The SCMC: New information Comes to Light

[_Runtu]

Should I be worried?

No. Not at all.

But could you please leave your blinds up this evening? And -- the weather's getting a bit cooler in the evening now, you know -- why don't you leave your windows open? That'll lower your air conditioning bill. And please speak louder.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

That's one thing I love about living here: it cools off in the evening. Last Friday, my dad and I arrived in Houston late at night, and when I stepped outside, it was near 90, and my glasses fogged over with the humidity. The next morning we got up early, and it was still in the upper 80s. Here it cools off, and you can open the windows and enjoy the breeze.

It's odd but sort of comforting to be back here. We live close enough to campus to hear the bell tower chiming off the hours with "Come, Come, Ye Saints." And my kids are happy to live close to the creamery.

Now if I could get rid of those pesky spies from the SCMC.

[_Mister Scratch]

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

Beastie,

Thank you very much for posting these! This is utterly fascinating. Let's take a closer look:

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.

(emphasis added)

Huh. That's interesting. I wonder why the Good Professor would experience this sort of frisson if the SCMC were as benign as he claims?

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.

(bold added)

See? Why the need for this secrecy? Posters like Nehor get all irritated why I point out that the SCMC is a secretive organization, but... I'm just pointing out the truth.

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.

(emphasis added)

Now this TOTALLY contradicts what DCP has been saying. I have long suspected that this man was hauled into this "interrogation" in such a manner that was probably frightening and/or "unpleasant" for him. If it was "unpleasant" for the guys holding all the cards (and I say this because of DCP's above "sharp thrill, plus, see below...), then how do you think it felt for the guy being who was "pinned against the wall"?

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.

Here again we see DCP's private glee at having this secret power.

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.

I haven't seen enough evidence to persuade me that that's the case. But, let's press on:

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.

(emphasis added)

Did anyone notice this? Why the mysteriousness and secrecy? If the Church wanted the SCMC to be less "Orwellian," shouldn't they be a bit more transparent in their methods?

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.)

So, actually, DCP doesn't know the circumstances surrounding the man's arrival at the meeting. Did his wife threaten divorce? Did his bishop or his SP tell the wife about this meeting? DCP noted that the man was very angry and upset... Was this for purely doctrinal reasons? Or was there more to it?

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.

So... what happened? Did he leave the Church? Or was he, like Uncle Dale's friend, essentially terrified into silence?

[_Mister Scratch]

Do non-member critics get files? Anyone have an idea?

No, nobody has any idea.

But let me say this: Among the General Authorities, I've never sensed that anybody pays much specific attention to individual critics or "ministries."

Who cares what you "sense"? The evidence demonstrates that, for one, Ezra Taft Benson had it in for "pinkos and commies," and that he helped establish the BYU spyring to ferret out "Leftist" profs and homosexuals. We also have multiple accounts informing us that BKP had a personal grudge against Mike Quinn and other critics.

They're aware that there are critics, but that's about as far as it goes; they're not following it closely.

Some of them are obviously following things closely enough to order up spy rings and ecclesiastical "hit squads".

And I've never met anybody working in the Church Office Building who seemed to be paying much attention, either. A few of them have occasionally asked me questions about current critics -- like once every year or two -- and the nature of the questions has made it clear to me that I know a lot more than they do.

Oh? Please, do share....

[_truth dancer]

Hey Bond...

Do you think the next generation of LDS leaders (who actually know about the Internet and the reach it has) will be more concerned with criticism of Mormonism?

I guess that even leads me to wonder if the LDS leaders even know about the various criticisms of Mormonism....I wish Gordon B. would grant me that Veritaserum interview.....sounds like a parody.

Think of it like this....

The President, CEO and Board of Directors of a billion dollar company do not care much about pesky irritating folks who complain about their company, or who disclose the company is mistreating employees, or who discuss the problems with the firm, etc. etc. etc.

They have a person in charge of customer relations, who has a few folks who work through whatever issues may come up. They might have an employee or two come up with some ideas how to manage the criticism. that's about it.

