Undercover atheists in LDS Church

[Katzpur]

denial can keep the idea alive and kicking...

To what purpose, though?

 

[waitasec]

I listened to the other one, though, and I did not find them to be entirely sincere, but that's my take on their acts. Maybe they are sincere people, but their actions are, in my opinion, insincere.

I get the feeling there were ulterior motives within the one I listened to, and it was of a religion people usually know nothing about. Why would it be any different for the Mormons, really, whom they rated higher?

What bugs me was that there was no need for them to be baptised, as has been pointed out.

they told them that their faith was almost non existent, was that ok...yes it was apparently...
they did lie in regards to 2 questions that were asked of them one of which i find sort of odd in light of knowing their faith was almost non existent...

1)question: do you believe jesus is the son of god and the redeemer of the world?
carrie/ross responded that their faith was the size of a mustard seed, this is a nice thought and they hoped it was true.
2) do you believe the church was restored through the prophet joseph smith?
mustard seed size faith
3) do you feel that you have repented your past transgression?
yes
4)have you ever committed a serious crime?
no
5) have you ever had an abortion or were in a homosexual relationship?
no
6)are you willing to live a life with gospel standards including the laws of
chastity
tithing
no hot drinks
keeping the sabbath day holy
they pretty much lied with this answer
*7) are you willing to take upon the name of christ in a covenant with him?
they lied.

*side note...
how can someone commit to this if their faith is almost non existent?

 

[waitasec]

To what purpose, though?

comfort, survival, what is familiar...

i do that when dealing with bad relationships...

 

[McBell]

i find it interesting how you can come up with this opinion without listening to the pod cast in question...
i'll make it easy for you 28:00 into the 2nd part they explain how they came out...
once you listen to that then i think you would be in a position to have an opinion about what i am saying...

Your desperation is starting to show.

Why else would you nit pick any ole flimsy reason to dismiss anothers opinion?
Your insecurities are starting to get the better of you.

 

[waitasec]

Did I say it does? Did I even remotely imply that it does?

did i ever say you did?

Why would you even feel the need to make that comment?

one of the questions they were asked is:
do you believe the church was restored through the prophet joseph smith?
which i think makes the underlying statement this church has all the answers...otherwise why would anyone one say yes if they didn't believe that?

 

[waitasec]

Your desperation is starting to show.

Why else would you nit pick any ole flimsy reason to dismiss anothers opinion?
Your insecurities are starting to get the better of you.

your opinion means nothing on this matter if you haven't listened to the pod cast...

 

[waitasec]

That's right, you don't.

What I was trying to say is that there are some questions that might be asked for which the answer would have to be, "I don't know. The Church had never addressed that issue." Those are the questions that can't be answered. I can't answer those questions any more than anyone else can. There are no questions that we are forbidden to answer, except to explain the covenants we make in the temples. Any other questions are fair game, and if there are answers, anyone who is willing to look hard enough will certainly find someone willing and able to respond to them.

the inter sex question was never addressed.
so how would you address it?

 

[waitasec]

That's entirely subjective, waitasec, and you know it is. You can't prove their claims are dishonest any more than I can prove they're honest. The only difference is that I'm far less interested in proving the LDS Church is true than you are in proving it is false.

that's right, and with reason.

 

[McBell]

your opinion means nothing on this matter if you haven't listened to the pod cast...

And what is your reason to claim I have not listened to the Pod Cast?
My disagreement with your sad attempt at justifying their dishonesty, lies, and deception?

My disagreement that they were "looking for truth"?

Interesting how you equate "disagreement with you" to "not listening to the pod cast."

Now, since I have in fact listened to all of their pod casts, not just the two concerning their Mormon charade, and STILL disagree with not only your sad attempts at justifying their dishonesty, lies, and deception, but also your claim that they were "looking for truth" where does that leave your "argument"?

 

[Apex]

one of the questions they were asked is:
do you believe the church was restored through the prophet joseph smith?
which i think makes the underlying statement this church has all the answers...otherwise why would anyone one say yes if they didn't believe that?

You are wrong. We are the first to admit we don't have all the answers. Us believe our Church to be true and the idea that we have "all the answers" have nothing to do with one another. You claiming other wise doesn't change that.

 

[Apex]

the inter sex question was never addressed.
so how would you address it?

With an honest "I don't know".

 

[Storm]

And yet there is always this assumption that Mormons are going to lie and that you have to trick them into telling the truth. Why can't anybody understand how offensive that is?

