Will September Dawn drive chapel Mormons to research more?

[_ktallamigo]

I think that Church gossip is also "called out" because it is institutionalized, and used to punish people. These "whisperings"---loaded with scorn and petty judgmentalism---wind up going into people's permanent Church files, or end up at the SCMC.

How does Scratch Senior know about these "permanent files" or about what sort of data is possessed by the ominous, Gestapo-like SCMC that so troubles his fevered imagination?

I don't believe a word of what he claims above. I have absolutely no reason to regard it as true, and, as a currently-serving bishop with access to these supposed "files," considerable reason to regard it as false.

The gossip within the Church is especially pernicious, imho. It just isn't equivalent to, say, gossip at a high school, where yeah, someone may get shamed out and/or depressed. Gossip in the Church can totally ruin a person's life, it can result in the loss of career, family, community, etc.

I'd ask for examples of this, but I suspect that the example that Scratch Senior would give would be the mythical Church-orchestrated smear-campaign against Mike Quinn in which I was supposedly a leading player but which, so far as I can tell, never existed.

This is pure paranoid fantasy.

When Scratch doesn't have his binoculars trained on my house and isn't going through my garbage cans looking for possibly embarrassing dirt, he's hunkered down hiding from the black helicopters overhead.

I had an aunt that was kind of crazy. She wasn't a dissident or anything, but she had these delusions that she should have been the General Relief Society President. She wrote lots of letters to the first presidency and the general authorities stating that she should have been the president. The letters were really scary.

We know for a fact that she had a file.

ktall

[_beastie]

Wait a minute - Daniel, are you claiming the church does not keep files on its members?

Unless things have changed, we were certainly given the impression that the church keeps files on all its members. Mission Presidents, for example, filled out forms about the missionary's service that went to SLC to be kept in their file.

[_Daniel Peterson]

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.

Somebody in the man's family contacted the secretary of the SCMC, who was a friend, and asked if he knew any way to help. He called me. (I've explained this to you before, I believe.)

That doesn't strike me as "pernicious gossip" or "ratting somebody out."

I guess, because you're so ceaselessly malicious, you tend to read malevolence into everybody else, too.

Are you now claiming that the SCMC does not exist?

I'm claiming that the supersecret spy organization that haunts your nightmares doesn't exist.

But you received a call from its secretary! Who is that person, by the way?

Dr. Evil.

Actually, this *does* sound at least a little sinister.

Natch! Of course it does! You're you.

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."

I'm saying that a person whom I had never met but who was probably familiar with me by reputation called me -- not "randomly," but by deliberately looking my telephone number up and dialing it -- and asked me whether I would be willing to try to help a struggling member whose family was very concerned about him. I was never asked to attempt to "shut him up." And I was told that his family was worried about him, not that they were "upset with him."

Do you work at generating these paranoid fantasies, or do they come naturally?

That sounds genuinely sinister to me, actually.

Careful. You seem to be working yourself into something. Sit down and count to ten. Put on your tin-foil helmet.

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.

It demonstrates nothing of the kind.

Quite disturbing, in my opinion.

You're disturbed.

What "baseless" imaginings?

See virtually any line of any of your posts on this thread.

Obviously, the SCMC secretary had to have at least *some* details in order to contact you in the first place, right?

I would assume that whoever called him told him the member's name and his stake or ward, and maybe mentioned that he had questions about the Church. I don't see any need to postulate anything much more than that.

Were you "briefed" ahead of time as to this struggling member's problems?

No.

(And, please, let the record show that I answered "No." I have little doubt that Scratch will ask me the same question again in some breathless future iteration of this saga.)

I assume you were told his name, perhaps his family's name, and were notified about the planned "interrogation" site, yes?

I can't recall whether I knew his name before I met him or not. I was, however, given an address where we could meet. ("'Interrogation' site." Classic Scratch.)

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.

Yes, I have. And I've seen many member records. The annotations don't even remotely match what you say.

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.

There was no "interrogation" -- what a card you are! -- and there was no punishment.

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

The biggest difference is that the former exists, while the latter doesn't.

[_Nephi]

Hey Scottie. Hope you remember me from MAD. Personally, I did a ton of research on the MMM when converting to the church, as it stained the idea of God's Church to me when first joining. From this research, along with the PBS special about Mormonism recently, I still conclude that there is no real proof that the BY ordered this to happen. It is sad, but some will see this movie and think it is 100% accurate, like people did for Fahrenheit 911 or Bowling for Columbine.

