Some Schmo wrote:Actually, when it comes right down to it, the toughest thing that any apologist has to defend is their own intellectual honesty.
That's why it's difficult to take them seriously and not view them as liars, in denial, or simply stupid (or at least, intellectually deficient).
To be fair, religion and politics are two areas where once a person chooses a side, they will defend it to the death. No matter what evidence or logical argument you give them, they will try to come up with some way to defend their belief. It's just the way humans are. How many people change their political party of religion once they've converted? It's very rare, and it takes a long time. It doesn't make someone a liar or deceived, they just want to be right.
One of the great things about science is its priority of truth over "being right." People who do real science are looking for the truth at all costs, even at the expense of their own pride. Sincerely wise people understand that they aren't always right, are receptive to making new distinctions and are open to being corrected in all subjects of inquiry. That is also what I consider to be true intellectual honesty.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Some Schmo wrote:One of the great things about science is its priority of truth over "being right." People who do real science are looking for the truth at all costs, even at the expense of their own pride. Sincerely wise people understand that they aren't always right, are receptive to making new distinctions and are open to being corrected in all subjects of inquiry. That is also what I consider to be true intellectual honesty.
Perhaps like Diogenes I should get a lantern and go out on the street looking for a intellectually honest man.
I suspect that such a creature doesn't exist--at least not one who consistantly lives to that ideal in all areas of ascertaining truth.
Now, does that mean I don't think it worthwhile to be open to inquiry into a testimony? Not at all. I think it quite reasonable to search and examine. I just haven't agreed with the critics' interpretation of events. Is it that my feelings override my rationality? Possibly. Although I do try to be fair, I also believe that it is impossible to be truly "objective". That doesn't mean I shouldn't attempt to see another point of view. It just means I don't feel particularly deficient if I'm unable to do it fairly or agree with that opposing point of view and yet convincingly explain why I feel it isn't correct.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
To answer the original question, I think there are two different things to consider.
Intellectually, I think the Book of Abraham is the most difficult to defend. It's obviously not what it claims to be, despite the contortions of the apologists.
Morally, there's a bigger selection: polygyny/polyandry and the lying thereabout, the priesthood ban are probably the hardest to defend.
The greatest enemy to truth is dogmatism. Some on both sides of the LDS fence are caught up in it.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
The Nehor wrote:So? Does he/she/it have an name? Why would he/she be regarded by you as a God?
In Mormon theology there is only a limited namer of beings that God with a capital G could refer to.
Yes, both of them have names. I regarded them as Gods because they were perfection and omnipotent.
My understanding of theology must be different than yours.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo