That is also the point that Michael Coe made in the article This is NOT the place:
http://www.ldshistory.net/bomnot.html
With Sorenson's elastic style of argumentation setting the overall tone, there is about FARMS a dizzying buzz of intellectual energy, with scholars investigating every imaginable cranny of inquiry, from hermeneutics to meteorology, from animal husbandry to the prevailing currents of the oceans. Yale's Michael Coe likes to talk about what he calls "the fallacy of misplaced concreteness," the tendency among Mormon theorists like Sorenson to keep the discussion trained on all sorts of extraneous subtopics (like tapirs and nuptial beds) while avoiding what is most obvious: that Joseph Smith probably meant "horse" when he wrote down the word "horse," and that all the archaeology in the world is not likely to change the fact that horses as we know them weren't around until the Spaniards arrived on American shores.
"They're always going after the nitty-gritty things," Coe told me. "Let's look at this specific hill. Let's look at that specific tree. It's exhausting to follow all these mind-numbing leads. It keeps the focus off the fact that it's all in the service of a completely phony history. Where are the languages? Where are the cities? Where are the artifacts? Look here, they'll say. Here's an elephant. Well, that's fine, but elephants were wiped out in the New World around 8,000 B.C. by hunters. There were no elephants!"
I do agree that there are some who just want to be assured that really smart guys with PhDs have studied the issues and will tell them they're right to keep believing. For those people, the inquiry will go no further and apologetics serves it purpose. But I think the leaders are gambling if they condone apologetics (and I think they do, particularly given the recent change to the Book of Mormon intro) in the expectation that this is all anyone wants. It appeases some, but like Jason is recounting with his own story, and Kevin G, and Runtu - certainly it doesn't work for all. Others are applying what they were taught in Mormonism - that truth has its own value, and is worth fighting for. And they will dig more in order to be sure that they are defending the real truth.
Dehlin mentioned - it may have been on his podcast about heroes - that if one doesn't delve beyond the Sunday School myth, then one is one google search away from disillusionment and even loss of faith. I think that is what he is attempting to address. Whether or not it is true for all Mormons who end up altering their view of what the LDS church is, there are some who still find value and worth in participation therein. I know that's not a popular decision among some exbelievers, but I respect anyone's right to self determination. I believe Dehlin is trying to demonstrate how that can be done. I know that doesn't suit everyone, and some call it cowardice and hypocrisy, but, to me, it's just religion. It's the way religion is. Most sensible people are cafeteria followers of whatever religion they adhere to, anyway.
But maybe church leaders have had to make a decision, which group to cater to - those who just want to be reassured and will remain faithful, or those who will remain faithful in their own way after probing the answers given? I bet they prefer to bankroll, so to speak, on the first group. But as time goes on, and the internet becomes more and more pervasive, they may have to start thinking about group 2 as well.