonstories.org/jesse-stay/

Two interesting pieces I got from Jesse's (Mary's) blog:
1- The video that the church released about garments was created as a direct response to Jesse's discovery that Mike had video of Mitt Romney the temple. They wanted to get the message out that those secret underwear that Mitt might be wearing in the Oval Office aren't really as culty and creepy as they sound.

2-The church really IS spying on people in forums and private Facebook groups (Hi COB! you don't have to be sneaky, please just introduce yourselves and let's have an honest conversation. I'll even tell you my real name if you'll tell me yours!)

Also interesting, Jesse says he never heard the words Strengthening Church Members Committee associated with the COB cyberstalking.

I imagine the SCMC is too well known.

Yes, I listened to NNN interview. It was about the same time as Linked posted about bravery and I was thinking a lot about that as I listened.

I guess one of the problems I have with a forum like exmo reddit is the idea that there is only one way to leave the church, one way to fight it, the fact that it should be fought, etc. and someone like NNN is often held up as a model of bravery and authenticity.(I knwo the entire sub isn't like that, but its most vocal and loud proponents certainly are, as is NNN.) I don't agree with NNN on a lot of things. I think the fact that he says he has Aspergers explains a lot. However, what he does as an exmo fits his personality and fit his personality before he left the church. His values and mine do not line up but it does not mean I can't be brave. It simply means I have a different personality and different values. I think living a good life of quiet dignity without the church is plenty brave.

I listened to over half of Jesse Stay's interview and was less impressed. He seemed more interested in talking about how great the tech work he did was and at that time, he wasn't talking much about any of the spying that went on. Just my take. In the NNN interview, I think Stay mentioned New Order Mormon as one of the places he set up as Mary Snap. Old site back then of course. Makes me wish we had the archives.

Jesse Stay made me realize how easy it is to infiltrate our so-called safe space and gain the confidence of others. I guess I always knew it was possible, I just never knew who could possibly care. The church, obviously. I'm less worried these days about sharing personal information here than I was originally. If I'm outed that wouldn't be fun, but at the same time, it would say a lot about the people/person/institution that would do such a thing - it seems so childish. But then again, the church has always made me feel like I was a perpetual adolescent.

MerrieMiss wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:01 pm I think the fact that he says he has Aspergers explains a lot.

Yes, that's interesting. I have heard other people on podcast interviews say similar things. In fact one, I can't remember who, said he had noticed that a lot of people he knew who had left the church seemed to be on the spectrum. He defined these as people who cannot tolerate being lied to, and once they discover a lie they feel compelled to expose it to everyone they know. I wonder how many of us who have had faith crises have some degree of those Asperger-ish qualities. My ex-mo son does and he insist that I do also. My disaffection certainly did lead to a period of obsessive examination of the church, and a sense of being amazed that others could learn this stuff about the church and just shrug their shoulders and move on.

MerrieMiss wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:01 pm Jesse Stay made me realize how easy it is to infiltrate our so-called safe space and gain the confidence of others.

Absolutely. I hope they understand how poorly the sneaking around reflects on their character. I was sincere in my invitation to have them just come forward and have an open conversation with us right here on NOM. They would probably be surprised at how knowledgeable, sincere, and reasonable the average defector really is. Sneaking, spying and lying is a pretty bottom-feeder approach to finding out what people are thinking, especially when so many of the church's "enemies" are pretty much begging for open, honest discussion. On the internet they can't just park a garbage truck in front of us.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:27 pm Absolutely. I hope they understand how poorly the sneaking around reflects on their character. I was sincere in my invitation to have them just come forward and have an open conversation with us right here on NOM. They would probably be surprised at how knowledgeable, sincere, and reasonable the average defector really is. Sneaking, spying and lying is a pretty bottom-feeder approach to finding out what people are thinking, especially when so many of the church's "enemies" are pretty much begging for open, honest discussion. On the internet they can't just park a garbage truck in front of us.

What would that open and frank conversation look like though? Is it worth it to either side? Would it just degenerate into them pointing to FAIR like answers and us rolling our eyes and saying "really?"

I was pretty disappointed to see what people from the Reddit world posted on the face to face thing with oaks and Ballard. It doesn't exactly make the church too desirous to open up a public forum.


I really dislike what Mike has done. He has done a lot to further a divide between faithful and non faithful. He is a polarizing figure, and I don't value extreme opinions or actions.

MerrieMiss wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:01 pm
I guess one of the problems I have with a forum like exmo reddit is the idea that there is only one way to leave the church, one way to fight it, the fact that it should be fought, etc. and someone like NNN is often held up as a model of bravery and authenticity.(I knwo the entire sub isn't like that, but its most vocal and loud proponents certainly are, as is NNN.)

