Recent Church Actions (Nyt Link)

[DJBrown]

I want to know when the church got into the business of policing thoughts public or otherwise. Rather than helping people repent for actual sins (actions) such as adultury?

 

In the judgement We are Judged for what we DO not for our opinions public or otherwise.

 

 

I think a person supporting same sex marriage is a big deal.  When you consider the following statement in the Proclamation to the World, you can see why the church takes it seriously when its members support changing marriage in this way.

 

"we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."

 

I think the prophets believe (I do too) that the very survival of society is at stake.  It is hard to be passive or tolerant when the stakes are so high.  

[smac97]

It'd be new to anyone. I didn't argue for room to play with apostasy at all. We should have some room to disagree with each other, and be able to discuss our thoughts.

I strongly agree with you. The problem is not so much the content of what Kate Kelly has been saying as the means and tone she has used (although her public accusations against her bishop are problematic both in tone and content).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Zakuska]

I would call it concern motivated by love.

I can see a Bishop going to someones face book account seeing a photo of that person having a beer and then questioning wether that person should really have a temple recommend by calling them in. And questioning why they lied to his face about following the WOW.

 

But for the reason given in the OP?  Thats a bit too far, IMHO.

 

 

I think a person supporting same sex marriage is a big deal.  When you consider the following statement in the Proclamation to the World, you can see why the church takes it seriously when its members support changing marriage in this way.

 

"we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."

 

I think the prophets believe (I do too) that the very survival of society is at stake.  It is hard to be passive or tolerant when the stakes are so high.  

 

 

My cousin has 2 sons who are Gay. One is currently serving a mission in New Zealand. Im not sure what their stance on SSM is. She has marched in the Gay pride parade in downtown Salt Lake, has been featured in the Des-News and Ensign. The church sure seems to be passive AND tolerant on their part.

Edited June 19, 2014 by Zakuska

[The Nehor]

I can see a Bishop going to someones face book account seeing a photo of that person having a beer and then questioning wether that person should really have a temple recommend by calling them in. And questioning why they lied to his face about following the WOW.

 

But for the reason given in the OP?  Thats a bit too far, IMHO.

 

My cousin has 2 sons who are Gay. One is currently serving a mission in New Zealand. Im not sure what their stance on SSM is. The church sure seems to be tolerant on their part.

I would consider the alcohol problem much less significant than preaching publicly against the church.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

is it just apostasy? sometimes we get members passing through or people claiming to be members who want the Church to do XYZ for them, come to find out later....we had a situation like that last summer with a lady. 

 

Plus

 

Elder Carlos E. Asay, Former member of the Seventy wrote at the 1986 Sperry Symposium

 

 “Several months ago, a special committee considered the subject of strengthening Church members. I was privileged to chair this committee in its closing stages as it prepared its final report. The group, after hours of prayerful study, submitted to the brethren its recommendations for needed approaches and resources materials. However, the most significant part of the report, I feel, centered upon five upon simple actions-actions that, if taken, would cause a person to become rooted and built up in Christ. the five actions are: Learn of the Lord, Love and obey the Lord, Converse with Hod in the name of the Lord, Worship the Lord and Serve the Lord” pg 5, 1986 Sperry Symposium.

 

 

This makes it sound like the SMC finished its work in 1986.

In his interview with BBC in 2012, Elder Holland confirmed its continued existence.

[omni]

Nope.

 

I doubt they are monitoring everyone. Mostly because that would be incredibly boring. Someone referred it to them or this person did or said something so that a local leader decided to check in on their blog.

 

This can be summed up as:

 

"HOW DARE SOMEONE LOOK AT THINGS I SAID PUBLICLY??????"

 

I don't see this situation as much better.  Unfortunately, the church has created a culture of snitching and when you've been on the other end of it as I have (for something very benign) you really get a disliking for it.  In my experience, incidents like this aren't uncommon. I have a good friend in a bishopric who's told me he's seen this has happen a number of times in his ward in just the short time he's served.  I would describe him a very TBM, but even he's annoyed by it.

[The Nehor]

I don't see this situation as much better. Unfortunately, the church has created a culture of snitching and when you've been on the other end of it as I have (for something very benign) you really get a disliking for it. In my experience, incidents like this aren't uncommon. I have a good friend in a bishopric who's told me he's seen this has happen a number of times in his ward in just the short time he's served. I would describe him a very TBM, but even he's annoyed by it.

It may be annoying but there is an upside. Busybodies go to hell so while they are annoying you get to laugh your head off at them in the next life.

