Where Does Apologetics Fall Short?????

[Walden]

I find this type of retort the inverse of the OP from an Atheist’s perspective. To state, “To refute evolution and accept creationism, one has to not only ignore some rather significant and rather simple scientific evidence, but also make all kinds of speculative leaps of reason,” it implies there’s sufficient scientific data to derive a conclusion that doesn’t require leaps of reason. The foundation for creationism is that God created matter. The foundation for an Atheistic viewpoint (based on scientific data) is that *nothing* (doesn’t exist) mixed with another form of *nothing* (which also doesn’t exit) created the universe and all of its properties.

The quantum leap one has to take to then segue into chemicals mixing to form all life, is a speculative leap of reason, as this isn’t a scientific fact, but a reverse-engineered conclusion based on the existing data. From plants making seeds and fruit, to humans being the intelligent benefactors of this same seed, is a speculative leap of reason. The scientific method is held to the existing universe which can observe things that exist. Without data, it’s just another opinion, but if that data has a finite foundation (ignoring the origin of matter), it’s a logical fallacy to claim one (creationism vs. Atheism) carries more logical weight, as each has an infinite boundary condition to explain how *nothing* created the universe.

What I find interesting about the Atheist’s perspective is the insistence that an infinite perspective can someday be achieved; it can’t. Science will never (yes I used “never” here) come up with a theory to explain how something that doesn’t exist, became something that does exist. One can throw out string theories they don’t understand and theories how antimatter is made up of smaller particles of antimatter (which also doesn’t exist) and claim time zero… when it all supposedly *happened*, can be explained, but the foundation that nothing existed remains. Infinity and an infinite thought process are beyond the human thoght process capability. No one can explain who made God, or where the first particle of *something* happened, let alone claiming chemicals mixed together to create a cell that divided and created life… a man’s got to know his limitations.

I love this creationist argument which essentially states that "something cannot be created out of nothing," (and I won't even get started on how this mis-represents the big-bang theory, which you are confusing with the theory of evolution), and then when asked who it was that created god, the answer is simply, "god is infinite, without beginning and without end...it says so in the bible".....yes, thanks for the useful insight into the origins of the universe.

[thews]

I love this creationist argument which essentially states that "something cannot be created out of nothing," (and I won't even get started on how this mis-represents the big-bang theory, which you are confusing with the theory of evolution), and then when asked who it was that created god, the answer is simply, "god is infinite, without beginning and without end...it says so in the bible".....yes, thanks for the useful insight into the origins of the universe.

I see... your reading comprehension skills aren't capable of understanding a point made without reiterating your circular reasoning as a retort without acknowledging the counter. What then follows is to misrepresent what I said, while ignoring the flaws in your logical foundation (origin of matter and random chemicals mixing). Like I said, you are the inverse of the OP from the other end of the spectrum. What I find comical is your implied understanding of the entire picture by using "one has to not only ignore some rather significant and rather simple scientific evidence," which implies you fully understand what I supposedly don't. What I said is something cannot come from nothing, as this is a fact and it puts both arguments (God vs. no God) at a stalemate. Do you agree that something cannot come from nothing? If no, do you believe science will someday figure out a theory to explain the origin of matter?

To remind you of your oh-so-insightful condescending point:

To refute evolution and accept creationism, one has to not only ignore some rather significant and rather simple scientific evidence, but also make all kinds of speculative leaps of reason, such as the fossil record has been tampered with as part of satan's plan, etc, etc.

The injection of "part of Satan's plan" implies your argument doesn't require a leap of reason and a counter rests on belief in Satan... I don't believe in Satan. The part you missed, was pointing out random chemicals (the operative word being "random" here) mixed together to create all life, is a leap of reason. Is that not a speculative leap of reason?

You are out of the thread.

[volgadon]

But you should.

Why?

[Sethbag]

Why?

Because there's insight to be gained that way that will be missed if you ignore all these other people and focus only on your own experiences.

Quick analogy: Let's say you had picked up some disease, and millions of others around you had picked it up too. You heard of a miracle cure, the Carbolic smoke ball, which you could use and it would cure your disease. These other millions start using it too, and a pattern develops where people are using this smoke ball and their symptoms are unaffected. In fact, it starts becoming clear that it doesn't seem to work at all, and peoples' symptoms aren't really being alleviated at rates substantially higher than people who aren't using it.

