Letter To A Ces Director Problematic

[TheSkepticChristian]

what the heck Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were doing.

 

I don't think Historians are praising the CES letter. Perhaps Dan Vogel did, but he is a critic. 

 

Todd M. Compton, Cheryl L. Bruno, and other scholars praised Brian Hales work on polygamy. 

http://gregkofford.com/products/joseph-smith-polygamy-vol-1-history

Edited September 7, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[churchistrue]

I don't think Historians are praising the CES letter. Perhaps Dan Vogel did, but he is a critic. 

 

Todd M. Compton, Cheryl L. Bruno, and other scholars praised Brian Hales work on polygamy. 

http://gregkofford.com/products/joseph-smith-polygamy-vol-1-history

The disconnect I'm seeing in the exasperation of the apologists who have no idea why anyone would think the CES letter has any value, is that you are assuming all these issues have been answered adequately in the past.

 

When you use the phrase "anti-Mormon rehash", I think you probably believe all the past "Anti-Mormon" arguments have been perfectly resolved.

 

You are waiting for new material from the critics, because everything you've seen you've beaten back sufficiently.

 

My perception is a) the "copy/paste standard anti-Mormon fare" has never been answered adequately b) material like CES letter that comes around in different formats from time to time, but always the same content, is effective because it penetrates new audiences that have never heard or seriously engaged that "standard anti-Mormon rehash".

 

You think you're beating the stuffing out of it by retaliating with hundreds of pages of what could be called "copy/paste standard FAIR rehash", but to the lay person sorting through all this for the first time, it's not very compelling.  You're fighting a battle you can't win.  Like cinepro accurately stated, if an anti-Mormon was smart, they wouldn't include one single disputed point in one of these lists.  Copy/pasting from Bushman, Quinn, etc would be just as effective as copy/pasting from mormonthink.

 

Here's what I think is one of the main issues.

 

The people involved this at a professional level are interested in new stuff.  New material is fresh and exciting for you historians and gives you opportunity to provide original content.  The lay people involved in comprehending the issues don't care about what interests you.  And frankly you don't seem to care what interests them.  

[Kevin Christensen]

The disconnect I'm seeing in the exasperation of the apologists who have no idea why anyone would think the CES letter has any value, is that you are assuming all these issues have been answered adequately in the past.

 

When you use the phrase "anti-Mormon rehash", I think you probably believe all the past "Anti-Mormon" arguments have been perfectly resolved.

 

You are waiting for new material from the critics, because everything you've seen you've beaten back sufficiently.

 

My perception is a) the "copy/paste standard anti-Mormon fare" has never been answered adequately b) material like CES letter that comes around in different formats from time to time, but always the same content, is effective because it penetrates new audiences that have never heard or seriously engaged that "standard anti-Mormon rehash".

 

You think you're beating the stuffing out of it by retaliating with hundreds of pages of what could be called "copy/paste standard FAIR rehash", but to the lay person sorting through all this for the first time, it's not very compelling.  You're fighting a battle you can't win.  Like cinepro accurately stated, if an anti-Mormon was smart, they wouldn't include one single disputed point in one of these lists.  Copy/pasting from Bushman, Quinn, etc would be just as effective as copy/pasting from mormonthink.

 

Here's what I think is one of the main issues.

 

The people involved this at a professional level are interested in new stuff.  New material is fresh and exciting for you historians and gives you opportunity to provide original content.  The lay people involved in comprehending the issues don't care about what interests you.  And frankly you don't seem to care what interests them.

This is so abstract as to be useless.

Be specific about specific questions and the inadequacies of specific responses by specific respondents. And then be able to explain why those specifics have general application.

Tossing out generalities without support is just noisy hand waving, sound and fury.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/eye-of-the-beholder-law-of-the-harvest-observations-on-the-inevitable-consequences-of-the-different-investigative-approaches-of-jeremy-runnells-and-jeff-lindsay/

http://en.fairmormon.org/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets

[mfbukowski]

Mr. Runnells is prolific.  He has created the poison pill of arguments against the Church for this generation.  It is also readily available with the internet.  Long lists are hard to rebut.  Take the three volumes for Joseph Smith`s polygamy or even the condensed version Hales recently put out.  It is much more work to go through the information.  Does reading CES Letter bring you closer to God?  Does it make you feel the Spirit?  Is some knowledge about controversy important for Chapel Mormons?  Should it be made more of the curriculum?  Good questions, but looking for Christ in what I read always makes me feel better and brings me closer to God`s work.  

