Most Delusional anti-Mormon Ever?

[ZealouslyStriving]

*Dude seriously believes his false testimony would be so convincing that the Church would pay him to move to Utah and he would be able to work his way up to become President of the Church. **

🤣

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

*Dude seriously believes his false testimony would be so convincing that the Church would pay him to move to Utah and he would be able to work his way up to become President of the Church. **

🤣

 

So what is the use of this video except to mock this misguided man?  What is achieved?  What is learned?  What makes one a better Saint for having watched it?

So now they are mocking his glasses, the way he talks, his lack of charisma.  The more I think about this the more it reminds me of how some girls bullied others in my junior high school.

Not the example I appreciate having out there of our faith. 

Edited December 9, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

Let's consider the logic... He couldn't convince Institute students of the "truth", but thought our highly educated Church leaders would be completely duped by his ruse.

[teddyaware]

37 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Let's consider the logic... He couldn't convince Institute students of the "truth", but thought our highly educated Church leaders would be completely duped by his ruse.

He thought he’d  be able to dupe the church leaders because his personal background story is so “fascinating” (a former Muslim and such), and because he esteems himself an engaging, lively and animated public speaker, unlike the usual dry, lowkey and “boring”  guys he says usually speak in church. 

Edited December 9, 2025 by teddyaware

[bluebell]

It's an interesting plan, from someone who doesn't really know as much about the church as he thinks he does.  I never could figure out if he actually went through with it.

I liked how the one guy with glass says that he thinks that this guy is "a really sweet guy who makes stuff up in his head".  That's a kind way to look at him.  And I liked how they went out of their way to say that they don't think this guy is anti-mormon, just misguided.  And finally, I liked how they end with telling all the other Christians and Catholics who want to infiltrate the church in order to convince us we are wrong, to do it.   

Edited December 9, 2025 by bluebell

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

He thought he’d  be able to dupe the church leaders because his personal background story is so “fascinating” (a former Muslim and such), and because he esteems himself an engaging, lively and animated public speaker, unlike the usual dry, lowkey and “boring”  guys he says usually speak in church. 

Bah, the idea that the Saints of God could be duped by an ignorant, confused, and deluded demagogue that flatters them and their worldview is absolutely ludicrous.

Edited December 9, 2025 by The Nehor

[ZealouslyStriving]

I have to say... I kinda admire his bravado- I wish I had half his self-confidence. To think you could take down a 17 million member international Church just by the shear force of your awesome personality takes a heaping extra dose of self-assurance.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I have to say... I kinda admire his bravado- I wish I had half his self-confidence. To think you could take down a 17 million member international Church just by the shear force of your awesome personality takes a heaping extra dose of self-assurance.

Is that really going to help you in life to have that level of misplaced confidence?  Will it drive you to prepare yourself before taking on a project or just cause you to stumble in and waste your efforts?

[ZealouslyStriving]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is that really going to help you in life to have that level of misplaced confidence?  Will it drive you to prepare yourself before taking on a project or just cause you to stumble in and waste your efforts?

If I had half his confidence (sans the delusion) I might be willing to step outside my comfort zone and do things I've only thought about.

You are taking this topic very seriously.

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

If I had half his confidence (sans the delusion) I might be willing to step outside my comfort zone and do things I've only thought about.

You are taking this topic very seriously.

I agree I am and I may be off base, but I had a very strong reaction to it and not a good one.

First, I have a very hard time with people mocking someone in this fashion.  It comes too close to bullying for me in my experIence.  I also get why the absurdity of it is appealing….if they had stuck with that, I think I would have given it a pass.  I think it got too personal laughing at his looks and personality.  I did assume there was more of it than the transcript shows so far, it has that vibe for me, the in group laughing at the dumb outsider guy who thinks he’s smart, but I could be over sensitive and my assumption may be wrong and they would be laughing in just this way no matter who said it, even if the most put together attractive celebrity and not that it’s extra hilarious because of his appearance and demeanor.