I highly doubt the leaders of a company concern themselves for two minutes about those who do not love their company. Unless of course there is some big news story, in which case the PR firm gets moving.

A while back on FAIR, there was a link to an article (which disappeared If I recall correctly), stating that the church did indeed monitor quite a few sites, and we know of specific threats to some folks to take down their sites, but my guess is this whole issue is pretty far down the list of concerns for the leaders of the church. Like any good CEO, they pay their employees to handle it.

~dancer~

[_Daniel Peterson]

This is utterly fascinating.

I knew you'd like it. Some people have peculiar hobby interests.

I wonder why the Good Professor would experience this sort of frisson if the SCMC were as benign as he claims?

Because, as I explained in the quotation and as I've explained personally to you, the SCMC was then very much in the news, and quite unfavorably, and because I was unaccustomed to receiving calls from anybody connected with it. (As in, I never had -- and never have since.)

See? Why the need for this secrecy?

Because the SCMC is eeeeeevil?

I've explained already that my guess is that this brother -- his name was Hugo Drax, I believe -- thought that mention of the then-controversial SCMC would complicate the simple conversation that we were trying to have. The newspapers were full of the very same paranoid fantasies that now seem to survive only in certain internet backwaters.

I don't see this as even slightly sinister. It's like someone showing up to try to help a person, having been asked by the person's sister to pay a visit but having also been asked not to mention that she, concerned about her brother but perhaps somewhat alienated from him for some reason, asked him to come by.

the SCMC is a secretive organization

I doubt that it's even an organization, really. SCMC stands for the "Strengthening Church Members Committee," not the "Strengthening Church Members Cabal."

That's why I find it amusing that you seem to think that the SCMC holds chapter meetings in places like the Brigham City Tabernacle. I wonder if they have a team song.

Now this TOTALLY contradicts what DCP has been saying.

No it doesn't.

The conversation was civil, but it was tough, and I can't say that I enjoyed it. He was quite negative.

I have long suspected that this man was hauled into this "interrogation" in such a manner that was probably frightening and/or "unpleasant" for him.

The fact that you keep referring to this as an "interrogation," despite my repeated contradictions of that term, demonstrates your fundamental dishonesty and unfairness.

He was not "hauled in." He was asked if he would be willing to speak to us. He evidently said yes, because he was there when we showed up. Nobody forced him to come. The Church has no power to compel. Its strongest sanction is the ability to excommunicate, but this man no longer valued his membership. (That was why his family was so upset.) So what power did we or the Church have to coerce him to do anything?

I can't imagine that he was frightened. He gave no indication of being scared in any way. He was aggressive and rather belligerent, as I recall. My colleague and I listened for much of the evening, trying, as gently and as reasonably as we could, to point out other ways of viewing the various issues he raised.

You insist on portraying this as some sort of KGB-style interrogation session, but that is brazenly unjust. A colleague and I drove from Utah Valley up to the Salt Lake Valley and back (that's ninety minutes to two hours), and spent three hours or so, away from our families, with no pay and without even having our gasoline reimbursed, attempting to reason with a member in a perfectly voluntary private meeting, and you're attempting to portray us as if we were agents of the Gestapo. That's outrageous, and, if you're anything like a normal human being, you know it is.

If it was "unpleasant" for the guys holding all the cards (and I say this because of DCP's above "sharp thrill, plus, see below...), then how do you think it felt for the guy being who was "pinned against the wall"?

We held no "cards," and he wasn't being "pinned against the wall." We had a conversation. He raised issues that bothered him -- rather aggressively and angrily, as I recall -- and we tried to allay his concerns.

Here again we see DCP's private glee at having this secret power.

I had no "power," and I felt no "glee."

I simply found it ironic that, as he was railing against the cold and cruel SCMC that cares for nobody, we were there, on behalf of the SCMC, doing our best to help him and his family out of nothing but care and concern. Now, you may, of course, believe that our care and concern were misplaced, but I can assure you that they were entirely sincere.