 

So, I don`t feel the Spirit as I read the CES Letter and I have been through most of it.  I don`t have the energy to keep up with his rebuttals of FairMormon`s rebuttals.  

 

It is a perfect straw man.  Somebody responds to his general selection of the worst of Mormon History with the most negative slant and assumptions of guilt on every issue.  The straw man does not answer the questions to his satisfaction and certainly not every issue.  Then he has responded to the rebuttal before most people know that there is a response to his CES Letter.  There are some excellent responses, but there isn`t the one volume book that answers all of the CES Letter questions.  It all reminds me so much of the Tanners work back in the 70s and 80s.  I respect Robert Smiths tender and human side to them that I did not know about until he brought them up.  They were the clearinghouse of anti-Mormon issues, though.  The anonymous response by a Church Historian and nonmember Lawrence Foster`s article about them as Career Apostates in Dialogue were helpful to me.  They  didn`t answer all of the Tanners questions, but it did qualify enough points that I started going through the challenge of reading footnotes and sources.  Boy were my eyes opened.  People make stuff up and if you read a few pages in the source, the context and big picture ideas are often so different than the implications of the footnote.  

 

Reading some of the old responses to the Tanners and Michael Ash`s book, Help Thou Mine Unbelief by Nancy Phippen Browne,  Terryl Givens books, FairMormon and you have most if not all of the CES Letter covered.  The straw man of no one wants to take the point by point of the CES Letter grows tiresome to me.  I wish there was a quick, more compact source of information that people could read as a proChurch alternative, but I don`t know if that exists.  Maybe some of the rebuttals we have talked about in this thread come close.   I wish this new generation didn`t get most of their information in podcasts or message boards.  There was something about digging into sources and having to do interlibrary loans that made it seem worthwhile and mind expanding.  The careful methodical way made the gospel come alive for me in a way that the Tanners machine gun delivery didn`t.  That`s it!  Jeremy Runnells is like a Thompson machine gun rattling off anti-mormon facts at us.  

Perhaps just a series of quotes from each of these authors on the relevant topics could be used even on a website or book or wherever?  Seems simple enough to me

[mfbukowski]

I just read the CES letter. It shook me a lot. It'll take me awhile to gather myself and my thoughts and evaluate my faith and testimony.

The problem with apologetics is like the problem with inoculation in general.

 

Sometimes the vaccine actually causes the disease it is designed to protect against.

 

Just know that there is no reason for this garbage to hurt your testimony- as this thread shows, it has all been answered but unfortunately not very well in one place which is easily found.

[mfbukowski]

I would liken the CES letter to a virus.  If a person has never been exposed to this type of virus before, they can get more sick than those who have been exposed to similar viruses.  For people like me who has read enough anti-Mormon material over the years and studied things in more detail, I have built up a certain level of resistance to it.  The people who are most likely to get sick by this virus are people who give it too much credibility and are not patient enough to work through it and have not been exposed to it before.  How do you built up your immune system to this virus?  Get a testimony first.  Do the things you should do.  Do as the scriptures say and that is build your foundation on a rock.  Then slowly work yourself through it.  Don't expect to get all the answers in the next week or 6 months.  Be patient and in time you will be able to respond to the disinformation one at a time.  You may not get every issue resolved but a large majority can be solved.

oh gosh sorry.

I should read before I reply

[churchistrue]

This is so abstract as to be useless.

Be specific about specific questions and the inadequacies of specific responses by specific respondents. And then be able to explain why those specifics have general application.

Tossing out generalities without support is just noisy hand waving, sound and fury.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/eye-of-the-beholder-law-of-the-harvest-observations-on-the-inevitable-consequences-of-the-different-investigative-approaches-of-jeremy-runnells-and-jeff-lindsay/

http://en.fairmormon.org/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets

Well, I guess you don't have to bother with it then.  You can go back to scratching your head why so many people think the CES letter is compelling or feeling warm and fuzzy about your belief that all these people must be lazy and wanting a way out of the church.

