re: #7 philosophus invidius

I don’t think that’s a fair characterization of it. I just looked it over and it mostly is about how mainstream Mormonism differs from history, and how it conflicts with science. It also sheds light on the Church’s evolving positions over time.

The link to the couple is the only questionable thing I saw there. The rest of it certainly seems to be aimed at promoting discussion, unless you think that pointing out ahistorical and contradictory aspects of a religion doesn’t promote discussion.