Do you always presume the worst of everybody? Or do you merely reserve that for believing members of the Church?

I haven't seen enough evidence to persuade me that that's the case.

And, you being you, you never will.

I must simply be insane to attempt to reason with you. You are perhaps the most implacably malicious person I've ever encountered.

So, actually, DCP doesn't know the circumstances surrounding the man's arrival at the meeting.

It's true. Our surveillance devices had all failed. I missed at least three minutes of his conversations during the three months leading up to the meeting, so I can't be sure.

Did his wife threaten divorce?

I was told that she was thinking about it, which was one of the reasons for concern. Whether she "threatened" him with it, I don't know, and neither do you.

Did his bishop or his SP tell the wife about this meeting?

She came with him. But she said little if anything during the meeting.

DCP noted that the man was very angry and upset... Was this for purely doctrinal reasons? Or was there more to it?

He was bitterly angry because he felt that the Church had betrayed him, that it was not what he had thought it was, and that he had given a great deal of his life to a fraud.

I'm sure that nobody here will find such a reaction even remotely plausible, but that's my story, and I'm sticking with it.

So... what happened? Did he leave the Church? Or was he, like Uncle Dale's friend, essentially terrified into silence?

I don't know. As I've said several times, I never heard anything more about him, never heard anything more from my contact at the SCMC (whose name, if I recall correctly, was Cardinal Richelieu), never filed a report on him, never received a report on him, never spoke with his stake president or bishop, never trailed him in an unmarked car, never eavesdropped on his telephone conversations, never hid in his bushes, never interrogated his wife and children, never went through his trash cans, never intercepted his mail, and never hid under his bed.

Who cares what you "sense"?

You plainly don't. No matter what I say about private conversations in which I took part and you didn't, for example, you believe you know better.

Mondo bizarro.

The evidence demonstrates that, for one, Ezra Taft Benson had it in for "pinkos and commies," and that he helped establish the BYU spyring to ferret out "Leftist" profs and homosexuals.

There's much about that that you don't know. Several of my close friends were targets of that rather embarrassing episode. (One of them went on to become a General Authority.) I've spoken with them at length about the story. They all deny that Ezra Taft Benson had anything to do with the "spy ring," which they blame on Ernest L. Wilkinson. They believe that Mike Quinn and others have grossly misrepresented what went on. One of them intends, sometime in the not too distant future, to donate his extensive papers and correspondence to BYU Special Collections; he believes they demonstrate beyond question that, among other things, President Benson was not involved.

We also have multiple accounts informing us that BKP had a personal grudge against Mike Quinn and other critics.

Even if that were true, it would confirm almost nothing of your fantasies about a homegrown Utah Central Intelligence Agency.

Some of them are obviously following things closely enough to order up spy rings and ecclesiastical "hit squads".

Except that there is no evidence for the existence of "ecclesiastical 'hit squads'" and there is reason to believe that no General Authority had any connection with the BYU "spy ring."

Incidentally, Ernest L. Wilkinson resigned from the BYU presidency in 1971. That's nearly four decades ago.

Oh? Please, do share....

Here are the names of the people at the Church Office Building with whom I've spoken regarding critics:

Brother Lex Luthor, Mr. Osato, Brother Felix Sanchez, Elder Heber Scaramanga, Elder Bruce Wayne, Elder Carlos the Jackal, and Elder Auric Goldfinger.

[_The Nehor]

Collect it under their obligations in the D&C with their secret committee and that's about it.

Actually, the Church has done very, very little -- and nothing systematic -- to fulfill that obligation. A few of us are trying to remedy the situation. Not, despite what a certain person will immediately presume, by surveillance of individuals, etc., but simply by gathering up published materials and archiving them for purposes of study and research.

That was sarcasm :)

[_truth dancer]

Hi Dan...

She came with him. But she said little if anything during the meeting.

Do you suspect or have reason to believe the wife knew the SCMC (or a member of this committe, or a representative of this committee, or someone involved with the committee), had something to do with the arranging of the meeting?