Would you want to know? If I asked you and you felt that the Carbolic smoke ball was working, and it seemed to you like you were feeling a little better, would you want to know that it wasn't working for the millions of others around you? Or would the fact that you think you're feeling a little better be all you really needed to know?

My point is that prayer and appeal to the Spirit doesn't really work. It seems like it does, to you, just like it seems to work for all these other folks in the world from different religions. But when you look at what this Spirit is telling people, it seems to be not much more than confirmation of what they already believed, or wanted to believe, and it's often contradictory with what other people are getting from this Spirit.

[Sethbag]

Btw, over on the other board, we've got at least two posters who believe they know how to listen to the Spirit and receive revelation, and you would say they're bat-guano crazy. One claims to have seen God, too. For that matter, The Nehor has claimed that too. The bottom line is you wouldn't agree with very much at all that these two posters say the Spirit has revealed to them. But they're convinced that they know how to listen to that still small voice and differentiate the messages they receive that way from just run of the mill feelings and emotions.

Their experience isn't unique. Literally millions and millions of people think they know how to listen to the Spirit, who you'd have to say say almost certainly don't.

[volgadon]

Because there's insight to be gained that way that will be missed if you ignore all these other people and focus only on your own experiences.

Quick analogy: Let's say you had picked up some disease, and millions of others around you had picked it up too. You heard of a miracle cure, the Carbolic smoke ball, which you could use and it would cure your disease. These other millions start using it too, and a pattern develops where people are using this smoke ball and their symptoms are unaffected. In fact, it starts becoming clear that it doesn't seem to work at all, and peoples' symptoms aren't really being alleviated at rates substantially higher than people who aren't using it.

Would you want to know? If I asked you and you felt that the Carbolic smoke ball was working, and it seemed to you like you were feeling a little better, would you want to know that it wasn't working for the millions of others around you? Or would the fact that you think you're feeling a little better be all you really needed to know?

My point is that prayer and appeal to the Spirit doesn't really work. It seems like it does, to you, just like it seems to work for all these other folks in the world from different religions. But when you look at what this Spirit is telling people, it seems to be not much more than confirmation of what they already believed, or wanted to believe, and it's often contradictory with what other people are getting from this Spirit.

There are far too many variables at play for such speculation to be productive. I can't know for sure another's experience of this, only my own. Intellectual honesty, as someone asked for.

[cdowis]

Why? When it was taught by multiple prophets that polygamy is a necessaty for exaltation, that it was an eternal principal, and that it would never be abandoned,

Polygamy has not been "abandoned", only that the practice has been changed. A widower, for example, can be sealed to his second wife in the temple. Polygamy by sealing is legal and still practiced.

**edited changed to "widower"

Edited February 15, 2013 by cdowis

[TomHagen]

Polygamy has not been "abandoned", only that the practice has been changed. A widow, for example, can be sealed to his second wife in the temple. Polygamy by sealing is legal and still practiced.

And....THIS is why there's so much confusion in the church over such issues. "It's not doctrinal," as President Hinckley famously told Larry King. And yet it is still taught in such whispers and winks. After embracing polygamy as practically the purest form of godliness and a divinely revealed ordinance, we no publicly declare the practice to be abhorrent because of the Manifesto (which church leaders didn't actually follow for over a decade after it became "doctrine"), and persecute the fundamentalists for engaging in it out in the open, but we still talk in hushed tones about celestial polygamy and how things will *really* be on the "other side." Anyone who claims that they cannot see the gross contradictions at play in this is either willfully ignorant, lying to themselves, or a fool.

[Storm Rider]

And....THIS is why there's so much confusion in the church over such issues. "It's not doctrinal," as President Hinckley famously told Larry King. And yet it is still taught in such whispers and winks. After embracing polygamy as practically the purest form of godliness and a divinely revealed ordinance, we no publicly declare the practice to be abhorrent because of the Manifesto (which church leaders didn't actually follow for over a decade after it became "doctrine"), and persecute the fundamentalists for engaging in it out in the open, but we still talk in hushed tones about celestial polygamy and how things will *really* be on the "other side." Anyone who claims that they cannot see the gross contradictions at play in this is either willfully ignorant, lying to themselves, or a fool.

