Will September Dawn drive chapel Mormons to research more?

[_Some Schmo]

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.

LOL

Awww, it's ok, Dannyboy. Yeah, it sucks when your words come back to bite you, but you'll live.

You can at least take solace in the fact that you gave me a great laugh today. Very generous of you.

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

LOL

Awww, it's ok, Dannyboy. Yeah, it sucks when your words come back to bite you, but you'll live.

You can at least take solice in the fact that you gave me a great laugh today. Very generous of you.

He probably should have just kept his mouth shut---that way he could have continued to perpetuate the white lie that he "knows" that the SCMC is "little more than a very small clipping service." Instead, he's slipped up pretty badly on this one. CF. my other thread.

[_truth dancer]

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.)

Maybe I am mistaken but If I recall correctly, on ZLMB you stated that the man's wife went to her Bishop with the information, who went to the SCMC....

I recall this because I remember thinking how (in my opinion), horrible it would be for a wife to do such a thing behind her husband's back.

Am I remembering incorrectly?

~dancer~

Edit... now that I am thinking about this topic, I seem also to recall that there was a request that you NOT disclose the SCMC's involvement?

[_Mister Scratch]

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.)

Maybe I am mistaken but If I recall correctly, on ZLMB you stated that the man's wife went to her Bishop with the information, who went to the SCMC....

I recall this because I remember thinking how (in my opinion), horrible it would be for a wife to do such a thing behind her husband's back.

Am I remembering incorrectly?

~dancer~

Edit... now that I am thinking about this topic, I seem also to recall that there was a request that you NOT disclose the SCMC's involvement?

Gee whiz, and deeper into the vortex we go! DCP actually admitted that he'd been told not to disclose his involvement?!? My goodness! What kind of an innocent, non-sinister, "very small clipping service" feels the need to make this request, pray tell?

for what it's worth, TD, in my other thread, Uncle Dale reported that there was another man who was very alarmed about the SCMC. He discussed his feelings with his wife, who proceeded to rat on him to the bishop, who then took the complaints to the SCMC. After that, the man said nary a word---effectively "frightened" into silence.

[_Daniel Peterson]

he's slipped up pretty badly on this one.

Is your computer pre-programmed to write this sort of nonsense about me, Scratch? It's almost Homeric (e.g., "the wine-dark sea," "Odysseus of the many counsels," "cow-eyed Athena"). In your writing, certain epithets and verdicts are always attached to my name.

I suppose it saves time, so that you don't need to put down your binoculars or interrupt your surveillance of my house.

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.)

Maybe I am mistaken but If I recall correctly, on ZLMB you stated that the man's wife went to her Bishop with the information, who went to the SCMC....


I recall this because I remember thinking how (in my opinion), horrible it would be for a wife to do such a thing behind her husband's back.

Am I remembering incorrectly?

Scratch will inform us shortly, I'm sure.

But, as I recall (from the distance of roughly a decade and a half, or perhaps even a little more), it was a family member who called the fellow who happened to be associated with the SCMC. (His principal assignment with the Church, by the way, was in another, quite distinct, capacity.) In either case, the story provides no support for Scratch's paranoid fantasies about a Utah-based ecclesiastical Gestapo.

now that I am thinking about this topic, I seem also to recall that there was a request that you NOT disclose the SCMC's involvement?

The man who called me suggested that it would be preferable that I not mention who had asked me to visit with the wavering member, fearing that the misleading publicity that was then circulating in the media about the SCMC -- the very stuff that Scratch now regards as The Absolute Truth from which I may not, with integrity, dissent -- might interfere with our ability to have a cordial, substantive, and respectful conversation.

When, years later, wild allegations were being made about the supposed malignancy of an ominous spy agency lodged in Salt Lake City, I judged that those considerations no longer applied and thought it would be useful to tell the brief tale of an altogether harmless and well-intended minor undertaking of the SCMC in which I had played a role.

Gee whiz, and deeper into the vortex we go!

Indeed.

[_Bond...James Bond]

In either case, the story provides no support for Scratch's paranoid fantasies about a Utah-based ecclesiastical Gestapo.

As long as there still is support for my fantasy of a secret blonde female synchrenized swimming team that's 500 strong in Utah.

[_Gazelam]

As long as there still is support for my fantasy of a secret blonde female synchrenized swimming team that's 500 strong in Utah.

Actually that's kept near the Temple in Germany.

[_beastie]

I believe this is the thread you're remembering, TD:

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

Daniel Peterson:

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.

[_Polygamy Porter]

Hey Bishop Peterson, when will your time come to a close on these boards?

Or will you sneak your laptop into your bishops office because you are addicted to something that matters not to the LDS masses?

[_The Nehor]

Scratch, every time the SCMC comes up you bring up as your star witness is a 15 year old story from a guy who says he had a discussion with someone at their behest. Yet you paint it as a monolithic spy agency. If they are halfway as secretive and collecting as you seem to think where are the stories. Exmormons should be screaming out about how their pasts were used against them at secret Church courts. You could argue that ex-LDS are cowed into silence but then you click on RFM.......and it's just not so.