Strengthening Church Members Committee

I was surfing on some topics and came across the following which really disturbed me:

The Strengthening Church Members Committee (SCMC) is a committee of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) who monitor the publications of church members for possible criticism of local and general leaders of the church. If criticism is found, the committee may forward information to local church authorities, who may bring charges of apostasy, which can result in excommunication.

Personally I was shocked when I read it, then came the anger…I feel that if I disagree with a GA, for example Julie B. Beck (general RS president) and publish something, even if it’s in a blog, I have Big Brother watching me…Shine your light on what you think.

That’s one reason why I wouldn’t want to use my own name like Ray, Brian, and Tom have been doing so that I can say what I want to without worrying as much about what anyone that knows me would think if they find out about it. It seems like they haven’t been excommunicating members for “apostasy” (criticizing the Church and its leaders) quite the same way they used to but you never know how local leaders will react if they start to think you’re a troublemaker.

I’m not concerned about the SCMC. I have no intention of hiding. I am who am. The church can take or leave it.

I’m not concerned. I understand the motivation, and, in theory, I actually don’t disagree with it from a protection standpoint. (For example, if I were the CEO of a company, I would want to know if one of my employees was publicly trying to foment a rebellion of some sort.)

If the Church was excommunicating members right and left for simple differences of belief, I would be concerned. Even if I don’t agree with some of the excommunications of past members for things they published, that doesn’t happen very often – and I’m not aware of a high-profile case for quite some time. On the other hand, I do think there is GREAT potential to understand how members think and what they believe by keeping an eye on large group blogs and individual blogs with large followings – like BCC, FMH, Times&Seasons, Mormanity, etc. My personal blog has a visit quite regularly from the Church’s ISP -but I have no idea if it is a common member who works at a Church building or if it someone more “official” in some way. I don’t really care, since I’m honest and am not trying to foment discord or discontent in any way.

I have heard multiple things in General Conference over the last five years or so that lead me to believe the apostles and prophets are WELL aware of many things discussed in the Bloggernacle – and almost none of those references have been negative. Most have been very positive.

I have heard multiple things in General Conference over the last five years or so that lead me to believe the apostles and prophets are WELL aware of many things discussed in the Bloggernacle – and almost none of those references have been negative. Most have been very positive.

I think the new CHI addressed many themes we hear people griping about online, although many of us think they didn’t go far enough. But I also think the GA’s respond to many things they don’t approve of. There is BKP’s “listening to alternate voices” talk, as well as Elder Nelson’s cafeteria Mormonism comment at Conference. As well as the DHOakes talk about how people can’t just march off on the strength of their own personal information if it conflicts with the priesthood line. These are all things that I hear at StayLDS and that I understand are discussed at other LDS sites — they are part of the NOM/disaffected Mormon sub-culture.

So, while I agree that positive things have happened from all this blogging, there is also a disapproving undercurrent from the GA’s at the same time — it cuts both ways.

Brown, it’s an analogy, and no analogy is perfect – and you took it in the worst possible way, frankly.

I’m not upset at all in saying that. I’m just pointing out that it wasn’t intended AT ALL in the way you took it – and that there are MANY other ways to take it. How we interpret things like that says a lot about where we are in our own journeys at those moments, and I think this can be a good way for you to step back a bit and realize what your reaction says about your outlook right now. That immediate reaction, btw, is a good example of why you’re here.

Again, don’t take that as criticism. It isn’t meant to be – but I think it’s important to consider.

Yeah, I immediately cringed at your post Ray, both because I took it the same way that Brown did, and then I had to “repent” for being so, what’s the right word, “hostile” maybe, and unfair towards the church in general.

The church angers me. I get what you are saying Brown – but even if we are in the right – it’s just going to damage us further if we allow it to destroy our peace. Our reactions aren’t going to hurt the church at all. Even if I have to step back or eventually leave the church entirely, I don’t want to be bitter and angry towards it for the rest of my life.

Peace.

Brown, it’s an analogy, and no analogy is perfect – and you took it in the worst possible way, frankly.

I’m not upset at all in saying that. I’m just pointing out that it wasn’t intended AT ALL in the way you took it – and that there are MANY other ways to take it. How we interpret things like that says a lot about where we are in our own journeys at those moments, and I think this can be a good way for you to step back a bit and realize what your reaction says about your outlook right now. That immediate reaction, btw, is a good example of why you’re here.

Again, don’t take that as criticism. It isn’t meant to be – but I think it’s important to consider.

I merely said I did not like your analogy because of what it might imply. I did not say I felt that particular way. If I did, I would not have had a problem with your comment – I would have agreed with it.

A book publisher sent me a pre-release copy of a book to review. This book talked about the Strengthening the Church Members Committee. What I read astonished me, because it did seem quite heavy handed. I plan to do a review of the book, but the publisher asked that I wait until it gets closer to publication. Honestly, this is a topic I would really like to discuss more, but I feel a little muzzled until the book comes out.

I think this committee is cyclical. Sometimes they let things pass, and sometimes they come down hard. It does seem that they came down hard on the September 6. They seem to have softened somewhat since then, but there are still times that they get involved. I had considered being more open with my identity, but after reading this book, I have decided to stay relatively anonymous on the internet for now.

Recently, I have reviewed articles from people like Newell Bringhurst and Jonathan Stapley. I really admire people like that, because they seem to be able to discuss controversial topics, but don’t get singled out like Michael Quinn.