Quote

But like like there's no way that this 7:00 bro with those glasses especially is just like knocking it out of the park in terms of like just dashing charisma that like no lady can withstand without fainting.

Have you ever heard Elder Holland talk? Elder Holland orders a cheeseburger and it is more inspiring and life-changing than any sermon this dude has ever.

Second, I have seen people harmed by those with a lot of confidence but unrealistic views, though in my experience it’s not the outsider but the popular person that people automatically trust and support and cover mistakes for that does this.  I prefer confidence based on a realistic view of one’s self and others.

Edited December 9, 2025 by Calm

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

First, I have a very hard time with people mocking someone in this fashion.

This is also something that bugs me tremendously.  When people on one side of a debate start personal attacks (ad-hominem) upon the people on the other side of the debate, it's an indication (to me, at least) that they have no rational arguments to offer and it significantly weakens any other arguments they may have (if they have any at all), and they've already lost the debate in my opinion.  Stick with the facts and leave personal issues aside.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

This is also something that bugs me tremendously.  When people on one side of a debate start personal attacks (ad-hominem) upon the people on the other side of the debate, it's an indication (to me, at least) that they have no rational arguments to offer and it significantly weakens any other arguments they may have (if they have any at all), and they've already lost the debate in my opinion.  Stick with the facts and leave personal issues aside.

In this case there really wasn’t any substance to the person’s claims, so the value of it was just being able to be entertained and proving  their superiority…or so it came across to me.

Edited December 9, 2025 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

As far as Muslims who become members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I prefer this Brother's story.

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

As far as Muslims who become members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I prefer this Brother's story.

Up in Canada, one of my husband’s student was a convert from Islam. Unfortunately her family was the more radical type and she was under a different name, etc. to make it harder for them to find her.  I have known one or two others who did not have that issue at all.  When I first moved to Utah, I went to an interfaith conference where the local Imam, I believe, praised the Church, Utah, members for being Muslim friendly.

[morgan.deane]

13 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I agree with Calm. About their only value is mentioning that someone tried to infiltrate the church under false pretenses and that the service required in the church makes it really difficult to participate and "advance in rank" so to speak without sincerely believing in it. And Calm is correct that most of the rest was mean and unChristlike.

I was most upset with Barnes. At the 18:25 mark he was incredibly condescending and rude: "If you're an English speaker that hasn't gone through the lobotomy of believing in the creeds" That's about the rudest dismissal of the creeds I've ever seen, and then he straw mans it for about another minute using the falsetto voice that junior high bullies use to mock anything they don't like.

This isn't the first time he's behaved like this. Since I specialize in ethics and warfare I recently watched his debate with Luke Hanson about pacifism where he endlessly repeated over and over again that he was not "accusing anyone." Yet he repeatedly claimed to be on "God's side" and his opponents are constantly "twisting" or just calls them idiots. https://mormonwar.blogspot.com/2025/11/when-pacifism-met-reality-response-to.html  This seems like more of the same where he's savvy enough to at least claim that he isn't mocking anyone, but the in the same video he implies you have to be lobotomized or have the "creedal brain" to believe them. (18:40) 

The final point doesn't matter except it annoys the crap out of me. I'm an actual professor. I spent years working towards my position and then some radio show personality wants to call himself "associate professor" of apocrypha.  If he wants to play professor, I have a stack of papers he can grade, at least a third of which are AI generated.

[Okrahomer]

31 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

As far as Muslims who become members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I prefer this Brother's story.

Wow! This is quite a moving conversion story. I liked how he described: “I felt as if wind were rushing through me.”

Thanks for sharing!

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, morgan.deane said:

"If you're an English speaker that hasn't gone through the lobotomy of believing in the creeds"

Thanks for pointing that out. I didn’t pick that up the first time, may have stopped too soon or popped over it and when I encountered it, felt I had done enough criticism for the day….

But it just isn’t right for Saints to be doing this.  We get mocked for peculiar ideas, for being cult like in other eyes…so it’s okay if we turn around and treat them as mindless, foolish, nonsensical?

