Eugene Englund and room 101 of the SCMC

[_truth dancer]

We know of enough men and women who have been "counseled" (read threatened) by the church to stop speaking out or suffer the consequences (getting Xed), that it seems possible, even likely EE had a talking to.

Maybe not, regardless, just knowing others have had the "talk" puts fear into the hearts of some folks who are not able to suffer the consequences of disbelief or stating something in opposition to the brethren.

In the LDS church you are not allowed to speak out against its leaders. Period. Whether EE remembered this on his own or whether he was reminded of it seems nearly irrelevant.

~dancer~

[_Trevor]

It is just such a "graceless perversion" of honorable motives and of true Mormonism and true Americanism that I fear is increasing now in our church and nation--and may yet lead to much destruction of faith and love, in addition to the pain many already feel. I feel the fear so deeply in part because I have felt in my bones what it is like to be part of the perversion. Between my "outburst" (as the AP reporter rightly called it) on August 6 and my day of humiliation and repentance on October 3, I went through another shift in perspective.

On the one hand I became conscious that people in the church, even in an organized way, were willing, in the name of honorable ends, to use hearsay evidence to judge, hurt, intimidate, and even punish people. Perhaps most troubling of all, I learned that others, even though disagreeing with such means, were willing to stand by and let those things happen, even participate to some extent.

On the other hand I became more fully aware that I could participate in the same kind of activity--with gusto. In my own hurt and desire for revenge I could use spectral evidence to judge and try to punish people, even risking harm to the church I believe is as true as the gospel and risking violation of my sacred covenants and deepest commitments.

My sense is that there is no small amount of ambiguity here. While he seems to be ashamed for jumping into the fray half-cocked, one can also read this as a continued lament over the environment in which this kind of thing can happen. The leaders of the LDS Church, which I am sure he feels a great sense of loyalty toward, are part of a defective situation.

For my part, I believe there is a good reason that the SCMC is a problem for some people. It is clearly the McCarthyesque aspect of the whole enterprise. It doesn't improve my perception of it to learn that this effort was initiated during the presidency of E. T. Benson, whom we know had a deep-seated fear of the communist threat and "secret combinations" (perhaps being, in his mind, one and the same thing). I read, in the first quoted paragraph above, echos of McCarthy-like witch hunts.

I believe very firmly in the power of mimesis. If you beget something, you will almost inevitably see something very much like that being mirrored back at you. The LDS Church has this Committee, which operates outside of view and yet collects information on members. Evidently all it takes is to speak at a symposium, and there you will have an agent of the LDS Church recording your talk--not simply for historical archiving, but to use against you if it proves to be the "wrong" kind of talk. I have heard numerous stories about people who show up for disciplinary councils to be faced with a pile of evidence, obviously marked and annotated, which they are told they are not allowed to look at.

The last detail, I think, is very important. Here a person is faced with a pile of his or her own writings, speeches, etc. Someone official has marked it and probably annotated it to use against the accused, and this person cannot even look at it. That material forms the very basis of the accusation. Without it, the stake president may not even know what he is supposed to think or do about the case. Someone else has told him how to interpret the material in advance, and that person has authority, where the accused has none. The accused does not have access to and is unable to challenge much of the materials that have informed the proceedings. You tell me what you think the likely outcome will be.

I ask you: is it any wonder that people now distrust their Church? Is it remarkable that they have learned to act anonymously and complain about the Church, when the Church has a committee, acting anonymously, that spies on its own members? And, no matter what the intent or supposed spirit about it, it is spying. How can an atmosphere of love and trust exist? For those who know enough to form an opinion about all of this, it can't; not unless the person in question has a very warped concept of love. For those of you who hate and mock Scratch, remember that Scratch exists because the LDS Church all but created him.

[_Dr. Shades]

. . . it seems possible, even likely AM had a talking to. . . Whether AM remembered this on his own or whether he was reminded of it seems nearly irrelevant.

Who the Hell is "AM?" Do you mean EE?

My general hurt and fear focused in anger, and during the question-and-answer period I accused the committee of undermining the church and invited the audience to use their influence to stop it.

Eugene England may have been a wonderful instructor, but he's always struck me as being a bit naïve. If I needed proof of it before, I certainly have it now: He honestly, truly thought that audience members at a Sunstone Symposium had any influence whatsoever on the goings-on at the Church Office Building?

It's nothing short of amazing that he could spend so many years as an active Mormon and yet remain so ignorant of the strict top-down nature of the church's inner workings.

For those of you who hate and mock Scratch, remember that Scratch exists because the LDS Church all but created him.

Poignant statement! Our friends at MA&D often forget that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

[Guest]

It reminds me of the many times as a believer I tried to squash my own beliefs to try to embrace those of the leaders.

You might have done better if you'd had the fear of secret spies watching your every move, looking for a mistake.

[_Gadianton]

Once made aware of the Church-sanctioned nature of SCMC, he backed down. "I didn't know whereof I spoke...," essentially.

Very possible. After all, no first presidency involved, no room 101.

[_Gadianton]

It is clearly the McCarthyesque aspect of the whole enterprise. It doesn't improve my perception of it to learn that this effort was initiated during the presidency of E. T. Benson, whom we know had a deep-seated fear of the communist threat and "secret combinations"

Downright chilling. I am very aware of ETB's paranoia, having once been nearly converted by Skousenites. This was half a lifetime ago. What better way to ferret out the secret communist conspiritors within the church than heavy-handed counter-intelligence?

[_Gazelam]

Who could be converted into anything by Skousen? His books suck.

[_Gadianton]

The SCMC does not need to even be a real institution. The mere threat and mythology of its existence are enough to warp the minds of otherwise very conscientious and intelligent people

This is downright brilliant. Because consider the mythology surrounding "room 101" in the Oceana culture. Was it a real room? Did it need to be? Of all the bad things that can happen to us, the fear and terror of something bad is always the worst.

I don't think there would have necessarily been consequences for Dr. Peterson had he declined to assist. But, I will tell you that somewhere in their secret records, there would have been a card with his name on it, and penciled beneath, "July 1997 (or whenever) refused inv. Op A. see case 81678B7. " Knowing these little notes are taken, and they "add up" so to speak, is good reason not to triffle.

[_Gadianton]

Who could be converted into anything by Skousen? His books suck.

I could also ask why anyone would be converted to the Book of Mormon, since it sucks.

The truth of the matter is, quite a number of intelligent LDS people have been very devout fans of Cleon Skousen. Oh, and you might want to tell Ezra Taft Benson that he's stupid, since he wrote a forward to at least one of Skousen's books.

[_Trevor]

Downright chilling. I am very aware of ETB's paranoia, having once been nearly converted by Skousenites. This was half a lifetime ago. What better way to ferret out the secret communist conspiritors within the church than heavy-handed counter-intelligence?

I remember there was still talk of the Skousenites when I was an undergrad at BYU. By that time I think they were already a moribund group, but perhaps they lived on in some other form. There was a certain whiff of Aryan racial doctrine to some of Skousen's beliefs that gave me the willies.