*raises hand* I can.

 

[waitasec]

And what is your reason to claim I have not listened to the Pod Cast?
My disagreement with your sad attempt at justifying their dishonesty, lies, and deception?

My disagreement that they were "looking for truth"?

Interesting how you equate "disagreement with you" to "not listening to the pod cast."

Now, since I have in fact listened to all of their pod casts, not just the two concerning their Mormon charade, and STILL disagree with not only your sad attempts at justifying their dishonesty, lies, and deception, but also your claim that they were "looking for truth" where does that leave your "argument"?

i'm not justifying anything...i'm pointing out as to why i think they did what they did...i never said they did something right.

the truth is, the church of latter day saints isn't the true church...
would you agree?

 

[waitasec]

With an honest "I don't know".

why not?

 

[Breathe]

they told them that their faith was almost non existent, was that ok...yes it was apparently...
they did lie in regards to 2 questions that were asked of them one of which i find sort of odd in light of knowing their faith was almost non existent...

1)question: do you believe jesus is the son of god and the redeemer of the world?
carrie/ross responded that their faith was the size of a mustard seed, this is a nice thought and they hoped it was true.
2) do you believe the church was restored through the prophet joseph smith?
mustard seed size faith

I don't believe that they were honest. "Size of a mustard seed" is something Jesus said for being able to move mountains, which these people probably did not have. This, ultimately, appears as a deceitful answer. What seems like a more accurate version would have been:

"Do you believe these?"
"I think it would be nice if they were" would be an honest answer, but they would not have been baptised with such an answer. Saying they had any faith - when in fact they did not believe it (or believed it almost not at all), is dishonest if not an outright lie.

*side note...
how can someone commit to this if their faith is almost non existent?

Exactly. They were not honest with what they did. Thus, in my opinion, their acts were uncalled for. They lied to the followers, they claimed they professed faith when they did not.

 

[McBell]

i'm not justifying anything...i'm pointing out as to why i think they did what they did...i never said they did something right.

Fair enough.

the truth is, the church of latter day saints isn't the true church...
would you agree?

I cannot agree with your claim simply because you cannot prove your claim.
And until you can support your claim "the truth is, the church of latter day saints isn't the true church" you have nothing but an unsubstantiated claim that you are trying to present as fact.

You are doing the exact same thing you are whining about the Mormons doing.
The only difference is that you are claiming the higher moral ground whilst doing so.

 

[waitasec]

I don't believe that they were honest. "Size of a mustard seed" is something Jesus said for being able to move mountains, which these people probably did not have. This, ultimately, appears as a deceitful answer. What seems like a more accurate version would have been:

"Do you believe these?"
"I think it would be nice if they were" would be an honest answer, but they would not have been baptised with such an answer. Saying they had any faith - when in fact they did not believe it (or believed it almost not at all), is dishonest if not an outright lie.


Exactly. They were not honest with what they did. Thus, in my opinion, their acts were uncalled for. They lied to the followers, they claimed they professed faith when they did not.

but thats the point...how can you ask anyone to commit to something if they have admitted they are still skeptical at a fundamental level?

 

[waitasec]

Fair enough.

whew...

I cannot agree with your claim simply because you cannot prove your claim.
And until you can support your claim "the truth is, the church of latter day saints isn't the true church" you have nothing but an unsubstantiated claim that you are trying to present as fact.

You are doing the exact same thing you are whining about the Mormons doing.
The only difference is that you are claiming the higher moral ground whilst doing so.

i don't see how i am. i'm just expressing what i see.

 

[Breathe]

but thats the point...how can you ask anyone to commit to something if they have admitted they are still skeptical at a fundamental level?

I'm not sure if I have your question right, but I've answered what I thought you were asking. If not, feel free to correct me.

Short answer: in my experience this is not the case. The Mormons I encountered said they would not baptise someone whom they thought did not believe in the message of Mormonism.

I think that's fair. Why would someone want to be baptised into a religion they don't believe in, like these two did?

 

[Katzpur]

one of the questions they were asked is:
do you believe the church was restored through the prophet joseph smith?
which i think makes the underlying statement this church has all the answers...otherwise why would anyone one say yes if they didn't believe that?

For a Church to be "true" and for a Church to have "all the answers" are two very different things. This reasoning sounds like something I'd hear from an evangelical Christian who assumes that because the Bible is "true" it "has all the answers." That's just not the case.