As for the "we always answered every question" thing, that violates everything we were taught in the MTC. We were told never to argue (Benson said that repeatedly in a talk at the MTC while I was there). If people had difficult questions, we were to bear our testimonies and stick to the memorized discussions.
You don't argue. Argueing chases away the Holy Ghost. You declare doctrine. Its up to them to accept or reject it. Bear testimony of what? Of the subject at hand. Are they asking the question because they want to know, or because they want to pick a fight? that's what you have to decide. Theres a difference between Porter asking a question and Jersey asking a question.
Kevin is right. The church has for many years avoided answering the stickier questions, and Millet's talk is a good example of this. The fear appears to be that if investigators find out about the sticky stuff, they won't join. And a corollary to that is that they seem to believe that there are no good answers to these sticky questions; otherwise, they wouldn't have to change the subject, would they?
What questions are being avoided?
What fear? What sticky questions? I might could count on one hand the questions that i have that are difficult to find answers to. But even in those cases, I have a pretty good idea in regards to an answer.
I have no problem with any guy at work I run into who has questions about the church, any question whatsoever. I welcome them and I teach and instruct as to what the doctrine is. I seek it out and look forward to it.
And as I have repeatedly stated, you answer the question in a simple way, then build up a doctrinal foundation to rest the dificult questions answer on. Often times we woudl write down the question and answer it at the end of the lesson, instead of dealing with it at an inappropriate moment. Sometimes they would answer their own questions before we even got back to it.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato