Undercover atheists in LDS Church

[McBell]

since when is the search for truth something to be ashamed of?

When the "search for truth" involves lies, deception, and dishonesty.

But lets stop with the bull **** here a minute.
Are you going to claim that they were searching for "truth"?
Seriously?

From what I can tell they were not looking for "truth" so much as they were looking for a story to tell.

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.

Because they, like you, were hoping to find something that simply is not there.

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

I think the real issue here is that you are just as upset as those two to find out that there was nothing their dishonest, deceiptful appraoch could find that would not have been revealed by an honest open approach.

 

[Breathe]

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...

What do you expect, though?

If someone is going to start arguing with me about religion, I'm going to tell them they can believe or not, but to have a little more respect and stop trying to argue with me. Many believers feel this way.

It is only the immature who feel they can convert others to their viewpoint by arguing, religious or non-religious.

If someone is going to start an argument in a religious building, then they are not being respectful, and the Mormons, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, or anyone else--has the very right to remove anyone from their place of worship whom they feel are trying to cause controversy and/or trouble.

Simply, if they sincerely wanted to know the answers, they could have, should have, and would have received answers to things that could be answered.

Clearly, they did not. They wanted some scandal, like attention-whoring teens.

 

[McBell]

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

Does not appear that way to me.
It appears to me that you are doing nothing but trying as hard as you can to justify their dishonesty, their lies, and their deceit.

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.

You repeat this same line so often I have to wonder who it is you are trying to convince, us or yourself.

 

[McBell]

They wanted some scandal, like attention-whoring teens.

Based on everything I have seen, read, and heard about the whole situation, I have to completely agree.

 

[waitasec]

When the "search for truth" involves lies, deception, and dishonesty.

so you are against the idea of uncover intelligence?

But lets stop with the bull **** here a minute.
Are you going to claim that they were searching for "truth"?
Seriously?

the truth is they don't have all the answers....
the truth is they would be the last to say so.
the truth is they claim to be the true church
the truth is they can't back up that claim.

From what I can tell they were not looking for "truth" so much as they were looking for a story to tell.

yes....

Because they, like you, were hoping to find something that simply is not there.

no not at all. it basically holding a mirror and having them take a look at the truth, they don't have the answers and they avoid answering the hard ones.

I think the real issue here is that you are just as upset as those two to find out that there was nothing their dishonest, deceiptful appraoch could find that would not have been revealed by an honest open approach.

the dishonesty is the claim of being the true church.

 

[Breathe]

Based on everything I have seen, read, and heard about the whole situation, I have to completely agree.

Thanks!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

That's not entirely true.

I think it's reasonable to suspect that a group - Mormons or anyone - might be more guarded around avowed outsiders or people who make it obvious that they're studying the group. Maybe this knowledge will make them act differently, maybe it won't, but if you make yourself obvious, you won't be able to tell whether you're getting the real thing or some santized version for outsiders.

The way to correct for this problem is to minimize the effect that you the investigator would have on the group. It'd be impractical to set up some kind of duck blind in a Mormon meeting house, so the next best thing is for them to conduct themselves in a way that doesn't change the behaviour of the group.

Now that they've done this, they've answered a doubt that would have otherwise been a problem for them if they had been up-front: maybe Mormons are honest, maybe they're not, but if you look at their actual teachings instead of just taking their word for it, then this question doesn't even matter. Also, it serves as confirmation that other published sources available to outsiders really are reflective of what Mormons actually believe.

So... in terms of pure pragmatism, there was a lot of reason for them to take the approach they did.

This is separate from the ethical questions, of course. There, things are a bit blurrier.

 

[Breathe]

the dishonesty is the claim of being the true church.

I can't see the point in a church existing if it thinks it's the wrong church...

 

[waitasec]

Does not appear that way to me.
It appears to me that you are doing nothing but trying as hard as you can to justify their dishonesty, their lies, and their deceit.

and i have been honest about that....

You repeat this same line so often I have to wonder who it is you are trying to convince, us or yourself.

because i think you are misunderstanding what i meant by "truth"
by the way certain mormons react reveals the truth of insecurity

 

[waitasec]

I can't see the point in a church existing if it thinks it's the wrong church...

denial can keep the idea alive and kicking...

 

[McBell]

so you are against the idea of uncover intelligence?

Is this a question or a diversion tactic?

I strongly suspect it is nothing more than another lame attempt at justifying the shady dealings of those from the OP.

the truth is they don't have all the answers....
the truth is they would be the last to say so.
the truth is they claim to be the true church
the truth is they can't back up that claim.

Lots of opinions here.

Nice diversion tactic, though it failed to divert me.
Care to try again with a straight forward on topic answer?

no not at all. it basically holding a mirror and having them take a look at the truth, they don't have the answers and they avoid answering the hard ones.

Ah, you mean just like you are have been doing in this very thread?

the dishonesty is the claim of being the true church.

Prove it.
Of course, you will have to show which Church is the true church before you can show that it is not the Mormon church.
Good luck with that.

 

[waitasec]

Is this a question or a diversion tactic?

I strongly suspect it is nothing more than another lame attempt at justifying the shady dealings of those from the OP.


Lots of opinions here.

Nice diversion tactic, though it failed to divert me.
Care to try again with a straight forward on topic answer?


Ah, you mean just like you are have been doing in this very thread?


