Undercover atheists in LDS Church

[Breathe]

that's a good question...
actually i see what is going on here. the thing is these guys have an audience, we don't.
as soon as cameras and microphones are in view and questions like what 9-10ths_Penguin pointed out would be the sort of questions that cannot be answered...which is why i believe led them to go 'undercover' .

Could they not have simply asked the questions, though?

 

[waitasec]

Could they not have simply asked the questions, though?

if they asked the question as carrie and ross, the pod casters, they wouldn't have a pod cast about the mormon church.

 

[Breathe]

if they asked the question as carrie and ross, the pod casters, they wouldn't have a pod cast about the mormon church.

I don't see why that would be the case.

 

[Katzpur]

When talking in general terms, sure, but I don't think they work for some of the specific questions they talked about in the podcast. The missionaries were engaging in multiple long meetings with them, so it's not like they didn't have the time to clear up any confusion over vague questions, and seeing how they ended up asking Ross and Carrie if they'd consider baptism, I don't think that the missionaries thought that they were trying to trip them up... not once they got beyond the initial stages, anyhow.

Carrie had one question that she asked several people, just because she never got a real answer: "what about intersex people?" She would ask that seeing the emphasis that the LDS Church places on gender, how it deals with people (millions of people) who don't fit neatly into either gender, both in terms of marriage on Earth as well as the plan for salvation.

I think that question is specific enough that it doesn't create the issues of vagueness you mentioned, and while I could understand that it's an uncommon enough question that a missionary might not be prepared for it immediately, they said they were repeatedly told things like "that's a good question. I don't have an answer for you know, but I'll do some research and get one for you for our next meeting"... except no answer would ever come; every meeting, they'd just get a promise that they'd get an answer later.

Or another specific example that I just picked up on re-listening to the podcast: Carrie talked about how during one meeting when the missionaries were discussing the plan of salvation, they were talking about the different groups of people in Heaven, and how in the Celestial Heaven, the "Exalted Ones" (if I have the term correct) would be granted worlds of their own along with their wives. Carrie pointed out to the missionaries that this arrangement makes a woman's fate dependent on the actions of another, which the missionaries said, in their argument against Original Sin, is unjust. She never got a good answer to that question either.

Those are the only specific examples I could find, but they did talk about how their missionaries would dance around questions. They said that one frequent refrain they'd get from one of their missionaries was "you know, there are some questions where it's good to spend your life searching for an answer, and others where you should just 'put it on the shelf' and grab it on the way up to Heaven to ask God. I think I'm going to put that question on the shelf."

If someone responded to my honest questions that way, I think it would drive me nuts. And I think that in cases where the person is asking an honest question that has a real answer, but the answer is kept from the person because the missionary has decided that the questioner doesn't "need" to know it yet, there is an element of misleadingness going on... especially when the missionary knows that his failure to answer the question directly will probably result in a false impression.

Too bad I wasn't one of the missionaries. I would have felt comfortable answering any and all of those questions. If anybody's interested, I'll do so (but I don't think it's really pertinent to this thread).

 

[Katzpur]

as soon as cameras and microphones are in view and questions like what 9-10ths_Penguin pointed out would be the sort of questions that cannot be answered...which is why i believe led them to go 'undercover' .

There are certain questions which can't be answered (i.e. there are no answers), but there aren't any questions that won't be answered (i.e. we're too ashamed to answer). What, exactly, do you think they accomplished by going undercover that they would not have been able to answer by just being honest?

 

[waitasec]

I don't see why that would be the case.

who want's to be presented with a question they can't answer if it is a question they should be able to answer...and have it presented to an audience that you know is skeptical and are critical of you?

 

[waitasec]

There are certain questions which can't be answered (i.e. there are no answers), but there aren't any questions that won't be answered (i.e. we're too ashamed to answer). What, exactly, do you think they accomplished by going undercover that they would not have been able to answer by just being honest?

mormonism doesn't have all the answers...

