The Scmc: What's Up With This?

[Avatar4321]

Not only diabolical, but you can just read it between the lines of his sinsiter confession that the good brother did NOT want him nor that committee there! Crimany when I was at the FAIR Conference last year, Dr. Peterson was almost all the way across the hall from me, and gave a gentle wave to me as I was trying.....***trying*** to rush into the bookstore. I was mezmer-eyes-ed......IT'S HIS RING! That ring he wears has a secret transmitter that hums lower than audible words forcing their way into your un-sub-under-conscious, and I could not stop from going over to him. I was brainwashed into standing there listening to him spin his yarns and brainwash us all about the goodness of FARMS (and himself), and I could not move out of that trance. As long as he talked, we were his victims, victims of a terrible crime against our wills. NONE of us desired to be there with him, but he held us fast. When he finally finished his brainwashing, he then waved goodbye to us, which turned off the signal in that diabolical ring, and we were released. But it's too late, we had the doctrines he specifically was told by the committee to instill within our brains. I now am a believer. I BELIEVE............. I CANNOT DO OTHERWISE.................

The precious, yes?

[Tsuzuki]

Point taken, but I was wondering if the church encouraged such behaviorâ?¦I suppose it is irrelevant.

From as far back as I can remember, the church has always discouraged rumor mongering. But will the people listen? Nooo...

[Bsix]

I'm not sure exactly what all the fuss is about. Is there a fair and charitable way of looking at this situation?

The LDS Church is a highly controversial religion. It is attacked from all sides. These attacks are aimed at discouraging non-Mormons from learning about or joining our religion. There are literally hundreds of attack ministries...denominations...individuals...and institutions attempting to persuade Latter Day Saints to leave our religion. Some of these critics of our religion come from within our own ranks.

I knew of one "member" of the Church who was in reality an apostate who was acting as an agent of a counter-cult ministry. Here mission was to pretend to reach out to struggling Mormons. The real intent was to identify those members and then counsel them out the Church.

Given this active and hostile environment:

-- Is it any wonder that the Church forms a committee to research oppositional propaganda, to better understand the nature of the attacks on the Church, and where the opposition is coming from?

-- Is unreasonable that the Church might create a network of resources to help respond to struggling members?

-- Is it a surprise that the Church would seek to identify members of the Church who go beyond their own belief struggles and seek to damage the faith of other?

I have seen no reports that the Church has acted illegally or unethically. The activities reported seem pretty benign to me. In my service in the Church that spans over 30 years I have never witnessed a single instance where a member of the Church has been targeted for investigation by this committee. I have not been witness to any suspicious member-activited being forwarded up the ecclesiastical line of authority.

This feels like a non-story to me.

Regards,

Six

[Hammer]

I'm not sure exactly what all the fuss is about. Is there a fair and charitable way of looking at this situation?

The LDS Church is a highly controversial religion. It is attacked from all sides. These attacks are aimed at discouraging non-Mormons from learning about or joining our religion. There are literally hundreds of attack ministries...denominations...individuals...and institutions attempting to persuade Latter Day Saints to leave our religion. Some of these critics of our religion come from within our own ranks.

I knew of one "member" of the Church who was in reality an apostate who was acting as an agent of a counter-cult ministry. Here mission was to pretend to reach out to struggling Mormons. The real intent was to identify those members and then counsel them out the Church.

Given this active and hostile environment:

-- Is it any wonder that the Church forms a committee to research oppositional propaganda, to better understand the nature of the attacks on the Church, and where the opposition is coming from?

-- Is unreasonable that the Church might create a network of resources to help respond to struggling members?

-- Is it a surprise that the Church would seek to identify members of the Church who go beyond their own belief struggles and seek to damage the faith of other?

I have seen no reports that the Church has acted illegally or unethically. The activities reported seem pretty benign to me. In my service in the Church that spans over 30 years I have never witnessed a single instance where a member of the Church has been targeted for investigation by this committee. I have not been witness to any suspicious member-activited being forwarded up the ecclesiastical line of authority.

This feels like a non-story to me.

Regards,

Six

Great points all! I have also known those who are 'agents' for the opposition of truth. They are truly the wolves in sheep's clothing warned about in the NT. Should we not, then, as a church be the shepherds and use whatever means at our disposal to guard the sheep of the fold against such infiltrators. (trators>traitors)

[Warship]

Nehor and Tsuzuski,

I also don't recall any negative encouragement of this sort...I was raised in the church but left when I was 17 and have not been active for 13 years so I don't know how different things are. One of my sisters is still devoutly attending though.

