Have things changed?

[wenglund]

True. However, there are a couple of things we know. First, the Strengthening Church Membership Committee monitors a collection of information (the scope of which I don't know) and passes material that it discovers along to the writers' and authors' local priesthood leaders (watch out MM).

In the last decade or so, the only time I recall having heard of the SCMC is the paranoid and ironically over-meddlesome conjectures regarding the distant past on the Gladys Kravitz board I alluded to earlier. So, I am not sure it is accurate to say "we know".

But, having clarified this, I trust that there will continue to be not a few critics who will let their irrational and conspiratorial fears take flights of fancy. I only hope they find a soft, padded place to land.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mortal Man]

True. However, there are a couple of things we know. First, the Strengthening Church Membership Committee monitors a collection of information (the scope of which I don't know) and passes material that it discovers along to the writers' and authors' local priesthood leaders (watch out MM). Why do they do this - to bring questionable subject matter to the attention of the leaders to determine if further action is warranted. Second, the Church monitors the content of 6,000 websites (I assume that is automated, but I really don't know).

Are these two programs tightly integrated or completely separate? I don't know. Let's hope not.

Ok, now it gets interesting. Do you know if Dialogue is monitored by the Strengthening Committee? I'm considering sending them a paper but I'm not sure I want to be "strengthened" afterward by my local priesthood leaders. I thought about sending the paper to the Maxwell Institute, as that would give me some really good cover, but the chief editor wouldn't give me a preapproval without seeing the paper first. Perhaps I should encode the paper's true message, while giving its veneer a faith-promoting spin, in order to make it more palatable for FARMS. They have a long history of that sort of thing. What do you think?

[Tsuzuki]

Ok, now it gets interesting. Do you know if Dialogue is monitored by the Strengthening Committee? I'm considering sending them a paper but I'm not sure I want to be "strengthened" afterward by my local priesthood leaders. I thought about sending the paper to the Maxwell Institute, as that would give me some really good cover, but the chief editor wouldn't give me a preapproval without seeing the paper first. Perhaps I should encode the paper's true message, while giving its veneer a faith-promoting spin, in order to make it more palatable for FARMS. They have a long history of that sort of thing. What do you think?

You could always troll your ideas anonymously on the Internet. You're less likely to get strengthened if the powers that be don't take you seriously, while you can still slip into the back doors of people's minds. It's what I do, anyway.

[mfbukowski]

It appears to me that many here would do well to recognize the validity of what B.H. Roberts observed so many years ago:

"The fact should be recognized by the Latter-day Saints that the Book of Mormon of necessity must submit to every test, to literary criticism, as well as to every other class of criticism; for our age is above all things critical, and especially critical of sacred literature, and we may not hope that the Book of Mormon will escape closest scrutiny; neither, indeed, is it desirable that it should escape. It is given to the world as a revelation from God. It is a volume of American scripture. Men have a right to test it by the keenest criticism, and to pass severest judgment upon it, and we who accept it as a revelation from God have every reason to believe that it will endure every test; and the more thoroughly it is investigated, the greater shall be its ultimate triumph. Here it is in the world; let the world make the most of it, or the least of it. It is and will remain true. But it will not do for those who believe it to suppose that they can dismiss objections to this American volume of scripture by the assumption of a lofty air of superiority, and a declaration as to what is enough for us or anybody else to know. The Book of Mormon is presented to the world for its acceptance; and the Latter-day Saints are anxious that their fellow men should believe it. If objections are made to it, to the manner of its translation, with the rest, these objections should be patiently investigated, and the most reasonable explanations possible, given." B.H. Roberts, "Translation of the Book of Mormon," Improvement Era, 1906, Vol. Ix. March, 1906. No. 5.

When researchers both within and without of the Church take our restored scriptures seriously and produce evidence that challenges traditional assumptions, Latter-day Saints should not feel afraid of the scholarship. Granted, the evidence may indicate that believers will need to shift some of their traditional paradigms of belief in the process of providing "the most reasonable explanation possible," but paradigm shifts happen all the time in our Church history.

