I'll try my hand at the next set of questions with a twist. I'll answer as if I were an apologist. For starters, I'll just try a couple:
22. It is the late 1990s, and you and some of the other BYU apologists are eager to accept new positions in the soon-to-be-dubbed Maxwell Institute. As a part of the formality of the event, one of the apostles gathers you together and lays his hands on your heads and gives you each a blessing. In it, he urges you to be strong in your duties, and to serve the Lord courageously. Later, on a messageboard, you are accused of having been blessed and/or "set apart" as an apologist. Do you deny it?
Yes, I would deny it. But then later, if facts surrounding the situation made this position dicey, I'd equivocate.
25. You have just submitted an essay to the FARMS Review, and the editor has mailed back to you the peer reviewers' comments. While they are both generally praiseworthy of your effort, both of them seem to feel that you went too easy on the author of the book under review, and, in a cover letter, the editor asked you directly to include some "character assassination" and ad hominem attack. He even supplies you with some handy gossip about some problems the author had with his publisher. Do you comply and utilize the smear tactics?
Yes. Since the purpose of peer review is ensure that a prior-arranged assignment is completed to the liking of the one who gave the assignment, it would be unwise to neglect it. Further, since it is likely the one giving the assignment had been set apart in his capacity, there should be no reason to second guess any instructions.