Originally Posted by
Ma'ake
Givens apparently went on a tour of the same name, "Crucible of Doubt", with his wife, giving talks to Mormons troubled by others' doubts, the diversity of attacks from so many directions, perception of church leadership hiding historical information, etc.
The number of questions, the breadth of topics, and the complexity in the answers makes it basically impossible for Givens or anyone else who is trying to provide in depth answers in a faith promoting way in one or two hours, so some people came away from these meetings feeling like the issues were very, very lightly addressed, it was more or less a "smooth over session", on the substance of the topics.
Givens said the explosion of information on the Internet has created a substantial issue, that church leaders take it seriously, that there is indeed an awful lot of historical information that really hasn't been analyzed in depth, because the leaders in the past haven't feel that it was important to examine and publicize every aspect of Church history, etc. Apparently an entire floor of the COB contains a lot of historical information they've never really sifted through in great detail... because it hasn't been a priority, in the past.
There is apparently some responses, or rather a much more robust version of church history being developed as a response to the variety of troubling issues. Instead of focusing on the parts of Mormonism that were felt to be important, the new material will be much broader, "the church does not have anything to hide".
IMO, the sheer volume of issues, with solid historical or church references as backup, have given the "antis" an advantage. In a way, there are parallels with Obamacare, because it's really easy to attack it with soundbites from multiple angles, and giving complex answers to complicated issues takes an awful lot of time, and just-in-time education of the audience.
Most people have no interest in an answer that involves educating to provide context.
We live in a time of very short attention spans, where long, complicated explanations lose credibility simply because they're long and complicated. This applies to a lot of areas. How do you explain to fans that a QB who hasn't done well will probably be much better, because the OL play has improved, the RBs are better equipped to pick up blitzes, the WRs will be able to get better separation? "He makes terrible decisions and throws into coverage!"
Anyway, I don't have a testimony of the LDS theology, personally, but I completely relate to and understand the quandry Mormonism faces in responding to diverse, complex topics that have already been painted in a completely different and negative light.