I think NNN got banned once before and didn't the Mormonleaks guy just get banned? Just a littler further clarification on NNN not being the reddit golden boy it might seem he is?

I think one reason it seems like exmo reddit worships NNN is because of the way reddit works with upvotes. People are more likely to upvote what they like than downvote what they don't, or at least that's how I am. I think the reddit posts that make it to the top are the more clickbait-y type post.

I can't say I'm a big NNN fan necessarily, but what I find interesting and have questioned myself about is: I love Leah Remini and what she is doing with Scientology vis-a-vis her show Aftermath. Isn't Mike Norton doing the same thing? Why am I not as endeared to him and his work? Is it the Asperber's/personality or am I still a bit too sensitive with LDS stuff? Every time I see Leah Remini speak I want to cheer for her and high five her and call her bad a**. Why am I not like that with NNN? Interesting to think about.

Started his MS interview, but it's really long so not done yet.

I was pretty shocked when I first heard about what Mike was doing. I recognize how offensive it is to believers, but at the same time I am intrigued by the sheer audacity of it. Mormons hold their temple ceremonies, garments, etc. sacred, but we also know that they're weird and embarrassing, and that if the outside world sees them they will see something that looks pretty damn cult-like. So I'm torn. I would, however, be totally supportive if Mike had been able to get video of the ceremony before the penalties were removed.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Sat Nov 11, 2017 6:58 am I was pretty shocked when I first heard about what Mike was doing. I recognize how offensive it is to believers, but at the same time I am intrigued by the sheer audacity of it. Mormons hold their temple ceremonies, garments, etc. sacred, but we also know that they're weird and embarrassing, and that if the outside world sees them they will see something that looks pretty damn cult-like. So I'm torn. I would, however, be totally supportive if Mike had been able to get video of the ceremony before the penalties were removed.

Do the non-Brighamites do temple ceremonies with the penalties still?

Emower wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:17 pmI really dislike what Mike has done. He has done a lot to further a divide between faithful and non faithful. He is a polarizing figure, and I don't value extreme opinions or actions.

This. I think Norton is kind of an ass.

2bizE wrote: ↑Sat Nov 11, 2017 10:21 am Do the non-Brighamites do temple ceremonies with the penalties still?

The only other branch I'm aware of that does the endowment is the Cutlerites, who claim to have the original ceremony as created by Joseph Smith. It seems likely that they do have something a lot closer to the original, since they're still in Independence and have avoided all of the upheaval introduced by Brigham and his successors. Unfortunately will probably never know, since there are fewer than a dozen of them left and they have sworn to keep their signs and tokens sacred/secret.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2017 3:53 pm

2-The church really IS spying on people in forums and private Facebook groups (Hi COB! you don't have to be sneaky, please just introduce yourselves and let's have an honest conversation. I'll even tell you my real name if you'll tell me yours!)

Ditto for me.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Sat Nov 11, 2017 1:55 pm

2bizE wrote: ↑Sat Nov 11, 2017 10:21 am Do the non-Brighamites do temple ceremonies with the penalties still?

The only other branch I'm aware of that does the endowment is the Cutlerites, who claim to have the original ceremony as created by Joseph Smith. It seems likely that they do have something a lot closer to the original, since they're still in Independence and have avoided all of the upheaval introduced by Brigham and his successors. Unfortunately will probably never know, since there are fewer than a dozen of them left and they have sworn to keep their signs and tokens sacred/secret.

The AUB has a temple in Mexico, and an Endowment House in Bluffdale Utah.

I don't know if they are still actively performing endowments, or if their ceremonies include penalties, but they have infrastructure for fake Masonic LARPing...

Hagoth wrote: ↑Sat Nov 11, 2017 1:55 pm

2bizE wrote: ↑Sat Nov 11, 2017 10:21 am Do the non-Brighamites do temple ceremonies with the penalties still?

The only other branch I'm aware of that does the endowment is the Cutlerites, who claim to have the original ceremony as created by Joseph Smith. It seems likely that they do have something a lot closer to the original, since they're still in Independence and have avoided all of the upheaval introduced by Brigham and his successors. Unfortunately will probably never know, since there are fewer than a dozen of them left and they have sworn to keep their signs and tokens sacred/secret.

Sounds like a job for NewNameNoah!

