Scratch's fear

[_Dr. Shades]

So remarkably it's the smart people who can get in trouble while the rest of the Church is mostly mindless drones.

Well, "uninformed" drones is probably more accurate.

[_The Nehor]

So remarkably it's the smart people who can get in trouble while the rest of the Church is mostly mindless drones.

Well, "uninformed" drones is probably more accurate.

Which would qualify as a close synonym to 'willfully ignorant' maybe?

I just think there's a hearty sense of elitism among many Critics of the Church and among some apologists as well. It reminds me of the claim by people with Asperger's that they're smarter then the average person when the reality is that their obsessive nature means that they know more about a narrow group of topics then most people because that's all they do. Anyone could have done the same if they'd taken the time.

[Dr. Sunstoned]

The average catatonic member has nothing to fear from church security, since the average member is clueless about anything that would turn the spotlight on. It's the intellectual, especially the influential intellectual, who is noticed by church security.

The power of the press has spiked their guns, since the Murphy incident.

Murphy, of course, had no real idea what he was doing, and had no training or specific knowledge of genetics that would have allowed his meta-analysis any real scientific validity. Murphy's agenda driven academic cut and paste job (and his subsequent media hounding) was discredited years ago by both LDS and non-LDS scientists who do have the relevant knowledge.

Why are you still in the Church?

[_Coggins7]

So remarkably it's the smart people who can get in trouble while the rest of the Church is mostly mindless drones. Could there be a bit of bias here as this board is filled with the disaffected who like to believe (rightly or wrongly) that they're the intellectuals of the bunch?

The Few. The Proud. The Anti's.

Yes, isn't it interesting that its only the intellectuals (like Harmony, of course) who are the targets. conveniently missing from Harmony's tendentious presumption here is, of course, the many first rate intellectuals who find the Church, not only to be true, but intellectually stimulating and rewarding as well.

Funny how these things work out sometimes...

[_Coggins7]

So remarkably it's the smart people who can get in trouble while the rest of the Church is mostly mindless drones. Could there be a bit of bias here as this board is filled with the disaffected who like to believe (rightly or wrongly) that they're the intellectuals of the bunch?

The Few. The Proud. The Anti's.

Read Paul Johnson's The Intellectuals, for a peak into what's really going on among many of the secularist exmos here. The "treason of the intellectuals" (clerks) in the secular world is very much related to the treason of the intellectuals within the Church.

[_Mister Scratch]

Some great points here, Wade. I agree with you that the "average Church member"---I.e., the person who remains completely obedient and loyal---has virtually nothing to worry about, so long as s/he never gets into any trouble vis-a-vis the Church. (And I believe that "trouble" could include something like divorce, too.) The people who need to be worried are those who publish or otherwise voice any contrarian, problematic, or critical view points. In fact, if I were you, Wade, I would be just a trifle bit worried about the Center for the Study of Same-sex Attraction Disorders coming back to haunt me. Of course, you obviously remain very loyal to the Church, so you probably have nothing to worry about.

So, what all would you include under the term "trouble"?

I include under the term "trouble" anything---and I mean *ANYTHING*---which could be interpreted as being "harmful", antagonistic, contrary, critical, or in any way "bad" to the Church. This can range from the relatively small---such as the couple going through a divorce due to one spouse's disbelief---on up through homosexuality and publication of stuff pertaining to women and the priesthood.

What would you estimate to be the size of the "troubling" LDS population?

I would estimate it to be in the hundreds of thousands. Though perhaps the best thing to do would be to phone up the SCMC and ask them how many files they are currently maintaining.

And, most importantly, what kinds of "hurt" do you see allegedly caused by the Church to that "troubling" population, and what do you estimate is, or will be, the level of severity and frequency of the hurt?

It's tough to say, since much of this is shrouded in the Church's rather reactionary secrecy. The hurt could range from minor harassment from the missionaries or home teachers/ecclesiastical leaders, to public humiliation and embarrassment, to shunning, to blocking of employment, to widespread shaming, anxiety, depression, cruelty, so on and so forth.

I ask because if it amounts to a mild niusense to maybe ten people over a decade in the Church, then is there really and rationally that much to fear and get exercised about?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I hardly think that spies performing "stakeouts" on SLC clubs qualifies as a "minor niusense."

