What is the Greatest Challenge Facing Mopologetics?

[_harmony]

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.

It took you exactly 104 words to say exactly nothing worthwhile.

Good grief.

[_Bond...James Bond]

I pick Internet, because it can deliver the bad news about all the other choices.

[_skippy the dead]

Internet. It makes all those other issues easily found by those looking (or even those not looking).

(And LOL KA)

[_CaliforniaKid]

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

*snicker*

[_Moniker]

I voted Joseph Smith. When I first started researching LDS I went to FAIR and read quite a bit. I was unaware of polygamy, or the early Church history. I did know LDS believed in prophets, though and this was unnerving to me -- one of my first questions on FAIR was about prophets and later I mentioned polygamy. The entire religion rests upon this man -- I think early on I asked if you could be LDS and not accept Joseph Smith, and I think it was pretty much decided that one could not do so. He is the biggest stumbling block, I believe, for those that wish to defend this faith.

If the LDS Church could somehow do to move away from the praise of this man (one of the first threads on this board I asked what in the world he did -- for Nehor said he was one of the most important historical figures EVER!) they would attract more people. All religions rest upon faith and some aspect of supernatural -- yet, this is a MAN and when it is too easy to decipher that he was only a man the entire religion collapses about him.

[_Mister Scratch]

I voted Joseph Smith. When I first started researching LDS I went to FAIR and read quite a bit. I was unaware of polygamy, or the early Church history. I did know LDS believed in prophets, though and this was unnerving to me -- one of my first questions on FAIR was about prophets and later I mentioned polygamy. The entire religion rests upon this man -- I think early on I asked if you could be LDS and not accept Joseph Smith, and I think it was pretty much decided that one could not do so. He is the biggest stumbling block, I believe, for those that wish to defend this faith.

If the LDS Church could somehow do to move away from the praise of this man (one of the first threads on this board I asked what in the world he did -- for Nehor said he was one of the most important historical figures EVER!) they would attract more people. All religions rest upon faith and some aspect of supernatural -- yet, this is a MAN and when it is too easy to decipher that he was only a man the entire religion collapses about him.

Well, Richard Bushman would seem to agree with you. I would imagine that this is one of the primary reasons he is heading up the BYU seminar that Beastie mentioned earlier.

[_solomarineris]

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...

Let's talk about Mormon belief of talking & walking snakes, eating the flesh of Jesus, flying Jesus, secret handshakes, secret names, combinations, baptising for dead people, belief in miracles that David Copperfield could perform on stage in a heart-beat......
Are these more substantive?
Show me something substantive yourself.
MrScratch makes sense. Every insinuation, inuendo is made against Maxwell institute is warranted and deserves a logical response.
Show me something, anything of substance.
Otherwise you're full of it....

I've moved on long time ago because they failed to deliver.

[_bcspace]

I didn't pick the internet because it doesn't speak to any direct challenge to an apologist's ability. That would be more of a challenge to the Church's missionary efforts.

[_Mister Scratch]

I didn't pick the internet because it doesn't speak to any direct challenge to an apologist's ability. That would be more of a challenge to the Church's missionary efforts.

I sort of agree with you, BC. After all, how are apologists supposed to take on the Internet itself? The prospect alone is riddled with all sorts of Orwellian implications.

[_Trevor]

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

KA

Amen to that.