Now that was edifying; you sure cleared it up for me. Wow, what a breath of fresh air. Okay, now boys and girls, there was this chap and he was filled with, well with, his own knowledge. He loved to teach the stupidity of others. So much was he impressed with his teachings that he built a tall stand and yelled at the people. People didn't listen closely enough, so he yelled louder and told them all how ignorant they were. And he built his stand even higher. One day he built his stand so high no one could hear him anymore and forgot about him. Then one day a shadow fell from the sky and created a terrible hole in the ground and the people continued in their stupidity and ignorance to serve God. No one ever talked about the fellow or his stand anymore. Oh, I forgot, they winked at each other a lot too.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Storm Rider

[cdowis]

del

Edited February 15, 2013 by cdowis

[TomHagen]

Now that was edifying; you sure cleared it up for me. Wow, what a breath of fresh air. Okay, now boys and girls, there was this chap and he was filled with, well with, his own knowledge. He loved to teach the stupidity of others. So much was he impressed with his teachings that he built a tall stand and yelled at the people. People didn't listen closely enough, so he yelled louder and told them all how ignorant they were. And he built his stand even higher. One day he built his stand so high no one could hear him anymore and forgot about him. Then one day a shadow fell from the sky and created a terrible hole in the ground and the people continued in their stupidity and ignorance to serve God. No one ever talked about the fellow or his stand anymore. Oh, I forgot, they winked at each other a lot too.

Nice ad hominem attack completely side-stepping the issue.

[go_utes01]

Nice ad hominem attack completely side-stepping the issue.

Interesting analysis from somebody who claimed that, "Anyone who claims that they cannot see the gross contradictions at play in this is either willfully ignorant, lying to themselves, or a fool."

[EllenMaksoud]

On various discussion boards I have asked what are the main issues that are a barrier to your regaining faith in the LDS church. These would seemingly be issues where doubting members feel apologetics fails to provide a thorough answer. These boards do not allow a back and forth addressing of the issues so I thought I would bring that here.

I will list the issues and what I am hoping for is for those who see apologetics as not having a good answer I would love to know specifically why you see these issues as being a problem with the current answers we have. While deeply familiar with the issues and knowing on a surface level why they are a problem, I struggle to see why in most cases the faithful perspective doesn't fit for many.

the issues named ( I have not named them and so I am limited in being able to say what is meant in each case, which is why I am hoping those here who see these things in the same light may help

1. Attempts to deny evolution by Bruce R. McConkie, Joseph Fielding Smith, etc.

2. Official claim that Adam was literally the first man

3. No death before the fall idea in the BoM (2 Nephi 2:22-23)

4. LDS scriptures appear to support literal global flood interpretation (Moses 8, Ether 13:2).

5. LDS scriptures appear to support literal tower of Babel story (Ether 1:33)

6. LDS scriptures appear to support 6 thousand year old earth (D&C 77:6-7,10)

7. Institute manual defends alleged genocide by Moses

8. Racial priesthood ban + prophets will never lead the Church astray

9. Polygamy + prophets will never lead the Church astray

10. Book of Abraham translation discrepancies

11. Joseph Smith's comments about Moon Quakers

12. Joseph Smith married women still married to other men

13. Joseph Smith was convicted of "money digging"

14. Zelph

15. The Kirtland bank failure

16. The Kinderhook plates

17. The Greek Psalter incident

18. Nancy Rigdon

19. Fanny Alger

20. Account of Joseph Smith bragging about being a "profitable prophet" better than Mohammed

21. John C. Bennett was Assistant President of the Church

22. Joseph Smith and other Church leaders drank wine the night he was killed

23. Brigham Young: "Adam is God"

24. Brigham Young: "Death on the spot"

25. Blood atonement

26. The Mountain Meadows Massacre and aftermath

24. Similarity between temple ordinances and Masonic rites

25. Brigham Young used chewing tobacco

26. Joseph Fielding Smith's claim that men would never go to the Moon

27. Claim that sexual sins are next to murder

28. Spencer W. Kimball's claim that masturbation leads to homosexuality

29. Church leaders duped by Mark Hoffman regarding the Salamander Letter

30. Gordon B. Hinckley interviews make revelation sound the same as average members praying

31. Gordon B. Hinckley: "don't worry about those little flecks of history"

32. Fourteen fundamentals reiterated by 2 different speakers in recent conference

33. Cult-like warning sign: Extremely zealous and unquestioning commitment to leaders

34. Cult-like warning sign: Strong emphasis on us-versus-them mentality and special status of the group

35. Cult-like warning sign: Strong use of peer pressure, guilt, and shame to control behavior

36. Church's direct involvement in Prop. 8

37. Tithing amount is excessive and doesn't add up fairly in different situations

38. Magical thinking about supposed connection between strict obedience and guaranteed blessings

39. It looks like Native Americans principal ancestors came to America from Asia through the Bering Strait 12,000 years ago rather than from Jerusalem about 600 BC

40. Steel, horses, massive battles and civilizations, etc. in BoM don't match archaeological evidence you would expect to see in this case very well.

