Recent Church Actions (Nyt Link)

[guerreiro9]

Perhaps the Church has a massive IPv4 address block.

The Church owns 216.49.176.0/20 so exactly 4096 IPv4 Addresses (not all are useable).

-guerreiro9

[jkwilliams]

Hey Scott,

 

See one of my original posts.  According to Wikipedia when this first became news there was an example of someone who had their "Young Democrat" activities documented by the SCMC.

 

I agree that members should not have access to all Church documents etc...  But don't you think that it is fair that a member accused of apostasy have access to the evidence being used against them?  It seems that the D&C is clear that defendants have the right to give a defense but they would be seriously hampered if they didn't know what the "prosecution" was using against them or if they showed up to a church council to be surprised by some bit of information.  For one thing, there is always the possibility that the SCMC got it wrong .... grabbed info on the wrong person etc...  Or perhaps the defendant may simply need to provide context.

 

Seth

 

For some reason, I now have this song stuck in my head.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgCZN1rU5co

[Scott Lloyd]

Hey Scott,

 

See one of my original posts.  According to Wikipedia when this first became news there was an example of someone who had their "Young Democrat" activities documented by the SCMC.

 

If memory serves from news reports at the time, that was Omar Kader, who was faculty adviser to our club at the time I was a member.

 

And I think it a tremendous stretch to allege that he was shadowed merely for being associated with Young Democrats. As I say, I was called on a mission at the time I was a member of the club, and I went to work for a Church-correlated publication scarcely a decade later.

 

Moreover, if association with Young Democrats is enough to make one's faithfulness to the Church suspect, why in the world would BYU have approved it as an on-campus club?

 

I agree that members should not have access to all Church documents etc...  But don't you think that it is fair that a member accused of apostasy have access to the evidence being used against them?  It seems that the D&C is clear that defendants have the right to give a defense but they would be seriously hampered if they didn't know what the "prosecution" was using against them or if they showed up to a church council to be surprised by some bit of information.  For one thing, there is always the possibility that the SCMC got it wrong .... grabbed info on the wrong person etc...  Or perhaps the defendant may simply need to provide context.

 

As I said, I would think the member would be given access to such documentation and given a chance to explain it either preliminary to or during the convening of the disciplinary council. Again, I've never been privy to such a council, so I have no basis for believing the member is not allowed that privilege.

Edited June 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[sethpayne]

If memory serves, that was Omar Kader, who was faculty adviser to our club at the time I was a member.

 

And I think it a tremendous stretch to allege that he was shadowed merely for being associated with Young Democrats. As I say, I was called on a mission at the time I was a member of the club, and I went to work for a Church-correlated publication scarcely a decade later.

 

As I said, I would think the member would be given access to such documentation and given a chance to explain it either preliminary to or during the convening of the disciplinary council. Again, I've never been privy to such a council, so I have no basis for believing the member is not allowed that privilege.

 

But remember, Scott, that the SCMC only formed in 1985 so at the time of your mission no one was watching.  This means, of course, that the SCMC went back to find info on Omar Kader (assuming that's who it was).

 

But I agree.  I don't think it would be the *only* reason the SCMC would take a look at someone.  But then again, President Benson really disliked the Democratic party so perhaps at inception they were encouraged by him.  He and President Wilkinson tried to ferret out possible Communists at BYU in the 70s and I think the SCMC is a partial extension of that effort.

Edited June 20, 2014 by sethpayne

[guerreiro9]

I think all Democrats and Republicans should be put under surveillance.

They have obviously entered into secret combinations designed to destroy the government of The United States and to "get gain".

They're doing a pretty good job accomplishing their goals.

-guerreiro9

[sethpayne]

The Church owns 216.49.176.0/20 so exactly 4096 IPv4 Addresses (not all are useable).

-guerreiro9

 

Well that's not massive but it is a lot of addresses and I imagine these days they are mostly being used by the Church's online properties.

Edited June 20, 2014 by sethpayne

[ERayR]

My memory says there were accusations of wire tapping and following people around, interviewing neighbours etc.

Don't know if connected but a few ex and antis have claimed the Church has sent hit men after them...Danities alive and well and doing black ops stuff for the Church. Have no clue if that was tied to the statement here about secret organizations though.

 

OH OH my I finally see now.  That's what those guys dressed in black have been doing parked in their cars on my block.  I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

But remember, Scott, that the SCMC only formed in 1985 so at the time of your mission no one was watching.  This means, of course, that the SCMC went back to find info on Omar Kader (assuming that's who it was).

 

But I agree.  I don't think it would be the *only* reason the SCMC would take a look at someone.  But then again, President Benson really disliked the Democratic party so perhaps at inception they were encouraged by him.  He and President Wilkinson tried to ferret out possible Communists at BYU in the 70s and I think the SCMC is a partial extension of that effort.

I think one would have a difficult time proving that the committee was an outgrowth of President Benson's anti-Communism.