~dancer~

[_Daniel Peterson]

I have no idea, one way or the other.

[_Mister Scratch]

I wonder why the Good Professor would experience this sort of frisson if the SCMC were as benign as he claims?

Because, as I explained in the quotation and as I've explained personally to you, the SCMC was then very much in the news, and quite unfavorably, and because I was unaccustomed to receiving calls from anybody connected with it. (As in, I never had -- and never have since.)

Let me see if I have this straight... You were excited to be going on this "mission" because the SCMC had been getting bad press?

See? Why the need for this secrecy?

I don't see this as even slightly sinister. It's like someone showing up to try to help a person, having been asked by the person's sister to pay a visit but having also been asked not to mention that she, concerned about her brother but perhaps somewhat alienated from him for some reason, asked him to come by.

It is not even remotely like that! Unless, of course, you want to allow that the sister is also recruiting the help of secretive "big guns" who also happen to tape record the conversations of other dissidents, and to maintain "dossiers" on them.

Now this TOTALLY contradicts what DCP has been saying.

No it doesn't.

The conversation was civil, but it was tough, and I can't say that I enjoyed it. He was quite negative.

Interesting change of tune, Prof. P. This was most certainly not what you were saying before. (It's also funny how you are blaming all of the negativity on him.)

I have long suspected that this man was hauled into this "interrogation" in such a manner that was probably frightening and/or "unpleasant" for him.

The fact that you keep referring to this as an "interrogation," despite my repeated contradictions of that term, demonstrates your fundamental dishonesty and unfairness.

What would you like me to call it? A "conversation"? I don't think that's really accurate, since it seems that he was pressured into talking with you. A "talk"? A "tete-a-tete"? A "confrontation"? What?

He was not "hauled in." He was asked if he would be willing to speak to us.

How do you know this? Your claiming that he was "asked" is no more accurate---and, I would argue, even less accurate, given the evidence---then my suggestion that he was "pressured." Given the literally hundreds of accounts one can read about spouses pressuring their questioning SOs into precisely these kinds of confrontations, I'm inclined to view the latter possibility as being more likely.

He evidently said yes, because he was there when we showed up. Nobody forced him to come. The Church has no power to compel. Its strongest sanction is the ability to excommunicate, but this man no longer valued his membership. (That was why his family was so upset.) So what power did we or the Church have to coerce him to do anything?

The power to dissolve his marriage.

I can't imagine that he was frightened. He gave no indication of being scared in any way. He was aggressive and rather belligerent, as I recall.

People who are frightened often become defensive and act in a belligerent manner.

My colleague and I listened for much of the evening, trying, as gently and as reasonably as we could, to point out other ways of viewing the various issues he raised.

You insist on portraying this as some sort of KGB-style interrogation session, but that is brazenly unjust. A colleague and I drove from Utah Valley up to the Salt Lake Valley and back (that's ninety minutes to two hours), and spent three hours or so, away from our families, with no pay and without even having our gasoline reimbursed, attempting to reason with a member in a perfectly voluntary private meeting, and you're attempting to portray us as if we were agents of the Gestapo. That's outrageous, and, if you're anything like a normal human being, you know it is.

You have been saying, ever since your arrival on this board, that I am beyond low, and am barely human at all. So how should I respond to this last bit? Hmmm..... I agree with you that it is not really fair to portray you and your colleague (Bill Hamblin? Lou Midgley?) as "Gestapo" agents. However, I do still believe that the situation itself was "Gestapo"-like, and that it smacks of ugly secrecy and subterfuge. Of conspiracy to do harm.

If it was "unpleasant" for the guys holding all the cards (and I say this because of DCP's above "sharp thrill", plus, see below...), then how do you think it felt for the guy being who was "pinned against the wall"?

We held no "cards," and he wasn't being "pinned against the wall." We had a conversation. He raised issues that bothered him -- rather aggressively and angrily, as I recall -- and we tried to allay his concerns.

