What is the Greatest Challenge Facing Mopologetics?

[_ludwigm]

None of the above.

It is the (nonexisting) doctrine.

After they define THE doctrine (it will never come true) they are lost.
No more sidestepping, redefining the words, "out of context", "private opinion", no more pointless definitions such as :
"Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith"
or such as
"need to understand that certain words in the Mormon vocabulary have slightly different meanings and connotations than those same words have in other religions"

The definition would be (it will not be but try to imagine it):
The Doctrine of the Church of etc. :
1. description1
2. description2
3. description3
...
N. descriptionN
This list will be modified if and when the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) say/write so.
The other statements are not doctrines.

As there are no thousands of elements of a real doctrine can be, this would not be an impossible task. Tens or maybe hundred unambigous sentence were good enough (see the Ten Commandments as a small example or the catechism of some - abominable - church as a bigger one).

[_Trevor]

It's one thing to be a "man of letters". It's quite another to be ever learning and never comming to a knowledge of the truth.

Talk about a subjective standard.

[_the road to hana]

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...

The greatest challenge facing LDS apologetics is having anything to actually defend.

[_bcspace]

No more sidestepping, redefining the words, "out of context", "private opinion", no more pointless definitions

With the Church, this has never been the case.

"Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith"

This is exactly the weapon you've been looking for. What could be better than being able to point to an official publication while saying "It says right here...."?

Now that you have it (and you've always had it, by the way), what are you afraid of? Perhaps your pet theories are destroyed with such a clear statement (this cuts both ways, for exmos and gospel hobbyists alike by the way)? They were destroyed long ago.....

[_bcspace]

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.

Amen. These people can't even argue based on the Church's own statements. Until they can, it's all just a strawman of their own creation.

[_Some Schmo]

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

LMAO

Good one, KA.

[_antishock8]

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...

[_The Nehor]

The Cult of the Twelve Apostates who meet in Salt Lake personally with Satan and conspire to destroy the Church by word or action.

[_GoodK]

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...

You forgot "liberal", Cogs. Or have you replaced lib with populist??

[_Doctor Steuss]

I voted "criticism and the internet," but mostly, I think "other." The greatest challenge is the very nature of apologetics in and of itself. As Hans Betz put it (citation at end of post for anyone interested in his full article):

“In Judaism, how can the worshiping of the invisible G[-]d be defended as reasonable? In Christianity, how can the belief in Jesus of Nazareth, the crucified and resurrected Lord, be defended as a reasonable type of religious belief? They cannot. Therefore, apologetics is the defense of the indefensible.”

It isn’t a given aspect that is a “challenge,” it is the mere fact that what is being defended at the very core is essentially indefensible. There are too many (indefensible) things that must be defended before one can even reach the list provided in the OP poll: The existence of G-d, the need for a Savior, Christ being that Savior, there being prophets, etc., etc., etc…

There is a long list of challenges, and once those (for all intents and purposes) indefensible challenges are met, the rest seem like nothing more than garnishes.

-----
Hans Dieter Betz, “In Defense of the Spirit: Paul’s Letter to the Galatians as a Document of Early Christian Apologetics,” in Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism and Early Christianity, Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, ed., University of Notre Dame Press (Notre Dame, Indiana, 1976), pg 100.