Scratch's fear

[_Mister Scratch]

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

The hypothetical demonstrates, in a very small way, what the LDS Church does with its information gathering. If this kind of pesky, and arguably Orwellian kind of monitoring and pestering is the *most minor* "hurt" caused by Church surveillance, then I think we've got a significant problem on our hands.

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

Like what? Obviously, someone told these LDS members where this person was, and now here they are, at the door.

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

I don't know, Wade. It's merely a hypothetical to demonstrate that the LDS Church monitors members (and former members), and that it disregards the wishes of the individual.

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

I think you're changing the subject. As I've already pointed out, this is really the most minor sort of Church surveillance. The more serious kinds of monitoring include stuff like the various BYU spy rings, the attempts to hunt down Mike Quinn, threats made by Church Security to Mike Norton---that sort of stuff.

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.

That the Church monitors people in order to later bully them around, discipline them, smear their reputations or otherwise ruin their lives, and that the Church does this via subterfuge and skullduggery---*that's* why I find it disquieting. The is supposed to be the Lord's One True Church. Why should any of this be necessary?

What do you estimate is the frequency of this happening?

What, of people getting "tracked down"? I would imagine it's fairly common. Why don't you go ask the folks at RfM?

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-

I thought the point you were exploring was whether or not anxiety about Church surveillance and monitoring is reasonable? I say, "yes," due to the extent it goes. And yet, here you are, trying to focus on the most minor manifestation of it. Wouldn't your best tactic be to attack the most egregious instances of Church spying/surveillance/etc.? Do you not find the anti-gay spy rings "disquieting"?

[_Gadianton]

Wade,

A) Does God record in heaven all of our thoughts, words, and deeds?

B) Is this life a probationary state where we are to try and be more like our Father in Heaven?


If so, then doesn't it make perfect sense that the church leaders would use aggressive forensics to advance the aims of the church?

[_harmony]

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.

I wasn't talking about his research, Loran. I was talking about his aborted excommunication.

Why are you still in the Church?

Why are you?

[_harmony]

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...

I never claimed to be an intellectual. And it's not my fault some of those first rate intellectuals you mention are myopic. You, of course, I exempt from labeling as an intellectual.

[_Dr. Shades]

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.

Can you please give us the name(s) of one or more of these hypothetical "first-rate intellectuals" who find the church not only to be true but intellectually stimulating and rewarding as well?

[_wenglund]

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

The hypothetical demonstrates, in a very small way, what the LDS Church does with its information gathering. If this kind of pesky, and arguably Orwellian kind of monitoring and pestering is the *most minor* "hurt" caused by Church surveillance, then I think we've got a significant problem on our hands.

I thought the point you were exploring was whether or not anxiety about Church surveillance and monitoring is reasonable? I say, "yes," due to the extent it goes. And yet, here you are, trying to focus on the most minor manifestation of it. Wouldn't your best tactic be to attack the most egregious instances of Church spying/surveillance/etc.? Do you not find the anti-gay spy rings "disquieting"?

I am trying to find out whether any of the information-gather examples you listed may be considered, even by you, too petty to concern oneself with. I am getting the impression that, at least to you, there isn't.

In other words, I'm looking to determine if you may view, as "Orwellian", even the most seemingly benign and unintrusive information-gathering by the Church. If you think it "Orwellian" that some LDS folks hypothetically happening by a former member's home, and are fearful of such things, then I am wondering if your fear and sense of proportion is reasonable. That's all.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Wade,

A) Does God record in heaven all of our thoughts, words, and deeds?

I don't know. But, were I to venture a guess, I would say "no". I believe our souls (mind, heart, and spirit) to be the record, and so I am not sure what need there would be for duplicate copies. ;-)

B) Is this life a probationary state where we are to try and be more like our Father in Heaven?

If so, then doesn't it make perfect sense that the church leaders would use aggressive forensics to advance the aims of the church?

If it made sense, then I believe the Church leaders would have been using such. I don't believe they have (likely because it doesn't make sense to them), or anything close to that, nor do I think it makes sense, either.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

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

The hypothetical demonstrates, in a very small way, what the LDS Church does with its information gathering. If this kind of pesky, and arguably Orwellian kind of monitoring and pestering is the *most minor* "hurt" caused by Church surveillance, then I think we've got a significant problem on our hands.

