Undercover atheists in LDS Church

[waitasec]

I agree with you DeepShadow. Incidentally ... and I'm almost afraid to ask ... who "were not yet to receive the priesthood" in the quote in your signature, and why do you exclude that part of the quote?

guess DeepShadow isn't in the position to reveal that to you...

 

[cablescavenger]

They Do It So You Don’t Have To | Friendly Atheist

Looks like an atheist couple recently went through all the motions to join the LDS Church so they could talk about it on a podcast. Do you think think it is ethical for people to lie to others just to get an inside look at their beliefs?

It is better than lying about your beliefs in order to look inside someones wallet?

 

[Katzpur]

It is better than lying about your beliefs in order to look inside someones wallet?

Excuse me? Sorry to be dense, but what are you trying to say?

 

[cablescavenger]

Excuse me? Sorry to be dense, but what are you trying to say?

Just because they are atheists doesn't make them bad people, churches are supposed to be places of acceptance, I would be more worried by a church that discouraged strangers. :yes:

On the other side of the coin, preachers too can be bad, but they do it at the expense of the congregation, and take congregational donations knowing they are not being altogether honest. Now that is worse in my book (and no, I wasn't thinking of a particular religion, or crime, I just feel for people when you hear about occurrences).
:sad:

 

[Katzpur]

Just because they are atheists doesn't make them bad people, churches are supposed to be places of acceptance, I would be more worried by a church that discouraged strangers. :yes:

I see. Have you been following this thread, or did you just pick up the conversation with the last few posts? The reason I ask is that there is a "Visitors Welcome" sign on the front of every one of the tens of thousands of LDS chapels in the world. We do welcome visitors (atheists included), but we also appreciate it when they are upfront with us.

On the other side of the coin, preachers too can be bad, but they do it at the expense of the congregation, and take congregational donations knowing they are not being altogether honest. Now that is worse in my book (and no, I wasn't thinking of a particular religion, or crime, I just feel for people when you hear about occurrences).
:sad:

I agree. That's definitely not an issue in the LDS Church, though, because we don't have a paid ministry. Our "clergy" is comprised of the lay membership of the Church, and the bishop of an LDS ward (roughly equivalent to a parish pastor) holds a full-time paying job to support his family. I've had bishops who were doctors, insurance executives, tv journalists, professional genealogists, etc.

 

[McBell]

Just because they are atheists doesn't make them bad people, churches are supposed to be places of acceptance, I would be more worried by a church that discouraged strangers. :yes:

On the other side of the coin, preachers too can be bad, but they do it at the expense of the congregation, and take congregational donations knowing they are not being altogether honest. Now that is worse in my book (and no, I wasn't thinking of a particular religion, or crime, I just feel for people when you hear about occurrences).
:sad:

In case you missed it, the problem is not with their being Atheist, it is with their lies.

Nice strawman though. :clap

Huh?
So you are implying that because some preachers are bad that it is somehow ok for the atheists to lie?
If not, why are you bothering with yet another strawman?

 

[cablescavenger]

In case you missed it, the problem is not with their being Atheist, it is with their lies.

Nice strawman though. :clap

Huh?
So you are implying that because some preachers are bad that it is somehow ok for the atheists to lie?
If not, why are you bothering with yet another strawman?

Straw man? I merely misunderstood the nature of the complaint.

Did they lie? Perhaps that is the straw man you are looking for?

I have just listened to the podcast, and they told the church elders that they had been raised christian, but fell away from it and had no religious beliefs. They did not lie to any direct question, were respectful of the LDS, and did not hide their own beliefs, which they were able to share with the elders, and they also credit the LDS elders for being open minded and welcoming toward them. They conceded they always wanted to do the podcast, but were not prepared to lie in order to achieve that.

I was also not implying that it was alright for anyone to lie, but that it was not nearly so bad as some of the stuff that does happen in the name of religion. I also did not imply it was LDS, because we do not get many mormons in the UK, so I know little about them, or their beliefs.

 

[cablescavenger]

I see. Have you been following this thread, or did you just pick up the conversation with the last few posts? The reason I ask is that there is a "Visitors Welcome" sign on the front of every one of the tens of thousands of LDS chapels in the world. We do welcome visitors (atheists included), but we also appreciate it when they are upfront with us.

I caught the thread quite late, so I only read the last few pages. I am sure there are LDS churches in the UK, but there are not any by me, so I would not have known about the signage, and as already mentioned I missed a good bunch of the threads, but thank you for letting me know

I agree. That's definitely not an issue in the LDS Church, though, because we don't have a paid ministry. Our "clergy" is comprised of the lay membership of the Church, and the bishop of an LDS ward (roughly equivalent to a parish pastor) holds a full-time paying job to support his family. I've had bishops who were doctors, insurance executives, tv journalists, professional genealogists, etc.