[Bob Bennett]

When my BIL was first hired by the Church some 20+ years ago, one of his tasks was to collect and file media articles about the Church, both pro and con. IIRC, he did some limited statistical analysis and wrote a summary report. Pretty benign.

[Greg Smith]

I have seen no reports that the Church has acted illegally or unethically. The activities reported seem pretty benign to me. In my service in the Church that spans over 30 years I have never witnessed a single instance where a member of the Church has been targeted for investigation by this committee. I have not been witness to any suspicious member-activited being forwarded up the ecclesiastical line of authority.

This feels like a non-story to me.

Good grief, the revelatory basis for the committee is even in the D&C. Pretty nefarious, if you're going to publish your top secret committee to the world in your scriptures....it dates back to the Missouri persecutions at least:

4 And perhaps a committee can be appointed to find out these things, and to take statements and affidavits; and also to gather up the libelous publications that are afloat;

5 And all that are in the magazines, and in the encyclopedias, and all the libelous histories that are published, and are writing, and by whom, and present the whole concatenation of diabolical rascality and nefarious and murderous impositions that have been practised upon this people—

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 123:4 - 5)

How can people's "beliefs" come to the attention of the committee unless they publish them?

So, the Church keeps track of what's written and said in the press about it, by members and non-members. They can't do much about what non-members say. It seems to me that if someone is publishing "Joseph Smith was a fraud" in his newsletter, that maybe I don't want that person teaching my kids in Sunday School, ya know? And, how is this a bad thing?

Seems to me the only person who might complain is the person who can't continue to write whatever they want and keep up the public pose that they are a faithful, believing member of the Church.

What can the Church do to them? Withdraw fellowship, at most.

Terribly Stalinist. (Does that violate Godwin's law?)

But, if there's a revelation on the subject, you can bet the Church is going to do it.

Kind regards,

Greg

[Daniel Peterson]

I did read on a BYU-related site that the Church monitors thousands of web sites related to Mormonism. All I can say about that is I hope they find something interesting to read in all of that.

I've seen mention of that report. It would surprise me quite a bit if it's true. I suppose that Church Security might find it worthwhile to monitor the web for potential threats (though I have no reason to believe that to be so), but I have invariably known much more about anti-Mormon and ex-Mormon and other Mormon-related web sites than anybody I've encountered at Church Public Affairs or anywhere else at Church headquarters.

[Daniel Peterson]

Point taken, but I was wondering if the church encouraged such behavior [sending in reports on members].

In all my years of membership, including various leadership positions and including intense involvement with critics, I've never caught even a whiff of such "encouragement."

It was suggestive that the SCMC how the power to excommunicate. I suppose this is not the case.

Definitely not.

[Calm]

From as far back as I can remember, the church has always discouraged rumor mongering. But will the people listen? Nooo...

It makes much more sense to me for the Church to have people who know how to collect accurate information about what someone is publishing to do so rather than leaving both the local leadership and the individual involved at the mercy of second or thirdhand partial verbal reports.

And I would definitely not want the local leadership wasting their time trying to keep track of this stuff; not only a better use of their time, but also they can keep a more positive attitude overall.

The more complete and accurate the information, the better informed and therefore more likely the local leaders will treat individuals fairly.

[Severian]

I once had an argument with a Tanner devotee. He showed an interesting double standard on this subject. He angrily accused the brethren of using "spies" to find out what the Tanners were up to, but coyly admitted that the Tanners got hold of confidential Church material from "sources."

So people who leak confidential Church documents to its enemies are "sources," but Church leaders finding out what those enemies are up to are "spying."

You are right, it is totally unfair to call them spies. Let's just call them "surreptitious gatherers of information". Spying sounds so anti-mormon.

[Warship]

In all my years of membership, including various leadership positions and including intense involvement with critics, I've never caught even a whiff of such "encouragement."

Definitely not.

Thank you...that is pretty much all I was wondering.

I don't know how my position became so sensationalized when I stated in post #48 that I did not think anything sinister was occuring.

I was on pain medication for my lower back earlier today (and now actually)...I should have read the OP more closely. I got the mistaken impression that the SCMC made excommunication recommendations.

I think next time I'm laid out and medicated I'll kill time by playing online chess instead browsing the MB...the game of kings is safer.

Obliged

[Greg Smith]

You are right, it is totally unfair to call them spies. Let's just call them "surreptitious gatherers of information". Spying sounds so anti-mormon.

