They can speculate but I am not permitted to explain

[_LifeOnaPlate]

You are 100% right, TD. In a separate discussion of this series of events, DCP went on to note that the man being "interrogated" had ripped into the SCMC. The Good Professor chuckled about how "ironic" it was that, in fact, he [i.e., DCP] was there under the auspices of the very same SCMC.

Let's see the source.

[_GoodK]

Did you do anything on the "Shades board" to warrant someone's feeling insulted or belittled or hurt?

Well I certainly haven't been kind to Mormonism, or the power of the priesthood, or my step-dad's fundamentalist approach to Mormonism - if that is what you were getting at.

Of course that is why I posted as GoodK - not Eric - and had an avatar of Ayaan Hirsi Ali and not my pretty face.

[_Daniel Peterson]

You are 100% right, TD.

In Scartchspeak, right means "critical of DCP."

In a separate discussion of this series of events, DCP went on to note that the man being "interrogated" had ripped into the SCMC.

No, he didn't "rip into" the SCMC. This incident occurred just when the silly articles had come out about the SCMC, and the man laughed that, although we were nice guys, if the SCMC had gotten wind of him, they wouldn't have treated him so well.

The Good Professor chuckled about how "ironic" it was that, in fact, he [i.e., DCP] was there under the auspices of the very same SCMC.

I thought it ironic that the nice guys he had just complimented and contrasted with the cruel SCMC were there (being nice) at the behest of the SCMC.

Incidentally, the Scartchian schtick about an "interrogation" is, as it has been for years, pure fiction and spin. There was no "interrogation." In fact, I'm betting that at least eighty percent of the questions posed that night were posed by the man that Scartch claims we were "interrogating."

[_Mister Scratch]

I think this thread demonstrates part of the problem many have with the church.

While you do not seem to understand why others have a problem with this sort of behavior, they do.

I question whether the population here -- extravagantly disposed to see problems in virtually everything the Church teaches or does -- is significantly representative of very many people beyond. My sense is that it is not.

Actually, I think that the bulk of people would/do find the SCMC to be extremely disquieting. I was once invited to post on CARM in order to detail what I've learned concerning the SCMC. Certainly, the CARMites (and think of them what you will, but they *do* somewhat represent a rather significant chunk of the U.S. population) found the very notion of the SCMC to be anti-Christian and anti-American. To adduce another bit of evidence: Jon Krakauer resoundingly denounced the SCMC as an "Orwellian" organization. I wonder: Would the readers of Under the Banner of Heaven be more inclined to believe DCP, or to believe Krakauer?

It might be helpful as apologists and leaders interact with non-believers or questioning members to at the very least acknowledge that people generally do not like being misled, or manipulated.

The man with whom I spoke was neither misled nor manipulated.

According to you, the man vocally expressed his fear/distrust of the SCMC. And yet, there you sat, smugly contented in your knowledge that you were "ironically" functioning as an SCMC "agent."

Those who are not believers in the LDS church look upon your example, and others of which we have heard as very inappropriate.

All of them? Most of them? Many of them? Three of them?

In any sizeable population, a certain number will believe that the government is controlled by the Masons or the Jesuits, that the moon landing was faked on a NASA soundstage in Houston, that George W. Bush ordered the attacks on 9/11, and that Jim Carrey can be endured for more than five minutes at a stretch.

Interesting that you mention Jim Carrey. I'd be willing to be that, if the man had been told that you were working for the SCMC, he would have reacted rather like Carrey's character does at the end of The Truman Show.

While you disagree, perhaps you could at the very least accept the fact that others find this sort of behavior, while not an outright lie, dishonest and misleading.

I don't deny that some others do. Several here do.

I've tried to reason with you. If I hadn't recognized that you find "this sort of behavior . . . dishonest," I wouldn't have bothered.

I simply doubt that many in the general population of Latter-day Saints or non-Latter-day Saints would take this very seriously.

On the basis of any evidence? Or on the basis of your obviously biased opinion?