Again, this is something I just would not know. I guess because I am not religious, but am familiar with Catholic and Christian customs, I do tend to assume all Christian based faiths are very similar. I know that is not always the case, and there are some differences between them, but it serves me well in my limitation to read up on every schism in the religion.

I actually like that your elders have full time jobs, I have many issues with religion and one of them is that if your belief in God is a personal thing, then the only people that want your 10% are the religious organisation, and the preacher/priest/vicar etc.

So hats off to LDS for seeing things differently; p.s. good work on the genealogy too. :bow:

 

[Katzpur]

I also did not imply it was LDS, because we do not get many mormons in the UK, so I know little about them, or their beliefs.

Just as a heads up, there are currently about 184,000 Mormons in the UK. That would equate to about 1 Mormon per every 400 people.

 

[McBell]

Straw man? I merely misunderstood the nature of the complaint.

Did they lie? Perhaps that is the straw man you are looking for?

I have just listened to the podcast, and they told the church elders that they had been raised christian, but fell away from it and had no religious beliefs. They did not lie to any direct question, were respectful of the LDS, and did not hide their own beliefs, which they were able to share with the elders, and they also credit the LDS elders for being open minded and welcoming toward them. They conceded they always wanted to do the podcast, but were not prepared to lie in order to achieve that.

I was also not implying that it was alright for anyone to lie, but that it was not nearly so bad as some of the stuff that does happen in the name of religion. I also did not imply it was LDS, because we do not get many mormons in the UK, so I know little about them, or their beliefs.

A lie is an action, statement, comment, declaration, etc with the intention to deceive.
It is the intention to deceive that makes it a lie.

So if you wish to fall for whole "we did not lie" line of bull ****, then by all means....

Ah, so you are not defending them by pointing out that someone else has done something worse?

"Oh no officer, my getting drunk and killing three people is not nearly as bad as that one time when that other guy got drink and killed a bus load of nuns...."
​

So your strawman was followed up with a non sequitur...

The strawman being "just because they are atheists" and the non sequitur being "it was not nearly so bad as some of the stuff that does happen in the name of religion".

 

[cablescavenger]

A lie is an action, statement, comment, declaration, etc with the intention to deceive.
It is the intention to deceive that makes it a lie.

So if you wish to fall for whole "we did not lie" line of bull ****, then by all means....

Ah, so you are not defending them by pointing out that someone else has done something worse?

"Oh no officer, my getting drunk and killing three people is not nearly as bad as that one time when that other guy got drink and killed a bus load of nuns...."
​

So your strawman was followed up with a non sequitur...

The strawman being "just because they are atheists" and the non sequitur being "it was not nearly so bad as some of the stuff that does happen in the name of religion".

They were open about their atheist beliefs. Not lying.

 

[cablescavenger]

Just as a heads up, there are currently about 184,000 Mormons in the UK. That would equate to about 1 Mormon per every 400 people.

Hi. Thank you for the map.

It looks like the Church in the UK targets larger populations; I am more rural. That said there are two churches by me.

I know the one well as it has been recently built and is a couple of miles from my house, though I did not know it was LDS.

The other church I have passed many times, but it is an unassuming building, so despite having passed it many times, I did not know it was there.

Thank you.

 

[Breathe]

They were open about their atheist beliefs. Not lying.

But they were not.

Here's a few reasons why what they did was dishonest and unnecessary:

1. As has been demonstrated from the thread, when asked if they believe in it, they said they would like to. Not do.

2. When asked about faith, they said they had faith of a mustard seed - that's a tiny amount - but it's directly what Jesus said the amount of faith is needed to move mountains. By using that, they were in effect saying they had a significant amount of faith. They did not.

3. They were baptised. To be baptised as a Mormon requires professing belief in the message that Joseph Smith brought, along the following prophets of Mormonism, as well as Jesus' visit to the Americas, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the True Church, and so on. If you were to go along to a Mormon church and they asked you that before the baptism - as they do - I have first hand experience of this as I visited a Mormon church to learn more about it, and they asked if I believed in the message of Mormonism - if you say no or that you have your doubts, then they will not baptise you. Nor will they ostracise you or keep bringing it up.
The very fact that they were baptised shows that at the very least they were dishonest and secretive about their actual beliefs.

4. It says they did tell their elders. Later - but not before as we can see from a couple of obvious things.

5. There was no need for them to be baptised if they didn't believe it. It's not like Mormonism is secretive. They won't, as soon as you convert, say, "Right, here's what we REALLY believe, and this is the secret handshake, this is the secret code-word, and if you tell anyone we'll punish you".

6. The claims of it being necessary as one suggested because the more information they have the better is moot. There have been a fair few Mormons who have lost their faith and have told their stories.

