Recent Church Actions (Nyt Link)

[guerreiro9]

You certainly can not claim that these men in that society change their orientation to homosexual any more than you can claim that in our society a gay person changes his orientation if he has sex with the opposite sex.

In their society sexual orientation doesn't exist. It is an artificial construct with meaning only in the culture in which it was created. You can't apply it to someone of another culture.

-guerreiro9

[stemelbow]

Sometimes it's higher up. I used to get hits on my blog every day from the Church Office Building, and then when I made a joking post about it, the hits abruptly stopped. Shortly thereafter I started getting hits from the More Good foundation. Coincidence? Maybe. A couple of years ago a good friend told me he had just been in a meeting in the Church Office Building during which they discussed web sites that were critical of the church and what to do about them. He said he had to suppress a laugh when he saw my blog up on the screen. Ultimately, he said, they decided that I wasn't much of a threat, and they moved on. I thought it was kind of funny, but it means they are keeping an eye on people from levels above bishops and stake presidents. I'm not complaining about it. It's what they do.

This raises the question of why are church employees concerned about websites that pose a threat (of course the threat is people sharing ideas?)? This is a problem for me, if true, and it's something I hope they stop and realize, "wait a second. What are we really trying to do here?" and then hopefully the answer urges them to stop worrying about it. The Church has plenty enough going for it it need not worry about the sharing of ideas to take it down.

[Bart Burk]

This raises the question of why are church employees concerned about websites that pose a threat (of course the threat is people sharing ideas?)? This is a problem for me, if true, and it's something I hope they stop and realize, "wait a second. What are we really trying to do here?" and then hopefully the answer urges them to stop worrying about it. The Church has plenty enough going for it it need not worry about the sharing of ideas to take it down.

 

I'm an ex-Mormon.  The one really nice thing about that is I can use my real name when I post.

[awyatt]

This raises the question of why are church employees concerned about websites that pose a threat (of course the threat is people sharing ideas?)? This is a problem for me, if true, and it's something I hope they stop and realize, "wait a second. What are we really trying to do here?" and then hopefully the answer urges them to stop worrying about it. The Church has plenty enough going for it it need not worry about the sharing of ideas to take it down.

 

And, yet, there is scriptural mandate for those in the Church to pay attention to those who oppose the work. (See D&C 123.)

[stemelbow]

And, yet, there is scriptural mandate for those in the Church to pay attention to those who oppose the work. (See D&C 123.)

uh...it seems you misread the scriptures. This doesn't say fear the open expression of ideas so much as to say document abuses. No difference you say? Well, probably a good time to reassess then.

[jkwilliams]

This raises the question of why are church employees concerned about websites that pose a threat (of course the threat is people sharing ideas?)? This is a problem for me, if true, and it's something I hope they stop and realize, "wait a second. What are we really trying to do here?" and then hopefully the answer urges them to stop worrying about it. The Church has plenty enough going for it it need not worry about the sharing of ideas to take it down.

 

It doesn't bother me. I just thought it was funny how easily spooked they seemed to be once they knew I was on to them. Personally, I think it's overkill, and it's the kind of thing that has had my coworkers of late saying the church is acting a little cultish.

[Duncan]

It doesn't bother me. I just thought it was funny how easily spooked they seemed to be once they knew I was on to them. Personally, I think it's overkill, and it's the kind of thing that has had my coworkers of late saying the church is acting a little cultish.

 

 

how did you know the Church was monitoring your website? 

[jkwilliams]

how did you know the Church was monitoring your website? 

 

When IP addresses from the Church Office Building showed up every day, I figured it could have been a very, very bored employee or someone who was monitoring my blog. When I jokingly referred to my visitors from the COB in a blog post, the hits stopped immediately. I suppose there could be some other explanation, but I don't know what it would be. Since the hits from More Good started almost immediately, my best guess is that the COB handed things off to them.

 

As I said, I don't much care, and I think it's kind of hilarious. Given that I have a firsthand account of my blog being discussed in a meeting at the COB, I feel pretty justified in my conclusions.

 

ETA: I should mention that it wasn't just a single IP address from the church but several. Maybe there really are that many bored employees working there.

