Will September Dawn drive chapel Mormons to research more?

[_Mister Scratch]

Gossip in the Church can totally ruin a person's life, it can result in the loss of a career, family, community, etc.

Well, to be fair, it can only result in the loss of a career if you're stupid enough to work for the Church to begin with.

;)

Sorry...I didn't mean that to come out as a slam against Church employees and it did. What I'm trying to say is that if you choose to work for the Church, then you know what you're getting yourself into. And if you don't, then shame on you for not knowing. If you are an employee of the Church, then you are obligated to play by their rules. No one is forcing you to make that type of choice career-wise.

Gee, I don't know, Liz. I'm not really convinced that Church employees even *know* all the rules, since the Church is frequently cagey about just what those rules are---hence the semi-secrecy of the Church rulebook, the CHI. For example, a hypothetical. Let's say that a 24-year-old BYU grad takes an office job at the COB. While working there, he learns, for the first time, about Joseph Smith's polyandry and polygamy. Learning about this troubles him deeply, and he starts looking into it further. He speaks with his colleagues about it, and notices that a few of them sort so scowl and crinkle up their noses, and basically advise him to drop the matter entirely. He doesn't, and goes on to pen an article expressing his feelings on this issues which he posts online. One of his more suspicious co-workers reports this to her ecclesiastical leader, who passes the information along to the SCMC, which in turn advises the administration at the COB. The COB, concerned with this worker's preoccupation w/ Joseph Smith's questionable behavior, decides to strike pre-emptively, and fires the worker.

So, my point is: it seems perfectly possible that someone could take a Church job without fully "knowing" the rules, and could pay the price, via gossip, with one's job.

[_Mister Scratch]

Part of the reason I know is that you were clumsy enough to admit being an "agent" for the SCMC.

I said that I once talked with a wavering member for several hours at the request of the secretary of the Strengthening Church Members Committee, who had been asked by the member's family if he could help. It was a pleasant and candid conversation. He came voluntarily, and he left when he felt like leaving.

A couple of things. One, I would like to hear *his* side of the story. Two, this demonstrates, beyond any reasonable doubt, that there is a pernicious level of gossip running through the institutional Church, and that there even exists an officially-sanctioned arm of the Church---the SCMC---to handle all the gossip. That the Church leadership would feel a need for an SCMC at all is very telling, in my opinion.

You've asked several times whether I filed a "report" about our conversation. I've answered, just as often, that I didn't. I wasn't asked to do so; there was no follow-up communication at all.

That's it. Nothing about "files." Period.

You didn't speak to the SCMC secretary after you'd met with the fellow? At all? Perhaps you didn't fill out a file, but I'd be surprised if there was no file at all on this person.

But, in addition to that, we know that the SCMC makes tape recordings of speeches, maintains files on dissidents, stays in communication with a network of Church spies and security, including the student spies at BYU who monitor more liberal professors and conduct witch hunts for homosexuals.

We do? I don't know any of that.

Cf. Quinn's "Shadow Governments" chapter in The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power. Cf. Meg Toscano's account on The Mormons. Cf. Mormon America. Cf. Under the Banner of Heaven. Cf. the New York Times report on the SCMC. Etc., etc., etc. Now you know.

Further, we know from the CHI (at least, I think it's in the CHI), that certain things result in "instant annotation" on one's membership record. Thus, if there is report of homosexual activity from some stool-pigeon member, then this bit of petty gossip will go into a member's record, potentially setting him or her up for all kinds of personal harm. Surely as a Bishop, you know about these "automatic annotations." Right?

I've seen absolutely nothing of the kind.

Have you read the SCMC all the way through? Carefully?

Further, over on the MADboard as we speak, there is a thread underway regarding "anonymous letters," in which some mean-spirited ward member sent an anonymous letter to the bishop, stating that another member gave crummy talks in sacrament meeting, apparently with the hope that the bishop would stop asking this member to talk in church. This isn't the sort exemplified by the Quinn thing, but it does pretty clearly demonstrate the cruel nature of LDS gossip.

There is nothing uniquely LDS about such regrettable behavior.

Huh? Oh, so other communities also have an SCMC? Perhaps it is not "uniquely LDS." We know this kind of harmful behavior occurred in, say, Stalinist Russia and Vichy France. Is that what you're getting at, Prof. P.? In what healthy community does this routinely occur, at this level and degree of harm and cruelty?

You accuse me of being paranoid, and yet you are wetting yourself in fear about telling me who is in charge of the Maxwell Institute's website. How paranoid is that?