 

I'm old enough to clearly remember his strident anti-Communism of the 1960s. I had already gone to work for the Church News by the time he became Church president in 1985, so I was watching the actions of the Church very closely at that time. By then, his politics had become so muted as to be virtually non-existent from his public discourse.

 

Moreover, I've been watching things long enough to know that the Church president doesn't do things in a vacuum. The formation of such a committee would not have been undertaken without extensive discussion among the First Presidency and the Twelve, if not other General Authorities and consultation from staff.

 

President James E. Faust, who, according to the 1992 First Presidency statement I quoted, was one of the two chairmen of the committee, was a lifelong Democrat, for crying out loud!

Edited June 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[sethpayne]

I think one would have a difficult time proving that the committee was an outgrowth of President Benson's anti-Communism.

 

I'm old enough to clearly remember his strident anti-Communism of the 1960s. I had already gone to work for the Church News by the time he became Church president, so I was watching the actions of the Church very closely at that time. By then, his politics had become so muted as to be virtually non-existent from his public discourse.

 

Moreover, I've been watching things long enough to know that the Church president doesn't do things in a vacuum. The formation of such a committee would not have been undertaken without extensive discussion among the First Presidency and the Twelve, if not other General Authorities and consultation from staff.

 

Sure, no way to prove anything.  Of course.  We don't have access to the all the facts.  

 

However, given President Benson's anti-Communist activities leading up to his assumption of the role of Church President, I don't think it is too surprising that a committee formed -- shortly after his ordination -- *may* have been influenced by President Benson's political views.  Especially given that the comittee began collecting files concerning involvement with the Democratic party.

 

Of course, I don't think the SCMC was established *simply* as a result of President Benson's politics but I don't think it unreasonable to believe he had significant influence on the committee.  But you are right, perhaps not because his public political statements had mellowed quite a bit by 1985 IIRC.  

[Scott Lloyd]

ETA:  Check this article by Eugene England.  Page 39 for info on Stan Albrecht and the person who had their Young Democrat activities "clipped" by the SCMC.  http://www.sunstonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/121-31-39.pdf

 

This really reminds me what a gentle, humble, and Christlike guy Eugene England was.

Why should the presence in a file of a person's past political party affiliation be viewed as necessarily incriminating as opposed to merely providing background information such as I might include if I were writing a newspaper profile of a person?

 

I don't know why Kader would have been the subject of a committee file (though I do recall he was pretty angry when he found out about it). What I remember about him from my college days was that he seemed very liberal, in contrast to the conservative environment at BYU, but he was pretty straight-arrow when it came to his faithfulness in the Church.

 

It may have been simply a matter of someone somewhere having complained about him because of his politics, this resulting in the committee collecting information pursuant to assuring an inquiring priesthood leader that he was OK ecclesiastically.

 

Edited to add:

 

And, for the record, I would not be particularly bothered if I learned the committee were keeping such a file on me. I say this, because I'm confident there is nothing in my past that would credibly bring my faithfulness in the Church into question (notwithstanding my editorship of the Young Democrats club newspaper in college) and, if someone were to ask about it, I would want the committee to be in a position to give him that assurance.

Edited June 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Senator]

I  don't think that I am. I believe that I know why they wrote what they wrote on their mission statement. Since OW is a radical feminist organization

Well that says it all....

OW needs to take the maleness out of god.

No. I think they are wont to put the femalenss into God.

Something I'm not apposed to.

[sethpayne]

Why should the presence in a file of a person's past political party affiliation be viewed as necessarily incriminating as opposed to merely providing background information such as I might include if I were writing a newspaper profile of a person?

 

I don't know why Kader would have been the subject of a committee file (though I do recall he was pretty angry when he found out about it). What I remember about him from my college days was that he seemed very liberal, in contrast to the conservative environment at BYU, but he was pretty straight-arrow when it came to his faithfulness in the Church.

 

It may have been simply a matter of someone somewhere having complained about him because of his politics, this resulting in the committee collecting information pursuant to assuring an inquiring priesthood leader that he was OK ecclesiastically.

 

Edited to add:

 

And, for the record, I would not be particularly bothered if I learned the committee were keeping such a file on me. I say this, because I'm confident there is nothing in my past that would credibly bring my faithfulness in the Church into question (notwithstanding my editorship of the Young Democrats club newspaper in college) and, if someone were to ask about it, I would want the committee to be in a position to give him that assurance.

 

I have no idea why party affiliation may be incriminating.  But someone thought it was relevant enough to track down and document.  And yes, I agree that the vast majority of things done by the SCMC are likely mundane and/or benign.  That's the trouble with a committee that is secretive.  We just don't know and so we are left hearing only one side of the story.

[sethpayne]

Why should the presence in a file of a person's past political party affiliation be viewed as necessarily incriminating as opposed to merely providing background information such as I might include if I were writing a newspaper profile of a person?

