The SCMC: New information Comes to Light

[_Mister Scratch]

This is a branch off from the thread, "Will September Dawn Drive TBMs to Research More?" Scottie's original thread had become rather derailed by discussion of the Strengthening Church Members Committee, and so I've decided to start a new, separate thread dealing with this subject.

It goes on. Forever.

Well, it didn't need to. You were trying to allay fears about the SCMC, and you shouldn't have done that, because in truth (as you now admit) you don't know diddly-squat about it. You boast about having "one experience" with the organization, but now, after having questioned you, I have come to realize that your "experience" was a very hazy, laced-with-anonymity-and-secrecy sort of affair. You don't really know much of anything at all about what the SCMC does, and your assertion that it really is a "very small clipping service" wasn't very honest at all! Seriously, can you not understand how/why making that assertion is ethically problematic, given your very, very limited knowledge?

Here are even more sources which contradict your "very small clipping service" spin-job (these were posted by CKSalmon in a 2/11/07 MAD thread):

Aug 8,1992 - Salt Lake Tribune reports that First Presidency's spokesman has acknowledged existence of special "Strengthening the Members Committee" that keeps secret files on church members regarded as disloyal. Due to publicity on this matter, including New York Times, Presidency issues statement on 13 Aug. defending organization of this apostle-directed committee as consistent with God's commandment to Joseph Smith to gather documentation about non-Mormons who mob and persecute LDS Church. Presidency lists Apostles James E. Faust and Russell M. Nelson as leading the committee.

Some time during the Benson presidency, the secret "Strengthening Church Members Committee" was created to monitor doctrinally troublesome writings and beliefs. Old-style polygamists have suffered as much as liberal Mormons from excommunication. Says Jan Shipps, a religious historian at Indiana University-Purdue University: "It's the steering of a middle course." That strict patrolling of dissent is likely to continue under the new leadership; it may even deepen. Next in the line of succession after Hunter are Benson's chief counselors, Gordon B. Hinckley, who will turn 84 this month, and Thomas Monson, 66. After them may come Boyd K. Packer, 69, an ardent promoter of doctrinal purity. (TIME Domestic June 13, 1994 Volume 143, No. 24)

Don LeFevre, told Religious News Service on Monday that the aim of the group, known as the Strengthening Church Members Committee, is to prevent members from making negative statements that hinder the progress of the Mormon church, officially known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. LeFevre said the committee neither makes judgments nor imposes penalties.

“Its purpose is implied by the committee’s name, to strengthen members in the church who may have a problem or may need counseling,” LeFevre said. “It’s really an attempt to help the individual.”

LeFevre said the committee receives complaints from church members about other members who have made statements that “conceivably could do harm to the church.”

“What this committee does is hear the complaints and pass the information along to the person’s ecclesiastical leader.” Any discipline is “entirely up to the discretion of the local leaders,” he said.

(“Mormon Church keeps files on its dissenters,” St. Petersburg Times, Aug. 15, 1992, at 6e)

Here is another very creepy post from Uncle Dale, who was personally acquainted with a person who, just like you, has "a personal run-in" with the SCMC:

A former-LDS friend of mine once told me about stumbling in upon a private meeting of some members,
in the Brigham City Tabernacle (I think it was). Turned out to be a group from this same committee.

For some reason or another he had to go back into the room, which they had temporarily left. He said
that he could not help looking at a couple of documents which were in the way of his retreiving something
he needed. He recognized one of the names of the "suspect members" being investigated.

That's all he would tell me -- but the experience left him less "strengthened" in the faith -- not more.
He had always been taught that if you had a problem with another member that you first tried to work
it out on a one-on-one basis, and then if that did not help matters, to go to the Bishop or Branch Pres.

But he thought that in some cases this "strengthening" program was bypassing the old system. He said
it made him upset and he told his wife -- who told on him, and that ended his intrerest (or knowledge)
of the program. None of that seemed "creepy" to me -- but I would not want my wife reporting something
unusual I had seen, without talking to me first about her intentions.

I never knew the Reorganized LDS to have such a system -- though the CoC leadership has often
treated the fundamentalist RLDS badly and has probably kept a secret watch over some of us.