[mfbukowski]

Yes, my uncle was a Methodist minister, and he used to complain to me that Mormons were "sheep stealers."  Then, of course, he organized the Billy Graham Crusade in Los Angeles -- a high point in his career, by his own estimation.  What should one make of the conversions of the many who came forward at these crusades (which I watched avidly)?  They were non-denominational crusades, and the BGEA wasn't so concerned with which Protestant church one would now attend, only that it be a Bible-believing church.  How many Jews, Catholics, and Mormons were caught up in those crusade conversions?  Was Billy really tearing down a faith, as you put it?  What of the sorrow and disappointment in a family generated by the following another religious faith?  Is this a legitimate criticism?  Or does it condemn all preaching which might effectively convince someone -- including the preaching of St Paul?  Is the free marketplace of ideas merely a means to defraud the unwary?  Is such a critique of Mormons fair and impartial?

I often think of these altar calls when some of the same people who responded to them turn around and say that our "burning bosom" is simply an emotional response to be ignored.

Edited September 7, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Kevin Christensen]

Well, I guess you don't have to bother with it then.  You can go back to scratching your head why so many people think the CES letter is compelling or feeling warm and fuzzy about your belief that all these people must be lazy and wanting a way out of the church.

I was asking you to provide something specific that I can meaningfully bother with.

I didn't have to scratch my head over why some people consider the CES letter compelling because I figured out that sort of thing years ago when I dealt with the same information in the 70s and approach as packaged by the Tanners and recycled by dozens of skeptics and disillusioned LDS ever since. It's no harder than understanding why, for example, Martin Short as Ed Grimly says, after taking a cookie sheet out of an oven complains, "There's a pain that will linger!"

As I observe the pain, wince in sympathy, and I can comment, "An oven mitt would have helped and aloe vera can help now."

Then you tell me that I'm insensitive and out of touch.

Really. I do get it. Frankly, it's not much of a puzzle. People aren't prepared, and they suffer and complain and want sympathy and/or revenge and compensation. I offer, in dozens of essays dating back to 1990, oven mitts and aloe vera. Plus many delicious and nourishing snacks that don't require either oven mitts for protection, or aloe vera to sooth pain.

And you are telling me in essence that I can't comprehend what it's like to have burnt fingers now? You're telling me that the church is a monolithic giant person with a single thought and inescapable moral culpability who failed to do everything necessary and possible to keep people from burning their fingers. I've been participating in offering solutions in print for 25 years. And it's my fault that people are still unprepared and burn their fingers.

My Interpreter Response to Runnells is based on the Parable of the Sower. Does Jesus show a lack compassion or insight? "Know ye not this parable? How then shall ye know all parables?"

Again, if you can propose a specific problem, a problem caused by a specific apologists or CES manual, then a specific response is possible. I might even be sympathetic and acknowledge, yeah, that is an unhelpful or maybe even a terrible approach. But without specifics, I've got no seed and no soil. Just yelling and pointing.

Sigh.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited September 7, 2015 by Kevin Christensen

[Tacenda]

I was asking you to provide something specific that I can meaningfully bother with.

I didn't have to scratch my head over why some people consider the CES letter compelling because I figured out that sort of thing years ago when I dealt with the same information in the 70s and approach as packaged by the Tanners and recycled by dozens of skeptics and disillusioned LDS ever since. It's no harder than understanding why, for example, Martin Short as Ed Grimly says, after taking a cookie sheet out of an oven complains, "There's a pain that will linger!"

As I observe the pain, wince in sympathy, and I can comment, "An oven mitt would have helped and aloe vera can help now."

Then you tell me that I'm insensitive and out of touch.

Really. I do get it. Frankly, it's not much of a puzzle. People aren't prepared, and they suffer and complain and want sympathy and/or revenge and compensation. I offer, in dozens of essays dating back to 1990, over mitts and aloe vera. Plus many delicious and nourishing snacks that don't require either oven mitts for protection, or aloe vera to sooth pain.

And you are telling me in essence that I can't comprehend what it's like to have burnt fingers now? You're telling me that the church is a monolithic giant person with a single thought and inescapable moral culpability who failed to do everything necessary and possible to keep people from burning their fingers. I've been participating in offering solutions in print for 25 years. And it's my fault that people are still unprepared and burn their fingers.

My Interpreter Response to Runnells is based on the Parable of the Sower. Does Jesus show a lack compassion or insight? "Know ye not this parable? How then shall ye know all parables?"

Again, if you can propose a specific problem, a problem caused by a specific apologists or CES manual, then a specific response is possible. I might even be sympathetic and acknowledge, yeah, that is an unhelpful or maybe even a terrible approach. But without specifics, I've got no seed and no soil. Just yelling and pointing.

