Hang it in your backyard off a tree limb to scare off ninja deer so they won't eat your tulips / daffadils / hyacinths / roses and other assorted ornamentals as they start to sprout...

Oh, wait... you already mentioned something like that...

Cut notches into it and turn it into a gear for use in a home water pump contraption with your 72 hour kit...

Cut notches into it and sharpen the edges so that you have a funky ninja throwing star you can then throw at the ninja deer who creep into your backyard to eat your ornamentals as they start to sprout...

Gather a collection of them and use them to create your own solar power generating cell...

I personally plan on looking at it, then reading through this point by point rebuttal-
http://en.fairmormon.org/index.php/Search_for_the_Truth_DVD

and I'll probably talk about some of the main points with my two older kids, definitely with my parents and husband. I believe we should be able to answer people when questions come up.
I Peter 3:15 "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear"


And I agree with this off of wikipedia--


Is it appropriate for a Church member to be involved in apologetics?
C.S. Lewis pointed out that since enemies have invoked 'science' or 'reason' to attack faith, it may now be necessary that someone respond in the same vein:

To be ignorant and simple now, not to be able to meet the enemies on their own ground, would be to throw down our weapons, and to betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defense but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.

Indeed, the great risk which apologetics seeks to counter is that those unfamiliar with anti-Mormon arguments will assume that there are no good answers to the critics. Elder Neal A. Maxwell warned of the consequences of such a situation:

Let us be articulate for while our defense of the kingdom may not stir all hearers, the absence of thoughtful response may cause fledglings among the faithful to falter. What we assert may not be accepted, but unasserted convictions soon become deserted convictions

See also: Does the Church discourage reading critical material?

Since you can't "prove" religion, is apologetics a waste of time?
Dallin H. Oaks spoke to this concern:

The lack of decisive scientific proofs of scriptural truths does not preclude gospel defenders from counterarguments of that nature. When opponents attack the Church or its doctrines with so-called proofs, loyal defenders will counter with material of a comparable nature to defend.

And, Neal A. Maxwell noted that God would provide fascinating additions to our understanding:

There will be a convergence of discoveries (never enough, mind you, to remove the need for faith) to make plain and plausible what the modern prophets have been saying all along[I] do not expect incontrovertible proof to come in this way, but neither will the Church be outdone by hostile or pseudo-scholars.

Austen Farrar said, of C.S. Lewis:

Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.

Apologetics does not aim to "create belief"it aims only to dispense with the poor reasons given by critics for disbelief. As Elder Maxwell put it, the critics ought not to be permitted "uncontested slam-dunks."



Evil flourishes...when?

-- Edited by Cocobeem at 09:56, 2007-03-30

I was hoping I would get one. That would be one less person potentially fooled by garbage.