Hopefully for those in the Church, they will find this a good opportunity to research themselves and see what they can find. It if just causes them to question, then the movie will (in my mind) backfire, because questioning leads to stronger understanding of God and Spirituality, whether or not they stay in the church, just so long as they keep questioning.

Just my two bits.

[_Scottie]

Hey Scottie. Hope you remember me from MAD. Personally, I did a ton of research on the MMM when converting to the church, as it stained the idea of God's Church to me when first joining. From this research, along with the PBS special about Mormonism recently, I still conclude that there is no real proof that the BY ordered this to happen. It is sad, but some will see this movie and think it is 100% accurate, like people did for Fahrenheit 911 or Bowling for Columbine.

Hopefully for those in the Church, they will find this a good opportunity to research themselves and see what they can find. It if just causes them to question, then the movie will (in my mind) backfire, because questioning leads to stronger understanding of God and Spirituality, whether or not they stay in the church, just so long as they keep questioning.

Just my two bits.

Of course I remember you. You got ruthlessly attacked in the thread where you questioned if you got a personal confirmation that it was ok to drink coffee, that you should be able to drink coffee.

I completely agree. In the trailer is says "Who ordered the massacre and why has been hidden in a cloak of secrecy and conspiracy and the reputation of one of this nations mightiest religious figures has been preserved and protected........until now."

In other words, "We REALLY know the truth about what happened." Which is utter bilge.

My honest guess is that people are going to google MMM and a whole bunch of anti sites are going to pop up, so they will discredit it as being "taken out of context" and "anti-mormon lies". End of searching. Testimony in firm check.

And, unfortunately, this movie looks to have taken quite a few liberties. This will just be more ammo for the TBM's to say, "Don't trust anti's. They distort everything! Just look at how badly they distorted this movie!"

[_Mister Scratch]

Prof. P., please take a look at this series of quotes:

Somebody in the man's family contacted the secretary of the SCMC, who was a friend, and asked if he knew any way to help. He called me. (I've explained this to you before, I believe.)

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."

I'm saying that a person whom I had never met but who was probably familiar with me by reputation called me -- not "randomly," but by deliberately looking my telephone number up and dialing it -- and asked me whether I would be willing to try to help a struggling member whose family was very concerned about him. I was never asked to attempt to "shut him up." And I was told that his family was worried about him, not that they were "upset with him."

(bold emphasis added)

Now, I'm a little confused here, and wondering if you could clear something up for me. In your first quote, you say that you were contacted by "a friend," and in your second quote, you say that the person who contacted you was someone "whom [you] had never met." So... which was it? Did you know the person who called you? Or was it a complete stranger?

Are you now claiming that the SCMC does not exist?

I'm claiming that the supersecret spy organization that haunts your nightmares doesn't exist.

This is something else that doesn't make sense. On the one hand, you have tried to pooh-pooh away the ugly implications of the SCMC by saying it is a "very small clipping service," but on the other hand, you don't really seem to know anything about it at all. (I.e., you are unfamiliar with the variety of sources which document the extent of its surveillance activities.) What is the real truth regarding your knowledge, Prof. P.? Have you actually been in the offices of the SCMC? Have you been through the files?

Or, is the reality that you don't really know anything, and that the uninformed should rely on those who have actually done their research, such as Mike Quinn?

Obviously, the SCMC secretary had to have at least *some* details in order to contact you in the first place, right?

I would assume that whoever called him told him the member's name and his stake or ward, and maybe mentioned that he had questions about the Church. I don't see any need to postulate anything much more than that.

Well, there *is* the somewhat odd question of just why they went to you specifically. You noted in your original posting on this topic that you had to drive an hour out of your way just to conduct this "extraordinary rendition." Why didn't the SCMC just get somebody local?

Were you "briefed" ahead of time as to this struggling member's problems?

No.

(And, please, let the record show that I answered "No." I have little doubt that Scratch will ask me the same question again in some breathless future iteration of this saga.)

No, I believe you, but am concerned that you are playing semantic games with the word "briefed." By "briefed" I mean "given a run-down on basic facts on the man." Were you told his name? His ward? Anything about his problems? Or were you just told, "We've got a family worried about this member. Will you talk to him?", and that's it?

I assume you were told his name, perhaps his family's name, and were notified about the planned "interrogation" site, yes?