Sigh.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Respectfully, what is the most outstanding information that the CES letter got wrong?  I respect your answers and know you've been diligent in seeking answers/facts.

[churchistrue]

And you are telling me in essence that I can't comprehend what it's like to have burnt fingers now? You're telling me that the church is a monolithic giant person with a single thought and inescapable moral culpability who failed to do everything necessary and possible to keep people from burning their fingers. I've been participating in offering solutions in print for 25 years. And it's my fault that people are still unprepared and burn their fingers.

 

I think it's not really worth the dialogue because you're pretty firm in your position, and I understand it well.  But, ftr, the quoted part here, I definitely don't agree that I am doing or saying that at all.  

[carbon dioxide]

The act of attempting to convert someone who is in another faith essentially tears down a faith....even though we like to say we are just adding to it. A good Catholic family may be just as disappointed in a family member joining the LDS church as Mormon families are when one of their own falls away or follows another religious faith.

But the main thrust of what LDS do is explain to investigators why we are right and ask them to pray about it.  How often do LDS give a laundry list to a Catholic of why the Catholic Church is wrong? 

[Calm]

I think it's not really worth the dialogue because you're pretty firm in your position.....

Others are not. Why don't you do it for them? Edited September 7, 2015 by calmoriah

[churchistrue]

Others are not. Why don't you do it for them?

Do what for them?

[Calm]

"Again, if you can propose a specific problem, a problem caused by a specific apologists or CES manual"

[Nevo]

Be specific about specific questions and the inadequacies of specific responses by specific respondents. And then be able to explain why those specifics have general application.

 

I'll be specific. Jeremy Runnells notes—correctly—that the mention of "Red Sea" in 2 Nephi 19:1 makes no sense and is pretty clearly an error. FairMormon counters that "there is a plausible basis from the ancient world for referring to the sea as the Red Sea," which is completely untrue. Nobody in the ancient world thought that the "sea" in "the way of the sea" (Via Maris) referred to the Red Sea! If you look at a map, it's obvious that the "sea" is the Mediterranean, since that is the body of water that the route follows. D. Charles Pyle's speculations about a connection between the "Way of the Red Sea" and the King's Highway are completely irrelevant since Isaiah 9:1 doesn't refer to either one of them.

 

Current scholarly consensus hold that "the way of the sea" in Isaiah 9:1 refers to the Assyrian province of Dor, which was located on the coast along the Via Maris:

• "The second of these phases almost certainly alludes to the annexation of Israelite territory during Tiglath-pileser's campaign of 732 B.C.E. resulting in the formation of the Assyrian provinces of Duru (Dor, 'the way of the sea'), Gal'azu (Gilead, 'the land across the Jordan'), and Magidu (Megiddo, 'Galilee of the nations')" (Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 19; New York: Doubleday, 2000], 247).

   

• "[T]he geographical references do seem most likely a reference to the Hebrew equivalent of the three Assyrian provinces set up by Tiglath-pileser after the destruction of the Northern Kingdom, as Alt suggested" (Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah: A Commentary [OTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001], 79).

   

• "The areas mentioned were turned into three Assyrian provinces by Tiglath-pileser III in 733–732 BCE: Zebulun and Naphtali represent the Assyrian province of Galilee; the way of the sea corresponds to the Assyrian province of Dor, south of Mount Carmel; and the land beyond the Jordan is equivalent to the province of Gilead" (J.J.M. Roberts, "Isaiah," The HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed. [New York: HarperCollins, 2006], 925).

   

• "Zebulon and Naphtali refer to the Assyrian annexation of Israelite tribal territories in Galilee following Tiglath-pileser's defeat of Northern Israel in 732 BCE. The Assyrian provinces of Dur (Dor, the way of the sea), Gal'asu (Gilead, the land beyond the Jordan), and Magidu (Megiddo, Galilee of the nations), areas just south and west of Zebulun and Naphtali, were also carved out of Israel at this time" (Marvin A. Sweeney, "Isaiah," The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 4th ed. [New York: Oxford University Press, 2010], 980–981).

   

I think the Book of Mormon Reference Companion offers the best "faithful" approach to this issue. It states simply: "It is not known why the Book of Mormon text reads Red Sea" (Donald W. Parry, "Isaiah Chap. Review: 2 Nephi 19 // Isaiah 9," in Book of Mormon Reference Companion, ed. Dennis L. Largey [salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2003], 375).

