For any interested, this is the transcript of an interview I had with one of the current 12 apostles: http://www.ldsorigins.com/myapostleinterview.htm

The follow-up meeting with an official church historian is on the site as well.

PS. I'm aware that I babble on far too much in my meetings. I guess I just thought that they would have more to say about my concerns.

That was absolutely brilliant, I think he may have doubts himself. It didn't you get an outstanding job, and I think it gave him give lots to think about. It was a brilliant thanks for posting.

What a joke. There was nothing in his instructions or remarks that was anything other than rote, tired, old boring Mormon apologetics that are intended solely to contradict an inquiring mind. Funny, but also quite sad!

You know, is it your big head doing all of this evil, apostate, intellectual THINKING or are you trying to SIN?!?!?

The only real question, right?

lol

I think I know who the apostle was, but I won't post a guess. I recognize his rhetoric.

I find it quite interesting that he never really bears his testimony to you. I mean, after all, he's a "special witness" of Christ, right?

I thought he was fairly respectful to you most of the time. His lack of curiosity about the church's origins, though, is rather mind-boggling to me. How can you go around touting the LDS church as the "only true church" and not even bother to find out about Joe's "lying for the Lord" to his wife, his followers and the world in general? Why should anyone believe that today's "prophets, seers and revelators" can tell us God's only truth, so much so that "obedience [to them, no less] is the first law of heaven," when it's so obvious that BY taught what is now thoroughly denounced as "false doctrine"?

And how can you go about spearheading a mega-campaign against people's civil rights (i.e., same-sex marriage),essentially pretending that the Almighty is depending on you to rescue America from some unimagineable evil consequence, when you know darn well that God doesn't speak to you in the way you lead your followers to believe he does, all while relying on the pretense of God's direct guidance to rally the troops?

It was nice of him to talk to you, I guess, even though he essentially dodged your historical questions. You must be "connected" to have landed the interview.

Anyway, thanks for posting this. I think it shows some very interesting insight into the thought processes of a top Mormon leader.

I also found it very odd that he didn't try to testify to me. Especially considering the position he holds, I would have thought he would have tried to speak in very grandiose terms about his "encounters" with the divine.

Yes, I also find it hard to believe that he doesn't find those things disconcerting. On the other hand, he honestly seemed to think that the historian would have some very good, solid answers for me. He seemed to have faith in the historians.

Thanks for reading!

Don't the sheep wonder how these men, with zero or no skill, nor interest, nor personal study of the Cult's history, can be called Apostles?

Are they kidding? That's like choosing a Director of Sales or Marketing who knows just the surface facts about their product or service. In the real world, they would be out on their ass in one year.

In most self-respecting churches, they require divinity studies credentials before choosing one to lead. This so called Apostle (lofty title!) is just a corporate drone.

Good thing, though, that he didn't go a-testifyin'.

Bad thing, making this about YOU and using the same, tired, uncharitable, ad-hominems.

An interesting interview.

One thing that I picked up form up... because, I guess it rang a bell with me... is praying with *real* humility to get an answer - as opposed to the fake humility that people pray with.

I guess we have all seen fake humility, up on the stand, but I would like to think, when I had a *personal* prayer with god, asking about my doubts and concerns, I was full of humility.... If I prayed that I needed some sort of answer, I actually *needed* it.
It riles me to think that some Apostle is suggesting there is some heavenly technician with a humility-o-meter gauging just how real my prayer is.

"I am not getting any answer to my prayers"
"are you humble in your prayers?"
"yes"
"are you Really! humble in your prayers?"
"I guess so"
"Are you *Really!!*, Really! humble in your prayers?"
"I don't know"
"There's your problem then, KTHXBYE"

Interesting read.

However, do you have anymore evidence to show this actually took place. I know an apostle (we used to be in the same ward), and he knows pretty much everything about church history. I'm not saying all the apostles do, but I would think they'd talk about it to each other, so they'd know more of the basics.

For example, President Holland talked about Solomon Spaulding and Ethan Smith in General Conference last year.

Russell M. Nelson mentioned Joseph Smith using a stone and a hat to translate.

