Undercover atheists in LDS Church

[Katzpur]

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

I would say that the Church has never issued a statement on the subject and that each case would be addressed individually.

 

[Katzpur]

comfort, survival, what is familiar...

i do that when dealing with bad relationships...

And how's that working for you? I know that it wouldn't work for me at all. Postponing the inevitable just never seems like a good solution to me.

 

[Katzpur]

*raises hand* I can.

I'm not surprised. Actually, it appears as if a lot of people who have posted so far can. There's really only one who just seems not to have a clue.

 

[McBell]

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

You are saying they are wrong to make the unsubstantiated claim that they are the true church.

Then you turn right around and make the unsubstantiated claim that they are not the true church.

Does not your first claim at the very least imply that you are being more moral by pointing out that their claim is unsubstantiated thus making said claim dishonest?

Now with your making the exact same "mistake" with your claim, are you not in a worse position simply because you should know better, seeing as you are the one who pointed out the "dishonesty" of their claim?

 

[Katzpur]

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.

Actually, an honest answer would have been "I think it's all a bunch of ********," but then where would that have gotten them? It obviously wouldn't have gotten them baptized. Ironically, lying and getting baptized as a result really didn't end up getting them anywhere either.

 

[Apex]

I left a comment on their blog asking if they would come defend their actions in this thread. Hopefully they will. Could be interesting.

 

[Breathe]

Actually, an honest answer would have been "I think it's all a bunch of ********," but then where would that have gotten them? It obviously wouldn't have gotten them baptized. Ironically, lying and getting baptized as a result really didn't end up getting them anywhere either.

Heh, true. They've cast themselves in a negative light to a significant number of people people, and unnecessarily so.

I mean, it's not like we're opposed to the learning: just their acts.

 

[Katzpur]

Heh, true. They've cast themselves in a negative light to a significant number of people people, and unnecessarily so.

I mean, it's not like we're opposed to the learning: just their acts.

I agree. You know, I was thinking about this thread in church today, and I started wondering... Were the talks (i.e. "sermons" in traditional Christian terminology) I was listening to and the lesson material I was hearing presented part of the dog and pony show that would certainly have been presented had we known that a spy was in our midst? Or was what was taught what we really believe? Oddly, I couldn't figure out which it was.

 

[Breathe]

Or was what was taught what we really believe?

Of course not, that's why non-Mormons have to come along and say what Mormons believe after going "undercover" - after all, what would Mormons know about Mormonism?

Sad thing is, that's the impression I get from such things. :foot:

 

[waitasec]

Given the fact that if you google "Mormon," you'll find at least 100 anti-Mormon websites for every one pro-Mormon website, is it any wonder members of the Church are guarded? We explain our beliefs and then by tweaking one or two words, our beliefs are made to look absolutely laughable. By leaving out a few important details, explanations take on a whole new meaning. With just a little bit of creative license, doctrines become something no practicing Latter-day Saint would even recognize. Don't even try to tell me that this doesn't happen constantly.

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? And ultimately, what would we accomplish by lying? That's what I don't understand.

i think you touched on something very interesting.
why act so surprised as to why these guys reverted to lying in the 1st place?
you do know people have been denied access because of this tension...(and i am referring to the spirit of our discourse)
it is because of this tension they reverted to sneaky tactics...
they wanted to get to the bottom of what the church offered them and if it provided any evidence that supported the churches claims...

 

[waitasec]

You are saying they are wrong to make the unsubstantiated claim that they are the true church.

Then you turn right around and make the unsubstantiated claim that they are not the true church.

my definition of a true church would be that they have all the answers...

Does not your first claim at the very least imply that you are being more moral by pointing out that their claim is unsubstantiated thus making said claim dishonest?

Now with your making the exact same "mistake" with your claim, are you not in a worse position simply because you should know better, seeing as you are the one who pointed out the "dishonesty" of their claim?

i don't claim to be anything
i claim what i see.
i don't think i am making myself out to be more moral
i'm only calling what i see. and for some reason my POV seems to be presenting an issue for some.

 

[waitasec]

And how's that working for you?

it didn't. and hopefully i learned from it

I know that it wouldn't work for me at all. Postponing the inevitable just never seems like a good solution to me.

i agree.