I'm not even slightly "afraid." I'm simply declining to assist you in your perpetual quest to malign believing Latter-day Saints.

So... what? Am I supposed to claim that I am "simply declining to assist you in your perpetual" propping up of such ugly LDS practices as prejudice and judgmentalism and pernicious gossip?

I'm a realist. I know what you do.

Which is what? The same things that FARMS Review authors do? The same stuff that your buddy Stan Barker does over at the "Critics Corner" portion of SHIELDS?

[Guest]

One, I would like to hear *his* side of the story.

Good luck. It's been years. I don't even remember his name, and wouldn't recognize him if he walked by me.

I can't imagine that his story would differ in any relevant way from mine, though. We met, we talked, we went home.

Two, this demonstrates, beyond any reasonable doubt, that there is a pernicious level of gossip running through the institutional Church, and that there even exists an officially-sanctioned arm of the Church---the SCMC---to handle all the gossip.

It demonstrates nothing of the kind.

That the Church leadership would feel a need for an SCMC at all is very telling, in my opinion.

That you feel the need to fantasize about this purely imaginary Church intelligence agency that you've invented is really telling.

You didn't speak to the SCMC secretary after you'd met with the fellow? At all?

At all. No. Nyet. Nein. La’. Ouden.

How many times do I need to say this to you? Do you need to read it in Tagalog, perhaps?

I don't think I've ever spoken to the man again. If I ever did, it was years later and on a different subject altogether. But I don't think we've ever spoken since. And I know that we've never met. He simply called me on the phone once. Very, very sinister.

Perhaps you didn't fill out a file, but I'd be surprised if there was no file at all on this person.

Your baseless imaginings may count for evidence in your world, but, in the world of normal reality, they demonstrate nothing (except about you).

Now you know.

No, now I'm asked to exercise faith in those claims. I have no personal reason to believe them.

Have you read the SCMC all the way through? Carefully?

What on earth do you mean by "reading the SCMC"? I thought the SCMC was supposed to be the Mormon equivalent of the Gestapo. Now, though, you seem to be imagining that it's the Mormon equivalent of the IRS Code or the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Further, over on the MADboard as we speak, there is a thread underway regarding "anonymous letters," in which some mean-spirited ward member sent an anonymous letter to the bishop, stating that another member gave crummy talks in sacrament meeting, apparently with the hope that the bishop would stop asking this member to talk in church. This isn't the sort exemplified by the Quinn thing, but it does pretty clearly demonstrate the cruel nature of LDS gossip.

There is nothing uniquely LDS about such regrettable behavior.

Huh? Oh, so other communities also have an SCMC?

You can't even seem to keep your own fantasies straight.

The passage to which I responded above is about an anonymous ward member sending a note to his or her bishop about another ward member. The SCMC doesn't figure at all in the story -- unless, now, you're fantasizing that the SCMC serves as a local internal ward courier service as well as carrying out espionage Church-wide while mysteriously manifesting itself in the form of a book.

Perhaps it is not "uniquely LDS." We know this kind of harmful behavior occurred in, say, Stalinist Russia and Vichy France.

Cranks writing anonymous letters, even critical and malicious ones, exist in every society, poor fellow. At least, in every literate society.

Actually, come to think of it, you and I both know of an obsessive crank who writes anonymously malicious posts on message boards. (Do you think the SCMC puts him up to it?)

Is that what you're getting at, Prof. P.? In what healthy community does this routinely occur, at this level and degree of harm and cruelty?

In every human community with which I'm familiar, and in every human community of which I can conceive.

[_Yoda]

Gossip in the Church can totally ruin a person's life, it can result in the loss of a career, family, community, etc.

Well, to be fair, it can only result in the loss of a career if you're stupid enough to work for the Church to begin with.

;)

Sorry...I didn't mean that to come out as a slam against Church employees and it did. What I'm trying to say is that if you choose to work for the Church, then you know what you're getting yourself into. And if you don't, then shame on you for not knowing. If you are an employee of the Church, then you are obligated to play by their rules. No one is forcing you to make that type of choice career-wise.

