A friend of mine recently posted his new website containing much of the research he covered when investigating Mormon origins, including the interview he had with an apostle and subsequently a church historian. The interviews are very interesting to read and expose just how weak and indefensible their position is. A lot of other great info exposing Mormon origins can be found there too. Enjoy: http://www.ldsorigins.com
Micah -- I took a peek, but don't have the time to wade through it right now. Looks good! My question is (because I haven't gone through it): Is the producer of this website remaining anonymous? If so, and I can't write to him, would you ask him if I may send this out to all the lists I'm on and RFM when it gets up and running again?
Both Chad Spjut and I know the creator of this site (who I believe intends to remain anonymous). Chad has already shared this on Postmo and I've shared it in all of my circles so I would assume the creator is wanting the word to get out and okay with it.
The final paragraph of the interview with the Historian blew my mind. Even the Apostle didn't stand his ground too much, and claimed not to be a "scholar".
That's hardly the picture they hold before the world, but under the pressure of scrutiny, they know the only thing they have are warm fuzzy feelings. And then they charge the poor 10 percent for the privilege of numbing their own minds.
It was interesting to me how the "apostle" was very adept at changing the subject from inconsistencies in church history to the standard talking points of worthiness, etc and then conducted a standard interview of prying and preaching in a very condescending manner and spinning everything away from facts.
This comment is very telling: A: Well, let me commend you, number one, you’re very bright. That may be a liability".
>This comment is very telling: A: Well, let me commend you, number one, you’re very bright. That may be a liability".< OMG -- could it be any more transparent what's going on here??!! It makes me want to hurl -- I can just picture the smugness and semi-smirk on his face. And to think that for so many years when I was doubting,.I fell back on a mantra that made it liveable, which was: Those men ar such good and honest people. If they KNOW it's true, then who am I to doubt! I could shoot myself! :-)
I skimmed through both interviews and niether person gave any concrete answers to any questions posed to them. I was really disapointed in the "Historians" answers. It would be nice to know a little bit more of his back ground. Logic and common sense aren't in their vocabulary. Once again 1 + 1 does not equal 2 in their world, more closer to 3. Thanks for posting the link.
Did anyone get the sense that the historian was telling him to not follow in his own footsteps? I found it fascinating that he had admitted to being in and out of mental institutions, it sounded to me that he regrets paying the high cost of cog dis.