Will September Dawn drive chapel Mormons to research more?

[_beastie]

If they post anonymously the ex-Mormons should happily share their SCMC stories though. That was my point. I'm not sure why people who hate the Church want to retain their membership though.

How can the committee gather evidence against an anonymous person on the internet? They wouldn't have a SCMC story to share unless the committee gathered information on them, would they?

[Guest]

If they post anonymously the ex-Mormons should happily share their SCMC stories though. That was my point. I'm not sure why people who hate the Church want to retain their membership though.

How can the committee gather evidence against an anonymous person on the internet? They wouldn't have a SCMC story to share unless the committee gathered information on them, would they?

Some of them are ex-Mormons. Wouldn't they have stories of how they were excommunicated? Those anonymous people mask real people who presumably have lives outside the web. They had to have been excommunicated for something. Why no SCMC stories then? Did they all sin? Did they all voluntarily withdraw?

[_beastie]

Some of them are ex-Mormons. Wouldn't they have stories of how they were excommunicated? Those anonymous people mask real people who presumably have lives outside the web. They have to be excommunicated for something.

The majority of exmormons who post on the internet on sites like RFM are exmormons because they asked to have their names removed from church records, like me.

[_The Nehor]

Some of them are ex-Mormons. Wouldn't they have stories of how they were excommunicated? Those anonymous people mask real people who presumably have lives outside the web. They have to be excommunicated for something.

The majority of exmormons who post on the internet on sites like RFM are exmormons because they asked to have their names removed from church records, like me.

True, but if the SCMC is half as active as people insist there should be lots of stories coming from the excommunicated. Why are they quiet?

[_truth dancer]

Hi Nehor....

True, but if the SCMC is half as active as people insist there should be lots of stories coming from the excommunicated. Why are they quiet?

First, I'm not sure anyone has stated how "active" the SCMC is... maybe I missed a post?

We know from those involved that the church monitors numerous sites... (anyone remember how many)?

We know that the church, in addition to regular member files, keeps files on some members who may have written, spoken, or otherwise discussed the church in a less than faith promoting light.

We know that the SCMC has a secretary for the committee which implies at least a few members.

We know that the SCMC has in the past, at the request of the church and a wife, arranged for a husband to meet with a professor without the man knowing the meeting was arranged by the SCMC.

And, we know that the SCMC specifically asked said professor to not disclose their involvement.

So... why would anyone who is called into the bishop's office have any idea the SCMC was behind it?

How would they know?

Based on Dan's experience, the SCMC seems to not want folks to know they are involved. Like Dan, I'm guessing most Bishops would not disclose the information.

Just a few years ago based on the ZLMB thread, Dan and other apologists seemed not to even know the church had files on members. So, how would less informed members know?

Ya know? ;-)

~dancer~

[_Runtu]

I don't consider myself particularly paranoid, but my modest little blog got frequent hits from the Church Office Building, the "More Good Foundation," and BYU. Maybe I'm just that good a writer. Or maybe someone was keeping tabs on what I wrote. I don't know.

[_beastie]

True, but if the SCMC is half as active as people insist there should be lots of stories coming from the excommunicated. Why are they quiet?

I can recall very few RFM posters who were excommunicated, and I have no idea if they had any experience with SCMC, and nor do I have any idea if they're quiet. How do you know there are enough to produce significant evidence, AND that they're quiet?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Hi Nehor...We know from those involved that the church monitors numerous sites... (anyone remember how many)?

Personally, I continue to doubt this. I've never noticed the slightest serious or detailed awareness on the part of anybody in Salt Lake City of anti-Mormon or ex-Mormon sites. On a small handful of occasions, somebody up there has asked me about them, but only rather casually. I've given a short answer, and that has been that.

We know that the SCMC has a secretary for the committee which implies at least a few members.

I would be surprised if it were as many as ten, and I know that the secretary who spoke to me has another (probably) much more demanding assignment, quite unrelated. (In case Scratch is interested, his name is Felix Krull.)

I serve on a very different committee at Church headquarters. We meet twice a year. We have a secretary. We have no special office; we simply meet in an available conference room, usually for 1-2 hours. About twice a year, something arrives in the mail from the secretary.

Based on Dan's experience, the SCMC seems to not want folks to know they are involved. Like Dan, I'm guessing most Bishops would not disclose the information.

I doubt that the kind of story that I told happens very often. Given who I am and what I do with my spare time, if it happened very often I would expect to have been asked to have similar conversations at least a few more times over the past fifteen years or so. But I haven't been. I have no reason to believe that what I was involved in represents Standard Operating Procedure; I suspect that it was, as I've said, a bit of a favor to a friend.

Just a few years ago based on the ZLMB thread, Dan and other apologists seemed not to even know the church had files on members. So, how would less informed members know?

I don't think that the Church does have files on members, apart from the standard membership files that everybody knows about. There might be a manila folder of clippings for this or that public dissident, but the folks at RFM and here who seem to get a delicious rush of excitement at the thought that Big Brethren are Watching Them are, I strongly suspect, suffering from delusions of grandeur.

[_harmony]

Hi Nehor...We know from those involved that the church monitors numerous sites... (anyone remember how many)?

Personally, I continue to doubt this. I've never noticed the slightest serious or detailed awareness on the part of anybody in Salt Lake City of anti-Mormon or ex-Mormon sites. On a small handful of occasions, somebody up there has asked me about them, but only rather casually. I've given a short answer, and that has been that.

Then how do you explain this:

Runtu

I don't consider myself particularly paranoid, but my modest little blog got frequent hits from the Church Office Building, the "More Good Foundation," and BYU. Maybe I'm just that good a writer. Or maybe someone was keeping tabs on what I wrote. I don't know.

And that's just one little blog. Or are you calling Runtu a liar?

[_truth dancer]

Hi Dan,

Personally, I continue to doubt this. I've never noticed the slightest serious or detailed awareness on the part of anybody in Salt Lake City of anti-Mormon or ex-Mormon sites. On a small handful of occasions, somebody up there has asked me about them, but only rather casually. I've given a short answer, and that has been that.

A while ago, on FAIR, someone linked to a site of an organization (I think BYU related) where there was an article, written by someone involved stating that the church did indeed monitor sites. In the article, they mentioned a specific number (which in my mind was quite high), but after a day or two the article was removed. (I do not remember the details but I clearly remember that it specifically stated the church was monitoring sites).

Does anyone remember this? I'm guessing it was about a year and a half ago?

~dancer~