What's so "surreptitious" about clipping out things that people publish in the public forum?

It's not like they're rooting through their trash, bugging their phones, or breaking open the locket that keeps their Polly Pocket diary shut.

"Dear Diary, today I questioned the Lord's annointed in my heart...."

People generally publish things to disseminate their views. How can they complain when people take notice?

(By the way, if you're reading this post, you're spying. Please turn yourself in.)

Kind regards,

Greg

[Severian]

(By the way, if you're reading this post, you're spying. Please turn yourself in.)

Kind regards,

Greg

You are right, perhaps we can be agents for the Committee.

[Greg Smith]

You are right, perhaps we can be agents for the Committee.

I reported you, but I was too late.

Someone beat me to it, and was paid off in Krispy Kremes.

Greg

[Hawkmoon]

Benjamin franklin said those who give up their liberty for safety deserve neither liberty or safety.

Actually he said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Which can mean many things none of which is how you used it.

[Warship]

Actually he said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Which can mean many things none of which is how you used it.

I assumed the lack of quotation marks would loudly signal I was paraphrasing. I don't think the omission or addition of the two words changes the meaning and intent of the statement at all.

Some people might consider their freedom of thought as an "essential liberty", and the loss of it so a difference of opinion might not upset tender, virgin ears as a "temporary safety" .

But to each his own.

[The Nehor]

I reported you, but I was too late.

Someone beat me to it, and was paid off in Krispy Kremes.

Greg

They're giving away Krispy Kremes now.....then my whole ward is smoking and worships the Spaghetti Monster.....how many donuts do I get?

[Pahoran]

I assumed the lack of quotation marks would loudly signal I was paraphrasing. I don't think the omission or addition of the two words changes the meaning and intent of the statement at all.

Some people might consider their freedom of thought as an "essential liberty", and the loss of it so a difference of opinion might not upset tender, virgin ears as a "temporary safety" .

Perhaps they might; but it would be odd, to say the least, to imagine that believing Latter-day Saints give up "freedom of thought," or that the exercise of such "freedom of thought" somehow leads inevitably to "dissent" (meaning the rather unimaginative and unthinking acceptance of the prevailing cultural norms that the Gospel bucks.)

But to each his own.

Indeed.

Question: what is a church, if not a community of shared belief?

Regards,

Pahoran

[cksalmon]

What "thing"? There's no "there" there.

The Strengthening Church Members hysteria that afflicts isolated pockets of the anti-Mormon, ex-Mormon, and wavering Mormon population is without any genuine basis in reality.

There is no espionage or surveillance network being run out of Church headquarters. This is all a complete myth.

Try as I might, and I have, I haven't found much to expand my knowledge of SCMC in official LDS venues. I think that's what leads to speculation. Does anyone have a reference, from a pro-LDS source (and preferably "official" LDS source) about this?

At the very least, unfounded, unrighteous speculation could be put to rest...

Best.

CKS

[Hawkmoon]

I assumed the lack of quotation marks would loudly signal I was paraphrasing. I don't think the omission or addition of the two words changes the meaning and intent of the statement at all.

Some people might consider their freedom of thought as an "essential liberty", and the loss of it so a difference of opinion might not upset tender, virgin ears as a "temporary safety" .

But to each his own.

Actually it changes it quite a bit... in your version if one gives up liberty (any liberty) for safety (no matter how long-lasting) they don't deserve either. In the actual quote there are very important qualifiers added that changes the meaning quite a bit. In the actual quote he is in fact saying that there are times when it is quite appropriate to give up liberty for security. Furthermore, he does not say anything in regards to giving up an essential liberty for a long-lasting safetyâ?¦ these are not small points.

[Hammer]

Actually it changes it quite a bit... in your version if one gives up liberty (any liberty) for safety (no matter how long-lasting) they don't deserve either. In the actual quote there are very important qualifiers added that changes the meaning quite a bit. In the actual quote he is in fact saying that there are times when it is quite appropriate to give up liberty for security. Furthermore, he does not say anything in regards to giving up an essential liberty for a long-lasting safetyâ?¦ these are not small points.

So you don't have a tv or computer in your home? How about a radio in your car? Tracking everything you do. Are you on lists protesting these or is your liberty protests limited to suspicians about the church?

[Hawkmoon]

So you don't have a tv or computer in your home? How about a radio in your car? Tracking everything you do. Are you on lists protesting these or is your liberty protests limited to suspicians about the church?

Errr.... wha?