41. The current WoW interpretation looks like the revelation that never really happened

42. Using feelings as a source of truth/knowledge.

43. too much "humanness" and not enough unquestionable divine guidance.

44 church leaders conflicting statements and policies on SSA/gay marriage

45. Political coercion of members

46. Sexism/ Unhealthy attitude towards sexuality

46. statements on polygamy now and into eternity

47. Shopping malls, financial speculation

48. The only true and living church.

49. Financial transparency.

50. Focus on compliance to laundry list of commandments rather than talk of Christ and development of Christian attributes

51. Suppression and stigmatization of intellectuals in the 80's and 90's

52. Church leaders need never/rarely publically confess or repent of offensive comments or teachings

53. The church being led by revelation yet always being reactive to issues

54. Cultural norms that are treated as doctrine. ex: in countries where drums solely are used for religious practice God says all members everywhere must use the piano or organ for music. An attempt to make the church everywhere fit the American version

55. Reformed Egyptian

As I look over the list I get why these are troubling. A few bother me. But I feel like there are good answers to most. For example : Kinderhook plates. After listening to Don Bradley's presentation, I think it could be argued the Kinderhook plates as evidence of the restoration, not against it.

Why do apologetics fail with these issues?

Don't attack the whole list... just pick one or one of your own and describe why apologetics fails to provide a reasonable explanation where one must perform mental gymnastics to make the apologetic answer work?

In that list, I did not see anything that was either important to me, or it was resolved in my own mind. An example is the LDS bank failure that led to charges that Joseph Smith was a fraud. If you look at the history of the area, bank regulation had not yet come into existence, AND while Joseph Smiths bank did fail, it had lots of company while hundreds of other banks did the same thing. During the time, the whole nation went into a depression that was worse than the one in the 20th century.

He was hapless, not criminal.

[TomHagen]

Interesting analysis from somebody who claimed that, "Anyone who claims that they cannot see the gross contradictions at play in this is either willfully ignorant, lying to themselves, or a fool."

Haha - Touche, touche. Let me modify that: "This creates cognitive dissonance that is hard to ignore." How's that?

[Sethbag]

There are far too many variables at play for such speculation to be productive. I can't know for sure another's experience of this, only my own. Intellectual honesty, as someone asked for.

But when fundamental inability accurately to understand what one is experiencing, or fundamental tendency to misapprehend and misinterpret it, is what is being alleged, then how can that not be crucial to a person honestly wanting to believe only what is true?

A: hey, there's evidence that people tend to be overconfident in their ability to discern truth through the Spirit

B: that may well be true for others, but not for me

A: how do you know? What if you're being just as overconfident in your ability as everyone else?

B: I know I'm not because the Spirit told me, and if I were, I'd know that too

A: sigh

The funny thing is I've had this conversation with some friends of other faiths, too. It's always the same. "I am not concerned with what others are experiencing, but I know what I get through the Spirit, and that it's true." Thus spake the born-again Christian friends, thus spake my Catholic friend, and thus speak my Mormon friends and relatives. Well, these churches don't continue to exist for no reason.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Sethbag

[volgadon]

But when fundamental inability accurately to understand what one is experiencing, or fundamental tendency to misapprehend and misinterpret it, is what is being alleged, then how can that not be crucial to a person honestly wanting to believe only what is true?

A: hey, there's evidence that people tend to be overconfident in their ability to discern truth through the Spirit

B: that may well be true for others, but not for me

A: how do you know? What if you're being just as overconfident in your ability as everyone else?

B: I know I'm not because the Spirit told me, and if I were, I'd know that too

A: sigh

The funny thing is I've had this conversation with some friends of other faiths, too. It's always the same. "I am not concerned with what others are experiencing, but I know what I get through the Spirit, and that it's true." Thus spake the born-again Christian friends, thus spake my Catholic friend, and thus speak my Mormon friends and relatives. Well, these churches don't continue to exist for no reason.

I refuse to speculate on what can be known only through direct, personal experience. there are simply too many variables for me to know either way. If you haven't recieved a personal witness, why should I insist that you believe?

