The SCMC: A Painful Church Secret?

[_The Nehor]

== Personally I'd rather lose 2 planes a year and still be able to show up at the airport and get on the plane within 15 minutes. I think the whole thing is just a massive overreaction.

Wow.

I mean, wow.

== I do not see how conquering Iraq will help prevent terror attacks.

Going to Iraq was planed before 9-11. It was never said that removing Hussein would somehow stop terrorists. I think going to Iraq was a mistake, but not for the same reasons as shared by most.

== I'm not even sure Afghanistan helped.

Well, the Afghan Taliban was responsible for orchestrating 9-11. By going to Afghanistan we wiped out virtually all of the Taliban – all that was organized anyway – and helped establish a democracy. More importantly, we have not seen a repeat of 9-11, which was the main objective I think.

== The Republican Party's image campaign has turned several regional despots into neo-Hitlers in the last decade.

Examples? In any event, they cannot compare to the democrats; especially Jimmy Carter who tends to color the father of modern terrorism, Yasir Arafat, as some kind of hero for Palestine.

== So Coggins.....since I am not of Middle Eastern descent I should side with the Patriot Act because I am safe?

Race has nothing to do with it as far as I am concerned (I sense a race-bait). They should be profiled according to their religion, period. The fact that most Arab names are associated with Islam is just a matter of circumstance that cannot be overlooked for fear of appearing racist. It is absurd not to take notice. It is being minimally observant.

I would hold the same position if 80% of the world’s terrorists were Catholic, Mormon, Bahai, or of any other faith. Profile them if you think it will help you stop potential terrorism. Most Muslims are not terrorists, but most terrorists are probably Muslim. Only Islam as a religion contains the precept of dominating the world by force... but then that explains why so many Muslims are prone to violence.

For the record, it has never been demonstrated that I am a racist. It has never been demonstrated that anything I said is “hate.” These are just emotionally charged words used by people who cannot argue the points intellectually. This is the low-level tactic of race baiting; something DCP was left with, and now Plutarch/rcrocket.

DCP is still holding a drudge (he still brings my name up at MAD on occassion) because I was instrumental in making him look utterly foolish on a subject in a field for which he is supposed to be an expert. Our first collision came when he was “cowardly” (according to rcrocket) hiding behind a moniker “Freethinker” on ZLMB and dared me to provide an Islamic source that Muhammed condoned the raping of women. When Islamic sources were provided (numerous ones, I might add) he abandoned the discussion and took his ball over to FAIR where he could enjoy free reign in making ridiculous charges against me for racism and bigotry.

It truly is a sad sight when any academic runs from any amateur on the issues, and then proceeds with a slander campaign to ensure none of his loyal followers (who would be disturbed to know the reality of his fumbling of the facts) actually read what I actually do argue for. He still asserts publicly that I believe a “billion” Muslims are terrorists, for example. He knows this isn’t true, but just by saying he can be rest assured that his audience will freak out and make a mental note never to listen to anything I have to say on the matter. These are low-level tactics that politicians have mastered, and have since been adopted by certain academics who are afraid to have their knowledge tested in an open forum.

I mean this is the guy who said jihad was always in defense, never offensive. A purely laughable position to anyone who wants to pick up a decent book on the matter. Not a book by Horowitz or Spencer; just any decent book on the subject. This is the guy who said the poll tax on dhimmis were “slight.” His cohort recently said subjugated peoples under Islam could “do whatever they wanted.” This is the guy who thinks he is “critical” of Islam, yet when asked, cannot seem to muster one single example of his so-called “criticism.”

Ooops, I try to stay out of political debate on message boards but slipped into this.

If Afghanistan is still a just and working democracy in 20 years I will be very pleased and consider the move there a success.

I wasn't trying to absolve the Democratic Party from blame for their contributions to propping up bastards against the Soviet Union. It was an equal-opportunity endeavor.

I wasn't trying to race-bait.

That's all I have to say about that and unless something I said comes up again I'll stick to the SCMC discussion.

[_Mister Scratch]

I say you are ill-read because your posts so demonstrated.