Listened to some of it. I can only listen to so much Mormon Stories, John D starts to wear on me as an interviewer (but he has become much better over time).
Mike came off as I know all the facts. I see too much gray in the story/process. In general, I am surprised Mike has a religious bone in his body now. His hangup on the law of consecration transfers to many religious groups, many have some form of the law. Most religions could have their own NNN to a degree.

I see some beauty and purpose in the temple. I can see why people like to go there. A sense of unity in white, no social constructs, the idea of the people in here have my back, and that I am different/special. If it makes you happy, go ahead. I am still just too weirded out with the chorus replies...

Hagoth wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2017 3:53 pm Also interesting, Jesse says he never heard the words Strengthening Church Members Committee associated with the COB cyberstalking.

Fight Club Rule #1 - There is no Fight Club.

I'm glad that he did what he did.

I sure wish he had been around before I went through the temple. I don't honestly know if I would have watched it (the church does a great job of making you think it's in your best interest to not know what goes on in the temple until you go), but if I had, it would have saved me a lot of trouble, I think.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2017 3:53 pmWhat do you think? Is Mike a hero or a demon?

I rather think that's a false dichotomy. People aren't generally either heroes or demons. People are people, with good and bad characteristics.

I watched the interview, even though I very rarely watch or listen to Mormon Stories or anything like that. Mike is a significant, polarizing, active person around the DAMU. I wanted to understand more about him, about what he does, how he does it, and why. I wanted to understand more about his background, what got him involved in what he does, and how he perceives his actions. From all of these perspectives, I thought it was a very good interview. Yes, it was very long. It could have accomplished these things in a shorter time, but I recognize that John's style is thorough and complete.

I didn't watch it for the purpose of figuring out how to judge Mike. I'm not sure what that would accomplish.I don't think that would make any difference to Mike or cause him to change what he does. I don't know that judging Mike would be productive for me, either.

Are Mike's actions ethical? From a very simplistic perspective, they are not. Definitely, from a tribal worldview someone who believes in or feels a connection to the Mormon church would consider them unethical. But, from a broader, more nuanced ethical consideration. it's not so clear. There are many, many similar situations where we don't question the ethics. Was Captain Morgan's attempt to publish a book about Freemasonry's secrets ethical How about the many, many publications since then? When someone infiltrates a terrorist group do we worry about the ethics? When police use informants in radical or illegal groups are we concerned about the ethics? When National Geographic travels the world to different cultures to observe, document, and share about their customs and rituals, do we worry about those ethics? If not, then our concern probably says more about us than about Mike.

Mike's claims are that information should be available and that charlatans should be exposed, both of which I generally agree with. He claims that the Church's behaviors are sufficiently harmful that his actions are justified and ethical. I'm not sure that I wholly buy that, but I'm not sure that it matters. One of the things John really wanted to get at was how Mike understands his own actions. In doing so, I think Mike makes a pretty decent case for how he sees the ethics of it. I don't really know how to judge it beyond that.

It's really more than just asking whether Mike's actions are ethical. We need to ask that of each of his individual actions. Certainly Mike's biggest impact is the promulgation of video of Savanah's testimony. I fail to see how any of Mike's actions in that were unethical.

When it comes to his handing out fake temple recommends, the situation is trickier. He's forging someone's signature, though it's hard to tell whether he's really forging their signature or creating a fake one under the name. I'm not sure if that makes it different. He doesn't profit personally from the action. The question arises as to who is behaving more unethically. Is it Mike in creating the fake recommend? Is it the person who knowingly uses the recommend? Is it the Church, in holding hostage family and community relationships and engagement over the recommend? Clearly Mike believes it is the latter. I'm not sure he's right, but I'm also not sure he's wrong.

His acquisition of the new Washing and Anointing script is probably unethical. I suspect he exaggerates when he says he's probably guilty of a felony. I suspect a misdemeanor at best. But, is walking out with the sheet of paper really all that much different than his original plan? His original plan was to memorize it piece by piece, write it down in between, and then share it. I'm aware that the Church doesn't like that, but is that inherently unethical? Is what he did that much different? If he had simply taken a photo while he had it in the temple have been that much different? Was there a large difference in walking out with the document? It's unclear exactly how the interchange went. If he had asked, "Hey can I have that when you are done?" would that have constituted sufficient permission?

When it comes to filming the temple ceremony, Mike's assertion is that it comes to whether the Church's right to secrecy outweighs the people's right to know. He answers in favor of the latter. I'm not really sure. The Church's actions to keeping the temple secret are pretty shady. Do they reach to the level of fraud or coercion? Probably coercion, at least. Maybe not fraud. Is that enough to justify getting the knowledge out?

