Undercover atheists in LDS Church

[cablescavenger]

Are you seriously saying that lying is not unethical?
[/quote]I am saying in my view it was tantamount to being age 17 and saying you are 18 to get in and see a film. I think it is safe to say we disagree on this.

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

That is what I mean by making it sacred. It is nothing like a marriage. To me a baptism is a ritual that means nothing, using a pile of words that mean nothing. The ceremony carries no importance whatsoever unless you are a believer.

You also said "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."

So I asked "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?"

You said :

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.

Unfortunately we disagree on this too. It is perfectly relevant if you shift your position, which you did, but also spoke of children being born in a religion. I know of no such thing, I know of children born with no religion who are manipulated by their parents at an early age. Is this the same thing?

 

[cablescavenger]

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.

Hiya. I have to ask, sorry, why which views are different? between which parties?

 

[ohhcuppycakee]

I don't think it's right to do that. It's just deception.

 

[waitasec]

Hiya. I have to ask, sorry, why which views are different? between which parties?

the dishonesty...

some approach churches with kid gloves others want to put the spot light by investigative reporting...this is what they do for their pod cast...they are dishonest.

you know that TV show called, "what would you do?"
where they set up a fake situation to see how the general public reacts...
i see no difference...
it's dishonest but they did come clean.

after listening to the pod cast and when they explained what they did...no hard feelings were picked up on, in fact i thought the couple shed a positive light on the mormon church..an account that was made through dishonest tactics...

 

[waitasec]

and to add..

i think the pink elephant in the room is that there is a notion out there in which the mormon church is thought to be hiding something, whatever that can be...
if anything this pod cast put an end to that notion for those who thought that before hearing it...
i think the mormon church should be grateful.

 

[cablescavenger]

the dishonesty...

some approach churches with kid gloves others want to put the spot light by investigative reporting...this is what they do for their pod cast...they are dishonest.

you know that TV show called, "what would you do?"
where they set up a fake situation to see how the general public reacts...
i see no difference...
it's dishonest but they did come clean.

after listening to the pod cast and when they explained what they did...no hard feelings were picked up on, in fact i thought the couple shed a positive light on the mormon church..an account that was made through dishonest tactics...

Me too. Ross and Carrie gave a good appraisal of the church, were pretty respectful towards the LDS, and gave the m credit for being good and understanding human beings. I thought it was an insightful and warming message.

Perhaps the church should hire them.

 

[Breathe]

That is what I mean by making it sacred. It is nothing like a marriage. To me a baptism is a ritual that means nothing, using a pile of words that mean nothing. The ceremony carries no importance whatsoever unless you are a believer.

Yeah, it is like a marriage. It's not something you take lightly and not something you would deceive another in without looking like a *******. Joining a religion requires belief, claiming you believe when you do not is deception. That is why I oppose what other Brits do and get their kids baptise when they don't believe. It's stupid.

Oaths at court are also "a pile of words that mean nothing". Would you lie in court?

Unfortunately we disagree on this too. It is perfectly relevant if you shift your position, which you did,

I did not. My view has remained consistent throughout the whole thread and our discussions. I have not, and will not, change my position on this. In fact, you bringing up minors is shifting the subject of the thread. This is why I will not go into it. The reason you are doing it, I assume, is because you have nothing to add.

 

[cablescavenger]

That is why I oppose what other Brits do and get their kids baptise when they don't believe. It's stupid.

I couldn't agree more. I was christened as a child before I could walk, and my brother was baptised against his will in the bath

I did not. My view has remained consistent throughout the whole thread and our discussions. I have not, and will not, change my position on this. In fact, you bringing up minors is shifting the subject of the thread. This is why I will not go into it. The reason you are doing it, I assume, is because you have nothing to add.

On the whole I would agree with you there too.

The point at which I say you shifted was when I did bring up children, and asked if they too could be considered liars for entering the faith half heartedly in order to appease family, you said they were born into religion so it was different. I know why you believe that, or at least I think I do, but it is still a shift in position, and I asked the question, not to catch you out, but because I was expecting to see that shift.

You see I hold the view that these children, have much the same treatment as we agree they do in the UK. Granted some children are baptised/christened etc when they are older, but they have still had the world view thrust on them at an early age, before they were able to establish free will and choice.

And you are correct, I have nothing more to add, but I have enjoyed the conversation, with our clashing views.

 

[DeepShadow]

thats wishful thinking on your part.

No, it's an unrealistic expectation on YOUR part. You think that a church that claims to be "true" must have every answer for every situation. At the same time, you call this "spoon-feeding."

so relying on ones inner truth is pretty much subjected to someone who has absolutely no idea what it's like...
excellent

So people can't rely on an inner voice? What are you saying here?

and one wonders why you don't elaborate

Because I'm not trans, nor am I a priesthood leader counseling with one.

the mormon church did side with prop 8 in california...
fact is fact and your church pretty much said to people who are born with both sex organs they don't count.

First, Prop 8 was not about people with both sex organs. Second, where the church sides in a no-win situation is the poorest possible measure of doctrinal stance possible. For example, if the Church hates gays so much, why is Salt Lake City rated one of the 50 best places to be gay in America? Why does mormon.org have heartfelt testimonies from gay and bisexual LDS volunteers?

so the bible and the book of mormon aren't spoon feeding people with dogma?

Insofar as they are both histories that must be interpreted to be useful, they cannot spoon-feed. The only scripture we have that is not open to historical interpretation is the Doctrine and Covenants, which explicitly says we should not be commanded in all things, but should do good out of our own free will.

Funny, you criticize us for not having answers for everything (which we admit), then you criticize us for having answers for everything (spoon-feeding). One might think you are just looking for reasons to not like us.