Even the so-called "Limited Geographic Theory" that so many apologists view as the most reasonable way to interpret the Book of Mormon represents a paradigm shift that resulted from taking the book and its claims seriously. Despite what Meldrum and his followers suggest, learned Latter-day Saints who adopt this "non-traditional" approach to the Book of Mormon are not "apostate." They are simply providing what they see as "the most reasonable explanation possible." But make no mistake about it, it is a paradigm shift from many traditional assumptions.

Similarly, some may need to adopt a few paradigm shifts if they accept the serious academic investigations of biblical scholars such as David P. Wright. This is not a problem. Consider the ideas put forth by Blake Ostler and others on Book of Mormon expansion, etc. Rather than calling scholars to repentance for challenging our assumptions, let us put forward "the most reasonable explanation possible" to answer their criticism.

Ultimately, I agree with B.H. Roberts, the Book of Mormon "is and will remain true. But it will not do for those who believe it to suppose that they can dismiss objections to this American volume of scripture by the assumption of a lofty air of superiority, and a declaration as to what is enough for us or anybody else to know."

I totally agree with every single word of this.

But I think you are missing an important distinction. There is an important distinction between the "paradigm shifts" of Ostler and those of Wright.

The distinction is that Ostler keeps his testimony intact, whereas Wright did not. You can shift paradigms as much as you want, but the question is do you throw out the entire model, or do you keep the model basically intact and adjust the model to fit the new data?

Suppose somehow it were proven that humans evolved over a 10,000 year period. Proved conclusively, no question, absolutely "true", and soon all scientists agree the data is accurate. Just suppose.

If both Wright and Ostler were both evolutionary biologists in this case instead of scholars, for purposes of the analogy, Wright would have thrown out human evolution whereas Ostler would have fit the new data into an evolutionary model.

You understand history: you always have a choice to make to keep the context or throw it out and start over, when some new evidence shows up.

As far as I understand your work, you would be in the same category as Ostler, you would be a "model refiner" as opposed to a "model over turner."

Big difference! I know you want to defend Wright, but to me, this difference is THE difference. One is excommunicated, the other is praised.

[mfbukowski]

Perhaps I should encode the paper's true message, while giving its veneer a faith-promoting spin, in order to make it more palatable for FARMS. They have a long history of that sort of thing. What do you think?

If you played it backwards, it could say "Paul is dead".

That would be cool.

[mfbukowski]

You could always troll your ideas anonymously on the Internet. You're less likely to get strengthened if the powers that be don't take you seriously, while you can still slip into the back doors of people's minds. It's what I do, anyway.

You are about as stealthy as King Kong.

[sjdawg]

Neither. The church doesn't monitor MADB and public apostasy can still lead to excommunication.

How do you know the church doesn't monitor MADB? I'm not saying that I think they use the information here to pursue disciplinary councils but Marlin K Jensen recently stated that the Church History department has a person who's job it is to search out what is said online about the LDS Church.

[Mortal Man]

the Church History department has a person who's job it is to search out what is said online about the LDS Church.

And he probably has assistants...

[sjdawg]

And he probably has assistants...

Perhaps. It does seem like a big job for one person.

[Daniel Peterson]

Second, the Church monitors the content of 6,000 websites (I assume that is automated, but I really don't know).

If that happens at all -- and I would like to see the actual evidence for it -- it has to be automated. I have plenty of contacts in Church Public Affairs and even among the General Authorities. Once in a while one of them (in other words, Public Affairs maybe half a dozen times, plus one or two General Authorities, once each) has asked me something about on-line anti-Mormonism. It's very obvious that I know far more about the subject than they do.

Though I don't read most threads, I pay relatively close attention to this board, I look in on my Malevolent Stalker's board a couple of times a day on most days, and I take a gander at CARM about every other week or so. That's it. And that's the source of my superior expertise. My experience doesn't exactly support the notion that the Church closely monitors 6000 websites.

[wenglund]

You could always troll your ideas anonymously on the Internet. You're less likely to get strengthened if the powers that be don't take you seriously, while you can still slip into the back doors of people's minds. It's what I do, anyway.

Yes, character traits like forthrightness, honesty, openly standing up for what you believe, are so over-rated.