I thought the point you were exploring was whether or not anxiety about Church surveillance and monitoring is reasonable? I say, "yes," due to the extent it goes. And yet, here you are, trying to focus on the most minor manifestation of it. Wouldn't your best tactic be to attack the most egregious instances of Church spying/surveillance/etc.? Do you not find the anti-gay spy rings "disquieting"?

I am trying to find out whether any of the information-gather examples you listed may be considered, even by you, too petty to concern oneself with. I am getting the impression that, at least to you, there isn't.

Some kinds of information gathering is totally benign, Wade. I think we can both agree to that. For example, I see no problem with doing a head count at Sacrament Meeting. Nor do I see anything problematic with the Church keeping records of baptisms, blessings, and so forth.

In other words, I'm looking to determine if you may view, as "Orwellian", even the most seemingly benign and unintrusive information-gathering by the Church.

The answer is, "No." I don't view "the most seemingly benign" info-gathering as "Orwellian."

If you think it "Orwellian" that some LDS folks hypothetically happening by a former member's home, and are fearful of such things, then I am wondering if your fear and sense of proportion is reasonable. That's all.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

"Hypothetically happening by a former member's home"? By that I take it that you mean a pair of LDS were strolling through a neighborhood, saw a house and said to each other, "Hey, that looks like a good fellowship opportunity. Let's go say hello!" If that's what you meant, then "No," I don't think that's "Orwellian." (Then again, this scenario wouldn't involve the use of Church surveillance or info-gathering.)

[_wenglund]

"Hypothetically happening by a former member's home"? By that I take it that you mean a pair of LDS were strolling through a neighborhood, saw a house and said to each other, "Hey, that looks like a good fellowship opportunity. Let's go say hello!" If that's what you meant, then "No," I don't think that's "Orwellian." (Then again, this scenario wouldn't involve the use of Church surveillance or info-gathering.)

I used the phrase "happened by" because I can't read minds (even hypothetical minds). No indication was given in your hypothetical as to why the folks showed up at the door, and unlike you, I am disinclined to jump rashly to any conclusions, and even less inclined to assume only a single rational explanation for them hypotheticaly being there.

Would you think it "Orwellian" if the LDS folks stopped by as a part of the neighborhood Welcome Wagon program?

Would you think it "Orwellian" if they stopped by after having been given a wrong address and had thought they were visiting someone else?

Would you think it "Orwellian" if they stopped by because their kids were becoming friends with the former Mormons' kids, and the LDS parents just wanted to get to know the ex-LDS family a little better?

Would you think it "Orwellian" if they stopped by while campaigning door-to-door for Barak Obama?

Would you think it "Orwellian" if they stopped by to inform the ex-Mormons that their roof was ablaze?

Need I go on?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

I used the phrase "happened by" because I can't read minds (even hypothetical minds). No indication was given in your hypothetical as to why the folks showed up at the door, and unlike you, I am disinclined to jump rashly to any conclusions, and even less inclined to assume only a single rational explanation for them hypotheticaly being there.

Actually, Wade, this is what I wrote:

Clearly, someone along the line has put in the effort to "out" this person who wanted to be left alone.

The scenario in which LDS are "sent" by someone to make contact with a former or current member who wants to be left alone is the scenario I find "Orwellian." For example, did you read the Quinn narrative from my thread on Church surveillance? That's definitely very disturbing.

Would you think it "Orwellian" if the LDS folks stopped by as a part of the neighborhood Welcome Wagon program?

I would if they stopped by somebody's house even though this person had requested that LDS leave him/her alone, and had tried to distance him/herself from the Church.

Would you think it "Orwellian" if they stopped by after having been given a wrong address and had thought they were visiting someone else?

No.

Would you think it "Orwellian" if they stopped by because their kids were becoming friends with the former Mormons' kids, and the LDS parents just wanted to get to know the ex-LDS family a little better?

Probably not.

Would you think it "Orwellian" if they stopped by while campaigning door-to-door for Barak Obama?

No.

Would you think it "Orwellian" if they stopped by to inform the ex-Mormons that their roof was ablaze?

No.

Need I go on?

Yeah, you should, since these examples all neatly overstep the issue of info-gathering and surveillance. Try utilizing an example in which LDS are relying upon Church records in some way in order to contact a member or former member who doesn't want to be bothered.