I'm sure there's a few others too, but their whole life revolves around the church now, so I'm sure they'd know the truth about polygamy, etc.

I have thought about releasing the audio of the interview once this particular apostle has passed away. Until then, you might speak with Chad Spjut (who heads the Exmormon Foundation) he can vouch for me.

I honestly wish that I had spoken with Holland or Oaks; someone who would have addressed the issues more than this apostle did. I feel the same way about the historian.

Did Chad actually hear the recordings?

I'm afraid all Chad can do is vouch for my character. I might set up a listening session with Chad at some point if that would make people feel more secure about it.

LDSOrigins Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm afraid all Chad can do is vouch for my
> character. I might set up a listening session
> with Chad at some point if that would make people
> feel more secure about it.

Why don't you just post the audio so people can hear it directly? Chad being a "witness" wouldn't make me feel more secure about your assertion personally. Particularly when it's so easy to prove it's credibility if it fact the interview took place.

I'm sorry, no disrespect. PTSD of being Mormon. I don't trust anything people tell me just on their word alone. Reminds me too much of JS...

What's Holland going to do without the church? He's got too much invested to do anything else along with the rest of them.

This just disses me so much:

"M: ...when I started doubting church history, when I was praying and praying, ..."Are you there?" ... if he is up there...One, are you up there? Two, are you intervening? Three, what do you want from me? And, man, I prayed for...I was studying many years on all this stuff, uh, three years...
...
M: ..."Who you are, whatever you are, please answer me. If you are there, please answer me, because I need to know this.”
A: Were you testing him or just humbly submitting yourself to him?"


What an asshat! Here you are opening up your innermost thoughts about wanting to "know", because it was important, to a so-called witness for Christ, and all he could ask was "Were you testing him? Typical two-bit sidestep, uninspiring! Boo!

The more I read this interview, the more convinced I am that none of these people have even seen the edge of Jesus' sandals. They are all crazy and deluded.

So typical. Fishing to see if you’re “morally clean”, hoping to use that as a reason for your questioning the Church. And, as others noted, the approach that you must not be praying correctly, that always bothers me. There must be something wrong with you not the doctrine.

He entirely missed your question about how to explain the spiritual experiences of people in other religions.

Yes, he didn't seem to even know how to have a conversation that did not remain within the confines of Mormonism. As you say, it seems he didn't understand the point I was trying to make.

Both seemed polite, but neither one was willing to actually address any of your issues!

I know! I just kept throwing more concerns out to them, expecting them to eventually make an attempt at addressing them. If I had known both interviews would go the way they did, I would have done better at requesting specific responses.

I'm not 100% convinced this interview took place. You haven't presented any reliable credible evidence that it did. Some questions:

How were you able to even get an interview with an apostle? Please be specific. Are you of Mormon royalty? Connections? I doubt any of the regular sheeple can just call up the COB and make an appt.

Are you under some legal obligation to not reveal the name of the apostle or the audio? Was that a condition to grant the interview? Some sort of confidentiality agreement?

Sorry, but I'm not just taking anyone's word that they had an interview with an apostle.

I understand that there will be a certain level of healthy skepticism when it comes to the interviews.

I didn't ask for permission to record either of them, so I choose not to just throw their voices up on the internet. I can't really offer you much more than Chad Spjut vouching for my character at the moment.

However, I've thought of putting the recording up after the apostle died.

I read the transcript from the historian and found it at least as frustrating as the Apostle. The implication that he gets something or has read something you haven't that makes Josephs sexual exploits all OK is too much.

I have a hard time buying that. If there was such an explanation or an iron-clad defense— why hasn't FAIR, FARMS or some apologist writer broadcast it from the rooftops. Certainly there is a need and a market for it.

Fact is such a comment is just another apologetic stall tactic. In the end these guys know there are huge issues and really have no response other than to say 'you can't just use your intellect'.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/24/2010 05:32PM by badseed.

The poster is my former home teacher and friend and I have personally been privy to his whole exit process, including these interviews.