Even without knowing this man, my guess is he would not have been quite so happy to meet with you if he knew you were meeting with him at the request of the SCMC. In fact I doubt he would have even met based on previous conversations.

I was there, and I think you're wrong. But actual knowledge of the actual situation, like actually reading books before commenting on them, doesn't seem to be very highly valued here.

Yes, you were there, and you stated that the man expressed his distrust and fear of the SCMC.

You clearly gave the impression, by not disclosing the full truth, that you were not involved with the SCMC (let's not play word games here...).

"Involved" with the SCMC? I'd never heard from them before and have never heard from them since. The secretary of the SCMC called and asked me to visit with this fellow. That was it. As "involvement" goes, that's pretty weak stuff.

It simply underscores the secretive and mercenary nature of the SCMC.

I understand you would have disclosed the truth if you were clearly and directly asked but in my opinion, knowing this man would not want the SMCS involved, and not telling him you were asked by the SCMC, he was misled.

This is every bit as serious as sending a boy across the school gym to ask a lonely girl to dance, but suggesting that he not tell her that he was asked to do it. Are there some potential problems in such a situation? Yes, but they're not insuperable. Is it a crime and an outrage? Come on.

I think there is quite a big difference between a kid at a prom dance and a highly secretive, absolutist, authoritarian religion. There is also a big difference between a public dance, and an isolated interrogation which took place over a space of four hours.

[_Mister Scratch]

Here is another rather disturbing account about the SCMC, from the quite-reliable poster known as "Uncle Dale":

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.

By the way, it should be noted that the SCMC is essentially the "hub" of Church intelligence-gathering. More important "surveillance" is conducted by an arm of Church Security.

[_dblagent007]

Dan,

I think this thread demonstrates part of the problem many have with the church.

While you do not seem to understand why others have a problem with this sort of behavior, they do. It might be helpful as apologists and leaders interact with non-believers or questioning members to at the very least acknowledge that people generally do not like being misled, or manipulated.

Those who are not believers in the LDS church look upon your example, and others of which we have heard as very inappropriate.

While you disagree, perhaps you could at the very least accept the fact that others find this sort of behavior, while not an outright lie, dishonest and misleading.

Even without knowing this man, my guess is he would not have been quite so happy to meet with you if he knew you were meeting with him at the request of the SCMC. In fact I doubt he would have even met based on previous conversations.

You clearly gave the impression, by not disclosing the full truth, that you were not involved with the SCMC (let's not play word games here...).

I understand you would have disclosed the truth if you were clearly and directly asked but in my opinion, knowing this man would not want the SMCS involved, and not telling him you were asked by the SCMC, he was misled.

OK... sorry to derail the thread for a sec.

:-)

~td~

Please, the circumstances of Dan's meeting with this member are very common and occur in many aspects of life.

Lets start with a church example. A bishop of a ward asks a couple to throw a party and invite a bunch of people over that the couple does not know very well (other active members that the couple is not particularly well acquianted with). He asks the couple not to tell the invitees that the party was the Bishop's idea. A good time was had by all and the people genuinely feel that they have formed some solid friendships.

Here's a work exmaple. A supervisor asks one employee to mentor another person who's work quality is of concern to the supervisor. The supervisor asks that the mentor does it on an informal basis and without telling this person that it was the supervisor's idea.

Here's a community example. One neighbor informs another that the widow down the street broke her hip and that it would be nice if the neighbor would use his new tracked snow blower to remove the snow in the widow's driveway. The neighbor in the know asks that the other neighbor not mention that it this was being done at his suggestion.

[_Mister Scratch]

Please, the circumstances of Dan's meeting with this member are very common and occur in many aspects of life.

Lets start with a church example. A bishop of a ward asks a couple to throw a party and invite a bunch of people over that the couple does not know very well (other active members that the couple is not particularly well acquianted with). He asks the couple not to tell the invitees that the party was the Bishop's idea. A good time was had by all and the people genuinely feel that they have formed some solid friendships.