Let me see if I can fully understand your point here. You are claiming that I am "poorly read" based on the fact that.... What? That you don't see evidence in my posts of my having read a lot? Are you really serious with this crap? This would be like me saying that you are obviously not a practicing attorney, since your posts contain no evidence of your legal expertise. Keep trying, Bob.

And, yes, I don't know your credentials because you choose to hind behind the curtain of anonymity so that you can post personal attacks against known people, such as myself.

No. The reason I remain anonymous is in order to avoid frivolous ad hominem attacks such as are dispensed by DCP & et. al. on a regular basis.

For instance, you attack me personally for manipulating sources in my published material. That is defamatory (not that I would care, but it is) and damages my professional reputation as a writer and historian (not that I care, but it does) but you certainly show the courage of your convictions, don't you?

No, I do not attack you "personally." I attack you "professionally", at best. You yourself have said that you are neither a professional writer nor a professional historian. Thus, it is kind of hard for me to attack you "professionally" either. Care to qualify yet again?

And, really, what sources have I manipulated? Chapter and verse right now, if you please.

Ah, I see. We're playing games now. You are playing the, "Oh, gee, I've forgotten what I've done! Oh, please, sir, I'm innocent!" You know quite well what source I'm referring to. So does Rollo Tomasi. So does Kevin Graham. So do any number of other readers of this forum. This is your own fault. If you are a real man, a real honorer of your priesthood, you will repent and admit your guilt.

In any regard, Kevin Graham's anti-Islamic tirades depend upon the very tired sources Loran relies upon, and which you condemn. Horowotz, to name one.

rcrocket

You seem to have misread what I've said. I do not condemn Loran's sources per se. I condemn his particular, highly biased and polemical abuse of them.

[_Mister Scratch]

When have I ever held back? I hope my posting shows my honesty however obscured it may be by errors from me and in those reading what I said. I think most members of the SCMC are pure and their intentions are the same way.

Nehor---

I have to say, you have done a remarkably good job of defending your position, and I really have to tip my hat to you. You are without question one of "The Good Ones."

Still, I have to wonder why you don't take issue with the SCMC. Can you make is sound in any way positive? What good purpose does this organization serve? I do not think that it benefits the Church, in the end....

I'm admittedly guessing but most LDS people in administrative roles I have interacted with are wholeheartedly trying to help the members....

My experience is that most LDS people in administrative role are more concerned with following the rules...

with the possible exception of the Church Building Committee who have ticked me off more than once. However it was their decisions I was judging not their motives.

I don't fear them because I support and know my local leaders.

Your local leaders are not the same as the SCMC. Do you support the SCMC because you support it? Or because you are supposed to support it?

I can explain most all of the things I say and write. The few that I can't I repent of.

Again, this seems like the fear-mongering aspect of the Church in action.

I'm convinced that if the SCMC lovingly gift-wrapped a excommunication package to my Bishop or Stake President that no action would be taken.

But don't you worry that you might upset some bureaucrat in SLC? You bishop and SP answer to SLC, after all... Right? Or do you attend a splinter ward of some kind?

I don't understand the line where you say that Ezra Taft Benson gave them the power to take action against a member. Do you have accounts of the SCMC trying anyone for their membership?

My point about ETB is that FP establishment of this espionage body is the point at which it gained "power."

All that said, you do make a fairly eloquent and persuasive case. It is rather like the Patriot Act: if you stay within your bounds, you will probably be OK. The question is, of course, Who determines the bounds? Given what we know about the SCMC (and about Church power in general) it would seem that those bounds are rather arbitrary.

I suppose, Nehor, that so long as you keep your views on women getting the priesthood a secret (since GBH labeled this one of the "small beginnings of apostasy---in fact, if I were to send a letter to SLC, I have little doubt that you'd be in very hot water, especially if I noted that you participate in online forums upon which people have manifestly blamed their loss of faith), you'll probably be in the clear. But then again, as you've pointed out, the SCMC is no big deal.

[_Dr. Shades]

I'm admittedly guessing but most LDS people in administrative roles I have interacted with are wholeheartedly trying to help the members....

My experience is that most LDS people in administrative role are more concerned with following the rules...