-Chad

Chad, the OP said you did not hear the interviews and could only vouch for your character so your endorsement doesn't really lend any credibility as to the authenticity of these interviews. Sorry. Did you witness with your spiritual eyes and ears? ;)

Seriously though, HOW did you even get an interview with an apostle?

And if you are under no legal obligation to keep the name of the apostle confidential why don't you reveal it?

Side note - the guys who did the Prop 8 movie who released the damaging audio of the apostles, they didn't have legal ramifications for that did they?

I was thinking the same. Apostles don't just go around having interviews with exmormons.

Pretty much the only people apostles interview are to do with their calling (i.e. Mission Presidents, Area Seventies, General Authorities, etc.), and the only people who get to interview apostles are other apostles, and the First Presidency. The only other people apostles will have interviews with are famous mormons, the media, or relatives of GAs, if the GA requests for it.

To be honest, I think you'd have difficulty getting an interview with a Mission President (unless you are a missionary, of course), let alone an apostle! Or did you pay them a large sum of money?

Not sure I understand how "anon" can be so insistent about the veracity of this interview and yet only call him-/herself "anon."

DeAnn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not sure I understand how "anon" can be so
> insistent about the veracity of this interview and
> yet only call him-/herself "anon."

Yeah, I go by anon to keep my identity anonymous. Genius.

Besides, what does posting anonymously have anything to do with calling out the veracity of the claim? I'm not making any claims that I'm something I'm not and hiding behind anon. OP however IS making a claim that he interviewed an apostle but will not provide any proof that said interview actually took place.

Ha ha. Well, posting the audio wouldn't exactly keep me anonymous, would it?

right. as if one of the lard's annointed would EVER allow you to talk that much. Fun to read though.

"...if your spirit doesn’t go on then the whole church... why have a church? We don’t need any of this."

Perhaps a good response to that would have been, "well a church gives it's leaders standing in the community and money, so it would still have a purpose. Don't you get about $200,000 a year?"

Ha ha. Well, I thought that my agreeing with him that there was no reason for even having a church was enough. :)

I read the whole thing and since the apostle came arcross as an empty suit, I do believe this is a real encounter.

I live thousands of miles away from the Holy See of Salt Lake City so my chances of seeing, much less meeting with, an apostle are less than zero.

Given that, I admire the way you conducted yourself. If I had been in your place the palace guards would have had to have restrained me from leaping across the table and getting my hands around his throat.

To me he seemed to turn your questions into him questioning you, a typical LDS missionary technique to put you on the defensive rather than be required to give a straight answer.

He also seemed to preach relativism... I mean that it didn't really matter what you chose as long as you knew where it was going to take you. Seems he made his choice and it took him where he is now and he's okay with it.

Some months back there was a post about someone's father (who was a stake president) trying to set up a meeting between his son and a General Authority. Any chance that was related to this?

Yes, I believe that's how this was set up. There is information on other forums about this.

"Are Mormons Christian?"

Yes the purpose of existence is to glorify God you dummy...basic answer in most Christian churches including the Catholic Church
out

I like the end. It's an admission that isn't.

In the movie, 8: The Mormon Proposition, Mormon leaders were recorded in a public meeting--the satellite "fireside" where the faithful got their marching orders. While the recording was surreptitious, their words were stated in an entirely public meeting. The press was not excluded from the meeting, and members were even encouraged to invite their interested nonmember friends. That is a wholly different setting than a one-on-one interview in which the apostle has every reason to believe that what he says will not wind up on the internet.

While I don't think that LDSOrigins would get sued if he put up the recording, I also respect and support his ethically responsible choice not to do so. If "anon" isn't satisfied with that, so be it. LDSOrigins owes "anon" nothing.

LDS apostles do, in fact, have private conversations with people, especially if they know or are friends with the person or their relatives. I've known a few people who have arranged to have such interviews/conversations.