Edited June 19, 2014 by The Nehor

[DJBrown]

I can see a Bishop going to someones face book account seeing a photo of that person having a beer and then questioning wether that person should really have a temple recommend by calling them in. And questioning why they lied to his face about following the WOW.

 

But for the reason given in the OP?  Thats a bit too far, IMHO.

 

 

 

 

My cousin has 2 sons who are Gay. One is currently serving a mission in New Zealand. Im not sure what their stance on SSM is. She has marched in the Gay pride parade in downtown Salt Lake, has been featured in the Des-News and Ensign. The church sure seems to be passive AND tolerant on their part.

 

You are assuming "the church" is aware of her involvement in gay advocacy.

[omni]

"Monitoring" meaning "reading words published online to the entire world?" No, I don't see anything wrong with that. Do you?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Yes, if their express intent is to "catch" someone in apostasy or sinning, which is what sounds like what was happening in the news article. I'm not referring to a leader simply reading his Facebook newsfeed and happening to see something.  It would be like a bishop of a singles ward hiding in the bushes at the local bar hoping to catch members of his ward imbibing as opposed to that same bishop walking by the bar and just happening to see the same thing.

Edited June 19, 2014 by omni

[bluebell]

I hope I'm not the only one who thinks it absurd that we have a Church culture where members "tattle" on each other like 3rd graders.

I'm sure you aren't the only one. It's a silly thing to do, in probably all but like .001% of cases.

 

People know I love and support Mormonism.  But when people accuse us of cult-like behavior, it is this type of "tattling" and monitoring by the SCMC that make the charge tough to counter.  Sure, we are not The People's Temple.  But we are monitored, "tattled on", and disciplined for expressing opinions that run counter to Church leaders.  

 

 I doubt it happens very often, especially when we consider the number of members that it doesn't happen to.

 

[bluebell]

You have heard of the Strengthening Church Member Committee, right?

 

That's ALL THEY DO.  Monitor and keep files on Church members that could become problematic.  They supply these files to local leaders to help them build cases against members in local disciplinary councils.

 

Is there somewhere we can read more about this SCM committee?  

[Rock_N_Roll]

I think a person supporting same sex marriage is a big deal.  When you consider the following statement in the Proclamation to the World, you can see why the church takes it seriously when its members support changing marriage in this way.

 

"we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."

 

I think the prophets believe (I do too) that the very survival of society is at stake.  It is hard to be passive or tolerant when the stakes are so high.  

The quote you posted from The Proclamation, has nothing to do with SSM. If anything, SSM promotes 'family'. 

[sethpayne]

I'm sure you aren't the only one. It's a silly thing to do, in probably all but like .001% of cases.

 

 I doubt it happens very often, especially when we consider the number of members that it doesn't happen to.

 

 

Quite true.  In all my years as an rotten agitator I've never had a Church leader complain (to my knowledge, at least).  

[sethpayne]

Is there somewhere we can read more about this SCM committee?  

 

Well, we don't know a whole lot except that it exists and that it collects and provides info on members to local leaders.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strengthening_Church_Members_Committee

 

http://www.wheatandtares.org/7595/who-on-earth-knows-what-the-strengthening-church-members-committee-is-or-does/

 

Just my opinion, of course, but the SCMC is the most unChristlike and cultish aspect of our Church.  It's existence is unfortunate and I find the scriptural references used to justify it to be unconvincing to say the least.

 

From the source of all knowledge, Wikipedia:

 

The existence of the committee became national news. Speaking to the New York Times, LeFevre stated that the committee "provides local church leadership with information designed to help them counsel with members who, however well-meaning, may hinder the progress of the church through public criticism.".^[6] He denied that such referrals were intended to intimidate scholars. The First Presidency then issued a statement on August 22, 1992 defending the committee based on an 1839 letter from 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".^[7] The statement indicated that the members were then James E. Faust and Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.^[7]

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".^[8]

 

 

Notice that being a democrat can get you put on the radar.

 

According to Eugene England, BYU academic vice-president Stan Albrecht resigned in 1992 partly due to "difficulty carrying out university business because of complaints from BYU religion faculty about other faculty members' writings, made to the Strengthening Church Members Committee". England had known others affected by SCMC activities, some seeing their files, which in one case contained newspaper clippings about being a Young Democrat in college.^[4]

The committee is understood to still be in operation, and was mentioned during the 2004 church discipline of Grant H. Palmer in which it reportedly sent a dossier on Palmer to his stake president.^[9][10]

 

Edited June 19, 2014 by sethpayne

[DJBrown]

The quote you posted from The Proclamation, has nothing to do with SSM. If anything, SSM promotes 'family'. 

 

Read the whole document.  The first paragraph states:

 

"We the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children."