[cdowis]

The funny thing is I've had this conversation with some friends of other faiths, too. It's always the same. "I am not concerned with what others are experiencing, but I know what I get through the Spirit, and that it's true." Thus spake the born-again Christian friends, thus spake my Catholic friend, and thus speak my Mormon friends and relatives. Well, these churches don't continue to exist for no reason.

What specifically is true?

There are many areas we can agree that they are true, and religions all have some aspect of truth, in one degree or another. Faith is important, the bible is true, we should attend church and my church teaches the truth.

I would suspect someone's testimony that the Mormons are going to hell, etc. Tell me what the Spirit told you is "true" and I hope you don't mind my asking questions. I remember speaking with a young girl where I had no doubt that the Lord had been speaking to her. She told me that the missionaries visited her and the Lord told her to speak with them, "because they were lost."

I asked her whether the Lord actually said that they were lost. "No, but I'm sure that's why he told me to talk with them."

Edited February 15, 2013 by cdowis

[Sethbag]

I refuse to speculate on what can be known only through direct, personal experience. there are simply too many variables for me to know either way. If you haven't recieved a personal witness, why should I insist that you believe?

What I'm saying is not that things can be known only through direct, personal experience. What I'm saying is that there's no good reason to believe that the "witness of the Spirit" is a reliable way of knowing that things are objectively true.

As what I hope is the last comment I make on this in this thread (though I could get sucked into yet more discussion on it, who knows), I'll go so far as to claim that the belief that the "witness of the Spirit" is a real and valid way of ascertaining objective truth, relies on begging the question (petitio principii, not the common figure of speech).

A: I know the witness of the Spirit is true.

B: How do you know that?

A: The Spirit told me.

I have a similar objection to the Moroni's Challenge in the BoM.

A: read the Book of Mormon, pray about it, and if you feel good, that's God telling you it's true.

B: how do I know that is a reliable method of ascertaining whether the Book of Mormon is true?

A: because the Book of Mormon says it is

Edited February 15, 2013 by Sethbag

[Sethbag]

Charles, in one instance, my Catholic friend asked God if the Roman Catholic Church were in fact God's organization on Earth, and the answer came back, through personal revelation, that it was. The Spirit also told my friend that he was called to the Catholic priesthood, and he quit his job at the company we both worked for, spent six years in the seminary, and was ordained two or three years ago and is now happily transforming little flat crackers into the literal body of Christ and feeding them to people on at least a weekly basis.

ps: I put in that last part not to be overtly disrespectful, but to insert a belief my friend has a witness from the Spirit about, regarding the communion, which any LDS would have agree cannot possibly be true.

[TomHagen]

Charles, in one instance, my Catholic friend asked God if the Roman Catholic Church were in fact God's organization on Earth, and the answer came back, through personal revelation, that it was. The Spirit also told my friend that he was called to the Catholic priesthood, and he quit his job at the company we both worked for, spent six years in the seminary, and was ordained two or three years ago and is now happily transforming little flat crackers into the literal body of Christ and feeding them to people on at least a weekly basis.

ps: I put in that last part not to be overtly disrespectful, but to insert a belief my friend has a witness from the Spirit about, regarding the communion, which any LDS would have agree cannot possibly be true.

This is the irony of religious certainty. Many devout Mormons believe that they have a monopoly on "real" spiritual conviction. Try telling that to a young Muslim who just put on an explosive vest because he's convinced, after years of devout prayer, regular attendance at the Mosque, and intense scriptural study, that it's what God wants him to do. I'd say that amount of spiritual conviction trumps any testimony meeting I've ever been to.

You are out.

[cdowis]

Charles, in one instance, my Catholic friend asked God if the Roman Catholic Church were in fact God's organization on Earth, and the answer came back, through personal revelation, that it was.

I got a different answer.

I cannot judge anyone, God alone can do that. But i do know that we are responsible for our decisions. And that is why we have three kingdoms of glory, the terrestrial kingdom specifically for those sincere persons who receive Christ but reject his priesthood ordinances required for exaltation.

We will all know the truth in the end.

Edited February 16, 2013 by cdowis

[cdowis]

I have a similar objection to the Moroni's Challenge in the BoM.

A: read the Book of Mormon, pray about it, and if you feel good, that's God telling you it's true.

B: how do I know that is a reliable method of ascertaining whether the Book of Mormon is true?

A: because the Book of Mormon says it is

Alma chapter 32 tells us that we need to begin with a particle of faith, just a seed of faith.