7. Being baptised does not give you access to any hidden doctrines. I read the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine of Covenants as a non-Mormon, and discussed Mormon theology freely. They were never secretive about what they believed. Naturally not everyone knew the answer to what I asked, but they would always answer what they could, and suggest someone who could if not.

8. If they were going the whole hog to places of worship and doing everything like them, why didn't they go and be baptised as Sikhs? Why not as Jewish converts?


Thus, as we can see, their deception was unnecessary and uncalled for.



Hope it makes it a bit clearer.

 

[cablescavenger]

But they were not.

Here's a few reasons why what they did was dishonest and unnecessary:

1. As has been demonstrated from the thread, when asked if they believe in it, they said they would like to. Not do.

2. When asked about faith, they said they had faith of a mustard seed - that's a tiny amount - but it's directly what Jesus said the amount of faith is needed to move mountains. By using that, they were in effect saying they had a significant amount of faith. They did not.

3. They were baptised. To be baptised as a Mormon requires professing belief in the message that Joseph Smith brought, along the following prophets of Mormonism, as well as Jesus' visit to the Americas, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the True Church, and so on. If you were to go along to a Mormon church and they asked you that before the baptism - as they do - I have first hand experience of this as I visited a Mormon church to learn more about it, and they asked if I believed in the message of Mormonism - if you say no or that you have your doubts, then they will not baptise you. Nor will they ostracise you or keep bringing it up.
The very fact that they were baptised shows that at the very least they were dishonest and secretive about their actual beliefs.

4. It says they did tell their elders. Later - but not before as we can see from a couple of obvious things.

5. There was no need for them to be baptised if they didn't believe it. It's not like Mormonism is secretive. They won't, as soon as you convert, say, "Right, here's what we REALLY believe, and this is the secret handshake, this is the secret code-word, and if you tell anyone we'll punish you".

6. The claims of it being necessary as one suggested because the more information they have the better is moot. There have been a fair few Mormons who have lost their faith and have told their stories.

7. Being baptised does not give you access to any hidden doctrines. I read the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine of Covenants as a non-Mormon, and discussed Mormon theology freely. They were never secretive about what they believed. Naturally not everyone knew the answer to what I asked, but they would always answer what they could, and suggest someone who could if not.

8. If they were going the whole hog to places of worship and doing everything like them, why didn't they go and be baptised as Sikhs? Why not as Jewish converts?


Thus, as we can see, their deception was unnecessary and uncalled for.



Hope it makes it a bit clearer.

I cannot argue with anything you have said because it is your view, and your view is correct for you.

We are however approaching this from different angles, which are incompatible, so disagreement is inevitable.

I do not need to know what religion you are, but I am guessing from your response that religious values, the integrity of the church/religion, religious ritual are all important to you, and anything bringing these into disrepute are (I am guessing here) a sin, or at best inflammatory.

I am not knocking you there, I think they are all admirable traits, and I would like to think I hold similar myself.

Where we disagree is the treatment of the paradigm, or core beliefs of religion, and the word that separates us is "Sacred".

You see, I am an atheist, so nothing is sacred, and everything is questionable. I see little difference between a religious organisation and a football team, they both have followers, non followers, advocates or detractors.

I do not know the history of every football club, or their values or style of play, nearly so well as I know that of my own, and I would almost certainly disagree with the followers of their team, on which is the better team, or who the better footballer. The disagreements might end up with making jokes, or disparaging remarks about the other team, or players etc, but this is just banter.

To you something sacrilegious has almost a neglible impact on my view, as I see it as part of the banter of life, and in some ways your view can also appear over zealous to me, as I have nothing in my world view that I am so protective over, except maybe my family.

To you what these people did was harmful, and yet to me it was trivial.

You can respond by saying I have lower morals than you, and in this instance I could not disagree with you, because the moral value I place on protecting the sanctity of the church or beliefs is very low compared to yours.

 

[Breathe]

I do not need to know what religion you are, but I am guessing from your response that religious values, the integrity of the church/religion, religious ritual are all important to you, and anything bringing these into disrepute are (I am guessing here) a sin, or at best inflammatory.

Nope.

What they did is disrespectful. There was no need to lie or take baptism as believers when they were not.

I do not believe in sin. I have any issues or beliefs of punishment for people of a different or no faith. I take issue with deception, though.

Where we disagree is the treatment of the paradigm, or core beliefs of religion, and the word that separates us is "Sacred".

Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said anything of the sort.

To you what these people did was harmful, and yet to me it was trivial.

Again. Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said anything of the sort.

You can respond by saying I have lower morals than you, and in this instance I could not disagree with you, because the moral value I place on protecting the sanctity of the church or beliefs is very low compared to yours.

Again. Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said anything of the sort.


All I said is they had no reason to lie, and no reason to be baptised in a religion they did not believe.

Deception is wrong. It is as simple as that. This is not some case of religious morals. You are an atheist, and you know that deception is ignorant. Lying, cheating, and stealing is unethical.

