Apoligetics is ultimately futile, at least in the Mormon case, because it does not connect with how the faith and faith itself works in everyday life.]]>
The Church has to confront the anti’s head on, fearlessly. If this means some serious, painful re-examination and re-interpretation of LDS history, so be it. It may mean tolerating radically varying views of the BoM itself (needless to say, this already quietly exists…there are plenty of temple-going members who, in their heart of hearts, do not believe the BoM is an ancient document). The Community of Christ has taken steps in the right direction, but only time will tell if this has saved or doomed them as a viable denomination.]]>
I see what you mean but I think there’s merit in avoiding certian things for a couple of reasons. One could be that our testimonies may not be ready to wrestle with complicated questions when we are still trying to gain solid ground on the basics.
More importantly, however, is that by searching out, visiting and learning from anti-Mormon sites will cause far greater doubt and ill spirit then good. I was on a kick for a short time. trying to form my own apologetics, but I soon realized all I gained from it was a spirit of contention and darkness. Not light and truth or a strengthening of testimony. That’s best done by studying the gospel.
Although Seventh-Day Adventists are not anti-Mormons per se, or that is, in the sense you mean, I was genuinely surprised that many of the Seventh-day Adventists that I ran into in Berlin and other areas of northeastern Germany utterly refused to touch the Book of Mormon, let alone read it. Because more than one exhibited this curious trait, I concluded that it must have been due to some explicit instruction to them by their leaders.
Essentially, the Book of Mormon itself could be considered the anti anti-mormon site.]]>