Undercover atheists in LDS Church

[Apex]

if there is nothing the LDS church is hiding then why be so bothered by what these 2 ppl did in the 1st place?

Ethics and honesty. And you might notice that most of the people on this thread who were bothered with what these two did are not LDS, most are not even theists. The question of if the Church has something to hide has nothing to do with it.

as i think about this situation it's more about the actual experience of the matter than the unveiling of some secret. lets not forget it's about human interaction and it could be a look or a tone that one picks up on which could indicated something that is an underlying understanding within that particular community. for example
listening to the 1st part in regards to the women. they were separated from the men while they were off in some priestly meeting, were pictured as having a belief that being married and having children was their most important job, which i personally find demeaning. it came off as a pity party...for those who were not even in a relationship. no council was spoken of to edify her "spirit" but rather let them moan about it...
the question was asked, if there were any women who chose not to have a family...and they couldn't think of anyone who did.

All this really looks like is you seeing a different world view and deeming it wrong just because its different. And I am not even going to get into the more than likely exaggerations such as calling it a "pity party".

EDIT: Here is a comment from their blog by a female LDS member giving a completely different view of what these two experienced.

I am a lifelong Mormon who is also a wife and mother. I have lived in, and been a member of, wards in 5 states and I have NEVER experienced any of the issues with the woman that you or any of the so-called ex-Mormons are describing. I have never felt, nor have I known anyone that felt constantly depressed, oppressed or downtrodden.
I, as well as many of my friends, got married relatively late in life. However, we did not sit around moping, feeling sorry for ourselves and thinking we were less of women because of it. We lived our lives and had fun! This concept that LDS women are not encouraged to be all they can be is completely and utterly false. I know many, many LDS wives and mothers with masters and doctorate degrees. We are greatly encouraged to get as much education as possible. President Hinckley had even stated that if he himself only had money to send his daughter or his son to college that he would send his daughter.
I encourage you to visit other Mormon congregations and spend time with the women there before you assign women in the Mormon church a label.

 

[Katzpur]

I think it's perfectly acceptable to go undercover in order to find out what a wierd religious organisation is trying to hide.

What constitutes a "weird" religious organization as opposed to a "non-weird" religious organization. And why on earth would you think that the LDS Church is trying to "hide" anything?

 

[Katzpur]

"Pathetic attempt at paraphrasing"? You mean where I said the same thing as the quotes, adding in the word "planet"? Is that not correct? If not, why not?

So if I say exactly the same thing without using any offensive words at all, and it still upsets you, then you have issues.

My only issues are with rude people, Splarnst. Ask anybody on this forum if that's not the case. And since you qualify, I guess I do most definitely have an issue with you.

What you have done is phrased both statements in such a way that they look heretical to other Christians and laughable to anyone outside of Christianity. If you truly understood either concept, you would not have worded your posts the way you did. Your choice of words shows that your interest in actually getting it right is marginal. If you want to discuss this subject in greater depth, I'm open to discussion, but not on this thread. We're off-topic and I'm a kind of a stickler for sticking to the subject.

 

[Katzpur]

i don't know, you tell me

How on earth can I tell you what you're looking for, waitasec?

 

[Splarnst]

My only issues are with rude people, Splarnst. Ask anybody on this forum if that's not the case. And since you qualify, I guess I do most definitely have an issue with you.

What you have done is phrased both statements in such a way that they look heretical to other Christians and laughable to anyone outside of Christianity. If you truly understood either concept, you would not have worded your posts the way you did. Your choice of words shows that your interest in actually getting it right is marginal. If you want to discuss this subject in greater depth, I'm open to discussion, but not on this thread. We're off-topic and I'm a kind of a stickler for sticking to the subject.

I sent you a PM.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I can kind of understand it.

Look at the massive amount of attention Mormon underwear get, for example. Non-followers make big deals out of things that followers don't really care about, because they aren't that big of a deal.