When you were asked whether or not you also found the SCMC's activities creepy, you said,

No, unfortunately. Because I actually know something about the committee and have had some direct personal experience with it, I find it difficult to get the delicious goosebumps that this topic plainly generates for certain lucky critics. Knowledge inhibits fantasy.

But, as we have learned here in the most recent exchange, you actually don't know anything!" Your "experience" amounted to an anonymous phone call, and that's it! How shall we characterize what you did here, Prof. P.---exaggeration of your expertise? Outright dishonesty? Textbook Mopologetic spin?

Later, you say this:

The Strengthening Church Members hysteria that afflicts isolated pockets of the anti-Mormon, ex-Mormon, and wavering Mormon population is without any genuine basis in reality.

There is no espionage or surveillance network being run out of Church headquarters. This is all a complete myth.

Huh? How do you know this, pray tell? Either you are hiding something, or, if your earlier words are to be believed, you are making this up. Your rather naked assertion that "there is no espionage or surveillance network" is pure speculation on your part, and it runs contrary to all kinds of other evidence. On another totally separate thread, from the fall of 2006, you wrote:

It's not much more than a (very) small clipping service. Trust me on this one. There is no spying or covert action. No trappings of "Mission Impossible." No non-Scientologist Tom Cruise.

Why should we trust you, when you've admitted that you don't really know anything about it, other than a completely anonymous phone call?

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.

Well, according to Uncle Dale, they meet in places other than the COB.

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.

Meg Toscano indicated during her interview on The Mormons that her SP had a literal, telephone-book-sized *stack* of materials that had been collected.

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.

This makes no sense at all. You don't trust Mike Quinn, who had done the research, and instead rely on your own, very limited knowledge---knowledge which relies on zero research or questioning whatsoever.

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.

I have a question: who was the professor who accompanied you on your journey to interrogate this wayward member?

Were you told 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.

So, I have to ask: What does this tell us? Did *anyone* know? Or was the "tip-off" from his family enough to merit this "extraordinary rendition," as it were? Ah, of course: You don't know.

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.

Which, as has now been established incontrovertibly, is "virtually nothing."

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.

Yes. You know hardly anything at all on this matter. You were ignorant of the newspaper articles which had been published; you were ignorant of Quinn's and others' research, and yet you gave the whole matter a pro-Church spin anyhow. Not very ethical, Prof. P.!

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.

Actually, it is a bit of a stretch for you to characterize your "experience" with it as "personal." You received a mysterious, anonymous phone call, and that's it. Does this make you more qualified to comment upon the SCMC that those, such as Quinn, who've actually done their homework and research? Methinks not.

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.

Gee, I do! Because he's done the research! And his findings match the findings of others who've looked into the matter! Boy, you have really sunk yourself pretty deep into a hole on this one, Prof. P.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You were trying to allay fears about the SCMC, and you shouldn't have done that, because in truth (as you now admit) you don't know diddly-squat about it.

I simply related my entirely non-sinister experience with the SCMC.

You boast about having "one experience" with the organization

Where did I "boast"?

I simply related my entirely non-sinister experience with the SCMC.

And, now, I've pointed out that, while I have had at least one direct contact with the SCMC, you've had precisely none.

your "experience" was a very hazy, laced-with-anonymity-and-secrecy sort of affair.

It was a phone call.

If telephones send you into paroxysms of paranoid terror, you should probably have your telephones removed. Perhaps you already have.

You don't really know much of anything at all about what the SCMC does, and your assertion that it really is a "very small clipping service" wasn't very honest at all! Seriously, can you not understand how/why making that assertion is ethically problematic, given your very, very limited knowledge?

I have had one direct experience that is entirely consistent with Elder Oaks's description of the SCMC. I know Elder Oaks, and I trust him.

You have, thus far, claimed no direct experience with the SCMC, whether consistent with Elder Oaks's description or not.

You rely on Mike Quinn. I rely on Dallin Oaks. You trust Mike Quinn. I trust Dallin Oaks.

Explain to me, again, how my position is "ethically problematic."

Here are even more sources which contradict your "very small clipping service" spin-job (these were posted by CKSalmon in a 2/11/07 MAD thread):

All of them are essentially consistent with the notion of a "clipping service."

I keep files of clippings, too. There is nothing sinister about a manila file folder.

