Undercover atheists in LDS Church

[Mazdak]

Surely if they had some astounding secrets they would've been leaked by ex-members long ago.

They have a number of points in their theology that are different from mainstream Christianity, and the rituals are somewhat different. Some of these are quite subtle - for instance the Mormon view of the Trinity is taken to be the Three Persons existing independently of one another, but united in will and purpose, where in the Chalcedonian creed, the three persons exist as one entity, but with three hypostases.

I don't view the Mormons as having anything that's particularly "Astounding," considering the wide range of beliefs that exist. Different, but not "astounding" if you ask me.

 

[no-body]

Surely if they had some astounding secrets they would've been leaked by ex-members long ago.

Yeah that's what I figure too, but people are funny.

 

[Skwim]

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?

The only trouble I have with lying is when it results in distress or undeserved gain. In my glance at your linked article and considering that no Mormons are hurting I see nothing wrong in their subterfuge. And they did give the Mormons a shot at their allegiance, something I would never do.

 

[Father Heathen]

They have a number of points in their theology that are different from mainstream Christianity, and the rituals are somewhat different. Some of these are quite subtle - for instance the Mormon view of the Trinity is taken to be the Three Persons existing independently of one another, but united in will and purpose, where in the Chalcedonian creed, the three persons exist as one entity, but with three hypostases.

I don't view the Mormons as having anything that's particularly "Astounding," considering the wide range of beliefs that exist. Different, but not "astounding" if you ask me.

My point was about people going in undercover with the idea of exposing some sort of hidden, unknown secret. Sort of like the wacky conspiracy theories that surround the Freemasons.

 

[Mazdak]

My point was about people going in undercover with the idea of exposing some sort of hidden, unknown secret. Sort of like the wacky conspiracy theories that surround the Freemasons.

The strangest thing to me is the use of the "Temple Garment" (essentially a white T-shirt and boxers for men), but that's already widely known by a lot of people.

The other open secret is the attitude that Mormons had for a long time about black people, and the lack of Blacks in the priesthood.

One thing for sure is that there is a lot more mystery surrounding the Freemasons and their purported attempts at trying to control the world. The Mormons don't have this associated with them.

 

[Splarnst]

I don't view the Mormons as having anything that's particularly "Astounding," considering the wide range of beliefs that exist. Different, but not "astounding" if you ask me.

What about the belief that God the Father was a man on another planet who became a god? Or that the highest level of Mormons will receive their own planet and become gods themselves and create their own people?

 

[Katzpur]

I think the implication is there are hidden Mormon teachings that aren't revealed to the public.

The teachings to which you are referring are part of the LDS temple endowment. The couple in question would have had to be practicing members of the Church for at least one full year in order to qualify. I wonder if they'd have been so anxious to get in on all of the deep, dark secrets if they'd known it would have required a little bit of sacrifice on their part -- starting with the payment of a full tithing.

 

[Katzpur]

What about the belief that God the Father was a man on another planet who became a god? Or that the highest level of Mormons will receive their own planet and become gods themselves and create their own people?

What about doing your homework? Sounds like you've been getting your information from the same kind of website that would tell explain the Catholic doctrine of transsubstantiation as "cannibalism."

 

[Apex]

And they did give the Mormons a shot at their allegiance, something I would never do.

I just skimmed through the second podcast, and from what I heard I find it extremely difficult to honestly believe this. When you go into a situation in the manner which they did, it is virtually impossible to get past any preconceived notions and opinions you may have. Of which I am sure they had plenty.

Also, I may have just missed it, but while I heard them bringing up issues and "counter-evidence" with the Church, I never heard them give any thought on the actual LDS responses to them. They just through them out there and expected your average member to come up with answers on the spot.

 

[zomg]

I haven't listened to the podcasts as of yet so I can't comment on it right now. Based on what I've read I really don't feel too bad as to what those two did via not being completely honest.

I was a LDS missionary once and I sure as hell didn't tell the people I taught some key points in Mormon teachings and history. Serves 'em right to get a taste of their own medicine.

