The SCMC: New information Comes to Light

[_Daniel Peterson]

Why would a small clipping service meet in the Brigham City Tabernacle?

For the same reason that the Illuminati, the Sons of the Golden Dawn, visiting Martian astronauts, abominable snowmen, and the Northern Utah Association of Survivors from Atlantis meet there. It's a pleasant place, with plenty of seating and a good microphone.

Why would an all knowing God (or his one true church) need a clipping service?

An excellent and devastating point.

All believers in an omniscient God claim to be omniscient themselves, but use of a clipping service seems to demonstrate that they're actually not!

Irrefutable.

[Physics Guy]

No, you didn't. You told people to "trust" you on the basis of one phone call, and a total lack of knowledge about what the SCMC was really up to.

I have more knowledge than you do.

I have that personal experience, for one thing. You don't have it. I've read all of the things you cite to me as the results of Objective Research. And I know that much of what you say about "files" and "annotations" is pure fantasy.

Oh, you do? Then prove it. Prove that my commentary on the files and annotations is "pure fantasy."

Of course, this is precisely why the SCMC exists: so that it can ferret out anyone who dares question Elder Oaks and the rest of the Brethren's absolute authority.

Wow. You must have read the Top Secret SCMC Mission Statement, which can only be done by means of the incredibly rare SCMC Decoder Ring.

I'm beginning to tremble. Maybe I've been set up! Is that you, Brother Himmler? I meant well! I didn't disclose any of our secrets! No! Really! Please! Don't! No! Aieeeeeeee!

You know, when you start to flail about like this, I always imagine a sound issuing forth from you, a sound not unlike the cartoonish "wheee!" that accompanies a slowly deflating balloon. I imagine that one of these days I will grow tired of raining down three pointers on you, blocking your shots, and dunking on your head, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

It seems more than a little likely that Elder Oaks would have given you a whitewashed explanation for what the SCMC is, since, in effect, it is doing his bidding.

It seems more than a little likely that Elder Oaks, whom I have known for years and whom I have every reason to believe to be an honest and honorable man, was telling me the truth.

So, what? All of these other people are lying and/or exaggerating, and Dallin Oaks---who was trained to be a lawyer, I might add---is the only honest one out of all of them? Despite all the evidence, research, and personal experience attested to?

But, of course, we all know that you absolutely have to maintain full allegiance and obedience to Elder Oaks, since it is "wrong to criticize the leaders of the Church."

A classic instance of poisoning the well.

How is that "poisoning the well"? Do you believe that criticizing the leaders of the Church is okay?

I find it interesting, too, that you've chose to take the path of laying all of the blame at Oaks's feet.

What "blame"?

You are now saying, in effect, "Hey, look---it wasn't really me who said the SCMC was 'a very small clipping service.' It was actually Dallin Oaks!" You have been using this "very small clipping service" gambit---which we know is false---for quite a while as a means of allaying TBM fears. Now that this has been shown to be a white lie, you are trying to pass the buck off onto Elder Oaks.

I.e., "Oh, gee, no---I wasn't the one telling a white lie to alleviate fears! I was just *repeating* what Elder Oaks told me!" Real classy, Dan. Take responsibility for your own spin-jobs!

Unbelievable. Are you serious?

Yes, I am. Either concede that Oaks told a white lie, or accept the responsibility yourself.

Another low personal attack. You just can't seem to resist them.

How ironic.

Well, since you've demonstrated an lack of understanding as to what "irony" actually is, you'll have to forgive me for finding this response to be on the lame side. I deal with what you write, Prof. P. I don't take these kinds of cheap shots, where I suggest that you're engaging in criminal activities, or that you're some kind of degenerate, etc. Honestly, do you, as a bishop and representative of the Lord's Church really feel good about calling me a "stalker" and the like? Of making these unkind suggestions that I'm going through your trash, or spying on your house with binoculars? I never have, nor would I ever, do anything of the sort. I have always dealt exclusively with your writings, all of which are accessible online.

Why do you find it improbable?

Because I've never heard of anything remotely like it happening anywhere in the Church at any time. Certainly not in the past century.

Nice qualification there, Prof. P. Of course, these secret activities have been a part of the Church practically since its inception. As for the past century, are you really ignorant of anti-gay the spy rings at BYU?

In the meantime, I've got work to do. I understand that you'll keep obsessively twisting and distorting and mind-reading and looking for contradictions and fantasizing and generating conspiracy theories forever and ever and ever and ever, but I need to finish a book manuscript within the next few weeks. So why don't we limit your absurd claims and my contradictions of them to just one or two a day from now on? Deal?