Here's a work exmaple. A supervisor asks one employee to mentor another person who's work quality is of concern to the supervisor. The supervisor asks that the mentor does it on an informal basis and without telling this person that it was the supervisor's idea.

Here's a community example. One neighbor informs another that the widow down the street broke her hip and that it would be nice if the neighbor would use his new tracked snow blower to remove the snow in the widow's driveway. The neighbor in the know asks that the other neighbor not mention that it this was being done at his suggestion.

Yup. And in every single one of those examples there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why any of the information should have been withheld.

[_truth dancer]

This man did NOT want the SCMC involved. He vocalized his displeasure with the SCMC to Dan. Dan knew this man did not want the SCMC involved. The SCMC requested Dan meet with this man (and specifically asked Dan not disclose the truth), KNOWING the man did not want them involved.

Those involved clearly manipulated this man into meeting with them by not disclosing the full truth of the situation, knowing he would likely not meet with them (or at the very least be quite upset) had he known the SCMC was behind the meeting.

This man should have been given the common courtesy of knowing exactly the circumstances under which he agreed to meet, ESPECIALLY since he was clear that he did not want to meet with the SCMC or their representative/whatever Dan wants to call himself here. (Again, lets not play word games).

I understand there are those believers who think this sort of behavior is acceptable and common.

I do not. I have a very difficult time understanding how others do not have a problem with this but I have come to understand and believe Dan truly does not see anything wrong with this behavior.

(I don't think drinking tea is a sin and others do, so it shows how people see the world differently).

I think part of the problem doubters and non-believers have with the church is this sort of (evidently approved) behavior, so regardless of whether or not any specific believer sees any sort of problem with this scenario, it may be a good idea to at least acknowledge that others have a problem with it and perhaps be respectful of their wishes.

To compare this event with a surprise birthday party is silly. They are not even remotely in the same league.

~td~

[_harmony]

Please, the circumstances of Dan's meeting with this member are very common and occur in many aspects of life.

Lets start with a church example. A bishop of a ward asks a couple to throw a party and invite a bunch of people over that the couple does not know very well (other active members that the couple is not particularly well acquianted with). He asks the couple not to tell the invitees that the party was the Bishop's idea. A good time was had by all and the people genuinely feel that they have formed some solid friendships.

My bishop would never do this. I have had several bishops in my family, and none of them would ever do this. The idea is ludicrous. If the bishop wants to have a party, he tells his wife and she puts it together.

Here's a work exmaple. A supervisor asks one employee to mentor another person who's work quality is of concern to the supervisor. The supervisor asks that the mentor does it on an informal basis and without telling this person that it was the supervisor's idea.

This would never happen in my office. Only official mentoring is allowed. Otherwise, the mentor is liable to be skewered by the mentee.

Here's a community example. One neighbor informs another that the widow down the street broke her hip and that it would be nice if the neighbor would use his new tracked snow blower to remove the snow in the widow's driveway. The neighbor in the know asks that the other neighbor not mention that it this was being done at his suggestion.

Again, I don't see any reason to hide. If Mrs Widow asks who suggested Mr Snow Blower clean her driveway, Mr Snow Blower can just say Mr Neighbor suggested it and Mr Snow Blower agreed. No need to take all the credit for himself.

That which is hidden is suspect. The answer is always... why?

[_harmony]

A question...

Let's say the SCMC monitors this website. They're very curious about a certain poster... one who uses the nickname "harmony". They don't like what she says, don't like her attitude, and want to let her bishop and stake president know she is a loose cannon and needs to be shut up, but they don't know who she is. Let's say a few people here know who harmony really is, where she lives, where she works. Let's say each of the posters who know who harmony is swears they will never tell what they know. But one of those posters is contacted by the SCMC, on the sly, and enough pressure is applied so that the poster knows it's a choice between harmony and the poster.

Who among us believes that harmony is safe?