Gee, I don't know, Liz. I'm not really convinced that Church employees even *know* all the rules, since the Church is frequently cagey about just what those rules are---hence the semi-secrecy of the Church rulebook, the CHI. For example, a hypothetical. Let's say that a 24-year-old BYU grad takes an office job at the COB. While working there, he learns, for the first time, about Joseph Smith's polyandry and polygamy. Learning about this troubles him deeply, and he starts looking into it further. He speaks with his colleagues about it, and notices that a few of them sort so scowl and crinkle up their noses, and basically advise him to drop the matter entirely. He doesn't, and goes on to pen an article expressing his feelings on this issues which he posts online. One of his more suspicious co-workers reports this to her ecclesiastical leader, who passes the information along to the SCMC, which in turn advises the administration at the COB. The COB, concerned with this worker's preoccupation w/ Joseph Smith's questionable behavior, decides to strike pre-emptively, and fires the worker.

So, my point is: it seems perfectly possible that someone could take a Church job without fully "knowing" the rules, and could pay the price, via gossip, with one's job.

But Scratch, to even work for the Church, you have to have a temple recommend. You have to be a full tithe payer, etc. There are all types of hoops you have to jump through to even be employed by the Church, especially in the Church Office Building. Runtu has had experiences working there. Maybe he can shed some light on this for us.

My point is, if I took a job where my income was that closely aligned with my ecclesiastical standing then I would be smart enough to keep my mouth shut about anything controversial concerning the source that is feeding my family. The exact same thing happens all the time in the corporate arena. (And we have already established that the LDS Church is a large corporation.) If you bad-mouth the company you're working for, and it is reported to HR, what is likely to happen? Will you always get fired? No...but is the possibility on the table? Absolutely!

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

And plus, we all know how big of a role gossip plays in LDS communities.

How much of a role does it play contrasted with other communities? Any idea?

Aha, the "all the other kids are doing it" defense.

LDS like to brag about their high standards, but when it comes right down to it, they'll always fall back on "all the other kids are doing it."

[_Daniel Peterson]

And plus, we all know how big of a role gossip plays in LDS communities.

How much of a role does it play contrasted with other communities? Any idea?

Aha, the "all the other kids are doing it" defense.

LDS like to brag about their high standards, but when it comes right down to it, they'll always fall back on "all the other kids are doing it."

Actually, I suspect that gossip may be at least slightly less of a problem in LDS communities than in other comparably close-knit communities. But I can't demonstrate my intuition to be true. By the same token, I don't think that Scratch can demonstrate his claim -- that gossip is somehow uniquely prevalent and especially virulent within the Mormon community -- to be true.

My point was not to justify gossip by Mormons, but, rather, to question Scratch's unevidenced assertion.

I know of absolutely no data or studies on this question.

That stops me from making sweeping, counterintuitive claims. It doesn't prevent Scratch from making insupportable assertions, though. C'est son métier, as Heinrich Heine said (in quite a different context).

[_Dr. Shades]

Actually, come to think of it, you and I both know of an obsessive crank who writes anonymously malicious posts on message boards. (Do you think the SCMC puts him up to it?)

No, the SCMC doesn't put me up to it.

[_Joey]

.."unevidenced assertion" [?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?]

Wow, for a minute there I thought you were referring to all the work FARMS has done on Book of Mormon "historicity"!!

No, wait, that would be more accurately, as you have stated, an "ignored assertion". At least by the academic and scholarly community outside of Provo!!

[_Mister Scratch]

Two, this demonstrates, beyond any reasonable doubt, that there is a pernicious level of gossip running through the institutional Church, and that there even exists an officially-sanctioned arm of the Church---the SCMC---to handle all the gossip.

It demonstrates nothing of the kind.

Yes, it does. The man's family clearly had to have ratted him out to his bishop, or his SP, who in turn ratted him out to the SCMC, which then contacted you.

That the Church leadership would feel a need for an SCMC at all is very telling, in my opinion.

That you feel the need to fantasize about this purely imaginary Church intelligence agency that you've invented is really telling.

What on earth are you talking about? Are you now claiming that the SCMC does not exist? But you received a call from its secretary! Who is that person, by the way?

You didn't speak to the SCMC secretary after you'd met with the fellow? At all?

At all. No. Nyet. Nein. La’. Ouden.

How many times do I need to say this to you? Do you need to read it in Tagalog, perhaps?

I don't think I've ever spoken to the man again. If I ever did, it was years later and on a different subject altogether. But I don't think we've ever spoken since. And I know that we've never met. He simply called me on the phone once. Very, very sinister.

Actually, this *does* sound at least a little sinister. Are you really telling me that some person, whom you'd never met (or had you met this person before?), and who worked for the SCMC, just randomly called you up one day to say, "Hey, we've got this struggling member. We need you to sit down and have a chit-chat with him. Possibly talk him into shutting up. His family is very upset with him."