 

[Katzpur]

why act so surprised as to why these guys reverted to lying in the 1st place?

I really wasn't surprised. Just disappointed.

you do know people have been denied access because of this tension...(and i am referring to the spirit of our discourse)
it is because of this tension they reverted to sneaky tactics...
they wanted to get to the bottom of what the church offered them and if it provided any evidence that supported the churches claims...

If nothing else, this thread has really helped me recognize the extent of your antagonism towards my faith. I honestly had no idea your prejudices ran so deep. So if I'm surprised about anything, it's that.

 

[Katzpur]

my definition of a true church would be that they have all the answers.

Is your definition of a "true" seventh-grade biology book that it be as comprehensive as an upper-division college biology text?

 

[waitasec]

Is your definition of a "true" seventh-grade biology book that it be as comprehensive as an upper-division college biology text?

i find it very telling that you revert to insulting my intelligence...when i have never reverted to that.
are you feeling threatened? you shouldn't if you feel secure about your beliefs.
you are better than that.
:sad:

 

[Katzpur]

i find it very telling that you revert to insulting my intelligence...when i have never reverted to that.

I don't know why you'd feel that way. I was merely trying to get to the bottom of what you mean when you use the word "true." You seem to think that "true" means "complete" (i.e. having all the answers). I asked the question I did, about whether a seventh-grade biology textbook was true or not to try to help you understand the distinction between "true" and "complete." I never tried to insult your intelligence, and I can't figure out why you thought that's what I was doing.

are you feeling threatened? you shouldn't if you feel secure about your beliefs.
you are better than that.
:sad:

No, I don't feel threatened in the slightest. Again, I don't know what I've said to make you think I am.

 

[waitasec]

I really wasn't surprised. Just disappointed.

as i am with most religions that claims to be the one true religion

If nothing else, this thread has really helped me recognize the extent of your antagonism towards my faith. I honestly had no idea your prejudices ran so deep. So if I'm surprised about anything, it's that.

i have never pretended not to be, and you know that...
how many times can you recognize the same thing and be surprised...

you may call me prejudice if you want, but when i see your church claiming to be the true church, while your church doesn't have all the answers, then i call it for what it is...an extraordinary claim with no evidence to back it up
iow, if it walks like a duck...

 

[idea]

Here's another LDS atheist:

Welcome to Go Ask Grandpa
click the 1st two links - trip around the sun, and that little hardback...

Chuck enjoys the LDS culture, his mother was a member, his father an atheist, I guess he was trying to please both of his parents? Anyways, he goes to church, has been an active member his whole life (directs the choir, but does not speak / teach lessons) houses the missionaries, and enjoys all the "community" type benefits that come from being a member. He's a nice person (albeit a little stubborn when it comes to listening to the Spirit). He's not undercover though - everyone knows what he believes.

 

[waitasec]

I don't know why you'd feel that way. I was merely trying to get to the bottom of what you mean when you use the word "true." You seem to think that "true" means "complete" (i.e. having all the answers). I asked the question I did, about whether a seventh-grade biology textbook was true or not to try to help you understand the distinction between "true" and "complete." I never tried to insult your intelligence, and I can't figure out why you thought that's what I was doing.

No, I don't feel threatened in the slightest. Again, I don't know what I've said to make you think I am.

the answer seemed obvious
so how can a church claim to be the true church if it isn't complete?

 

[Katzpur]

i have never pretended not to be, and you know that...
how many times can you recognize the same thing and be surprised...

I guess maybe I was just trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Naturally, I have never considered you a real friend of my religion, but I really am surprised at how intensely you feel about it. But, it's good to have that out in the open I guess.

you may call me prejudice if you want, but when i see your church claiming to be the true church, while your church doesn't have all the answers, then i call it for what it is...an extraordinary claim with no evidence to back it up
iow, if it walks like a duck...

Okay, go ahead and ignore the fact that "true" and "complete" are not the same thing. Since it's impossible for any Church to prove its claims to be true, I don't see that we're doing anything different than anybody else. Besides, we have always recognized that there is a great deal of truth in almost all religions, and we are taught to search for truth wherever we may find it.