 

I don't know why Kader would have been the subject of a committee file (though I do recall he was pretty angry when he found out about it). What I remember about him from my college days was that he seemed very liberal, in contrast to the conservative environment at BYU, but he was pretty straight-arrow when it came to his faithfulness in the Church.

 

It may have been simply a matter of someone somewhere having complained about him because of his politics, this resulting in the committee collecting information pursuant to assuring an inquiring priesthood leader that he was OK ecclesiastically.

 

Edited to add:

 

And, for the record, I would not be particularly bothered if I learned the committee were keeping such a file on me. I say this, because I'm confident there is nothing in my past that would credibly bring my faithfulness in the Church into question (notwithstanding my editorship of the Young Democrats club newspaper in college) and, if someone were to ask about it, I would want the committee to be in a position to give him that assurance.

 

Oh, and for what it's worth, I've been keeping files on you for YEARS.

[Scott Lloyd]

I have no idea why party affiliation may be incriminating. But someone thought it was relevant enough to track down and document. And yes, I agree that the vast majority of things done by the SCMC are likely mundane and/or benign. That's the trouble with a committee that is secretive. We just don't know and so we are left hearing only one side of the story.

I'm not inclined to assign sinister motives to something undertaken at the behest of the First Presidency and under the direction of two or more members of the Quorum of the Twelve.

Call me naive, but my attitude stems from what Richard Bushman called "the routinization of charisma." To put it simply, I don't expect prophets and apostles to do anything of this nature without the purest of motives and intent; hence, it doesn't bother me, secret or not.

Of course, I could not say the same about most earthly entities or organizations.

If such a thing on the part of the Church does not look very good in the eyes of the world it only reflects the fact that they don't view the Church as being divine or God-directed, but rather, just another earthly organization or entity.

Edited June 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Oh, and for what it's worth, I've been keeping files on you for YEARS.

If I thought that were true, I'd be flattered.

[sethpayne]

I'm not inclined to assign sinister motives to something undertaken at the behest of the First Presidency and under the direction of two or more members of the Quorum of the Twelve.

 

Call me naive, but my attitude stems from what Richard Bushman called "the routinization of charisma." To put it simply, I don't expect prophets and apostles to do anything of this nature without the purest of motives and intent; hence, it doesn't bother me, secret or not.

 

Of course, I could not say the same about most earthly entities or organizations.

 

If such a thing on the part of the Church does not look very good in the eyes of the world only reflects the fact that they don't view the Church as being divine or God-directed, but rather, just another early organization or entity.

 

Well I certainly wouldn't characterize the SCMC as "sinister."  I believe that primarily, this is perhaps and area where the Brethren could communicate a bit more effectively so as not to feed inaccurate or unfair accusations.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well I certainly wouldn't characterize the SCMC as "sinister."  I believe that primarily, this is perhaps and area where the Brethren could communicate a bit more effectively so as not to feed inaccurate or unfair accusations.

I can't argue with that. You may, in fact, be right.

[Calm]

Aren't they available online? Ours are.

I tried to do a search and nothing came up.  I am not sure I want to go through the entire Aug 8, 1992 edition (well, minus the business, sports, ads, comics, etc) to find the relevant article.

[ERayR]

Just out of curiosity of all the members with doubts who post on this forum or some other forum how many have had black helicopters with the church logo on the side set down in their yard.  Or have had their Bishop ex them.

Edited June 21, 2014 by ERayR

[sethpayne]

Just out of curiosity of all the members with doubts who post on this forum or some other forum how many have had black helicopters with the church logo on the side set down in their yard.  Or have had their Bishop ex them.

 

Black helicopters but no exxing yet.

[ERayR]

Black helicopters but no exxing yet.

 

The conspiracy theory is a little overblown.  Perhaps?

[Kenngo1969]

Just out of curiosity of all the members with doubts who post on this forum or some other forum how many have had black helicopters with the church logo on the side set down in their yard.  Or have had their Bishop ex them.

I've heard that the black helicopters are used for transporting Commandos from the SCMC Strike Team : They're jack-booted and black-clad from head-to-toe, and they carry fully automatic weapons, ammunition, and other tools of ... persuasion.  Operations are conducted by performing aerial insertions into the houses of members who need ... Uhhh, I think "correction" is the word they use ... by zip-lining from the helicopter into a window.

 

But I wouldn't want to spread any rumors, or anything.

 

[Kenngo1969]

The conspiracy theory is a little overblown.  Perhaps?

You just go right on ahead and keep thinking that.  It'll make the SCMC Strike Team's operations all the more effective.

[Kenngo1969]

Black helicopters but no exxing yet.

Can you tell us a little more about your encounter with the SCMC Strike Team Commandos?  Did they attempt to disorient you with a flash-bang grenade, use TASERs, tear gas, pepper-spray, K-9s?

[sethpayne]

The conspiracy theory is a little overblown.  Perhaps?

 

Without question.  But there are many theories.  Most are wacky.  Others, like the one told by Eugene England is interesting.