Prove it.
Of course, you will have to show which Church is the true church before you can show that it is not the Mormon church.
Good luck with that.

i find it interesting how you can come up with this opinion without listening to the pod cast in question...
i'll make it easy for you 28:00 into the 2nd part they explain how they came out...
once you listen to that then i think you would be in a position to have an opinion about what i am saying...

 

[Breathe]

denial can keep the idea alive and kicking...

Which isn't what they do.

Religions exist because they believe they are correct. They would not exist if they did not, because people don't want to be in a religion which is wrong.

Whether or not they are correct or not is arguable, but is a different topic to this entirely, and ultimately is something that cannot really be won either way.

 

[waitasec]

Which isn't what they do.

Religions exist because they believe they are correct. They would not exist if they did not, because people don't want to be in a religion which is wrong.

i agree.

Whether or not they are correct or not is arguable, but is a different topic to this entirely, and ultimately is something that cannot really be won either way.

no one is saying if what they did wasn't ethical...yes they were deceitful and i am curious as to why they felt they had to be deceitful...
if you listen to the 2nd part at around 28:00 minutes in i think you will have a different POV...
these guys come off as sincere people...but i can say that because i heard it

 

[Mr Spinkles]

So... in terms of pure pragmatism, there was a lot of reason for them to take the approach they did.

I hear you, but I'm not so sure. Anthropologists and social scientists have established scientific methods for studying human beings without deception, as Apex pointed out. There are plenty of LDS members and ex-members who are happy to talk about so-called "sanitized" and "un-sanitized" versions of LDS doctrine. And furthermore, it sounds like the "undercover atheists" only really lied at the very end, and thus they did not gain any additional knowledge/experience as a result of the deception--"sanitized" or otherwise.

This reminds me of a secular student group we had in college. We explicitly said that anyone who is curious, including religious people, are absolutely welcome to come to our meetings and events. One guy from Campus Crusade for Christ sometimes came, and I appreciated that he introduced himself to the officers of the club and told us he was from CCC. He basically asked, "Is it cool if I come to your meetings?" and we said, sure! He didn't say why he wanted to come to the meetings, and we didn't ask him. He did not identify himself to everyone at a group meeting, and we officers decided we would never deliberately "out" him to the rest of the group. A few other people came occasionally, whom we believed were also sort of "spies" if you like from other Christian groups, but they did not identify themselves to anyone. I guess they thought they would find out about our atheist plots and secrets .... we just laughed it off.

Ah, what a great club that was ... !

 

[Breathe]

these guys come off as sincere people...but i can say that because i heard it

I listened to the other one, though, and I did not find them to be entirely sincere, but that's my take on their acts. Maybe they are sincere people, but their actions are, in my opinion, insincere.

I get the feeling there were ulterior motives within the one I listened to, and it was of a religion people usually know nothing about. Why would it be any different for the Mormons, really, whom they rated higher?

What bugs me was that there was no need for them to be baptised, as has been pointed out.

 

[Katzpur]

mormonism doesn't have all the answers...

Did I say it does? Did I even remotely imply that it does? Why would you even feel the need to make that comment?

 

[Katzpur]

i don't understand.

That's right, you don't.

you can answer something that can't be answered?


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

What I was trying to say is that there are some questions that might be asked for which the answer would have to be, "I don't know. The Church had never addressed that issue." Those are the questions that can't be answered. I can't answer those questions any more than anyone else can. There are no questions that we are forbidden to answer, except to explain the covenants we make in the temples. Any other questions are fair game, and if there are answers, anyone who is willing to look hard enough will certainly find someone willing and able to respond to them.

 

[Katzpur]

the truth is they don't have all the answers....

That's right; they dont.

the truth is they would be the last to say so.

That's not the truth. They would be the first to say that.

the truth is they claim to be the true church

That's correct. That's the claim.

the truth is they can't back up that claim.

Of course they can't. There are some things which, in this life, are simply unprovable.

the dishonesty is the claim of being the true church.

That's entirely subjective, waitasec, and you know it is. You can't prove their claims are dishonest any more than I can prove they're honest. The only difference is that I'm far less interested in proving the LDS Church is true than you are in proving it is false.

 

[Katzpur]

I think it's reasonable to suspect that a group - Mormons or anyone - might be more guarded around avowed outsiders or people who make it obvious that they're studying the group. Maybe this knowledge will make them act differently, maybe it won't, but if you make yourself obvious, you won't be able to tell whether you're getting the real thing or some santized version for outsiders.

Given the fact that if you google "Mormon," you'll find at least 100 anti-Mormon websites for every one pro-Mormon website, is it any wonder members of the Church are guarded? We explain our beliefs and then by tweaking one or two words, our beliefs are made to look absolutely laughable. By leaving out a few important details, explanations take on a whole new meaning. With just a little bit of creative license, doctrines become something no practicing Latter-day Saint would even recognize. Don't even try to tell me that this doesn't happen constantly.

The way to correct for this problem is to minimize the effect that you the investigator would have on the group. It'd be impractical to set up some kind of duck blind in a Mormon meeting house, so the next best thing is for them to conduct themselves in a way that doesn't change the behaviour of the group.

And yet there is always this assumption that Mormons are going to lie and that you have to trick them into telling the truth. Why can't anybody understand how offensive that is? And ultimately, what would we accomplish by lying? That's what I don't understand.