Just ask the many critics who frequently fling their barbs at the Church conventiently under the supposedly safe and secure cover of anonymity. At least they have the peace of mind in knowing that their worst fears (i.e. possible excommunication from a Church they dispise and have already, to some extent, ironically excommunicated themsleves) have a significantly less chance of being realized. And, for the paranoid and conspiratorially-minded, that means the world to them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mortal Man]

I have plenty of contacts in Church Public Affairs and even among the General Authorities. ...Public Affairs plus...General Authorities ask... me... about on-line anti-Mormonism. ...I know... more about the subject

Well there you go folks, we have a mole in our midst.

[Tsuzuki]

You are about as stealthy as King Kong.

You are watching the wrong hand.

[jwhitlock]

I'm always happy to talk specifics; it's the only way to make progress on this board. What specific writings of his did you have in mind?

It's mostly about some of the more problematic quotes from him. They've been noted on this thread; things like the BofM being a "pious fraud", the Book of Abraham being basically the product of Joseph's imagination, stuff like that.

Do you need some specific quotes outside of what's been posted here?

[mfbukowski]

You are watching the wrong hand.

Uh huh.

[rockslider]

David Bokovoy,

Good on you, for all of your comments in this thread!

[dblagent007]

Ok, now it gets interesting. Do you know if Dialogue is monitored by the Strengthening Committee? I'm considering sending them a paper but I'm not sure I want to be "strengthened" afterward by my local priesthood leaders.

I am confident, almost to the point of certainty, that they monitor Dialogue and Sunstone.

For more info see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strengthening_Church_Members_Committee

[Tsuzuki]

I am confident, almost to the point of certainty, that they monitor Dialogue and Sunstone.

For more info see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strengthening_Church_Members_Committee

I'm on the committee.

[dblagent007]

If that happens at all -- and I would like to see the actual evidence for it -- it has to be automated.

Actually, I was wrong. The Church monitors 6,500 anti-Mormon websites, not 6,000 as I originally said. The evidence is in the attached file.

Business Plan.pdf

[dblagent007]

I am confident, almost to the point of certainty, that they monitor Dialogue and Sunstone.

For more info see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strengthening_Church_Members_Committee

One of the strangest aspects of the SCMC is that the Church feels it has a scriptural mandate to keep these secret files. See this Dialogue article

[Mortal Man]

It's mostly about some of the more problematic quotes from him. They've been noted on this thread; things like the BofM being a "pious fraud", the Book of Abraham being basically the product of Joseph's imagination, stuff like that.

Of course he only makes those statements after presenting piles of evidence. You can't just pluck a few of his conclusions out of context and pass judgement. You have to start at the beginning of his papers and refute each of the points that led to those conclusions.

BTW, I could produce a pile of quotes from B.H. Roberts to the effect that the BoM is a "wonder tale" constructed by "a single immature mind."

[Mortal Man]

One of the strangest aspects of the SCMC is that the Church feels it has a scriptural mandate to keep these secret files. http://content.lib.u...edu/u?/dialogue,22703

I can't get your link to work. Did the SCMC sabotage it?

[Mortal Man]

I am confident, almost to the point of certainty, that they monitor Dialogue and Sunstone.

For more info see this: http://en.wikipedia....mbers_Committee

Well it seems that juliann was right.

This board gets the Quorum of the Twelve.

The statement indicated that the members were then James E. Faust and Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

In 1993, apostle Dallin H. Oaks characterized the committee as a "clipping service" that "may have monitored speeches, writings and activities of those suspected of apostasy and passed on material to church officials" (Arizona Republic 1993).

And that volgadon doesn't have to be offended.

I'm offended its not the 1st presidency.

The committee was formed sometime during the administration of church President Ezra Taft Benson (Time 1994), soon after Benson became president in 1985 (Quinn)...

The First Presidency then issued a statement on August 22, 1992 defending the committee based on a 1839 letter to Joseph Smith, Jr. while he was in prison after a period of intense persecution (see 1838 Mormon War), now canonized by the church (D&C 123), that directed church leaders to establish a committee for "gathering up a knowledge of all the facts, and sufferings and abuses put on" church members, and the "names of all persons that have had a hand in their oppressions" (LDS Church 1992).

Here I was worried about the Seventies, but clearly this thing goes all the way to the top.