Edited September 7, 2015 by Nevo

[Teancum]

But the main thrust of what LDS do is explain to investigators why we are right and ask them to pray about it.  How often do LDS give a laundry list to a Catholic of why the Catholic Church is wrong?

Stating all the creeds of Orthodox Chrisitanity are and abomination and corrupt as well as the professors of such simply draw near to God with their lips and not their hearts is pretty strong. Sending put 80,000 missionaries that teach this and try to persuade others to leave their faith tradition is pretty aggressive.

So what that the LDS church is less polemic than the evangelical counter cult ministries? LDS so want to down play what we do and say well we are not like them. Put yourself in their shoes for a bit then come back to me.

[Kevin Christensen]

Respectfully, what is the most outstanding information that the CES letter got wrong?  I respect your answers and know you've been diligent in seeking answers/facts.

My own essay addresses the underlying ideological issues that color the CES Letter's approach to everything. I'll provide one specific example and then go back and quote a passage from the start of my essay.

Runnells sets out his own expectations of what he expects to find around the New York Cumorah.

Compare this to the Roman occupation of Britain and other countries. There are abundant evidences of their presence during the first 400 years ce such as villas, mosaic floors, public baths, armor, weapons, writings, art, pottery and so on. Even the major road systems used today in some of these occupied countries were built by the Romans. Additionally, there is ample evidence of the Mayan and Aztec civilizations as well [Page 209]as a civilization in current day Texas that dates back 15,000 years. Where are the Nephite or Lamanite buildings, roads, armors, swords, pottery, art, etc.?55

Asking “where are the Nephite and Lamanite buildings” is a very good question, if you actually ask it first of the Book of Mormon textual requirements and then fit that description to an appropriate physical and cultural context. And then go ahead with realistic expectations of both material culture and the limits of archeology at any given time. However, if I’m standing atop Pendle Hill in Lancashire, England, asking “where are the Nephite and Lamanite buildings?” everyone would admit that it is a remarkably poor question. Runnells asks of a location that does not fit the descriptions in the text,56 and he also expects that at that location Lehi’s little family group should affect New World architectural styles after the manner of a Roman invasion force that entered Britain.

He comes with a set of dubious expectations that defines both where to look, and what kind of dramatic, obvious impact the Nephite/Lamanite culture ought to have. But the real problem is in the unrealistic and inappropriate expectations. The Romans came in force, with several legions and stayed for over 300 years while remaining in constant contact with Rome. Lehi comes as a small family group in a single boat, who had been in the wilderness for eight years before getting on the boat. And Mormon and Moroni provide 600+ verses with specific clues describing where we ought to start looking. Brant Gardner's "The Social History of the Early Nephites" given at FAIR in 2001 presents a very different expectations and a very different location, and a far more impressive resolution.

So the problem is of the beam in the eye obscuring vision of everything, rather than any particular problem. Remove the eye beam first, carefully ask "What should I expect?" rather that immediately complaining that what you see is not what you expect. Here is what I say near the start of my response:

Why do they come to such different conclusions in dealing with the same questions? The fact is that Lindsay has for at least twenty years confronted the same information that Runnells treats as faith-shattering over a single year. That such different responses to the same information can even exist should demonstrate that neither the issues that Runnells raises nor the information he provides is the real cause of his disillusion. What is? This is my topic.4

Runnells presents his information as though making an equation:

Runnells (or anyone) + Questions + Facts = Inevitable Final Negative Conclusion

Comparison with the different conclusions provided by people like Jeff Lindsay, Mike Ash, hundreds of volunteers at FairMormon, Interpreter, FARMS and the current Maxwell Institute, and for that matter, yours truly, well acquainted with the same issues should make it obvious that something other than simple addition of facts is involved.

Investigator [+ |-] Preconceptions/(Adaptive or Brittle interpretive framework) x (Questions generated + Available facts/Selectivity + Contextualization + Subjective weighting for significance/Breadth of relevant knowledge) * Time = Tentative Conclusion

In this more realistic equation, we have a wide range of variables. The effect of these variables means that very different reactions to the same information are not only possible, but very likely. Even if we tried to keep the Questions and Facts as constants, different Preconceptions, Selectivity, Contextualization, Valuations, and Time given to the same issues, we still ought to expect different conclusions. In the parable of the Sower, Jesus explained that the same seeds (words) can generate completely different harvests, ranging from nothing to a hundred-fold increase, all depending on the different soil and nurture. When His disciples asked Him to explain the meaning of that parable, Jesus commented, “Know ye not this parable? How then shall ye know all parables?” (Mark 4:13).