It's a very long jump from the actual data to your fantasies about some sort of ecclesiastical KGB operating out of Salt Lake City.

Here is another very creepy post from Uncle Dale, who was personally acquainted with a person who, just like you, has "a personal run-in" with the SCMC

I agree that Uncle Dale's recounting of a tale told to him by an anonymous former Mormon is somewhat "creepy." I also find it quite dubious.

I wonder, incidentally, how he could tell that this was a meeting of the SCMC. Were they wearing their regulation white sheets and hoods? Did they have SCMC stenciled on their foreheads?

Your "experience" amounted to an anonymous phone call, and that's it!

You finally admit it! The therapy is working! We've been discussing this over the past couple of years, but you've finally made a breakthrough. Congratulations!

How shall we characterize what you did here, Prof. P.---exaggeration of your expertise? Outright dishonesty? Textbook Mopologetic spin?

I'll let you choose the negative and defamatory way in which you'll inevitably prefer to portray me, and then, if I feel inclined, I'll respond.

Huh? How do you know this, pray tell? Either you are hiding something, or, if your earlier words are to be believed, you are making this up. Your rather naked assertion that "there is no espionage or surveillance network" is pure speculation on your part, and it runs contrary to all kinds of other evidence.

It's based on decades of experience with the Church on every inhabited continent, on personal acquaintance with Church leaders, on my own experience in leadership positions, on my personal encounter with the SCMC, on my distrust of Michael Quinn's footnotes and of his agenda regarding the contemporary leadership of the Church, and the like.

On another totally separate thread, from the fall of 2006, you wrote:

My my. You're a zealous little beaver.

Incidentally, our garbage pick-up day is Monday, in case you don't already know that. We put the trash cans out by the mailbox, usually on the evening before. That should give you minimally eight hours a week for that particular kind of research.

Well, according to Uncle Dale, they meet in places other than the COB.

Strictly speaking, that's according to Uncle Dale's reminiscence of a tale told by an anonymous informant that I find quite improbable.

Meg Toscano indicated during her interview on The Mormons that her SP had a literal, telephone-book-sized *stack* of materials that had been collected.

That would hardly require much effort, and certainly wouldn't demand the services of the supersecret spy agency about which you fantasize. Margaret has written and published a lot. It's in the public domain, and not hard to find.

]I have a question: who was the professor who accompanied you on your journey to interrogate this wayward member?

I never took a "journey to interrogate [a] wayward member."

I was accompanied by a university colleague when I visited with a struggling member. My colleague's name was Professor Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Would you like his Social Security number and the school addresses and schedules of his children?

You were ignorant of the newspaper articles which had been published; you were ignorant of Quinn's and others' research,

I read them all. I wasn't persuaded.

You, on the other hand, are a True Believer.

Not very ethical, Prof. P.!

That's your default verdict with regard to me.

You received a mysterious, anonymous phone call, and that's it.

I did?

The phone rang. I picked it up. What was "mysterious" about it?

And who said it was an anonymous call? I didn't.

Boy, you have really sunk yourself pretty deep into a hole on this one, Prof. P.

According to you, everything I say, write, and do sinks me deeper. And, no doubt, some here will agree. Big deal. It's not as if I value your judgment.

[_Runtu]

When I was working for the church, I was introduced to the guy running the SCMC. If I remember right, his name was Bill Nelson (but I'm notoriously bad with names). My recollection is that it was described as something between Dr. Peterson's "small clipping service" and Scratch's sinister spy organization. It was indeed pretty small, but its job was to gather information on people who were publicly criticizing the church or otherwise saying things the church didn't want them to say. When such information was gathered, it was sent on to local leaders for any disciplinary action.

Edit: I hasten to add that I was working there about 15 years ago. The SCMC may well have morphed into a sinister mini-KGB since then. Or not.

[_Mister Scratch]

You were trying to allay fears about the SCMC, and you shouldn't have done that, because in truth (as you now admit) you don't know diddly-squat about it.

I simply related my entirely non-sinister experience with the SCMC.

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.

You don't really know much of anything at all about what the SCMC does, and your assertion that it really is a "very small clipping service" wasn't very honest at all! Seriously, can you not understand how/why making that assertion is ethically problematic, given your very, very limited knowledge?

I have had one direct experience that is entirely consistent with Elder Oaks's description of the SCMC. I know Elder Oaks, and I trust him.