Edited June 20, 2014 by jkwilliams

[sethpayne]

When IP addresses from the Church Office Building showed up every day, I figured it could have been a very, very bored employee or someone who was monitoring my blog. When I jokingly referred to my visitors from the COB in a blog post, the hits stopped immediately. I suppose there could be some other explanation, but I don't know what it would be. Since the hits from More Good started almost immediately, my best guess is that the COB handed things off to them.

 

As I said, I don't much care, and I think it's kind of hilarious. Given that I have a firsthand account of my blog being discussed in a meeting at the COB, I feel pretty justified in my conclusions.

 

ETA: I should mention that it wasn't just a single IP address from the church but several. Maybe there really are that many bored employees working there.

 

Strange that the COB doesn't route all traffic through a single gateway, thus avoiding the need to eat up precious public IPv4 addresses.

[jkwilliams]

Strange that the COB doesn't route all traffic through a single gateway, thus avoiding the need to eat up precious public IPv4 addresses.

 

No kidding. I was really surprised seeing multiple static addresses coming from the same location. It's been a few years, but IIRC, the addresses were different according to department and were labeled as coming from specific departments. But then my memory is a little hazy.

[Scott Lloyd]

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

http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/22281/First-Presidency-statement-cites-scriptural-mandate-for-Church--committee.html

 

The statement is a bit dated but still informative.

Edited June 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[sethpayne]

No kidding. I was really surprised seeing multiple static addresses coming from the same location. It's been a few years, but IIRC, the addresses were different according to department and were labeled as coming from specific departments. But then my memory is a little hazy.

 

I guess it's not terribly surprising.  I know many Universities that still assign public IPs when students connect to wireless networks.  They were given so many at the dawn of the Internet that they just haven't had the need to set up NAT gateways.  Of course, assigning public IPs to individual PCs or other devices is extremely dangerous because this exposes them directly to the Internet without protection from a firewall in the DMZ etc...

 

Perhaps the Church has a massive IPv4 address block.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Why?

[sethpayne]

http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/22281/First-Presidency-statement-cites-scriptural-mandate-for-Church--committee.html

 

The statement is a bit dated but still informative.

 

Thanks, Scott.  Really interesting.  But I was puzzles by this:

 

Generally, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not respond to criticism levied against its work. But in light of extensive publicity recently given to false accusations of so-called secret Church committees and files, the First Presidency has issued the following statement:

 

 

What were the false accusations?  The SCMC exists and keeps secret files on people.  It's not like you can call up the COB and request your SCMC files.  So it is a secret committee -- we don't know who its members are, for example (although we do know a member of the 12 is chairman).  We also don't have access to its files.  So how were the "false accusations" of a secret committee keeping secret files false?  Seems pretty true to me.

[why me]

 

I think you are extracting an unecessary androgynous meaning out of the statement.

 

 

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 they could not accept the notion that god is male. They needed to cloud the issue by saying that god is both male and  female. Thus,  god is a symbol of equality and not patriarchal authority at all. It goes with the ideology that they represent. I have been around radical feminists quite often because I consider myself a socialist feminist and so, I know their lingo. For them, it is all about patriarchy. For me, it is all about class and the exploitation of both male and female within a class system. OW needs to take the maleness out of god.

Edited June 20, 2014 by why me

[sethpayne]

Why?

 

For one thing, files have been kept on some members for simply being involved with the "Young Democrats" in college.

 

Also, the Church will not release files to members who request them and yet these same files can be used as evidence against a member in a disciplinary council.  That goes against the very concept of due process and fairness.

[jkwilliams]

Thanks, Scott.  Really interesting.  But I was puzzles by this:

 

 

What were the false accusations?  The SCMC exists and keeps secret files on people.  It's not like you can call up the COB and request your SCMC files.  So it is a secret committee -- we don't know who its members are, for example (although we do know a member of the 12 is chairman).  We also don't have access to its files.  So how were the "false accusations" of a secret committee keeping secret files false?  Seems pretty true to me.

 

It's so secret that Michael Purdy didn't even know about it.

[Calm]

Thanks, Scott. Really interesting. But I was puzzles by this:

What were the false accusations? The SCMC exists and keeps secret files on people. It's not like you can call up the COB and request your SCMC files. So it is a secret committee -- we don't know who its members are, for example (although we do know a member of the 12 is chairman). We also don't have access to its files. So how were the "false accusations" of a secret committee keeping secret files false? Seems pretty true to me.