 

You really think the Proclamation was not directed, at least in part, at society's fall from the traditional family?  

 

The entire document was a prophetic statement outlining eternal truth on gender, marriage, and family before (or during) society's fall into its current course.

 

In my opinion, there is no more potent attack on the family than same-sex marriage.

[bluebell]

Well, we don't know a whole lot except that it exists and that it collects and provides info on members to local leaders.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strengthening_Church_Members_Committee

 

http://www.wheatandtares.org/7595/who-on-earth-knows-what-the-strengthening-church-members-committee-is-or-does/

 

Just my opinion, of course, but the SCMC is the most unChristlike and cultish aspect of our Church.  It's existence is unfortunate and I find the scriptural references used to justify it to be unconvincing to say the least.

 

From the source of all knowledge, Wikipedia:

 

 

Notice that being a democrat can get you put on the radar.

 

Interesting, thanks.

[Buckeye]

Read the whole document.  The first paragraph states:

 

"We the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children."

 

You really think the Proclamation was not directed, at least in part, at society's fall from the traditional family?  

 

The entire document was a prophetic statement outlining eternal truth on gender, marriage, and family before (or during) society's fall into its current course.

 

In my opinion, there is no more potent attack on the family than same-sex marriage.

 

 

DJBrown, respectfully, I have to ask if you know any same-sex families.  The ones I know are great examples of what families should be.  These same-sex parents love and sacrifice for their children.  Their example encourages me to strengthen my own heterosexual marriage.  Just as with heterosexual adoptive couples I know, same-sex adoptive couples can do everything for their children with the one exception of providing dna. 

 

In short, I have seen the fruit of their marriage and it is very good.  If you have differing experiences please do share.  I'd be interested to understand why yours is so different from mine.

[stemelbow]

I strongly agree with you. The problem is not so much the content of what Kate Kelly has been saying as the means and tone she has used (although her public accusations against her bishop are problematic both in tone and content).

Thanks,

-Smac

Apparently. I intended to speak more generally.

[sethpayne]

Interesting, thanks.

 

I should add that I don't think the SCMC is something that all Church Leadership is entirely comfortable with. As such, I don't know if it should be used as a club to beat up the entire Church with.  I wouldn't be surprised to go away in the next 10 years.  

 

To me, the SCMC is a relic of certain inclinations of specific past leaders.

[omni]

Is there somewhere we can read more about this SCM committee?  

 

I'd always thought the SCMC was nothing more than the paranoid rantings of angry ex-Mormons until I saw the Elder Holland BBC interview.  Granted many of the rumors I'm sure are exaggerations, but just it's very existence should give members pause.

[Calm]

I should add that I don't think the SCMC is something that all Church Leadership is entirely comfortable with. As such, I don't know if it should be used as a club to beat up the entire Church with.  I wouldn't be surprised to go away in the next 10 years.  

 

To me, the SCMC is a relic of certain inclinations of specific past leaders.

Do people have a problem with the newsclipping (expanded to include public postings on the internet intended to serve as a platform to promote certain ideas or people) part?  Because it seems to me a valid approach for the PA dept of the Church to be prepared to answer questions from news media about members that are being reported about or who have published in that media.  Promotion as a mormon may affect the Church's image and I think it is a good idea for PA to be aware of potential problems so clipping articles that draw attention to people as mormons or who are well known as mormons is a nobrainer for me to have on hand in case reporters call as apparently they often do given what is reported (including a few comments by some reporters I know…not including Scott Lloyd, but he could tell us what the process he uses when he finds he needs to know more about a person in the Church for his job if he wants).

 

Separate it completely to begin with from the idea of sending it to local leaders and just as a resource for the PA guys to be prepared to field questions (I am not saying this is all it does, just asking if people have a problem with this likely most common aspect of it)…is this something that shouldn't be done in your eyes or would be typical for any large organization?

[ERayR]

The quote you posted from The Proclamation, has nothing to do with SSM. If anything, SSM promotes 'family'. 

 

You obviously haven't read it.

[juliann]

 

Notice that being a democrat can get you put on the radar.

That makes no sense to me.  I was raised a Democrat in SLC...no one gave it a second thought.  JFK was just as popular in SLC as anywhere else.  This must be a 90s thing because we have openly Democrat leadership in the church now.

 

In a membership as large as the church's, there are going to be large numbers of people who are doing what KK/Dehlin claim is their "crime" without any consequence whatsoever. Which for any rational thinker, indicates that their softball characterization of their own actions doesn't represent the real concerns of the church.