You have, thus far, claimed no direct experience with the SCMC, whether consistent with Elder Oaks's description or not.

You rely on Mike Quinn. I rely on Dallin Oaks. You trust Mike Quinn. I trust Dallin Oaks.

Explain to me, again, how my position is "ethically problematic."

It is problematized even further by this admission, since we all know that Oaks is the man who has very publicly stated, "It is wrong to criticize the leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true." 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. 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.

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." Even if, as seems to be the case, it were proven beyond all possible doubt that the SCMC was more that "a very small clipping service," you would be hamstrung, since you cannot criticize the Brethren.

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

Huh? How do you know this, pray tell? Either you are hiding something, or, if your earlier words are to be believed, you are making this up. Your rather naked assertion that "there is no espionage or surveillance network" is pure speculation on your part, and it runs contrary to all kinds of other evidence.

It's based on decades of experience with the Church on every inhabited continent, on personal acquaintance with Church leaders, on my own experience in leadership positions, on my personal encounter with the SCMC, on my distrust of Michael Quinn's footnotes and of his agenda regarding the contemporary leadership of the Church, and the like.

Which, in this particular instance, as we have discovered, amounts to zip.

On another totally separate thread, from the fall of 2006, you wrote:

My my. You're a zealous little beaver.

Incidentally, our garbage pick-up day is Monday, in case you don't already know that. We put the trash cans out by the mailbox, usually on the evening before. That should give you minimally eight hours a week for that particular kind of research.

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

Well, according to Uncle Dale, they meet in places other than the COB.

Strictly speaking, that's according to Uncle Dale's reminiscence of a tale told by an anonymous informant that I find quite improbable.

Why do you find it improbable? You didn't find the series of bogus events swirling around the Thomas Murphy Scandal to be "improbable," and they were total fabrications!

You were ignorant of the newspaper articles which had been published; you were ignorant of Quinn's and others' research,

I read them all. I wasn't persuaded.

First you said that you hadn't heard about any reports. Now you're saying that you "read them all." The flip-flopping continues....

Not very ethical, Prof. P.!

That's your default verdict with regard to me.

No, it's not, and that's ridiculous. I praised your appearance on The Mormons. I congratulated you on your last book publication. I dole out the criticisms where I see they are needed. Instead of engaging these comments in an honest, fair-minded way, you just start hauling out the personal attacks, the maliciousness, etc.

You received a mysterious, anonymous phone call, and that's it.

I did?

The phone rang. I picked it up. What was "mysterious" about it?

And who said it was an anonymous call? I didn't.

You said that you had "no idea" who the person on the other end of the line was.

[_Mister Scratch]

When I was working for the church, I was introduced to the guy running the SCMC. If I remember right, his name was Bill Nelson (but I'm notoriously bad with names). My recollection is that it was described as something between Dr. Peterson's "small clipping service" and Scratch's sinister spy organization. It was indeed pretty small, but its job was to gather information on people who were publicly criticizing the church or otherwise saying things the church didn't want them to say. When such information was gathered, it was sent on to local leaders for any disciplinary action.

Edit: I hasten to add that I was working there about 15 years ago. The SCMC may well have morphed into a sinister mini-KGB since then. Or not.

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?

[_Runtu]

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.

[_Daniel Peterson]

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.

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!

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.

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.

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"?

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?

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

How ironic.

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.

The flip-flopping continues....

No, the obsessive twisting and distortion continues, and not at my hands.

You said that you had "no idea" who the person on the other end of the line was.

Could you please supply the full quotation and context of that alleged statement, please? I'm sure you have it in one of your files on me.

When the man named and identified himself as the secretary to the SCMC, I knew his name and the name of the committee that he represented. I had, however, never met him. And still haven't, to the best of my knowledge.

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?

[_moksha]

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

[Jersey Girl]

Is that you, Brother Himmler? I meant well! I didn't disclose any of our secrets! No! Really! Please! Don't! No! Aieeeeeeee!

Hey, that's right. Himmler possibly has received his Baptism for the Dead. But wouldn't the correct term for addressing him be Brother Chief Commander of the Schutzstaffel (SS) and Einsatzgruppen death squads?

[_christopher]

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

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


Chris <><