A source from the Curriculum Department at the Church Office Building told me yesterday that not long ago he was in a meeting with some of the higher-level management. One of the people in the meeting had a folder containing a list of blogs that they were monitoring and some example postings. My source was surprised to hear my blog mentioned by name and discussed in the meeting. He said he wasn't about to tell anyone he knew me, but the verdict on my blog was that I was not a threat and not worth worrying about.

I've known for a long time that the church keeps tabs on blogs, including mine. I used to get regular hits from the church's IP address. When I mentioned that in my blog, the hits stopped, but then I started getting regular hits from the "More Good Foundation." When I mentioned that, those hits stopped too, leaving me to believe that they're still watching but using a proxy.

I guess it just floors me that they keep such close tabs on anyone who says anything even remotely critical. Paranoid much?

I guess my blog has never been about the church, per se, but I have tried to aim it toward those who have figured out the church isn't true but don't know how to get out without causing a lot of pain to family and friends (and themselves). I figure people can learn from my mistakes and hopefully get out with less pain than I did.

So, no, it's not really threatening to the church.

Exactly what do they consider a threat?

Would educating and enlightening 50 people to the point they left the church be a threat?

Or starting a blog and letting people around the world in on the scam?

Where do you suppose they draw the line?

I don't know. I guess they could hold a disciplinary council, but I couldn't care less.

if they weren't so full of themselves!

Your story reminds me of (legitimate!) concerns governments (U.S. and others) have in keeping tabs on security threats, ranking them according to apparent level of danger posed and allocating resources to monitor and counter them based on the government's evaluation.

What a sorry collection of self-obsessed wannabes run that hideous cult!

wouldn't their time be better spent on humanitarian efforts? I mean honestly, get a life COB!

runtu, when you say they had a list, and your blog was discussed. dosen't this give you a erie feeling. I guess we can't let TSCC scare us. I guess they can talk about anything they want, but what are they aiming for, to shut someone's blog down? they can't do that right?

No, it doesn't give me an eerie feeling. I think it's hilarious, especially since it was discussed in the department where I used to work. 14 million members, and they're paying someone to look at my blog. Too funny.

Their criteria is simple. You can say anything you want to anybody you want as long as you don't have a public audience.

If you gave interviews in public media, that would be entirely different. If you wrote a book that started selling well, you would be a threat even though you are saying the same exact thing on your blog.

Think of the September Six. They committed the crime of getting publicity for their ideas becoming well-known or popular, not from having them.

Remember George Pace, the religion teacher from Provo who became more popular than Bruce R. McConkie. That was a mortal sin and they got rid of him and his so-called "personal relationship with the Savior" crap.

Runtu, you are not paranoid at all. I was told they had a "file" on me and were watching me closely, simply because I had a newspaper column on religon. They "assigned" someone to watch me and that person (the stake president, I might add) registered into two of my classes at Utah State.

They are the ones who are paranoid.

Anagrammy

they'd have time to clean their own damn churches!!!!!

Bwahahahahaha!!

If they read too much "anti-mormon" information, they might be led astray.

Actually, I'm kind of jealous. I'd like to get paid to monitor this site.

I'm floored by this. First off, by the fact they've deployed sufficient resources to monitor and evaluate thousands of blogs. This suggests the church has commited quite a bit to spying in terms of people, time and money.

Second, what kind of criteria are they using to determine if someone is a threat? Your writing about church issues is rational and honest. You're threatening by the mere fact that you are not trying to be threatening. It's persuasive to a certain kind of reader, one who is educated, rational and critical. Not a threat? Sheesh, I don't if I would take that as a compliment or an insult.

So, lets say they decide you're a threat. They excommunicate you, because that's about all they can do.

So what? You can still keep selling your book, writing your blog, announcing to the world that they stalked you.

Their good ole boy tactics don't work. You can't threaten someone with their membership to a religion that's made up and expect to be taken seriously.

It's not a church, it is not even a cult, it is a pseudo-cult, dedicated to making lots of money.

It is a money making machine, but the man who made it is long dead, shot in what was an attempted jailbreak.

amen to that!!

I'd say its more of a multinational corporation with a religious subsidiary.

Some Christ-centered church, EH!? Devoting resources to protecting the church's image by spying on people--what does that have to do with worshipping Christ?