Is it Easier to "Rat" People Out in the LDS Chuch?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »


If I recall correctly, the church maintains a data base of it's members.



Well it depends what you mean by data base. Can you explain this?

There are likewise, email lists for each Ward and Ward directories accessible by membership ID numbers.



No there are not any such lists. Members can, at their option, access the LDS Church member website. To do so they need to set up an account. They need their confirmation date and record number to do so. They can, at their option, give their email address and select what distribution lists they want to be on, such as stake or ward calender event distribution list. That is is.

It wouldn't be too hard to "out" someone as a doubter or apostate to friends and family in the local Ward, causing great hardship or loss to the individual and his/her family.


Yes this is a distinct possibility. I used to post with me real name and once had a radical LDS poster make all sorts of threats. Thus I have since become an anonymous hypocrite.


.
When I left my SB church about 4 years ago, I simply walked out the door. In those 4 years, I can recall just 2 phone calls from new Deacons introducing themselves to me and letting me know their availability. When I see folks from my church in public, they are friendly and kind, and we chat up a storm as always.


If I could be prophet for a day I would give local bishops and SPs ability to remove members names without any further paper work. If person did not attend for a certain period I would contact and ask them if they wanted to receive visits and/or remain on the roles. If they did not want to be on the roles I would take their name off. It would make a bishops life much simpler.

There is no harrassment, no shunning whatsoever. None.


Some shun others don't.
I can think of no reason for, nor one single instance of an EV setting out to "screw" another because they stopped attending.


I do not think you see it over not attending as much as you do when someone turns against it.
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Jason Bourne wrote:
I can think of no reason for, nor one single instance of an EV setting out to "screw" another because they stopped attending.


I do not think you see it over not attending as much as you do when someone turns against it.


C'mon, Jason. It is doctrinally impossibly for a wayward LDS to not "turn against it." I mean, how many speeches and talks have we heard over the years about how those who leave the Church are "of Satan," or sick, or vile sinners, or whatever else? The Church does not allow for simple "exiting." The mechanism is in place, and it insists that those who leave must be stigmatized and shunned.
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

They should be clearly taught that even if they someday no longer believe in the LDS church, they are still considered a member and there will be a record kept of their life, faith, and works! Further, even if they resign their membership which must be done formally with a letter, they are still on the roles of the LDS church.



No they are not, at least not on the MLS which what is used to generate all records that a ward and stake use. If there is a secret membership list the includes ex LDSers I do not know about it. But I do know all the records which I have used lack the names of resigned members. Why do you think they do not?
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

why me wrote: No one cares. Everyone is doing life to take notice or to mind.


I think this is possible, if you're a nobody, low down on the leadership food chain. I think this is not at all possible, if you are someone in a leadership position. The higher up the food chain a person goes, the less tolerance there is. And I think a lot of other factors play in, including how vocal the person is, how much influence they have in the community, how much damage they can do to the church. Some of us would withstand any lobs from the self-righteous. Some of us wouldn't. And who wants to risk it, either way?
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Jersey Girl
There are likewise, email lists for each Ward and Ward directories accessible by membership ID numbers.


JB
No there are not any such lists. Members can, at their option, access the LDS Church member website. To do so they need to set up an account. They need their confirmation date and record number to do so. They can, at their option, give their email address and select what distribution lists they want to be on, such as stake or ward calender event distribution list. That is is.


Isn't that what I said, Jason? I say there are lists and directories, you say there aren't and then you go on to describe them. Geez...

This: http://LDS.org/units/find/0,12831,2311-1,00.html

is what I was referring to. Is that what you're referring to?
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

Jersey Girl wrote:Jersey Girl
There are likewise, email lists for each Ward and Ward directories accessible by membership ID numbers.


JB
No there are not any such lists. Members can, at their option, access the LDS Church member website. To do so they need to set up an account. They need their confirmation date and record number to do so. They can, at their option, give their email address and select what distribution lists they want to be on, such as stake or ward calender event distribution list. That is is.


Isn't that what I said, Jason? I say there are lists and directories, you say there aren't and then you go on to describe them. Geez...

This: http://LDS.org/units/find/0,12831,2311-1,00.html

is what I was referring to. Is that what you're referring to?


Actually, those lists aren't email lists, Jersey. Ward lists are kept in the ward directories, which are part of the stake directories. Those lists are name, address, phone number. These are public information. Email addresses aren't included.

Membership ID numbers are kept on a list, yes, but it's not a list correlated by or with email addresses, it doesn't include members' email addresses, and it's not public information. Only a very few people have access to membership ID numbers.