Oh, man! I hate to derail the topic yet again, but in light of the above I simply must interject here: The Nehor, you really ought to ask Kevin Graham about his wedding story.

[_The Nehor]

I have to say, you have done a remarkably good job of defending your position, and I really have to tip my hat to you. You are without question one of "The Good Ones."

Thank you for the compliment.

My experience is that most LDS people in administrative role are more concerned with following the rules...

I'm sorry that that has been your experience. Most leaders I know of follow the rules but are more concerned about aiding me and others.

Your local leaders are not the same as the SCMC. Do you support the SCMC because you support it? Or because you are supposed to support it?

I support it because I see a need for it. To understand it I put myself in the shoes of the Bishop. Suppose a member of my ward was actively and publicly teaching false doctrine in circles I don't move in. I would have no idea what is going on. The SCMC finds out and forwards some of their published work or transcripts of their speaking or whatever. I now am aware that there may be a problem. I can talk with them and determine whether there is a problem, it's severity, and make decisions. I can't do anything that I know nothing about. If the person proves belligerent and the reports are accurate I can prayerfully decide whether disciplinary action is needed.

I can explain most all of the things I say and write. The few that I can't I repent of.

Again, this seems like the fear-mongering aspect of the Church in action.

What part of it is fear? If I can't explain or justify the things I write to myself and to God I should repent. I have no business sharing them. If I didn't believe in God I would hope I'd avoid the situation as well as a matter of integrity.

But don't you worry that you might upset some bureaucrat in SLC? You bishop and SP answer to SLC, after all... Right? Or do you attend a splinter ward of some kind?

No, I'm not worried. In answer to the second, yes and no. They answer to their Priesthood leaders (who might be on the committee) and to God. In my experience they take the latter loyalty much more seriously.

All that said, you do make a fairly eloquent and persuasive case. It is rather like the Patriot Act: if you stay within your bounds, you will probably be OK. The question is, of course, Who determines the bounds? Given what we know about the SCMC (and about Church power in general) it would seem that those bounds are rather arbitrary.

Since I believe their bounds to be mostly consistent with God's bounds I don't see a huge problem here. They don't seem like loose bounds to me. From what I've read and jotted down in my Scriptures (and if memory seves it agrees with what I read in the General Handbook) the cases where a Bishop MUST convene a Church Court:
1. Murder
2. Posing a Serious Threat to other Members of the Church (from what I read this mostly meant physical threat)
3. Widely known serious transgressions (most of these relate to sexual law and abuse.
4. All the sins from 3 where the person holds a prominent position (also added embezzling Church funds).
5. When the Spirit tells you to
6. Repeated wrongdoing (examples in this section include lying with intent to steal or a history of repeated violence)

Times where it is at leader's discretion:
1. Repeated Conduct that is in direct opposition to the laws of God.
2. Deliberate and willful violation of Church rules and regulations (is mandatory with members in high callings). Seriousness of offense should be considered.
3. Open opposition to the Church defined as preaching that the Gospel is false or that the Church is not the organization committed with the fulness of the Gospel or challenging the order of Revelation of the organization or openly bringing disrepute on Church Leaders to lessen their standing in the eyes of others.
4. Associating with an apostate cult or organization that has the intent to harm the Church or to bring change within the Church outside the order of Revelation of the Church organization.
5. Moral Sins (again involving sexual sin and abuse mostly)

Inactive members are generally not tried unless they are involved in 3 or 4 on the second list.

[quote[I suppose, Nehor, that so long as you keep your views on women getting the priesthood a secret (since GBH labeled this one of the "small beginnings of apostasy---in fact, if I were to send a letter to SLC, I have little doubt that you'd be in very hot water, especially if I noted that you participate in online forums upon which people have manifestly blamed their loss of faith), you'll probably be in the clear. But then again, as you've pointed out, the SCMC is no big deal.[/quote]

I doubt I'd be in trouble for what I said. I am not actively calling for the Brethren to give women the Priesthood or campaigning for people to join such a cause. I stated that doctrinally there is really nothing to prevent it from happening. It is my opinion and guess that the Brethren may make this change in the future. It's up to them to decide whether to do it or not. I am further not teaching it in a Church environment or using my calling as a springboard to share this belief of mine. Outside of web forums I've told four close friends of mine what I think. Two strongly disagree, one is indifferent, and one agreed with me. Ironically the first two were women and said they hoped not as they didn't want the Priesthood and the responsibility. I often feel the same way and that didn't stop God from giving it to me. ;)

For a comparison what I am saying is no different from someone in the early 70's saying that there is no doctrinal reason that the Priesthood Ban could not be removed and then guessing that it may happen in the near future. If I then went on to try to pressure leaders to try to make the change I would expect discipline.