I think Mike's more recent activity of impersonating another church member and feigning belief and righteousness is one of his more interesting. He totally demolishes the Power of Discernment, demonstrating it as a mere parlor trick. Is this unethical? He's lying to people and misrepresenting himself, yet they claim they have the ability to see through it and make the correct decisions. Are his actions here in way different from the multitude of other people who reveal parlor tricks? Are they significantly different from people who reveal magician's tricks? Or even more frauds and charlatans? Is he significantly different from Penn & Teller or James Randi? Or reporters who go undercover to reveal an important story? Or police informants?

I can't say that I like Mike. Or that I'm fond of his methods. They're definitely not ones that I'd do, for the most part. But, I also can't say that he's wrong. Activism, agitating for change in society and institutions, requires lots of different people and approaches. It requires Nortons, Dehlins, LDSmans, and on and on. Mike is certainly edgy, but it's not clear that he's gone well beyond the edge.

One of the things I was most interested in seeing with Mike's interview was how he did it. I was curious what methods he used. The interview came out pretty clearly on that point and was pretty informative. Basically, it's good old-fashioned in-depth investigation. The staple of quality, deep, investigative reporting. And old-fashioned police work. And many other things. Or to put a modern term to it, it's basic social engineering.

Mike's obtention of the new Washing and Anointing script is a perfect example. Originally he intended to do it the hard way -- spend the time doing it enough that he had memorized and written it all down. When the opportunity presented itself, he took another typical approach; he just asked for it. His assurance in asking led them to see no reason not to give him what he asked for.

The situation with adding bar codes to the recommends is pretty classic in such endeavors. When an institution realizes they have a security leak, they tend to impose policies that cost themselves and their people, but do little to deter the investigator. People often don't understand that the humans are the flaw in security and they try to solve the problem with technology. As Mike readily displays, it doesn't work.

In the interview, he demonstrated how he initially filmed the temple ceremonies. Technically, it's pretty crude. Maybe he's improved that aspect since then, but it doesn't really matter. It's clearly the humans where the weakness exists. They believe that no unclean thing can enter, that god will prevent it. Clearly their god is a puny god. Or their assumptions are incorrect. Based on that, Mike can just walk in as if he's supposed to be there without any problem.

Including Jesse Stay in the interview really strengthens this aspect. Jesse demonstrated how to infiltrate an unknown group and become accepted. It's really not all the complicated. It's been done time and time again in lots of different groups and scenarios. I don't think that Jesse or the Church are necessarily unethical for doing so. It also demonstrates one of the possible flaws of such infiltration -- the infiltrator may end up learning from and identifying with the new group. That's happened time and time again.

I've always figured that there are infiltrators from the Church or even just faithful members acting on their own diligence in any of these forums and groups. I figure NOM here has been monitored and infiltrated, though I doubt we're significant enough to cause major concern. I used to run a secret email list for Mormon nudists, the majority of which were still active, believing, participating church members. We tried to screen anyone applying for membership but I was always well aware that if someone wanted to infiltrate it would've been easy. We ended up screening more for whether the person looked like they could be a productive contributor and could handle the uncorrelated, non-Sunday School discussions.

I think there is a decent reason for Mike doing what he's doing, and for those who benefit from it, I'm glad he's doing it. Personally, I haven't watched any of his videos because:
1) I'm trying to be respectful and non-mocking of things held sacred by my loved ones (though if you do otherwise, I think that's also fine- that's a legit personal choice).
2) I already know what goes on in the temple.
3) Hell, I don't ever want to sit through that again!

Also:

Hagoth wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:27 pm

MerrieMiss wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:01 pm I think the fact that he says he has Aspergers explains a lot.

Yes, that's interesting. I have heard other people on podcast interviews say similar things. In fact one, I can't remember who, said he had noticed that a lot of people he knew who had left the church seemed to be on the spectrum. He defined these as people who cannot tolerate being lied to, and once they discover a lie they feel compelled to expose it to everyone they know. I wonder how many of us who have had faith crises have some degree of those Asperger-ish qualities. My ex-mo son does and he insist that I do also. My disaffection certainly did lead to a period of obsessive examination of the church, and a sense of being amazed that others could learn this stuff about the church and just shrug their shoulders and move on.

Oh, man, you sound like me! My brother was dignosed with Asperger's, and my mom has mentioned she thinks I'm "on the spectrum". I don't think my wife would disagree. But what you are describing is exactly what I experienced. I couldn't tolerate lies, and for a bit, everything went black and white for me. Still can't shrug it off, but through a lot of work and effort, I'm starting to feel a bit better and get to a healthier place.