The CES Letter sets out to perform eye surgery on the church without first having removed a large and imposing beams from his own eye first.

In 2008, I FAIR published my essay on Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets, in which I offered this:

The overall picture includes all three elements—tests to apply, actions and attitudes to demonstrate, and mistakes to avoid—and reveals an organic interaction between them. That is, those who use the appropriate tests for prophets also demonstrate the behavior recommended for seeing truth. Those who reject true prophets fall short of the recommended behavior. In consequence, they miss or misapply the actual tests for true prophets, and repeat the kinds of arguments used by those who rejected true prophets anciently. This shows why Jesus said “He that receiveth you receiveth me.” (Matthew 10:40). Despite the passage of millennia, that same issues arise.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[churchistrue]

"Again, if you can propose a specific problem, a problem caused by a specific apologists or CES manual"

I don't think there's any specific thing.  My reply in post 202 was my general response to apologists who seem so exasperated that the CES letter is getting so much traction.  I replied earlier on my general thoughts towards LDS apologists not being that effective because 1) they don't effectively answer the tough questions and 2) when apologists do stuff like get snarky or tell doubters they're dumb or their concerns are trivial and a sign they really just want to leave mormonism and are looking for the first excuse to leave or whatever, then of course that does more harm than good.  

 

The reason I don't think apologists answer the tough questions (#1 from above) is that those answers don't exist.  There are no answers to BoA problems.  There are no answers to BOM historicity.  There are no answers to polygamy.  It's a very unfortunate position LDS apologists are put in, because I don't think those answers exist.  My solution is to move from a literal paradigm to a more flexible approach to religion, but I know that is not satisfactory to apologists.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Then what's the answer for why Joseph Smith translated the images of the Book of Abraham so wrong as modern people who can understand Egyptian say it's wrong what he translated.

[carbon dioxide]

Stating all the creeds of Orthodox Chrisitanity are and abomination and corrupt as well as the professors of such simply draw near to God with their lips and not their hearts is pretty strong. Sending put 80,000 missionaries that teach this and try to persuade others to leave their faith tradition is pretty aggressive.

So what that the LDS church is less polemic than the evangelical counter cult ministries? LDS so want to down play what we do and say well we are not like them. Put yourself in their shoes for a bit then come back to me.

I just put my self in their shoes and nothing has changed.  If someone comes by my house wanting to share what they believe to be true, that is not offensive to me.  If someone spends their time attacking my views then that probably would be offensive.  Giving a one sentence statement of Joseph Smith saying what Jesus told him does not equate to a CES letter or its equivalent. 

[carbon dioxide]

 

 

The reason I don't think apologists answer the tough questions (#1 from above) is that those answers don't exist.  There are no answers to BoA problems.  There are no answers to BOM historicity.  There are no answers to polygamy.  It's a very unfortunate position LDS apologists are put in, because I don't think those answers exist.  My solution is to move from a literal paradigm to a more flexible approach to religion, but I know that is not satisfactory to apologists.

I disagree with this generalization.  There are answers that exist to most of the hard questions.  Now whether the answers will satisfy everyone is an entirely different matter.  Just because someone does not agree with the answer does not mean its not a reasonable answer to someone else.  We all look at things differently.  This is why one gets a hung jury in a trial.  Everyone hears the same evidence but they arrive at a different conclusion.  

[TheSkepticChristian]

 If someone spends their time attacking my views then that probably would be offensive.

 

Why? Your views can't be wrong? 

[VideoGameJunkie]

The funny thing is I'm a descendant of Joseph Smith, so I'm supposed to be 100% believing in everything he did regarding the church and during his Presidency was perfect and God approved.

[carbon dioxide]

The funny thing is I'm a descendant of Joseph Smith, so I'm supposed to be 100% believing in everything he did regarding the church and during his Presidency was perfect and God approved.

I don't think so.  My grandchildren (don't have any yet thankfully) don't have to believe and agree with everything I have done simply because I am their grandpa and they share some DNA that I have.  I always have to laugh at when people say their are a blank generation Mormon or they are related to X person as if it matters.  We stand on our own feet not theirs.

Edited September 7, 2015 by carbon dioxide