Taking part in one's religious beliefs when they mean nothing to you is fine. Converting into that religion and taking a vow of belief in the message of that religion when you do not hold it is not. It's unethical.

 

[cablescavenger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cablescavenger
I do not need to know what religion you are, but I am guessing from your response that religious values, the integrity of the church/religion, religious ritual are all important to you, and anything bringing these into disrepute are (I am guessing here) a sin, or at best inflammatory.

Nope.

What they did is disrespectful. There was no need to lie or take baptism as believers when they were not.

I do not believe in sin. I have any issues or beliefs of punishment for people of a different or no faith. I take issue with deception, though.

Quote:
Where we disagree is the treatment of the paradigm, or core beliefs of religion, and the word that separates us is "Sacred".
Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said anything of the sort. I did not claim you said the word 'Sacred', I said it was what separated us, and I still maintain that view.


Quote:
To you what these people did was harmful, and yet to me it was trivial.
Again. Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said anything of the sort. Maybe I am making an assumption here, but my logic was based upon your response to something I saw as harmless, as our views were opposed I would expect you to think it harmful, but I will concede you said dishonest and unnecessary. I will however refrain from apologising, because it is not a manipulation of your words, but merely an honest interpretation of your feeling on the matter taken from the words you used.

Quote:
You can respond by saying I have lower morals than you, and in this instance I could not disagree with you, because the moral value I place on protecting the sanctity of the church or beliefs is very low compared to yours.
Again. Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said anything of the sort. If you read it again, you will see I have not claimed anything of the sort, just that if you were to claim the moral high ground, that it would be a valid argument, and one which I could not disagree with, but would instead be something I would have to put down to our different approaches.


All I said is they had no reason to lie, and no reason to be baptised in a religion they did not believe.

Deception is wrong. It is as simple as that. This is not some case of religious morals. You are an atheist, and you know that deception is ignorant. Lying, cheating, and stealing is unethical. Concealing your true feelings on something, is different from lying, cheating and stealing. You call them liars, but that is not necessarily my view, so we will just disagree on that.

Taking part in one's religious beliefs when they mean nothing to you is fine. Converting into that religion and taking a vow of belief in the message of that religion when you do not hold it is not. It's unethical.

According to whose rules? Not mine.

So what of minors? children born, educated, and bought into faith, who join the faith to appease their parents, guardians, family members etc. Who may have doubts but not be old enough to have a voice, or be sure that apostasy will get them in trouble.

Are they unethical for falling into line, before they have a voice?

or was someone unethical on their behalf?

 

[Breathe]

I did not claim you said the word 'Sacred', I said it was what separated us, and I still maintain that view.

Your view is wrong.

Maybe I am making an assumption here, but my logic was based upon your response to something I saw as harmless, as our views were opposed I would expect you to think it harmful, but I will concede you said dishonest and unnecessary. I will however refrain from apologising, because it is not a manipulation of your words, but merely an honest interpretation of your feeling on the matter taken from the words you used.

I have no idea how you got that "honest interpretation of my feelings". I never said it was harmful. Just ignorant, and something a total ******* would do.

Concealing your true feelings on something, is different from lying, cheating and stealing. You call them liars, but that is not necessarily my view, so we will just disagree on that.

Are you seriously saying that lying is not unethical?

Picture joining a religion like a marriage. Claiming you are not married when you are to marry someone for a while is unethical.

According to whose rules? Not mine.

Society.
Deception is not ethical.

So what of minors? children born, educated, and bought into faith, who join the faith to appease their parents, guardians, family members etc. Who may have doubts but not be old enough to have a voice, or be sure that apostasy will get them in trouble.

Are they unethical for falling into line, before they have a voice?

Not relevant to the discussion.
There is also a difference between being born in a religion and not believing, and joining a religion you do not believe when you have to say you believe to join.

or was someone unethical on their behalf?

Does not follow, neither is it relevant to the discussion.

 

[cablescavenger]

Your view is wrong.


I have no idea how you got that "honest interpretation of my feelings". I never said it was harmful. Just ignorant, and something a total ******* would do.


Are you seriously saying that lying is not unethical?

Picture joining a religion like a marriage. Claiming you are not married when you are to marry someone for a while is unethical.


Society.
Deception is not ethical.


Not relevant to the discussion.
There is also a difference between being born in a religion and not believing, and joining a religion you do not believe when you have to say you believe to join.


Does not follow, neither is it relevant to the discussion.

In your view

 

[Breathe]

In your view

Not just mine. There have been atheists on here who have said the same. It's not about "sacred".

I'm guessing you have nothing further to add, due to such an answer. Catch you around, then.

 

[waitasec]

to be fair...
not everyone is the same or holds the same values concerning the tactic the atheists used...

i think the point is to discuss why the views are different.