Hope that helps clear up the confusion.
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

C'mon, Jason. It is doctrinally impossibly for a wayward LDS to not "turn against it." I mean, how many speeches and talks have we heard over the years about how those who leave the Church are "of Satan," or sick, or vile sinners, or whatever else? The Church does not allow for simple "exiting." The mechanism is in place, and it insists that those who leave must be stigmatized and shunned.


Whatever. I am sure I am wrong of course.
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

Jersey Girl wrote:Jersey Girl
There are likewise, email lists for each Ward and Ward directories accessible by membership ID numbers.


JB
No there are not any such lists. Members can, at their option, access the LDS Church member website. To do so they need to set up an account. They need their confirmation date and record number to do so. They can, at their option, give their email address and select what distribution lists they want to be on, such as stake or ward calender event distribution list. That is is.


Isn't that what I said, Jason? I say there are lists and directories, you say there aren't and then you go on to describe them. Geez...

This: http://LDS.org/units/find/0,12831,2311-1,00.html

is what I was referring to. Is that what you're referring to?


the way you wrote it sounded like some mandatory email list kept in all members. So sorry.
_mentalgymnast

Post by _mentalgymnast »

Mister Scratch wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:
truth dancer wrote:
1 It is the duty of the Lord’s clerk, whom he has appointed, to keep a history, and a general church record of all things that transpire in Zion, and of all those who consecrate properties, and receive inheritances legally from the bishop;
2 And also their manner of life, their faith, and works; and also of the apostates who apostatize after receiving their inheritances.


in my opinion, before anyone is baptized, they should be well informed of this scripture...

They should be clearly taught that even if they someday no longer believe in the LDS church, they are still considered a member and there will be a record kept of their life, faith, and works! Further, even if they resign their membership which must be done formally with a letter, they are still on the roles of the LDS church.

In terms of fear... once one is open and free of the church the fear is gone, but for many still in the closet, there is great fear, not of God but of the resulting consequences to one's work, family, and marriage.

In thinking of the many closet non-believers who have contacted me, one of the first things out of their mouth, is, "I can't let anyone know," or, "Please promise you will never tell anyone."

I think the church is full of closet non-believers who are still in the clutches of fear.

~dancer~


Mr. Scratch's orginal post was questioning why all the record keeping and monitoring of members. The scripture I quoted may one of the scriptures considered by leaders as being reason/mandate to do so.


But is this a *good* reason/mandate? Does the fact that this scripture exists somehow mitigate the underlying, disturbing nature of the practices? I don't think so. This record keeping and monitoring of members---this institutionalized ease of "ratting people out"---strikes me as being a negative facet of the Church that ought to go the way of the priesthood ban. Simply because a scripture exists justifying a crummy practice does not mean that that practice ought to be continues. At least, that is not how things have traditionally worked in Mormonism.

Just answering his question/observation. I wouldn't doubt that it's been a while since he has been anywhere near section 85 in the D&C.

Regards,
MG


Right. I sure do love presumptuousness, MG. I wouldn't doubt that you don't know diddlysquat.


Disturbing nature? It's in the eye of the beholder. If you're a staunch, died in the wool critic, you're looking through jaundiced eyes.

Sorry, I didn't realize that Section 85 had recently been part of your daily morning scripture study. Yes, I do think this section along with other scriptures are considered by the brethren as records are kept and apostates are rooted out.

Diddlysquat? C'mon, give me some credit. If I was on your side, I don't think you'd make that statement.

Regards,
MG
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

mentalgymnast wrote:Disturbing nature? It's in the eye of the beholder. If you're a staunch, died in the wool critic, you're looking through jaundiced eyes.


So... You are saying the ease with which members can "rat" on another out is...what? Okay? Totally fine? Not the least bit troublesome? What about the SCMC?

Sorry, I didn't realize that Section 85 had recently been part of your daily morning scripture study.


Nice try, MG. That isn't what you said at all. You were suggesting that I'm completely unfamiliar with LDS scripture, and implying that I have not looked at any in a long time.

Yes, I do think this section along with other scriptures are considered by the brethren as records are kept and apostates are rooted out.


That still avoids addressing the issue, which is the right- or wrong-ness of it all. Would you care to explain to me how things such as this "tattle-tale" culture, or the SCMC, are "fine and dandy"?

Diddlysquat? C'mon, give me some credit. If I was on your side, I don't think you'd make that statement.

Regards,
MG


Actually, if you were on my side, and nevertheless lobbed insults and made stupid, unsupported claims, then I reckon I would say you knew "diddlysquat" about my reading habits. I do find it interesting, though, that you apparently view the world in completely polarized terms.
Post Reply