 

[DeepShadow]

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

Actually I did so in a PM, because this was off topic. As if that's any of your business.

 

[DeepShadow]

the non sequitur being "it was not nearly so bad as some of the stuff that does happen in the name of religion".

That particular type of non sequitur has a special name: tu quoque.

 

[DeepShadow]

According to whose rules? Not mine.

This is the same defense that was used by the Black Panthers in court. It didn't work out. :no: As for a rules system, how about the ethical guidelines for anthropological studies? If these two were doing a legitimate anthropological study, they'd both be in hot water.

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?

Another tu quoque. Just because they are doing something unethical does not excuse unethical behavior being done to them. The actions must stand or fall on their own merits.

 

[DeepShadow]

in fact i thought the couple shed a positive light on the mormon church

You think they shed a positive light on the church? With words like "Dangerous" and "creepy"?

 

[waitasec]

No, it's an unrealistic expectation on YOUR part. You think that a church that claims to be "true" must have every answer for every situation.

and what is so unreasonable about that?

At the same time, you call this "spoon-feeding."

and?

So people can't rely on an inner voice? What are you saying here?

people need to be spoon fed

Because I'm not trans, nor am I a priesthood leader counseling with one.

do you deny that there are priests who have abolutey no idea what it's like to be not a transgender but intersex

First, Prop 8 was not about people with both sex organs. Second, where the church sides in a no-win situation is the poorest possible measure of doctrinal stance possible. For example, if the Church hates gays so much, why is Salt Lake City rated one of the 50 best places to be gay in America? Why does mormon.org have heartfelt testimonies from gay and bisexual LDS volunteers?

lets be honest here...are there people that are born with both sexes or not?
and who are they to marry...?

Insofar as they are both histories that must be interpreted to be useful, they cannot spoon-feed. The only scripture we have that is not open to historical interpretation is the Doctrine and Covenants, which explicitly says we should not be commanded in all things, but should do good out of our own free will.

i'm glad you here to explain that to me...

Funny, you criticize us for not having answers for everything (which we admit), then you criticize us for having answers for everything (spoon-feeding). One might think you are just looking for reasons to not like us.

if any church that calls it self the true church while not supporting that claim...there is nothing that sets that church a part from any other church
therefore is the church is suffering from delusions of grandeur
and who doesn't fall victim to that? the meek and the humble maybe.

 

[waitasec]

You think they shed a positive light on the church? With words like "Dangerous" and "creepy"?

all churches are subject to be dangerous and creepy

 

[DeepShadow]

and what is so unreasonable about that?

It requires us to cater to your arbitrary definition. You say any church that's "true" must spoon-feed every person that comes to them like a magi 8-ball. Then when object to doing that, you say we're not "true."

Bottom line, where are you getting your definition of a "true church"?

people need to be spoon fed

We disagree. Why do you think they need to be spoon fed?

do you deny that there are priests who have abolutey no idea what it's like to be not a transgender but intersex

Of course I don't deny it! When did I deny this?!

lets be honest here...are there people that are born with both sexes or not?
and who are they to marry...?

That's up to them. Homosexuality is not the same as transgender, hermaphrodite, or ambiguous sex disorder.

i'm glad you here to explain that to me...

Well someone had to. :angel2: You thought we taught otherwise.

if any church that calls it self the true church while not supporting that claim...there is nothing that sets that church a part from any other church therefore is the church is suffering from delusions of grandeur
and who doesn't fall victim to that? the meek and the humble maybe.

Let's establish where you are getting your definition of "true" from. As I said above, please explain why "true" would mean "spoon feeding every decision to everyone."

 

[DeepShadow]

What?! So if I have three brown-eyed students, and one with blue eyes, and all four claim to have blue eyes, they are all lying?

BTW, this question of mine got lost on a previous page. Would you mind answering it?

 

[cablescavenger]

This is the same defense that was used by the Black Panthers in court. It didn't work out. :no:

I am sorry your statement does not follow. It is akin to me saying the sky is blue, and you saying "No, it isn't because they said that about the Sun and it didn't work out".

They are completely unrelated incidents.

Also, if you are going to quote a response it would be useful if you put it in the correct context, which was:
"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. "

It still stands. Just because you believe something, does not make it so. They are not my rules, they are rules you abide, or live by.

As for a rules system, how about the ethical guidelines for anthropological studies? If these two were doing a legitimate anthropological study, they'd both be in hot water.

They were not.
You have also used a false basis followed by a supporting statement, but as your basis is false, it has no argument.
You could easily have said "If these two were climbing Mount Everest, they would be inadequately clothed.
This statement is equally true, but with a false proposition about them climbing Everest, instead of a false proposition about a legitimate anthropological study.

Just because they are doing something unethical does not excuse unethical behavior being done to them. The actions must stand or fall on their own merits.

This is a little ambiguous? But really, I don't need to know what it means, I have listened to the podcasts, and am not concerned by their actions at all.

Businesses and organisations have people investigate them, it happens all the time. I see no reason why religious institutions should feel so offended, unless they do have something to hide.

Transparency in large organisations is good, particularly religious organisations, and as they are not always forthcoming, then this is as good a way as any of keeping them on the level.

 

[waitasec]

BTW, this question of mine got lost on a previous page. Would you mind answering it?

the blue eyed one isn't lying because it is unquestionably true

the others are either lying or delusional

 

[waitasec]

Let's establish where you are getting your definition of "true" from. As I said above, please explain why "true" would mean "spoon feeding every decision to everyone."

truth...
objective truth... provable truth through observation and experience
in other words empirical truth.

church...
a token

true church
an objectively provable token representing god...

god
who knows what that is other than understanding it through subjective
observation