[_wenglund]

And, most importantly, what kinds of "hurt" do you see allegedly caused by the Church to that "troubling" population, and what do you estimate is, or will be, the level of severity and frequency of the hurt?

It's tough to say, since much of this is shrouded in the Church's rather reactionary secrecy. The hurt could range from minor harassment from the missionaries or home teachers/ecclesiastical leaders, to public humiliation and embarrassment, to shunning, to blocking of employment, to widespread shaming, anxiety, depression, cruelty, so on and so forth.

Were the information-gathering to amount to no more "hurt" than "minor harassment from missionaries or home teachers", then would you still think it cause for fear? In other words, do you fear "minor harassment from missionaries or home teachers"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

And, most importantly, what kinds of "hurt" do you see allegedly caused by the Church to that "troubling" population, and what do you estimate is, or will be, the level of severity and frequency of the hurt?

It's tough to say, since much of this is shrouded in the Church's rather reactionary secrecy. The hurt could range from minor harassment from the missionaries or home teachers/ecclesiastical leaders, to public humiliation and embarrassment, to shunning, to blocking of employment, to widespread shaming, anxiety, depression, cruelty, so on and so forth.

Were the information-gathering to amount to no more "hurt" than "minor harassment from missionaries or home teachers", then would you still think it cause for fear? In other words, do you fear "minor harassment from missionaries or home teachers"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Suppose that someone had left the Church via a letter requesting name removal, and that this person had moved away from his/her ward. In the letter is a firm but polite request that no further contact be made by Church representatives. A few months go by, and then, lo and behold! there is a knock at the door, and there stands a pair of folks from the Church. Clearly, someone along the line has put in the effort to "out" this person who wanted to be left alone. And, yes, I find this disquieting.

Anyways, whether or not I'd fear this "minor" thing is beside the point, since we have documentary evidence that Church surveillance goes far, far beyond visits from missionaries and home teachers.

[_Moniker]

So remarkably it's the smart people who can get in trouble while the rest of the Church is mostly mindless drones.

Well, "uninformed" drones is probably more accurate.

Which would qualify as a close synonym to 'willfully ignorant' maybe?

I just think there's a hearty sense of elitism among many Critics of the Church and among some apologists as well. It reminds me of the claim by people with Asperger's that they're smarter then the average person when the reality is that their obsessive nature means that they know more about a narrow group of topics then most people because that's all they do. Anyone could have done the same if they'd taken the time.

What is it with you and Aspergers? You and Mercury, sheeesh.

This man is smarter than you! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7030731/

When will you take the time to win a Nobel Prize, Nehor?

[_wenglund]

And, most importantly, what kinds of "hurt" do you see allegedly caused by the Church to that "troubling" population, and what do you estimate is, or will be, the level of severity and frequency of the hurt?

It's tough to say, since much of this is shrouded in the Church's rather reactionary secrecy. The hurt could range from minor harassment from the missionaries or home teachers/ecclesiastical leaders, to public humiliation and embarrassment, to shunning, to blocking of employment, to widespread shaming, anxiety, depression, cruelty, so on and so forth.

Were the information-gathering to amount to no more "hurt" than "minor harassment from missionaries or home teachers", then would you still think it cause for fear? In other words, do you fear "minor harassment from missionaries or home teachers"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Suppose that someone had left the Church via a letter requesting name removal, and that this person had moved away from his/her ward. In the letter is a firm but polite request that no further contact be made by Church representatives. A few months go by, and then, lo and behold! there is a knock at the door, and there stands a pair of folks from the Church. Clearly, someone along the line has put in the effort to "out" this person who wanted to be left alone. And, yes, I find this disquieting.

What does this hypothetical have to do with "information gathering" by the Church and the alleged "hurt" caused thereby?

Have you ruled out other plausible explanations for LDS folks happening to appear at the door?

What happened, hypothetically, at the door, and what was the nature of "hurt" experienced by the someone who left the Church?

Are you supposing that the same "hurt" will result each time this kind of hypothetical occurance happens?

And, most importantly, why does this personally disquite you, particularly if it other people's business, and if it doesn't disquite or "hurt" all of them.

What do you estimate is the frequency of this happening?

Anyways, whether or not I'd fear this "minor" thing is beside the point, since we have documentary evidence that Church surveillance goes far, far beyond visits from missionaries and home teachers.

I don't know what point you have in mind, but my questions are very pertinent to the point I am exploring.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-