 

[waitasec]

Too bad I wasn't one of the missionaries. I would have felt comfortable answering any and all of those questions. If anybody's interested, I'll do so (but I don't think it's really pertinent to this thread).

There are certain questions which can't be answered (i.e. there are no answers), but there aren't any questions that won't be answered (i.e. we're too ashamed to answer). What, exactly, do you think they accomplished by going undercover that they would not have been able to answer by just being honest?

i don't understand. you can answer something that can't be answered?


if it cant be answered it won't be answered.

 

[Breathe]

who want's to be presented with a question they can't answer if it is a question they should be able to answer...and have it presented to an audience that you know is skeptical and are critical of you?

Why would they comment on that, if they asked something?

For example:

"Such and such and such and such?"
"I don't know"

Would they really blog "Such and such didn't know!! How ignorant are the Mormons!!!!"? Or would they just wait a short while for an answer from someone who knows a little more?

 

[Breathe]

There are certain questions which can't be answered (i.e. there are no answers), but there aren't any questions that won't be answered (i.e. we're too ashamed to answer). What, exactly, do you think they accomplished by going undercover that they would not have been able to answer by just being honest?

Totally.

 

[waitasec]

Why would they comment on that, if they asked something?

For example:

"Such and such and such and such?"
"I don't know"

Would they really blog "Such and such didn't know!! How ignorant are the Mormons!!!!"?

no, their attitude towards them, as far as i'm concerned, is respectful and cordial not demeaning.

Or would they just wait a short while for an answer from someone who knows a little more?

yes.
the hard questions were brushed off and never dealt with...ultimately
i wouldn't say a short while, they were doing this for quite sometime.
listen to the pod cast, if you haven't...it seems that you haven't, and judge it for yourself.

 

[Breathe]

no, their attitude towards them, as far as i'm concerned, is respectful and cordial not demeaning.

And yet they considered LDS to be dangerous for women.. I'm not quite sure I agree with you there.

yes.
the hard questions were brushed off and never dealt with...ultimately
i wouldn't say a short while, they were doing this for quite sometime.
listen to the pod cast, if you haven't...it seems that you haven't, and judge it for yourself.

There is a difference between "I don't know the answer to that" and "S/he won't tell us" though - and even "We don't know" and "They refuse to answer".


I managed to listen to the one about Sikhism. Their ignorance of Sikhism's teachings shows enough for me that they don't know what they're talking about before spouting off and judging a religion.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think Apex and Katzpur made pretty solid points. The "undercover atheists" admit they lied when they swore to uphold the codes of conduct (chastity, no hot drinks, etc.) So no one can dispute they lied.

There is an interesting question, to what extent is it acceptable to be deceptive, in order to gain information? I am sure we can all imagine situations where some deception, to gain crucial information, might be acceptable (e.g., an FBI agent or an undercover journalist records their conversations with a suspected mafia boss).

But clearly the dishonesty was unnecessary to learn about the LDS Church, and the information they gained, apparently, wasn't earth-shattering. It's not like they uncovered any illegal activity, top-secret plans for world domination, etc.

It's an interesting experiment but they could have stopped short of lying and still participated to see "what it's like" to go through (part of) the process of becoming Mormon. They could have been honest and said "we are curious, but we have lots of doubts" and stopped short of lying when they promised to follow the codes of conduct. The lies didn't add anything to their experiment.

 

[waitasec]

And yet they considered LDS to be dangerous for women.. I'm not quite sure I agree with you there.

no they didn't say that...that is my opinion.

There is a difference between "I don't know the answer to that" and "S/he won't tell us" though - and even "We don't know" and "They refuse to answer".

well i think it's dishonest to say, "that's a good question, i'll get back to you on that", and you don't intend to because it was never dealt with, just brushed aside.

