"If I were a Mormon Apologist, I would argue ... "

[_sock puppet]

I think that there is much that is wrong with Mormon apologetics since 1980 especially. I cannot fathom what I tacks I would take in defending the LDS Church, because I there is not much I find redeeming about it. I certainly do not buy into its 'truth' claims. I do not believe that if there is a god there is any necessity for 'saving ordinances', as an omniscient being would have a much better basis for gauging who meets any standard, from a substantive perspective (can't imagine that a superior being would elevate form (ordinances, and only if performed by whomever) over substance). So, that moots the entirety of who has god's authority on earth, as well as the claims of the LDS Church to have earth as its exclusive territory for the franchise of god's authority.

So for me, my tactic would be

• Whatever problems the LDS Church had when JSJr, BY, JT, etc. were at the helm, today it provides a social order that provides fellowship and an opportunity to serve your neighbors
• There are activities for your kids that won't involve most of the vices growing up
• Some get enraptured emotionally and Church meetings can be an outlet for that
• The Book of Mormon has stories of battles, and so unlike the Bible, it has a spiced up story line to perhaps keep your children interested in reading further, including a re-hash of the Christian teachings otherwise found in the Bible.

I am interested in what tacks others here would perhaps do if they found themselves on the defending end of the LDS Church.

[_palerobber]

i'd first concede that all of Joseph Smith's work was inspired fiction.

then i'd recast Smith as a lovable rogue and idiot savant, and Brigham Young as a vampire hunter.

finally, i'd emphasize eternal progression towards godhood and meet all counterclaims with a Marxist critique.

(still have no good answer for the racist doctrines)

[_Drifting]

...that the agnostics are right.

[_angsty]

I've been thinking about this since Sock Puppet's OP. I think I would have to take a "separate spheres" tack.

I'd be completely straight about all the problems and do my best to be objective and frank as possible. I'd acknowledge deficiencies, reject faulty evidence (Bat Creek Stone, etc., OMG-- can't believe people are still taking that seriously) and look at it as a game to be figured out.

Then I'd argue that while this is all interesting and should all be understood clearly and rationally when it all comes out in the wash, the point of faith is that it is supposed to exist independently, and possibly in defiance, of the evidential situation. Then I'd tell everyone to read Kierkegaard's Concluding Unscientific Postscript and stop being afraid to face the facts boldly. A faith that can't withstand honest inquiry is a faith that is either misplaced or some variety of pseudo-faith.

[_Quasimodo]

If forced to be an apologist, I would immediately acknowledge that the tenets of the LDS church are indefensible. I would then suggest that if current members are seeking fellowship and and a direction in their lives, they should consider joining the Sierra Club (cheaper dues).

[_Alfredo]

...anything that distracts from a truly independent critical approach to personal revelation.

I would for all my life acknowledge but refuse to defend personal revelation as the ultimate crux of Mormon belief.