Here's my deal. You admit that you gossiped about Mike Quinn and apologize, and I'll stop discussing the SCMC. Deal?

[_Coggins7]

Scratch, you remind me more than anything else of Tex Marrs, paranoid conspiracy theorist extrordinaire, who sees men in hooded robes in dark catacombs plotting the assassination of JFK, the death of Princess Di, WWI, WWII, every war since then; who control the Federal Reserve, Congress, and the IRS; who choose who becomes President and what you hear on the evening news.

I cannot imagine what kind of mentality you harbor or what manner of inner psychological life you must lead Scratch, but it must, of a truth, be "one step beyond" as the name of that old forgotten television show says.

You continue to degenerate week by week and month by month. Is there any way to stop the train from crashing to the jagged rocks below?

Why don't you get on with your life Scratch, and leave the rest of us to simmer in the cauldron of our religious delusions? How does it affect you if we are faithful members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?

[_Mister Scratch]

Thanks for chiming in, Runtu. Also: if I'm not mistaken, weren't you taken to task by some former COB colleague/SCMC person for your postings on RfM? I.e., didn't they threaten you with a lawsuit or something of that nature?

Well, not really. My old boss saw something I had posted on RfM (and I didn't think it was particularly harmful stuff) and asked me about it. I told him that I had indeed posted it. He said it didn't bother him, but he said that he knew some people at the building who knew me and who could make things difficult for me. So I asked the RfM folks to remove it (it was in their short topics section). So, no taking to task and no lawsuit threats.

Just out of curiosity, what do you suppose was meant by "make things difficult for [you]"?

[_Runtu]

Just out of curiosity, what do you suppose was meant by "make things difficult for [you]"?

At the time my wife were having enormous conflicts over religion, and I took it to meant that these guys (and I know who he was talking about) would have reported my nefarious activities to my bishop. Had that happened, I'm not sure my marriage would have survived it.

[_Mister Scratch]

Just out of curiosity, what do you suppose was meant by "make things difficult for [you]"?

At the time my wife were having enormous conflicts over religion, and I took it to meant that these guys (and I know who he was talking about) would have reported my nefarious activities to my bishop. Had that happened, I'm not sure my marriage would have survived it.

That's sort of what I thought. I only asked because I had posited elsewhere that gossip within the Church is far more cruel and nefarious then it is in other communities. (I believe I had asserted this specifically to Liz, who said that speaking out against the Church is more or less the same as it is in any old business. I doubt most businesses use people's marriages as leverage to shut them up in the manner you just described, though.)

[_Daniel Peterson]

Prove that my commentary on the files and annotations is "pure fantasy."

I'm not going to show you anybody's confidential file so that you can see that your notions about what is contained in such files are baseless.

You know, when you start to flail about like this, I always imagine a sound issuing forth from you, a sound not unlike the cartoonish "wheee!" that accompanies a slowly deflating balloon. I imagine that one of these days I will grow tired of raining down three pointers on you, blocking your shots, and dunking on your head, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

I readily acknowledge that you have a remarkable imagination.

So, what? All of these other people are lying and/or exaggerating, and Dallin Oaks---who was trained to be a lawyer, I might add---is the only honest one out of all of them? Despite all the evidence, research, and personal experience attested to?

Apparently unlike you, I don't have to assume that people with whom I disagree are necessarily dishonest.

How is that "poisoning the well"? Do you believe that criticizing the leaders of the Church is okay?

I believe that casually suggesting that my opinion is insincerely held, or that I hold it for extraneous and even self-interested reasons, is not okay.

You are now saying, in effect, "Hey, look---it wasn't really me who said the SCMC was 'a very small clipping service.' It was actually Dallin Oaks!"

Well, if I recall correctly it was actually Dallin Oaks.

You have been using this "very small clipping service" gambit---which we know is false---for quite a while as a means of allaying TBM fears. Now that this has been shown to be a white lie, you are trying to pass the buck off onto Elder Oaks.

I picked it up from Elder Oaks. I don't believe I've ever tried to conceal that. I see no reason to attempt to conceal that.

And, in case anybody else is watching these proceedings besides the implacably malevolent Scratch, I don't know that it is false or a "white lie." I happen to think it's essentially true.

Either concede that Oaks told a white lie, or accept the responsibility yourself.

I don't think that Elder Oaks told a "white lie," and I don't know what "responsibility" you're talking about. As I recall, he said it. And I'm happy to pass it on.

you've demonstrated an lack of understanding as to what "irony" actually is

Have I?

Oh well.

you'll have to forgive me for finding this response to be on the lame side.

Now that's a shock.

I deal with what you write, Prof. P.

Yes, and in an extraordinarily weird way.