I managed to listen to the one about Sikhism. Their ignorance of Sikhism's teachings shows enough for me that they don't know what they're talking about before spouting off and judging a religion.

don't you think that is why they are there in the 1st place, because they are ignorant of it?

 

[McBell]

i'm sorry was that a yes or a no question?

Yes it is.

seems to me you already made up your mind.

Your transference is duly noted.

what are you talking about?

I am talking about your blatant avoidance of giving a direct answer to this question:

So basically you are wanting to know why people who value honesty are offended by people being dishonest?
​

Or perhaps you are practicing even more dishonesty yourself?

that wasn't a direct question
it was a statement that ended with a question mark...

Your insecurities are starting to show.

One wonders what it is you are afraid of.
I mean, it is a rather simple question after all.

 

[Breathe]

well i think it's dishonest to say, "that's a good question, i'll get back to you on that", and you don't intend to because it was never dealt with, just brushed aside.

It would be - but not everyone does it.

don't you think that is why they are there in the 1st place, because they are ignorant of it?

I don't. I'll explain why.

The fact they attended the LDS church and were baptised - thereby agreeing to things they were not going to keep, and then reporting on it shows they weren't. They were there for controversy, not for full curiosity, which is why I attended various places of worship: curiosity, and as a seeker.

The "weirdness scale" they had for judging Sikhism shows they're not there for learning, but for pretty negative reasons - that was confirmed when they complained they could not really find any major faults with Sikhism, and it wasn't weird enough - and then spouting stuff off about what the religion teaches, without really having a clue - that's not curiosity. That comes more across as "LOL THEY ARE WEIRD!", not as something respectful. The fact that they said "Go to the gurdwārā for a cheap meal and some nice music" (paraphrase) was something I found quite ignorant.

By no means, though, do I have an issue with people going to learn--my issue here is the deceit that was entailed, and then judging a religion based on a small group's service.

 

[waitasec]

Yes it is.


Your transference is duly noted.


I am talking about your blatant avoidance of giving a direct answer to this question:

So basically you are wanting to know why people who value honesty are offended by people being dishonest?
​

Or perhaps you are practicing even more dishonesty yourself?


Your insecurities are starting to show.

One wonders what it is you are afraid of.
I mean, it is a rather simple question after all.

i never claimed to not be insecure, did i.

my point is they don't value honesty. they value appearance over substance
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence....
thus far the only evidence i see is insecurity, it takes one to know one.

 

[waitasec]

By no means, though, do I have an issue with people going to learn--my issue here is the deceit that was entailed, and then judging a religion based on a small group's service.

what i am trying to bring to light, with much difficulty , is the reason why i think they had to go that route. i have seen many documentaries even on TV, where the interviewer who happens to be the skeptic gets into a heated discussion with the person they are interviewing and the interview is over...

at the end the atheists came out and the people they were involved with didn't seem to be upset...some people on the outside looking in are more bothered by what they did for a number of reasons...one is, it puts atheists in a negative light. but what i am not getting is, since when is the search for truth something to be ashamed of? the way they went about it is because the mormon church set this up for themselves by kicking people out for asking questions they couldn't answer in front of a camera.
so why else do you think these people felt they had to revert to dishonesty in order to get some honest answers? imo, a non answer is an answer.

i think the real issue is the refusal to acknowledge not all questions can be answered.

 

[McBell]

i never claimed to not be insecure, did i.

my point is they don't value honesty. they value appearance over substance
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence....
thus far the only evidence i see is insecurity, it takes one to know one.

Yes, and in your haste to foist your point to the front you have ignored other points.
Thus FURTHER confirming my point that you are not in this thread for honest discussion.

 

[waitasec]

Yes, and in your haste to foist your point to the front you have ignored other points.
Thus FURTHER confirming my point that you are not in this thread for honest discussion.

i think i'm trying to get to the heart of the matter...

if there is nothing to hide, other than the fact they cannot answer difficult questions without ending an interview or by avoiding it, they brought this on to themselves, as far as i am concerned.