That sounds genuinely sinister to me, actually. It demonstrates, as I noted above, that there is a kind of "member monitoring" network that operates in a very shadowy sort of way. Stool-pigeon members can pass along their gossip and feel safe knowing that it will eventually get kicked up to the SCMC, which will "handle" the matter. Quite disturbing, in my opinion.

Perhaps you didn't fill out a file, but I'd be surprised if there was no file at all on this person.

Your baseless imaginings may count for evidence in your world, but, in the world of normal reality, they demonstrate nothing (except about you).

What "baseless" imaginings? Obviously, the SCMC secretary had to have at least *some* details in order to contact you in the first place, right? Were you "briefed" ahead of time as to this struggling member's problems? I assume you were told his name, perhaps his family's name, and were notified about the planned "interrogation" site, yes?

Have you read the SCMC all the way through? Carefully?

What on earth do you mean by "reading the SCMC"? I thought the SCMC was supposed to be the Mormon equivalent of the Gestapo. Now, though, you seem to be imagining that it's the Mormon equivalent of the IRS Code or the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

I'm terribly sorry! I had meant to write, "CHI." I assume that you have thoroughly and carefully read the CHI, so you would know about the so-called "automatic notations" to a member's record.

Further, over on the MADboard as we speak, there is a thread underway regarding "anonymous letters," in which some mean-spirited ward member sent an anonymous letter to the bishop, stating that another member gave crummy talks in sacrament meeting, apparently with the hope that the bishop would stop asking this member to talk in church. This isn't the sort exemplified by the Quinn thing, but it does pretty clearly demonstrate the cruel nature of LDS gossip.

There is nothing uniquely LDS about such regrettable behavior.

Huh? Oh, so other communities also have an SCMC?

You can't even seem to keep your own fantasies straight.

The passage to which I responded above is about an anonymous ward member sending a note to his or her bishop about another ward member. The SCMC doesn't figure at all in the story -- unless, now, you're fantasizing that the SCMC serves as a local internal ward courier service as well as carrying out espionage Church-wide while mysteriously manifesting itself in the form of a book.

Since I am making a point about LDS gossip writ-large, the SCMC most definitely does figure into the story. And, as your own experience as an "agent" of the Committee amply demonstrates, the SCMC *does* function as a "internal ward courier," which makes sure that dissidents are properly "interrogated" and/or punished.

Perhaps it is not "uniquely LDS." We know this kind of harmful behavior occurred in, say, Stalinist Russia and Vichy France.

Cranks writing anonymous letters, even critical and malicious ones, exist in every society, poor fellow. At least, in every literate society.

There is a big difference between an "anonymous crank" and a powerful and secretive organization maintaining an internal espionage service, ala the SCMC.

Actually, come to think of it, you and I both know of an obsessive crank who writes anonymously malicious posts on message boards. (Do you think the SCMC puts him up to it?)

Who? Pahoran? Smac? "Freethinker"? Well, I wouldn't be surprised....

Is that what you're getting at, Prof. P.? In what healthy community does this routinely occur, at this level and degree of harm and cruelty?

In every human community with which I'm familiar, and in every human community of which I can conceive.

Every human community has the equivalent of the SCMC? Keep dreaming, Prof. P. Keep dreaming.

[_Mister Scratch]

But Scratch, to even work for the Church, you have to have a temple recommend. You have to be a full tithe payer, etc. There are all types of hoops you have to jump through to even be employed by the Church, especially in the Church Office Building. Runtu has had experiences working there. Maybe he can shed some light on this for us.

I certainly hope he does. I recall that he was threatened by an old colleague from the COB, who told him that they had been monitoring his postings on RfM, and would consider legal action if he didn't "cease and desist."

My point is, if I took a job where my income was that closely aligned with my ecclesiastical standing then I would be smart enough to keep my mouth shut about anything controversial concerning the source that is feeding my family. The exact same thing happens all the time in the corporate arena. (And we have already established that the LDS Church is a large corporation.) If you bad-mouth the company you're working for, and it is reported to HR, what is likely to happen? Will you always get fired? No...but is the possibility on the table? Absolutely!

I see what you're saying, Liz, but I think this is somewhat different. After all the LDS Church is a Church too.... And, I just don't think you stand the same chance of getting canned due to gossip in other arenas. (And this is just employment; we haven't even really begun to discuss the ways that LDS gossip can impact one's personal and family life.)