Let’s be adult at least if we can’t bring ourselves to stop ridiculing others out of love.

Edited December 10, 2025 by Calm

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, morgan.deane said:

I agree with Calm. About their only value is mentioning that someone tried to infiltrate the church under false pretenses and that the service required in the church makes it really difficult to participate and "advance in rank" so to speak without sincerely believing in it. And Calm is correct that most of the rest was mean and unChristlike.

I was most upset with Barnes. At the 18:25 mark he was incredibly condescending and rude: "If you're an English speaker that hasn't gone through the lobotomy of believing in the creeds" That's about the rudest dismissal of the creeds I've ever seen, and then he straw mans it for about another minute using the falsetto voice that junior high bullies use to mock anything they don't like.

This isn't the first time he's behaved like this. Since I specialize in ethics and warfare I recently watched his debate with Luke Hanson about pacifism where he endlessly repeated over and over again that he was not "accusing anyone." Yet he repeatedly claimed to be on "God's side" and his opponents are constantly "twisting" or just calls them idiots. https://mormonwar.blogspot.com/2025/11/when-pacifism-met-reality-response-to.html  This seems like more of the same where he's savvy enough to at least claim that he isn't mocking anyone, but the in the same video he implies you have to be lobotomized or have the "creedal brain" to believe them. (18:40) 

The final point doesn't matter except it annoys the crap out of me. I'm an actual professor. I spent years working towards my position and then some radio show personality wants to call himself "associate professor" of apocrypha.  If he wants to play professor, I have a stack of papers he can grade, at least a third of which are AI generated.

Agreed. I hate when members misconstrue and make fun of other people’s beliefs.  

[Danzo]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

Up in Canada, one of my husband’s student was a convert from Islam. Unfortunately her family was the more radical type and she was under a different name, etc. to make it harder for them to find her.  I have known one or two others who did not have that issue at all.  When I first moved to Utah, I went to an interfaith conference where the local Imam, I believe, praised the Church, Utah, members for being Muslim friendly.

Several Muslims converted to the church in my mission in the 90s in Europe. 

Not really news, in my opinion.  (I even know one member of the church that converted to Islam).

[Analytics]

On 12/9/2025 at 5:00 AM, Calm said:

So what is the use of this video except to mock this misguided man?  What is achieved?  What is learned?  What makes one a better Saint for having watched it?

So now they are mocking his glasses, the way he talks, his lack of charisma.  The more I think about this the more it reminds me of how some girls bullied others in my junior high school.

Not the example I appreciate having out there of our faith. 

What's ironic about it is that he isn't that misguided or delusional--not when compared to anybody else who believes in religion.

He spoke incredibly highly of Mormon people and the Church organization, without qualification. His only problem with the Church is that he believes Catholic doctrine, not Mormon doctrine. That is his only problem with the Church.

His fantasy was to join the Church, actively participate, and actively seek opportunities to teach and preach within the Church, but only teach and preach the stuff he believed in, which happens to overlap a lot with what the Church already believes.

I think there are a lot of people in the Church that are like that--who are trying to steer it from within to emphasize what they like and deemphasize what they don't like. And the winner is the one who becomes Prophet and changes stuff from the top. This does in fact happen. President Nelson bided his time, and when he was finally in charge did it his way. 

The guy in the video had (mostly correctly) noted that when talking about doctrine, many members get a little robotic. He was convinced that if he went in and taught about Jesus and the Atonement and so forth with his natural enthusiasm and charisma, it would really impress everyone, they'd feel the spirit, and he'd move into leadership positions. He thought that in 20 years, he'd join the 70 and then the twelve. Then when he became Prophet, he'd shed the doctrine he didn't believe in the way Nelson shedded the word "Mormon."

From my perspective, doing all that wouldn't be enough. He'd also have to really fit the role in terms of always showing up for all of the volunteer stuff, making people feel really secure about the faith--fitting in and being sufficiently orthodox in that way, but also being an exceptionally good manager and leader, and paying at least $50,000 a year in tithing, then he'd have a really good shot of at least becoming an area authority in 20 years. But in his fantasy, I think he severely underestimated how crowded it gets at the top.