On the one hand that's true; something like the Mormon underwear is not that big a deal. It may be a simple matter of those who don't share the belief finding it strange or just not understanding it. On the other hand though, hating homosexuals is not that big a deal to certain Christians and Muslims.

I guess my point is, whether or not a religious belief or practice actually is a big deal, obviously those who embrace it are not going to see it as a big deal. It's all relative.

As for the actions of the atheists in question who went undercover; was it wrong or unethical? Hard for me to say. But I will say that if it had been me, it's not the way I would have gone about it. I would have approached them openly and asked them if I could participate and/or observe and if they had said no, I would have left well enough alone and went on my way.

 

[Katzpur]

if there is nothing the LDS church is hiding then why be so bothered by what these 2 ppl did in the 1st place?

It's called dishonesty and duplicity, waitasec. It's called taking advantage of people. Honestly, religion has nothing to do with it.

listening to the 1st part in regards to the women. they were separated from the men while they were off in some priestly meeting, were pictured as having a belief that being married and having children was their most important job, which i personally find demeaning. it came off as a pity party...for those who were not even in a relationship. no council was spoken of to edify her "spirit" but rather let them moan about it...
the question was asked, if there were any women who chose not to have a family...and they couldn't think of anyone who did.

Okay, let's look at the actual facts. In an LDS Church service, men, women, teenagers and children all meet together for 70 minutes. This worship service, called Sacrament Meeting, is generally held first, but it doesn't need to be. It is followed by a 10-minute break. Children and teens then go to classes divided by age group. Adults all meet together for the next 40 minutes for scripture study. Another 10 minute break follows. Then the men and the women split up for another 50-minute class period. This is the one where you said that then men "were off in some priestly meeting" while the women were in their own "pity party." Both the men and the women study the exact same lesson material during this period of time. There is nothing the men are taught that the women are not taught, as visa versa. There is generally a lot of class discussion. I wasn't there and neither were you, but I have a feeling that if we both had been, we would have come away from the class with an entirely different concept of what had been taught.

 

[Katzpur]

On the one hand that's true; something like the Mormon underwear is not that big a deal. It may be a simple matter of those who don't share the belief finding it strange or just not understanding it.

Here's what blows my mind: I hear constant talk about Mormon temple garments, always in insulting, mocking tones. Do you know what I never, ever hear a word about? The Jewish tallit katan, which is "a white undergarment worn under clothing as a fulfillment of the commandment in Numbers 15:38-39 to wear the garment as a 'remember(ance of) all the commandments of the LORD.'" (See my source.) If that doesn't prove that people are pretty darned selective in their bigotry, I don't know what does.

On the other hand though, hating homosexuals is not that big a deal to certain Christians and Muslims.

While I'm sure that many people believe we are taught to "hate homosexuals," that simply is not the case. I can understand why they would feel that way, given the Church's stance on Prop 8, but they should know that an awful lot of us were opposed to the Church's position.

As for the actions of the atheists in question who went undercover; was it wrong or unethical? Hard for me to say. But I will say that if it had been me, it's not the way I would have gone about it. I would have approached them openly and asked them if I could participate and/or observe and if they had said no, I would have left well enough alone and went on my way.

Do you know what would have happened had you approached them openly and asked them if you could participate and/or observe? They'd have said, "Absolutely! Be our guest." It happens every single solitary Sunday all over the world.

 

[Breathe]

What constitutes a "weird" religious organization as opposed to a "non-weird" religious organization.

Sounds too specific for my liking.

"Weird" is entirely subjective.

And why on earth would you think that the LDS Church is trying to "hide" anything?

Maybe it's because Mormons are usually friendly, polite, and helpful--you guys have to be hiding something?

Or maybe it's the desire to think bad of people, or because some doctrines have been held that are no longer--that therefore Mormons are hiding things?