I can't recall whether I knew his name before I met him or not. I was, however, given an address where we could meet.

Are you now saying that you "can't recall" (and who are you by the way, Ronald Reagan?) the details of the "briefing" or "set-up" or whatever you'd like to call it?

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.

There was no "interrogation" -- what a card you are! -- and there was no punishment.

I'm sure that's debatable. Did the man you spoke with go quietly back to Church? Was he shunned by his family? Did he receive a Church Court of Love?

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

The biggest difference is that the former exists, while the latter doesn't.

Here again we return to a basic question, which is: Do you really and truly know what the SCMC is? Or are you just buying into the Church spin as to what it is? I.e., do you know, with 100% certainty, that the SMCM is only "a very small clipping service", despite all the evidence culled by Mike Quinn and others? Or do you not really know for sure, and were only saying that to allay the fears of TBMs?

[_Daniel Peterson]

It goes on. Forever.

I'm a little confused here

I realize that.

In your first quote, you say that you were contacted by "a friend," and in your second quote, you say that the person who contacted you was someone "whom [you] had never met." So... which was it? Did you know the person who called you? Or was it a complete stranger?

He was evidently a friend of the family member who called him. He was a complete stranger to me. I did not know him.

Have you actually been in the offices of the SCMC?

I doubt that they even have a special, dedicated office, let alone "offices" in the plural.

Have you been through the files?

No more than you have. No more than Mike Quinn has.

I don't expect that there's very much there.

Or, is the reality that you don't really know anything, and that the uninformed should rely on those who have actually done their research, such as Mike Quinn?

I don't trust Mike Quinn on this matter, and, accordingly, I don't suggest that people rely either on him or on secondary and derivative articles based on his opinions.

Well, there *is* the somewhat odd question of just why they went to you specifically. You noted in your original posting on this topic that you had to drive an hour out of your way just to conduct this "extraordinary rendition." Why didn't the SCMC just get somebody local?

Probably because I'm known for responding to critics.

No, I believe you, but am concerned that you are playing semantic games with the word "briefed."

Paranoia strikes deep.
Into your life it will creep.
It starts when you're always afraid.
Step outta line, the men come, and take you away.

By "briefed" I mean "given a run-down on basic facts on the man." Were you told his name?

Possibly. I don't recall.

His ward?

Probably not.

Anything about his problems?

Minimal, at most. I don't recall being told much, if anything. I doubt that the man on the line (it was Dick Cheney, in case you're curious) knew very much himself.

Or were you just told, "We've got a family worried about this member. Will you talk to him?", and that's it?

That was, if I recall correctly, pretty much it.

Are you now saying that you "can't recall" (and who are you by the way, Ronald Reagan?) the details of the "briefing" or "set-up" or whatever you'd like to call it?

It was a short phone call roughly fifteen years ago.

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.

There was no "interrogation" -- what a card you are! -- and there was no punishment.

I'm sure that's debatable.

Perhaps on the basis of your speculations, but not on the basis of what I know.

Did the man you spoke with go quietly back to Church?

I don't know. I had no further contact with him. Nor do you know.

Was he shunned by his family?

I have no reason to believe that he was. Nor do you.

Did he receive a Church Court of Love?

I have no idea whether he stayed in the Church or not. Nor do you.

Do you really and truly know what the SCMC is? Or are you just buying into the Church spin as to what it is?

I've had one more direct personal experience with it than you have.

I.e., do you know, with 100% certainty, that the SMCM is only "a very small clipping service", despite all the evidence culled by Mike Quinn and others? Or do you not really know for sure, and were only saying that to allay the fears of TBMs?

I have no reason to buy into Mike Quinn's spin on the matter.

[_Jersey Girl]

Forgive me for this brief interruption...

Paranoia strikes deep.
Into your life it will creep.
It starts when you're always afraid.
Step outta line, the men come, and take you away.

For What it's Worth - Buffalo Springfield

Okay, I feel better now. Carry on.

[_Some Schmo]

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

ROTFLMAO... Oh man, that's great.

I had to stop reading and comment on this right away. This is the perfect response for any Mormon who starts yapping about how they gained their testimony. Gotta write this one down...

LOL... too awesome. Thanks, Dannyboy.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You'll be misusing it, of course.

But that won't slow you down, I'm sure.

However, if you ever want to know something of how I regard the matter or to be intellectually serious, you might start with the three Oxford University Press volumes published by Alvin Plantinga on the subject of epistemological warrant.