What is the Greatest Challenge Facing Mopologetics?

[_Mister Scratch]

Hmm. But, I wonder---is this, indeed can this, really be considered a "concern" of Mopologetics? I mean, there's not really anything that either the Church, the Maxwell Institute, or FARMS Diatribe can do about the Internet, right? So is the issue actually handling of, or "suppression" of other materials that's the challenge? I.e., how to Mopologetically respond to charges of such?

They're going to have to escalate their damage control. And it's going to have to get better.

I see what you mean, but wouldn't this, in essence, require them to admit that the Church-sanctioned information that's floating around right now is, in and of itself, "problematic"? They are trying so very hard to avoid admitting to any whitewashing, spinning, or suppression of history, and yet wouldn't they have to admit to at least *some* of this in order to launch a credible "damage control" campaign?

OTOH, perhaps the moderating policies at MAD are symptomatic of this problem....

[_sunstoned]

Q: What is the Biggest Issue Confronting Apologists?

A: The truth. Now that we have brother Google, there is no place to hide.

[_CaliforniaKid]

I picked Book of Abraham, though obviously the Internet is how people find out about it, so I'm not sure it's fair to pit those two against each other.

Interesting. Why did you select the Book of Abraham? Did you choose it due to the magnitude of evidence against it?

Yeah, pretty much.

[_Jersey Girl]

The Internet. It will carry information regarding all of the above to the masses.

[_beastie]

I see what you mean, but wouldn't this, in essence, require them to admit that the Church-sanctioned information that's floating around right now is, in and of itself, "problematic"? They are trying so very hard to avoid admitting to any whitewashing, spinning, or suppression of history, and yet wouldn't they have to admit to at least *some* of this in order to launch a credible "damage control" campaign?

OTOH, perhaps the moderating policies at MAD are symptomatic of this problem....

Of course they're not going to admit it directly, but I think they came close with that invitation to that seminar thing. Since they took it down, I don't have access to the actual wording, but, If I recall correctly, it came close to admitting that they need better apologia.

[_Mister Scratch]

I see what you mean, but wouldn't this, in essence, require them to admit that the Church-sanctioned information that's floating around right now is, in and of itself, "problematic"? They are trying so very hard to avoid admitting to any whitewashing, spinning, or suppression of history, and yet wouldn't they have to admit to at least *some* of this in order to launch a credible "damage control" campaign?

OTOH, perhaps the moderating policies at MAD are symptomatic of this problem....

Of course they're not going to admit it directly, but I think they came close with that invitation to that seminar thing. Since they took it down, I don't have access to the actual wording, but, If I recall correctly, it came close to admitting that they need better apologia.

But the seminar dealt with the character of Joseph Smith.

I feel pretty much convinced that, yes, in fact, the Internet is probably the biggest challenge confronting LDS apologists. But, on the other hand, I'm not sure how *any* apologist of any stripe could really deal with it, since it seems hard to categorize it as an "issue" (in the apologetic sense) at all. So, what are they to do? Try and deal with the more "substantive" issues individually, as they have been doing? I mean, it's not as if they can go after the Internet itself....

I suppose we have observed evidence that the Church is extraordinarily worried about the Web, however. That BYU notice about the "monitoring of over 1,500" websites comes to mind, as does Allen Wyatt's cybersquatting. Further, the (heavy) presence of DCP on all these sites lends further credence to the argument that the Internet is the biggest problem. (As does DCP and other apologists' obsession with RfM and other critical sites.) Perhaps the greatest instance of the Church trying to affect the Web was the lawsuit against that guy who posted the CHI. This was a landmark case, as I recall, since it would have involved the Church altering one of the basic ways that the Internet works (i.e., hyperlinks).

[_cksalmon]

The greatest challenge facing LDS apologetics is finding intellectually honest, sincere, civil, ingenuous people to discuss our differences with, as opposed to the endless wading through the fever swamps of fundamentalist populist demagogery, anti and exmo hate screeds, the personal psychological traumas and inner conflicts of ex-members, like (like Martha Beck) who can't deal in a mature and honest manner with their own personal psychological, emotional, and developmental problems, and people like Scratch who have nothing substantive about anything to say about any issue, unless it is a personal smear, innuendo, or insinuation about the character, motives, or intelligence of a Maxwell Institute scholar.

Scratch is the one man National Enquirer of the anti-Mormon Internet community.

Move on, nothing to see here...

Goodness. Blah, blah, blah.

The Internet really is the new printing press. Whining about LDS not being able to "[find] intellectually honest, sincere, civil, ingenuous people to discuss our differences" seems just a bit silly today.

I'm really not sure that Mormonism can survive the open scrutiny of aggregate communities that have full access to multiple sources of disparate information.

I'm glad that at least some investigators have access to that disparate information, from whatever sources. I'm glad that both "pro"-Mormon and "anti"-Mormon outlets are currently available to all with an Internet connection.

Thus, LDS positions can be evaluated in the light of larger bases of information. Investigators can reach their own conclusions.

That's a good thing.

CKS

[_KimberlyAnn]

I picked the internet. It's the primary delivery system for all the other information.

KA

[_KimberlyAnn]

Move on, nothing to see here...

Coggs, you should put this at the beginning of your posts and save us all a little time.

KA

[_Scottie]

As long as the apologists keep screaming that every critic is a bald faced liar who uses half truth and distorted contexts to prove their points, the members will be conditioned not to look.