You did hold cards---i.e., that you were working on behalf of the SCMC. The man, as you pointed out, in your own words, was concerned and worried about the SCMC, and yet there you were, lapping up all the delicious, secret irony that, in fact, you were working for it. You are like the undercover cop who chuckles to himself inwardly about having duped some criminal. That you viewed this struggling member in this fashion is quite telling, in my opinion.

Here again we see DCP's private glee at having this secret power.

I had no "power," and I felt no "glee."

Okay. A "sharp thrill," then.

I simply found it ironic that, as he was railing against the cold and cruel SCMC that cares for nobody, we were there, on behalf of the SCMC, doing our best to help him and his family out of nothing but care and concern. Now, you may, of course, believe that our care and concern were misplaced, but I can assure you that they were entirely sincere.

This seems undercut by your "sharp thrill."

So, actually, DCP doesn't know the circumstances surrounding the man's arrival at the meeting.

It's true. Our surveillance devices had all failed. I missed at least three minutes of his conversations during the three months leading up to the meeting, so I can't be sure.

Joke about it all you want. The truth is that your insistence that he was in no way coerced into the meeting is total bunk.

Did his bishop or his SP tell the wife about this meeting?

She came with him. But she said little if anything during the meeting.

Ah, okay. This is yet another strike against you claim that he was there "totally on his own."

DCP noted that the man was very angry and upset... Was this for purely doctrinal reasons? Or was there more to it?

He was bitterly angry because he felt that the Church had betrayed him, that it was not what he had thought it was, and that he had given a great deal of his life to a fraud.

I'm sure that nobody here will find such a reaction even remotely plausible, but that's my story, and I'm sticking with it.

No, I agree you with you.

The evidence demonstrates that, for one, Ezra Taft Benson had it in for "pinkos and commies," and that he helped establish the BYU spyring to ferret out "Leftist" profs and homosexuals.

There's much about that that you don't know. Several of my close friends were targets of that rather embarrassing episode. (One of them went on to become a General Authority.) I've spoken with them at length about the story. They all deny that Ezra Taft Benson had anything to do with the "spy ring," which they blame on Ernest L. Wilkinson. They believe that Mike Quinn and others have grossly misrepresented what went on. One of them intends, sometime in the not too distant future, to donate his extensive papers and correspondence to BYU Special Collections; he believes they demonstrate beyond question that, among other things, President Benson was not involved.

Right. The usual plausible deniability. In any case, my point was that this sort of secrecy, this sort of monitoring of members, does in fact exist in the Church. It has existed since the time of Joseph Smith, and it exists today.

We also have multiple accounts informing us that BKP had a personal grudge against Mike Quinn and other critics.

Even if that were true, it would confirm almost nothing of your fantasies about a homegrown Utah Central Intelligence Agency.

A red herring. My comment was in response to your denial that Church leaders ever "have it in for anyone."

Some of them are obviously following things closely enough to order up spy rings and ecclesiastical "hit squads".

Except that there is no evidence for the existence of "ecclesiastical 'hit squads'" and there is reason to believe that no General Authority had any connection with the BYU "spy ring."

Incidentally, Ernest L. Wilkinson resigned from the BYU presidency in 1971. That's nearly four decades ago.

A) What do you call the Danites, if not an "ecclesiastical hit squad"? What about the Be'hoys? The BYU spy rings? B) I've yet to see the "reason to believe" that no GA was associated w/ the spy ring. Besides, we have seen Church leaders endeavor to cover up embarrassing things in the past---e.g., GBH's handling of the Mark Hoffman affair; Dallin Oaks' attempt to influence justice by telling prosecutors to "take it easy" on the Brethren; the handling of Paul Dunn's fabrications. The list goes on. I find it very hard to believe that Ernest Wilkinson would install these spy rings, totally of his own accord, without at least *some* kind of acknowledgment from the Brethren.

[_Bond...James Bond]

I got a couple questions....if the SCMC called in some pundits to talk to this guy....does this suggest this guy had a file?

Was a recording made of this meeting?