[_The Nehor]

Oh, man! I hate to derail the topic yet again, but in light of the above I simply must interject here: The Nehor, you really ought to ask Kevin Graham about his wedding story.

Do you have a link, couldn't find anything on a search.

[_Dr. Shades]

Do you have a link, couldn't find anything on a search.

He explained it back on the previous version of this board (now lost to cyberspace). Hopefully he'll see these posts and tell us again.

[_dartagnan]

== I'm admittedly guessing but most LDS people in administrative roles I have interacted with are wholeheartedly trying to help the members....

I guess they could rationalize it that way, but it really boils down to something entirely different - in my experience anyway.

I’ll tell my story later – off to sacrament meeting now – but you could probably find it on MAD if you searched under “Kevin Graham.”

[_rcrocket]

No, I do not attack you "personally." I attack you "professionally", at best.

. . . .

Ah, I see. We're playing games now. You are playing the, "Oh, gee, I've forgotten what I've done! Oh, please, sir, I'm innocent!" You know quite well what source I'm referring to. So does Rollo Tomasi. So does Kevin Graham. So do any number of other readers of this forum. This is your own fault. If you are a real man, a real honorer of your priesthood, you will repent and admit your guilt.

To attack one's professional abilities is to make a personal attack, as you have done. Anonymously, I might add. You remain anonymous to protect yourself from the likes of Dr. Peterson so that you can make anonymous attacks against the likes of me and Dr. Peterson.

And, chapter and verse on my manipulation of texts? You don't have it, do you?

I think rather than maligning me with every post I make about "document manipulation" where the post has nothing to do with the topic, why don't you just stick to the content of my particular post rather than heaving in an ad hominem at every post? "His post is not worthy of response. He's a manipulator of documents." A more classic example of the fallacy cannot be seen.

On the other hand, I do have a problem with your posts when you attack living and known persons, anonymously so. That just doesn't demonstrate credibility.

rcrocket

[_Mister Scratch]

No, I do not attack you "personally." I attack you "professionally", at best.

. . . .

Ah, I see. We're playing games now. You are playing the, "Oh, gee, I've forgotten what I've done! Oh, please, sir, I'm innocent!" You know quite well what source I'm referring to. So does Rollo Tomasi. So does Kevin Graham. So do any number of other readers of this forum. This is your own fault. If you are a real man, a real honorer of your priesthood, you will repent and admit your guilt.

To attack one's professional abilities is to make a personal attack, as you have done. Anonymously, I might add. You remain anonymous to protect yourself from the likes of Dr. Peterson so that you can make anonymous attacks against the likes of me and Dr. Peterson.

And, chapter and verse on my manipulation of texts? You don't have it, do you?

C'mon, Bob. You know full well what document manipulation I am talking about. Are you really demanding that I go back and find the thread? I am referring to the MMM letter, of course.

I think rather than maligning me with every post I make about "document manipulation" where the post has nothing to do with the topic,

The "content" of your post, for what it's worth, was little more than a drive-by insult.

why don't you just stick to the content of my particular post rather than heaving in an ad hominem at every post?

You mean like your "you're not well read" post?

"His post is not worthy of response. He's a manipulator of documents." A more classic example of the fallacy cannot be seen.

That's not what I said at all. I postulated that you were engaging in "drive-by" tactics due to your still being sore over getting caught manipulating sources. So: are you?

On the other hand, I do have a problem with your posts when you attack living and known persons, anonymously so. That just doesn't demonstrate credibility.

rcrocket

By any chance have you read the posts from "A Light in the Darkness"? You respond to this poster, and I will go get the thread where we discussed your MMM article. Do we have a deal, counselor?