 

[waitasec]

Ethics and honesty. And you might notice that most of the people on this thread who were bothered with what these two did are not LDS, most are not even theists. The question of if the Church has something to hide has nothing to do with it.

so? as far as i am concerned if there nothing to hide theres nothing to hide.
why should i feel insecure if someone were to do a background check on me if there is nothing i am ashamed of?

All this really looks like is you seeing a different world view and deeming it wrong just because its different. And I am not even going to get into the more than likely exaggerations such as calling it a "pity party".

no that is your insecurity. mormonism is what what mormonism does. are you embarrassed of something in the mormon church?

EDIT: Here is a comment from their blog by a female LDS member giving a completely different view of what these two experienced.

curious, do you know of any mormon couples that decided not to have children?

 

[waitasec]

It's called dishonesty and duplicity, waitasec. It's called taking advantage of people. Honestly, religion has nothing to do with it.

Okay, let's look at the actual facts. In an LDS Church service, men, women, teenagers and children all meet together for 70 minutes. This worship service, called Sacrament Meeting, is generally held first, but it doesn't need to be. It is followed by a 10-minute break. Children and teens then go to classes divided by age group. Adults all meet together for the next 40 minutes for scripture study. Another 10 minute break follows. Then the men and the women split up for another 50-minute class period. This is the one where you said that then men "were off in some priestly meeting" while the women were in their own "pity party." Both the men and the women study the exact same lesson material during this period of time. There is nothing the men are taught that the women are not taught, as visa versa. There is generally a lot of class discussion. I wasn't there and neither were you, but I have a feeling that if we both had been, we would have come away from the class with an entirely different concept of what had been taught.

did you listen to the podcast?

 

[Breathe]

On the one hand that's true; something like the Mormon underwear is not that big a deal.

I agree: it's not that big of a deal at all. It's just a pair of undies.

If people find underwear requirements such a big deal, they're required for baptised Sikhs as well - kachhera. Big whoop. Undies. Tighty wighties. Why the fascination with them?

It may be a simple matter of those who don't share the belief finding it strange or just not understanding it.

But after all, finding it strange is entirely personal and subjective, and just because it's not understood or is different doesn't mean it should be mocked, or blown wide open.

On the other hand though, hating homosexuals is not that big a deal to certain Christians and Muslims.

We mustn't forget the keyword here: certain.
Another one: Christians/Muslims.

Not necessarily the religion itself.

I guess my point is, whether or not a religious belief or practice actually is a big deal, obviously those who embrace it are not going to see it as a big deal. It's all relative.

Totally.

As for the actions of the atheists in question who went undercover; was it wrong or unethical? Hard for me to say. But I will say that if it had been me, it's not the way I would have gone about it. I would have approached them openly and asked them if I could participate and/or observe and if they had said no, I would have left well enough alone and went on my way.

Exactly. Your way is ethical.

Their way is unethical because it's deliberately misleading them.
Not to mention, there was no need to get baptised.

Upon baptism into LDS church, for example, you have to "profess belief in Jesus Christ and His Gospel" (paraphrasing; asking LDS members to clarify/expand/correct) - which these guys must have done in order to have been baptised. I doubt any Mormon would baptise someone if the answer was like this:

"Do you believe in Jesus Christ and His Gospel?"
"I don't know"/"Maybe"/"There is a chance he was right".

That leads me to think the only answer could have been "I believe" to get baptised.


They didn't go ahead and become Sikhs and become baptised Sikhs, so what was the point in them doing this - that's what I don't get. I don't see a need for the lies, the secrecy, the idea they're somehow digging dirt out on secret Mormon teachings, and so on, when it's pure and simply they aren't.

You know what I mean?

 

[Apex]

so? as far as i am concerned if there nothing to hide theres nothing to hide.
why should i feel insecure if someone were to do a background check on me if there is nothing i am ashamed of?