Well played, podcast people. Well played. :clap

 

[Acim]

Yet another example where a reasonable person would conclude these atheists are not absent of belief in God. Clearly they demonstrated this belief even if later it was proven to be deception.

 

[Copernicus]

I am uncomfortable with this sort of thing. Normally, you have to shoo Mormons away when they try to engage you. Many would likely be delighted to have atheists to engage, as long as there seemed to be genuine interest in their religious views. I agree with Mestemia that there was no need for subterfuge to get the information they wanted to get.

 

[Meow Mix]

Since I value integrity above pretty much any other quality, I find their charade pretty pathetic. Maybe they didn't actually "hurt" anybody, but it still was dishonest and disingenuous.

Yeah, I agree with this. On one hand I think it's okay to do the equivalent of "investigative reporting," but hopefully in a fair and unbiased way. There's a lot of room for biased research here (i.e. if the point is just to make fun), though it could turn out to be fine.

It would also be fair for them to offer the same church an opportunity to defend anything the atheists argue against on the same podcast. That would show some maturity on the whole deal.

 

[Breathe]

There was no mockery of any kind in the two hours of material. You don't know what you're talking about.

Dude, they rate things by things like "creepiness factor".
What the hell is that, if not mockery?

 

[Apex]

Dude, they rate things by things like "creepiness factor".
What the hell is that, if not mockery?

Apparently they gave the Church a high rating on the "dangerous" scale, especially for women.:sarcastic

Hey Kat, did you know you were in an "undeniably dangerous" church?

 

[Panda]

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?

I strongly disagree with such tactics.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm a more than a little offended that they think that the LDS are more interesting than Baptists.

 

[Katzpur]

Apparently they gave the Church a high rating on the "dangerous" scale, especially for women.:sarcastic

Hey Kat, did you know you were in an "undeniably dangerous" church?

Yeah, sure, but then I love to live dangerously.

 

[Katzpur]

I'm a more than a little offended that they think that the LDS are more interesting than Baptists.

:biglaugh:

 

[Apex]

Looks like there are an established set up ethical guidelines for this kind of thing (which makes sense when you think about it). And according to one commenter they violated just about all of them.

Hey guys, congratulations on violating so many rules of ethical conduct as established by the American Anthropological Association! It really was a tour de force. If you care here are the ethics rules as laid down by said organization.
Here are a few of the highlights:

Anthropological researchers must do everything in their power to ensure that their research does not harm the safety, dignity, or privacy of the people with whom they work, conduct research, or perform other professional activities.​

Anthropological researchers should obtain in advance the informed consent of persons being studied, providing information, owning or controlling access to material being studied, or otherwise identified as having interests which might be impacted by the research.​

Anthropological researchers who have developed close and enduring relationships (i.e., covenantal relationships) with either individual persons providing information or with hosts must adhere to the obligations of openness and informed consent, while carefully and respectfully negotiating the limits of the relationship.​

As atheists, I am sure you are big proponents of science. So I have to wonder why not follow the ethical rules as laid down by the scientists who practice this kind of research, namely anthropologists?
I also have to question what data you were trying to get out of the whole thing. You didn't get any data which you could not also have received through observation. This is mainly because you did not experience that which a person going through this process honestly would have experienced. There was nothing at stake for you, nothing existential mattered. Thus whatever you experienced, it had nothing to do with Mormons or what they experience. For example, during the baptismal interview, nothing was as stake for you, so whatever anticipation, nerves, or whatever you may have experienced is nothing like what a real investigator would experience. You had the same experience as you would have had if you just read the interview questions to each other. And I might add that would actually be ethical.
Finally, as an ex Mormon I no longer believe what you were taught and experienced, so this is not a matter of me being an offended Mormon. But I would hope in the future you would take basic ethical considerations into account and do good science, not crap sensationalism. Not believing does not give you carte blanche to be unethical towards groups whose beliefs you do not hold. Allow me to conclude with more from the AAA code of ethics:

These obligations can supersede the goal of seeking new knowledge, and can lead to decisions not to undertake or to discontinue a research project when the primary obligation conflicts with other responsibilities​