So, LDSOrigins, I hope you don't feel pressured by an entirely anonymous "anon" to do something you are uncomfortable doing. I suspect that most of us here believe you and support your choice.

sophia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In the movie, 8: The Mormon Proposition, Mormon
> leaders were recorded in a public meeting--the
> satellite "fireside" where the faithful got their
> marching orders. While the recording was
> surreptitious, their words were stated in an
> entirely public meeting. The press was not
> excluded from the meeting, and members were even
> encouraged to invite their interested nonmember
> friends. That is a wholly different setting than
> a one-on-one interview in which the apostle has
> every reason to believe that what he says will not
> wind up on the internet.
>
> While I don't think that LDSOrigins would get sued
> if he put up the recording, I also respect and
> support his ethically responsible choice not to do
> so. If "anon" isn't satisfied with that, so be
> it. LDSOrigins owes "anon" nothing.
>
> LDS apostles do, in fact, have private
> conversations with people, especially if they know
> or are friends with the person or their relatives.
> I've known a few people who have arranged to have
> such interviews/conversations.
>
>
> So, LDSOrigins, I hope you don't feel pressured by
> an entirely anonymous "anon" to do something you
> are uncomfortable doing. I suspect that most of
> us here believe you and support your choice.

Point taken about the prop 8 interviews being to the public vs a private interview.

What I don't understand is why people are irritated with me for wanting the OP to substantiate his claim? Why should any of us believe him based on his word alone? I don't know him from a stranger on the street.

And how does posting under anon lessen what I have to say? Would it make you feel better if I posted under Sue or Bob? That is so stupid.

In short I do believe the OP owes us all an explaination, even you two sheep who just expect us to swallow every claim someone makes. I do find it curious that the OP has yet to answer how he got this interview in the first place.

No disrespect to the OP at all it's just IMHO if you're going to claim you interviewed an apostle, you should be prepared to back up that assertion.

I'm very shocked that I'm even having to defend myself in this regard on here.

FWIW I did think the interview was an interesting and fun read. There's just no proof that it happened IRL is all.

Sorry to have rubbed some of you the wrong way.

As I have stated above, "I understand that there will be a certain level of healthy skepticism when it comes to the interviews."

I can understand why you might be skeptical. I don't know how much I would believe it if I were in your shoes. But, at the same time, I'm not currently comfortable releasing the audio, so I'm afraid I can't offer you more than the transcript at the moment.

How I got the interview:
I was just an average member and so was my dad, but I was able to meet with him. My dad went to a fireside where this general authority spoke and you'd have to understand my dad to know he has not shame. He went right up to the apostle afterwards and started telling him about his son who was having doubts. After that my dad told me he said it was ok to set up an interview. I said, "Right, dad, I'm sure that's going to happen." The next thing I knew, my dad called me up and said that one of the apostles appointments had cancelled and that I was scheduled for 2 days from then. It was hard to believe, but I pulled out my old notes from my study of church history and prepared myself to have him address my concerns. That really is the story. I was surprised as anyone that I had the opportunity.

Thank you Sophia. If I had asked him for permission to record our meeting and he had granted it, then I would feel ok about putting his voice on the internet. (I think there is a big difference between just putting the words of an interview up vs. having your actual voice online.) I, however, didn't tell him that I was recording since I didn't want his answers to be sanitized for the general public. In the end, I don't know that he would have said anything much differently than he did, but I did not know that going in.

"I'm not a scholar. I can't speak to that." WOW A. You're one of the Board of Directors of the Corporation of the President of TCOJCOLDS and you have absolutely NOTHING to say about the history of the organization that you, personally, represent? Nothing at all. I don't buy the "Oh shucks, I'm just a humble apostle" song and dance. Of course, he knows. It's his business to know.

Also, in response to those who believe this was a polite, respectful encounter, may I suggest that there are two methods for controlling and demeaning another individual. One is to scold and play the "authority" card. This is transparent.

The other is to use the syrupy sweet "fatherly" tone and demeanor as in "have you REALLY prayed...?" These are psychological tactics to put OP in the submissive young child role.

A did both, plus threaten OP with destruction if he continued in his pursuit of truth (that's mafia of him). It's like the proverbial dog which licks your face and pees in your shoe at the same time. Could A have been any more alpha-male? I cry foul to A's attempts to bully and intimate OP any way he could. And, he didn't directly answer one freakin' question. That exposes him.