In any case, where did the plan fall apart? It fell apart because in his fantasy, he'd never lie. He would do all this because he thought he could go through the entire thing with only talking about what he sincerely believed in--Jesus, the Atonement, faith, repentance, service, Love, etc., and that nobody would notice that he never talked about how much he loved D&C 132. 

There were multiple weaknesses in this plan, and he could only see one of them. The weakness he saw is that there was one (and only one) baptismal interview question that he couldn't answer honestly. He felt the question, "Do you believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God" left no wiggle room for him to honestly answer "yes." So he cancelled his baptism. That's the end of his story.

From my perspective, it is a self-deprecating story of an investigator who loved the Church and loved the people, but just couldn't swallow the whole enchilada. He had some fantasies about trying to change the Church, but decided against it. The End.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

What's ironic about it is that he isn't that misguided or delusional--not when compared to anybody else who believes in religion.

And that isn’t condescending, lol

[JVW]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

What's ironic about it is that he isn't that misguided or delusional--not when compared to anybody else who believes in religion.

He spoke incredibly highly of Mormon people and the Church organization, without qualification. His only problem with the Church is that he believes Catholic doctrine, not Mormon doctrine. That is his only problem with the Church.

His fantasy was to join the Church, actively participate, and actively seek opportunities to teach and preach within the Church, but only teach and preach the stuff he believed in, which happens to overlap a lot with what the Church already believes.

I think there are a lot of people in the Church that are like that--who are trying to steer it from within to emphasize what they like and deemphasize what they don't like. And the winner is the one who becomes Prophet and changes stuff from the top. This does in fact happen. President Nelson bided his time, and when he was finally in charge did it his way. 

The guy in the video had (mostly correctly) noted that when talking about doctrine, many members get a little robotic. He was convinced that if he went in and taught about Jesus and the Atonement and so forth with his natural enthusiasm and charisma, it would really impress everyone, they'd feel the spirit, and he'd move into leadership positions. He thought that in 20 years, he'd join the 70 and then the twelve. Then when he became Prophet, he'd shed the doctrine he didn't believe in the way Nelson shedded the word "Mormon."

From my perspective, doing all that wouldn't be enough. He'd also have to really fit the role in terms of always showing up for all of the volunteer stuff, making people feel really secure about the faith--fitting in and being sufficiently orthodox in that way, but also being an exceptionally good manager and leader, and paying at least $50,000 a year in tithing, then he'd have a really good shot of at least becoming an area authority in 20 years. But in his fantasy, I think he severely underestimated how crowded it gets at the top.

In any case, where did the plan fall apart? It fell apart because in his fantasy, he'd never lie. He would do all this because he thought he could go through the entire thing with only talking about what he sincerely believed in--Jesus, the Atonement, faith, repentance, service, Love, etc., and that nobody would notice that he never talked about how much he loved D&C 132. 

There were multiple weaknesses in this plan, and he could only see one of them. The weakness he saw is that there was one (and only one) baptismal interview question that he couldn't answer honestly. He felt the question, "Do you believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God" left no wiggle room for him to honestly answer "yes." So he cancelled his baptism. That's the end of his story.

From my perspective, it is a self-deprecating story of an investigator who loved the Church and loved the people, but just couldn't swallow the whole enchilada. He had some fantasies about trying to change the Church, but decided against it. The End.

I don't believe that Nelson bided his time, but other than that I feel like I could have written everything you said, only in a much less elegant and succinct way.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

What's ironic about it is that he isn't that misguided or delusional--not when compared to anybody else who believes in religion.

He spoke incredibly highly of Mormon people and the Church organization, without qualification. His only problem with the Church is that he believes Catholic doctrine, not Mormon doctrine. That is his only problem with the Church.

His fantasy was to join the Church, actively participate, and actively seek opportunities to teach and preach within the Church, but only teach and preach the stuff he believed in, which happens to overlap a lot with what the Church already believes.