It seems you don't get the point of this thread. After multiple attempts by multiple people to tell you it has nothing to do with hiding something, you still come back to it.

no that is your insecurity. mormonism is what what mormonism does. are you embarrassed of something in the mormon church?

This doesn't even make sense. What are you trying to even say here?

curious, do you know of any mormon couples that decided not to have children?

This has nothing to do with this thread. Please try to stay on topic. If you wish to discuss this make a new thread.

 

[waitasec]

It seems you don't get the point of this thread. After multiple attempts by multiple people to tell you it has nothing to do with hiding something, you still come back to it.

This doesn't even make sense. What are you trying to even say here?


This has nothing to do with this thread. Please try to stay on topic. If you wish to discuss this make a new thread.

i think the heart of the matter is why some mormons would feel as if a wrong was done to them.
why be ashamed of something that you claim to be proud of?
if one is secure in a position then there is no excuse for insecurity.

if i show a picture of a cat and call it a dog you will know that i am wrong
and you would be secure that i was wrong...that is the point.
let mormonism speak for itself, if it is a fragile belief then my guess it's not very secure.

 

[Storm]

i think the heart of the matter is why some mormons would feel as if a wrong was done to them.

Gee, maybe because they were lied to?

why be ashamed of something that you claim to be proud of?

Who's ashamed? The strongest emotion I've seen here is annoyance.

if one is secure in a position then there is no excuse for insecurity.

Again, the only insecurity is in your mind.

 

[Katzpur]

did you listen to the podcast?

The whole thing? No. I didn't need to. I listened to part of it, but I've been to enough LDS worship services to know what is taught in them. These two atheists couldn't tell me something I don't already know. Tell me, though, if I had been to the same Relief Society Meeting you said they described and had described it to you myself, do you think I'd have described it the same way they did? Do you think my description would have been dishonest? To the best of your knowledge, have I been dishonest with you in the past? Have I skirted any issues you've raised?

 

[Katzpur]

why should i feel insecure if someone were to do a background check on me if there is nothing i am ashamed of?

Maybe you'd like to know that they're doing the background check. Sounds reasonable to me. I personally think you've set up a double-standard here. Mormons are, in your opinion, hiding something from the world, and this isn't right. These "undercover atheists," on the other hand, where just doing something that needed to be done. You fail to acknowledge the fact that they were definitely hiding something. Or is it just a matter of the means justifying the end, in your opinion?

 

[waitasec]

Gee, maybe because they were lied to?

so? if anything these mormons should have enough faith that these atheists would be exposed to the real god

Who's ashamed? The strongest emotion I've seen here is annoyance.

why would it even be a consideration if one knows there is nothing to report on...

Again, the only insecurity is in your mind.

insecurity is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Storm]

so? if anything these mormons should have enough faith that these atheists would be exposed to the real god

"So?" Do you like being lied to?

why would it even be a consideration if one knows there is nothing to report on...

Because THEY WERE LIED TO.

insecurity is in the eye of the beholder.

No, it really isn't... you're projecting your own biases.

 

[Katzpur]

Honestly, waitasec, I know you're not dense. What is going on here?

i think the heart of the matter is why some mormons would feel as if a wrong was done to them.

Somebody lied to them. They believe lying is wrong. It's not rocket science.

why be ashamed of something that you claim to be proud of?

What exactly is it that it turns out the Church or its members were ashamed of?

if one is secure in a position then there is no excuse for insecurity.

Uh... and what does insecurity have to do with being offended by having someone lie to you?

if i show a picture of a cat and call it a dog you will know that i am wrong
and you would be secure that i was wrong...that is the point.
let mormonism speak for itself, if it is a fragile belief then my guess it's not very secure.

It speaks very well for itself, waitasec. Its doors are open to anyone who wants to visit. "I'm just here to observe," is a perfectly acceptable explanation for a visitor to give. Why it wasn't good enough for the "undercover atheists" is beyond me. They're the ones were were so insecure that they couldn't be honest.