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.

Edited June 20, 2014 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

For one thing, files have been kept on some members for simply being involved with the "Young Democrats" in college.

 

CFR

 

Also, the Church will not release files to members who request them and yet these same files can be used as evidence against a member in a disciplinary council.  That goes against the very concept of due process and fairness.

 

I imagine there are all manner of internal documents the Church has that are not available on demand -- and for good reason. I don't see anything necessarily sinister about this per se.

 

As for use in a disciplinary council, I can't speak to this, as I've never been privy to one. But I would think a person called before such a council would be informed of all available evidence and would be given opportunity at that time to explain it.

 

Edited to add:

 

Incidentally, I was a member of Young Democrats at BYU in the early 1970s. I edited and wrote for the club newspaper that was distributed at large on campus.

 

If there was a secret file kept on me, evidently it didn't hamper me in being called on a mission about that time -- or in getting a job writing for a Church-correlated publication just over 10 years later.

Edited June 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Your memory may well be correct.

 

The statement was made in 1992 -- that's more than two decades ago -- and chasing down the antecedent of the reference to "secret files" would take more time and effort than I'm inclined to give it right now.

Edited June 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

Anyone have access to SLTrib Archives from 92?

[jkwilliams]

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.

 

I keep having planes fly low over my workplace. Could that be the SCMC?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, wait, it's probably because I work about a mile from the airport.

[Scott Lloyd]

Anyone have access to SLTrib Archives from 92?

Aren't they available online? Ours are.

[sethpayne]

CFR

 

I imagine there are all manner of internal documents the Church has that are not available on demand -- and for good reason. I don't see anything necessarily sinister about this per se.

 

As for use in a disciplinary council, I can't speak to this, as I've never been privy to one. But I would think a person called before such a council would be informed of all available evidence and would be given opportunity at that time to explain it.

 

Edited to add:

 

Incidentally, I was a member of Young Democrats at BYU in the early 1970s. I edited and wrote for the club newspaper that was distributed at large on campus.

 

If there was a secret file kept on me, evidently it didn't hamper me in being called on a mission about that time -- or in getting a job writing for a Church-correlated publication just over 10 years later.

 

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

 

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

In July 1992, I went to bid Academic Vice President Stan Albrecht goodbye. I learned from him that one reason he had  resigned was his difficulty carrying out university business because of complaints from BW religion faculty about other faculty members' writings, made to the Strengthening Church Members  Committee, which seemed to him to be an ad hoc middle-man-agement committee that kept files on the writing and activities of certain Church members. I began to think about friends who  had been called in to discuss their writing or had actually seen  their own file, in one case containing press clippings on their activities as a Young Democrat in college, and my anxiety and pain  increased. When a paper at the Salt Lake Sunstone Symposium a few weeks later outlined more such incidents, I became convinced that the committee was behind most of them, and in the question-and-answer period, condemned such inquisition-like  activity as undermining the Church and BYU, and I invited the  audience to use their influence with General Authorities to stop  what I assumed was a conservative middle-management group  gone out of control. But in my heart was also a desire to punish  those who had hurt people I loved. Television cameras captured  and replayed the scene on the news; an AP reporter went right  out, called a Church spokesman, and got confirmation of the existence of the committee and some of its activities in question,  which was reported nationwide.  I went home still angry but increasingly ashamed, aware I had violated the crucial principle that offenses should be dealt 

with face to face if possible and  always in mercy-certainly not in a blanket way without my even knowing who was on the 

committee. Then, I learned the  committee included Elder Faust and Elder Nelson, and I realized I had unwittingly criticized two apostles, as well as 

others. I bitterly regretted what I had done. I apologized in person to all members of the committee, then to everybody, in a public letter, then to my 

ward. But I've realized that my action may have helped to con- struct our department in people's minds as adversarial to the Church and therefore has hurt all of you. I ask you to forgive me

 

 

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

Edited June 20, 2014 by sethpayne

[sethpayne]

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.

 

THAT makes sense.  I think you are right, Cal.  Some of the initial accusations were way off.