I think there are a lot of people in the Church that are like that--who are trying to steer it from within to emphasize what they like and deemphasize what they don't like. And the winner is the one who becomes Prophet and changes stuff from the top. This does in fact happen. President Nelson bided his time, and when he was finally in charge did it his way. 

The guy in the video had (mostly correctly) noted that when talking about doctrine, many members get a little robotic. He was convinced that if he went in and taught about Jesus and the Atonement and so forth with his natural enthusiasm and charisma, it would really impress everyone, they'd feel the spirit, and he'd move into leadership positions. He thought that in 20 years, he'd join the 70 and then the twelve. Then when he became Prophet, he'd shed the doctrine he didn't believe in the way Nelson shedded the word "Mormon."

From my perspective, doing all that wouldn't be enough. He'd also have to really fit the role in terms of always showing up for all of the volunteer stuff, making people feel really secure about the faith--fitting in and being sufficiently orthodox in that way, but also being an exceptionally good manager and leader, and paying at least $50,000 a year in tithing, then he'd have a really good shot of at least becoming an area authority in 20 years. But in his fantasy, I think he severely underestimated how crowded it gets at the top.

In any case, where did the plan fall apart? It fell apart because in his fantasy, he'd never lie. He would do all this because he thought he could go through the entire thing with only talking about what he sincerely believed in--Jesus, the Atonement, faith, repentance, service, Love, etc., and that nobody would notice that he never talked about how much he loved D&C 132. 

There were multiple weaknesses in this plan, and he could only see one of them. The weakness he saw is that there was one (and only one) baptismal interview question that he couldn't answer honestly. He felt the question, "Do you believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God" left no wiggle room for him to honestly answer "yes." So he cancelled his baptism. That's the end of his story.

From my perspective, it is a self-deprecating story of an investigator who loved the Church and loved the people, but just couldn't swallow the whole enchilada. He had some fantasies about trying to change the Church, but decided against it. The End.

For me, what makes the man delusional is believing that he can infiltrate another organization and work his way up to the president of that organization when he has no idea how leadership in the organization works.

He’s completely ignorant of what it will take to achieve his goal and yet he still fully believes his goal is possible.  

 

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

And that isn’t condescending, lol

I'm just saying that when judging how delusional other people are, shouldn't we grade on a curve?

😊

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

For me, what makes the man delusional is believing that he can infiltrate another organization and work his way up to the president of that organization when he has no idea how leadership in the organization works.

He’s completely ignorant of what it will take to achieve his goal and yet he still fully believes his goal is possible.  

 

That's more naiveté than delusional. 

What this reminds me of is a friend of mine who had a life changing experience on his mission. He and his companion came across some anti-Mormon material, and the issue that somehow got traction in their respective minds was the accusation that the apostles are all rich businessmen which is the antithesis of the humble followers of Christ in the Bible. This issue bothered both him and his companion, and they talked to their mission president about it. The mission president (incorrectly) explained that the Church doesn't have a paid clergy, so the only people who are in a financial position to lead the church full time are already financially independent.

One of the missionaries found this answer unsatisfactory and left the Church shortly after he finished his mission.

The other one (my friend) found the answer quite satisfactory and made it his life's mission to become the CEO of a Fortune 500 company so that he could become financially independent and be called as an apostle.

What's tragic about this is that he didn't have the self awareness to understand that he wasn't cut out for that type of high stakes leadership. He was wicked smart book-wise, but didn't have the vision, charisma, or intestinal fortitude to successfully compete in high stakes business. In the end he sacrificed his excellent career as an engineer to pursue an MBA at a top school, but after getting the MBA he just couldn't compete. He is now in his 50's and has spent over half of his working years unemployed.

The guy in the video was being self-deprecating and was laughing about an idea he flirted with but ultimately decided wasn't realistic. Who is more delusional--that guy, or the RM who put it all on the line to pursue a Harvard MBA so that he could be an apostle?  

Edited December 10, 2025 by Analytics