Like a farmer, you have to start with a seed.

Edited February 16, 2013 by cdowis

[mathonihah]

For those leaving the church over their doubts, more then their nose is out of joint. Rather then make this thread personal against me how about some folks allow those who see apologetics as falling short to be able to speak and keep the thread on target.

If some people become disillusioned with the Church and leave or apostatise, it is either the failure of the Church, or the failure of the individual, or the failure of apologetics. Of these three, the third is the least important, because apologetics as such is not an integral part of the program of the Church. The Chuch does not have a special “apologetics ministry”. We have a “commissioner of Church education,” but we don't have a “commissioner of Church apologetics!” Apologetics is something that some people just like to do, and there is no law that says they shouldn't. It is not the job of apologetics to stop people from apostatising. It is the job of the individual in the first instance (by ensuring that his faith has a solid foundation), and of the Church in the second instance, by ensuring that sufficient support is provided (through proper channels) for those whose faith may be wavering.

Your OP is actually a subtle criticism of the Church, disguised as a criticism of apologetics. What you are really saying is, “Why can't the Church stop people from apostatising for the reasons given, by providing satisfactory answers to the troubling questions?” There are two answers to that: The first is that the Church does have satisfactory answers to those questions which should prevent people from apostatising; otherwise I for one wouldn't be on it. The second is that the Church does not guarantee that people will not apostatise. People are going to find reasons to apostatise no matter what. It has been like that since there has been a Church on earth. Jesus couldn't stop Judas from apostatising, neither will the LDS Church be able to stop people from apostatising who are inclined to go that way.

Your OP is an attack against the Church. It casts doubt on the validity of the Church on the grounds of its failure to stop people from apostatising by failing to address their doubts. It is not the job of apologetics to do that; it is the job of the Church. If that has been a failure, then it is a failure of the Church, not of apologetics. I don't believe it has been the failure of either.

Edited February 16, 2013 by mathonihah

[Tacenda]

If some people become disillusioned with the Church and leave or apostatise, it is either the failure of the Church, or the failure of the individual, or the failure of apologetics. Of these three, the third is the least important, because apologetics as such is not an integral part of the program of the Church. The Chuch does not have a special “apologetics ministry”. We have a “commissioner of Church education,” but we don't have a “commissioner of Church apologetics!” Apologetics is something that some people just like to do, and there is no law that says they shouldn't. It is not the job of apologetics to stop people from apostatising. It is the job of the individual in the first instance (by ensuring that his faith has a solid foundation), and of the Church in the second instance, by ensuring that sufficient support is provided (through proper channels) for those whose faith may be wavering.

Your OP is actually a subtle criticism of the Church, disguised as a criticism of apologetics. What you are really saying is, “Why can't the Church stop people from apostatising for the reasons given, by providing satisfactory answers to the troubling questions?” There are two answers to that: The first is that the Church does have satisfactory answers to those questions which should prevent people from apostatising; otherwise I for one wouldn't be on it. The second is that the Church does not guarantee that people will not apostatise. People are going to find reasons to apostatise no matter what. It has been like that since there has been a Church on earth. Jesus couldn't stop Judas from apostatising, neither will the LDS Church be able to stop people from apostatising who are inclined to go that way.

Your OP is an attack against the Church. It casts doubt on the validity of the Church on the grounds of its failure to stop people from apostatising by failing to address their doubts. It is not the job of apologetics to do that; it is the job of the Church. If that has been a failure, then it is a failure of the Church, not of apologetics. I don't believe it has been the failure of either.

Couldn't agree more on the last paragraph (except the last sentence). Why don't the leaders of the church come forth and put out maybe a pamphlet to address the issues instead of the apologetics doing all the work? Edited February 16, 2013 by Tacenda

[mathonihah]

Couldn't agree more on the last paragraph (except the last sentence). Why don't the leaders of the church come forth and put out maybe a pamphlet to address the issues instead of the apologetics doing all the work?

Because it is not the Church's way of doing it. The Church's way of helping those whose faith is wavering is to provide spiritual support through priesthood channels of authority, such as bishops, stake presidents, quorums presidents, home teachers, and so forth (provided that those people actually want to be helped; a lot of the time thy don't want to). Now I am sure DB is going to jump in and say that that hasn't worked, because the bishops etc. do not have the necessary training or qualification to provide the help needed. Sure it hasn't always worked. It is not supposed to always work. God has never stopped anyone from going to hell if that is where they really want to go.