Honestly, do you, as a bishop and representative of the Lord's Church really feel good about calling me a "stalker" and the like? Of making these unkind suggestions that I'm going through your trash, or spying on your house with binoculars?

Yes, I do.

I try to express it with a fairly gentle humor, but I find your attitudes and behavior extremely bizarre and, apparently, obsessive. And that, Scratch, is an entirely serious and candid statement.

I have always dealt exclusively with your writings, all of which are accessible online.

My writings are not all available online.

Of course, these secret activities have been a part of the Church practically since its inception.

Actually, I don't believe that to be true.

As for the past century, are you really ignorant of anti-gay the spy rings at BYU?

No, I'm not. But I don't recall them holding mass meetings in a tabernacle, which is what I was referring to.

Here's my deal. You admit that you gossiped about Mike Quinn and apologize, and I'll stop discussing the SCMC. Deal?

No. You won't extort a false confession out of me no matter how long you continue to post silly and malicious nonsense about the SCMC and about me.

[_beastie]

Here's the Z thread where Daniel discussed his involvement:

http://p079.ezboard.com/fpacumenispages ... 1&stop=240

[_beastie]

Here are some of Dan's comments about his experience from that thread:

Quite a few years ago, I received a call from the secretary of the Strengthening Church Members Committee. It came at just about the apogee of the exposés and news coverage focused on the committee, and I confess that, when this person identified himself, even though I didn't buy into the paranoid fantasies that certain people seemed to be enjoying, it gave me a rather sharp thrill.

He was calling to ask me and a BYU colleague to spend some time with a certain individual in the Salt Lake area who was having testimony problems, to see if we could help. The situation was, he said, tearing the man's family apart. The wife was contemplating divorce, and the local priesthood leaders felt that they were out of their depth. He also asked that we not identify ourselves as having been asked to help by the committee.

I won't bore you with the details of how this was set up, but we dutifully headed up to Salt Lake a few nights later, where we spent about three hours with a man who, I soon came to realize, was deeply embittered, angry, and very hostile. It was, on the whole, extremely unpleasant, and we failed. At one point, though, the man did grant that we appeared to be sincere and sincerely trying to help, even if we were only ignorant and irrational dupes. At least, he said, you're not just out to nail me to the wall and punish me, the way the Strengthening Church Members Committee does. And then he proceeded to rant for three or four minutes about how that committee cares nothing for the members of the Church but only wants to enforce orthodoxy, maintain discipline, and suppress the freedom of thought.

I was strongly tempted to tell him that he was, at that very moment, lecturing to two official representatives of the Strengthening Church Members Committee who were there, as he himself had recognized, in a sincere effort to help him and his family. But I didn't.

I mention this story merely to suggest that the supposedly Orwellian character of the Strengthening Church Members Committee has been, to put it mildly, exaggerated.

and later:

Here is what happened, in baby steps:

1. A man reads lots of anti-Mormon stuff, loses his testimony, and grows hostile to the Church.
2. His new attitude wreaks havoc within his family.
3. The situation comes to the attention of local Church leaders, in one way or another. (I don't know, and you don't know, the specifics. You have no reason whatever to presume that something underhanded occurred.)
4. These local Church leaders try to help.
5. They find that they are out of their depth in terms of responding to the historical and doctrinal issues that the man raises.
5. They somehow appeal to the Church headquarters for help.
6. That appeal somehow goes to the secretary of the Strengthening Church Members Committee.
7. He thinks of two people at BYU who might be able to help.
8. He calls these two people, asking if they would be willing to help. He adds that he would prefer that the SCMC not be mentioned.
9. The two BYU people say that, yes, they would be willing to help.
10. The SCMC secretary relays their response to the local Church leaders who have been trying to help the man and his family.
11. The local Church leaders call the two BYU people and, together, they agree upon a date and time to meet with the man. (Presumably, a similar call has been made to the man himself, for, when the two BYU folks show up for the meeting, he is there, showing no visible signs of torture or coercion.)
12. A meeting is held, in which, for roughly three hours, in the office of a local priesthood leader, the man and the two BYU people discuss the man's issues with Church history and doctrine.
13. After the meeting, the man goes home. The two BYU people also go home. They are never asked to report to the SCMC. They never do.

[_beastie]

And didn't one of the September Six first disclose information about the SCMC in Sunstone, or something like that? Was it Margaret Toscano? I seem to recall the story of being invited into the SP's office and the SP had a file in front of him with information about this individual's heresies, and didn't want the individual to read it. Am I misremembering?

edit:

According to the wiki article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strengthen ... _Committee

it was Lavina Fielding Anderson who discussed the committee.