The opening paragraph is rather alarming.

In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Strengthening Church Members Committee (SCMC) is a committee of general authorities who monitor the publications of church members for possible criticism of local and general leaders of the church. If criticism is found, the committee may forward information to local church authorities, who may bring charges of apostasy, which can result in excommunication.

Is this what snared David Wright?

Suddenly I'm afraid that my tinfoil hat is wholly inadequate.

[jwhitlock]

Of course he only makes those statements after presenting piles of evidence. You can't just pluck a few of his conclusions out of context and pass judgement. You have to start at the beginning of his papers and refute each of the points that led to those conclusions.

BTW, I could produce a pile of quotes from B.H. Roberts to the effect that the BoM is a "wonder tale" constructed by "a single immature mind."

Actually, I can take those statements on their own. They are his conclusions, and for better or for worse, those conclusions seem to be that the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon are products of Joseph Smith only. Or am I simply misreading those conclusions? From what's been presented here and in his writings elsewhere, that's the impression I'm getting concerning where his research led him.

Are you saying that his evidence is absolutely air tight, and that his conclusions concerning those books are the only ones that could be reasonably drawn? I hope not.

I find it interesting that you would think that every point he makes would have to be refuted in order to dismiss his conclusions. The nature of evidence is that it is often sequential in nature; one piece of evidence should link logically to the next piece of evidence until the conclusion can be drawn. However, I have never seen anyone produce a perfectly logical evidential tree leading to perfect conclusions. There are always multiple assumptions made in such evidential trees that can be challenged. In addition, it only takes the refutation of evidence at key points to break the chains leading to such conclusions. As such, there are no perfect studies, there are no perfect research papers, and there are no infallible conclusions based on logical / intellectual evidence alone. Anyone who claims that the logical evidence is airtight has already lost credibility in the debate.

The best that can be said is that the researcher found the evidence compelling in one direction or another. That's not to say that they tested all the evidence available, or that there was no bias. From what I have read of Wright, my guess is that over time he moved away from the subjective evidence of faith, and towards the subjective evidence of his expertise, and so made the error - as I noted earlier in the thread - of making judgments in his conclusions in areas of faith.

If we were talking about geography or other aspects of the books where there is much speculation, then there wouldn't be a problem. But that's not what we're talking about, despite David's attempts to direct the discussion to generalities that ignore his problematic conclusions. We're talking about the prophetic and revelatory nature of the books, which he appears to dismiss in his writings, which are the only conclusions I am interested in discussing. Those conclusions infringe into foundational matters of faith, and that, by definition, is apostasy.

So there you have it. I'm not interested in how he came to his conclusions, because it's not relevant. I'm interested in what his conclusions actually were, and if I'm reading those conclusions correctly. That's it.

[dblagent007]

I can't get your link to work. Did the SCMC sabotage it?

I think I fixed it. As for the SCMC, I remain anonymous for a reason.

Is this what snared David Wright?

Suddenly I'm afraid that my tinfoil hat is wholly inadequate.

Here is what Wright said in a letter to his Bishop:

Dear Bishop Reeder:

I received with sadness and frustration your letter notifying me that a disciplinary council will be held against me for apostasy. It grieved me that I was about to be pushed out of my spiritual and cultural home for my honest and sincere scholarly thought and expression which were motivated by my care for the Church. I am not sure that I will attend the disciplinary council because I have great reservations about its propriety and moral legitimacy. In this letter I want to explain my understanding of the factors and events that led to the present charge and then outline my reservations about the proceedings.

The chain of events began with our meeting on April 27, 1993. In this meeting you said that a general authority had contacted the stake president and had asked him to inquire after me because of my article "Historical Criticism: A Necessary Element in the Search for Religious Truth" published in SUNSTONE (16/3 [september 1992; appeared February 1993] pp. 28-38). The stake president delegated to you the responsibility of contacting me. In the meeting you showed me a copy of my SUNSTONE article which you said Church headquarters had sent the stake president. Your judgment at that time was that my ideas were apostate. Your main interest was encouraging me to become orthodox in my thinking so that a disciplinary council wouldn't be necessary.

That sure sounds like he got caught by the SCMC.

The whole SCMC is beyond creepy.