 

And the idea that anyone would be censured merely for congratulating a gay marriage is absurd to the point of bonkers. That is happening in LDS families across the world....gosh, we even attend gay weddings for those we love.

[sethpayne]

Do people have a problem with the newsclipping (expanded to include public postings on the internet intended to serve as a platform to promote certain ideas or people) part?  Because it seems to me a valid approach for the PA dept of the Church to be prepared to answer questions from news media about members that are being reported about or who have published in that media.  Promotion as a mormon may affect the Church's image and I think it is a good idea for PA to be aware of potential problems so clipping articles that draw attention to people as mormons or who are well known as mormons is a nobrainer for me to have on hand in case reporters call as apparently they often do given what is reported (including a few comments by some reporters I know…not including Scott Lloyd, but he could tell us what the process he uses when he finds he needs to know more about a person in the Church for his job if he wants).

 

Separate it completely to begin with from the idea of sending it to local leaders and just as a resource for the PA guys to be prepared to field questions (I am not saying this is all it does, just asking if people have a problem with this likely most common aspect of it)…is this something that shouldn't be done in your eyes or would be typical for any large organization?

 

Cal,

 

I can only speak for myself, of course.  Any organization needs to do an analysis of the broader social landscape.  I do it at work all the time.  Looking at what competitors are doing; what they are saying about us; the tactics being used, general trends, etc...  So in short, no.  I don't think there is anything wrong with the Church having a dept. dedicated to better understanding criticisms of the Church etc...  It makes sense.  In order to properly respond to criticism you have to understand its substance as well as those who are espousing it.

 

My discomfort with the SCMC -- at least as it has been described publicly and with full awareness that I do not possess all details etc... -- comes from the McCarthy-esqe nature of some of what they capture.  The committee was founded in 1985.  Stan Albrecht was an adult professor at that time.  So why on earth does he have a file with the SCMC (as he was always a clearly faithful member and BYU prof)? Why did others have files that contained "clippings" of activities as a "Young Democrat" in college?  How is being a "Young Democrat" related to Church service in any way whatsoever?  The implications are ... well, disquieting to say the least.  The SCMC went back (pre Internet!!!) and found old newspaper articles etc... to be used against someone just in case they ever became a "problem."

 

As I say, I think the SCMC is a relic of President Benson's ultra-conservatism.  

 

The other troubling thing is that the Church always claims that discipline is always a local matter.  Well, it hardly seems fair that the accused have to defend themselves against both their local leaders and a group of unknown COB employees gathering "dirt" on them.  Should not local leaders be expected to know their flock well enough to have no need of an investigative team at HQ?  I mean, certainly if a Bishop knows enough to convene a disciplinary council surely he must know enough detail to justify the accusation.  If he doesn't, then he wouldn't bring the accusation up to begin with, right?  That is of course, if we accept that these actions originate at the local level which we know, at least in some prominent cases, is not the case.

 

Even Elder Oaks apologized for fibbing when he claimed that the 1993 September 6 actions were NOT initiated at HQ when in fact, Elder Packer was leading the charge.

 

On October 1 1993 Elder Oaks told the Arizona Republic that he had "no knowledge" of Elder Packer's involvement.  Just a few days later when it was revealed that this statement was not true, he corrected himself by saying that his original comment was "was not a truthful statement" and was one he "could not defend."

 

I won't link to the source on this since it is hosted at a site with Temple content.  But anyone with access to Arizona Republic archives can check it out.  First week of October, 1993.

 

Kudos to Elder Oaks for taking responsibility for making a misleading statement.  Shows some guts.  We all make mistakes and I'm sure it is easy to make a misstatement when being pressured by the media.

 

Anyway, my $.02.  

 

Seth

 

Edited to correct a misstatement that Albrecht's SCMC file had "Young Democrat" clippings.  It was someone else.

Edited June 19, 2014 by sethpayne

[sethpayne]

That makes no sense to me.  I was raised a Democrat in SLC...no one gave it a second thought.  JFK was just as popular in SLC as anywhere else.  This must be a 90s thing because we have openly Democrat leadership in the church now.

 

In a membership as large as the church's, there are going to be large numbers of people who are doing what KK/Dehlin claim is their "crime" without any consequence whatsoever. Which for any rational thinker, indicates that their softball characterization of their own actions doesn't represent the real concerns of the church.

 

And the idea that anyone would be censured merely for congratulating a gay marriage is absurd to the point of bonkers. That is happening in LDS families across the world....gosh, we even attend gay weddings for those we love.

 

I think this is due to President Benson's politics -- which became much more moderate after he assumed the office of Church President.  But in 1985 I think he was still pretty politically charged.