NeedleinA

I don't doubt Godless's sincerity in this, but I don't believe him, either.
If I were to see purple polka-dotted flying winged elephants, I would not believe my own eyes. Seeing would not be believing. It would take a great deal more than seeing that for me to believe it was real. I would assume it was a hallucination, or some sort of hologram or fakery, maybe a mechanical contraption. Eyes can be deceived.
There may -- indeed, I believe there will -- come a point where all will have to acknowledge reality, at least to some degree. But I do not believe their acknowledgement will always be permanent or soul-changing. People believe what they believe because they want to believe it. Relatively few actually want to know the truth of things. My opinion, at least.

The "new policy" isn't the reason for their leaving, it's the excuse.
So, addressing the "new policy" isn't going to have any effect.
Lehi

I'm saying that the members of the Church over the past century and a half were human, and that they, from the least to the greatest made mistakes.
Further, I'm saying that people who suffer from chronocentrism are blinded by their own presumed wisdom, and are no better at judging the past than I am qualified to judge you.
Lehi

I understand what you're saying, but we all have our own burdens and challenges.  Do I have the strength to live a celibate life if I were called upon to do so?  I admit I probably wouldn't but that's my failing.  I don't get to spew hate on others for my own trials and weaknesses.
At the end of the day, guys like this vomit their hate on the Church for one reason only:  The Church refuses to validate them for their desires, and in today's political climate it's safe - even encouraged - to react in this way. 

I want to feel compassion for this guy.  I do.  I know a better Christian than I am would. 
But I'm struggling.
Maybe confessing this will help... but I'm oh, so very bitter these days.  I'm so sick to death of being lectured and condemned by people who consider themselves more tolerant and loving than we are.  These are people who espouse a new morality based entirely on self-gratification and mutual enabling.  They are en entire demographic whose only defining characteristic is whom they want to have sex with.
Some of the greatest people I've ever known are LDS, with a smattering of other Christians in there.  Even if you were to absolutely, positively, indisputably convince me that God does not exist or that the Church is false, I'd STILL remain a member of the Church (to the extent that a broken testimony allows it) and support it in any way that I could, because being associated with this Church, this morality, and Christianity in general, places me in the company of the finest, most loving and generous people to be found anywhere.
Meanwhile doorknobs like this guy, whose definition of himself has more to do with his hormones than his spiritual understanding, have the chutzpah to pretend to be too good for it.  Deep down he knows better.  I hope, for his sake, that he wakes up from this culturally poisoned fugue he's going through, but as far as compassion, I'm sorry but I think I'm fresh out.   I have a close friend who's been through the same struggle and he's found the strength to remain a member of the Church in good standing, despite his attractions.  Him, I respect deeply.  This Tyler guy...  I can't.
I'm sorry I can't do better.

There's a lot a reasons.  There are many stumbling blocks out there, and many different people's responses to them.  Going over some of the examples you presented--
Yes, some people leave the church because church leaders were/are not perfect.  Frequently, that's because they put leaders on a pedestal, when in reality the only sinless person that's ever been on this planet is Christ.  
Some people find the churches teachings/lifestyle are hard to keep.  
Some people think that they know better than the Lord (stuff like homosexuality).
And there are so many more examples.

How many is "so many"? Do you mean this as in, "Even one is too many?" If so, then I agree. But it is not like 30% of the Church is apostatizing. Those who leave do so because they have decided one or more of the following:
They despair of forgiveness for their own perceived unworthiness The Church's claims of divine authority are untrue Some person or people and/or leaders offended them, and now they're cutting off their nose to spite their face Living the gospel demands more than they care to give The Church itself has left its own path and is in apostasy (actually a subset of #2) The mockery of those in the great and spacious building is just too hard to bear The praise of the world is of more importance to them than the fellowship of the Saints These are more or less in order of how much sympathy I feel for those who succumb to these reasons.

A testimony is based in Truth: Truths like Christ is the Savior of the world, the Father loves His children, the scriptures (Bible, BoM, etc) are His words to us, etc.  Truth is infallible.
Church history is events that happened in the past, and frankly is frequently recounting of people sinning and messing up in big ways.  It is not Truth, though it may be true events.

Thank you for your answers thus far Steve.
Can I ask what your definition of "apologetic approaches to Mormonism" means?
What purpose is gained by understanding these varying approaches more, how does this serve you better? What is the end purpose of learning how to apply apologetic approaches to Mormonism?
Thanks again

This can be answered only in comparison to some other belief system. Thus, many people have asked you to explain how you justify belief of any particular idea based on a non-revelatory Biblical interpretation. When you have answered this, we may then be able to formulate a reasonable answer to your question. Until then, we will continue saying that we believe based on divine revelation -- a position which you seem to think begs the question, but to us answers it completely.

I got home today from the San Diego Temple and I didn't check the news headlines. 
I feel fine.
dc

...checked the news headlines. Two comments:
The American electorate is a bunch of fools. I say that in the most condemnatory manner possible. No matter if they elect the buffoonish Trump, the vomitous Sanders, or the nightmarish Clinton, they will get what they deserve. Too bad I and my family have to suffer with them. The good news: I finally get to vote for Dallin H. Oaks for US President.

I put in to get my temple recommend and endowments

Hi @Steve Noel ,
Because there are varying views as to your motives here on the forum, I figured it would be best to hear it from your personally. So Steve, what are you looking to do on this forum? I realize anyone and everyone is welcome to be here and ask questions, LDS member or not, so this is not a issue of "you shouldn't be here". I am happy to have you here, but it would be refreshing to hear your honest reason as to what you hope to accomplish.
 
Are you here to personally learn and pray to Heavenly Father to see if the church is true for yourself?
Are you here to "witness" to us in the hopes we will change our ways?
Are you simply learning about the LDS faith? If so, to what end/purpose?

You mentioned you are on at least 2 LDS forums asking the same questions in both. So I figured it would be great to hear your honest answer, so that I personally know how to take/view your posts in the future. 
Thanks in advance.

"He raps to rattle the “stereotype” of what a Mormon is, and to open up an opportunity for teaching."
Thanks for sharing this Pam. 

Just wanted to put a little plug on here for a friend of mine.   He's gone to #1 on Itunes for hip hop/rap top albums.
So excited for him.  He is donating 50% of his profits to the Church missionary fund.  
http://lds.net/blog/buzz/entertainment/james-mormon-raps-way-charts/

Look at me! I am dancing! Many thanks to kind Mr. Needle for cropping me. I am no longer an anonymous and dispirited shadow. I am a happy dancer!

Perhaps there are two kinds of criticism.  One where there is a malicious intent to cause pain and suffering.  The other is a statement of truth.  Often with the first the criticism contains or is dependent on exaggerated, and false data or information.  I tend to think of these two as two ends of a spectrum and that most disagreements fall somewhere in between.
In general – I believe that usually the first kind of criticism is based in prejudice and in which case are contradictions.  It is not difficult to realize contradictions and we can see examples of fanaticism contradictions in the arena of religion, politics and sports.
As I have searched for truth I have found inward contradiction to be the first and easiest way to realize something is false.  An example of an inward contradiction is this statement, “It is impossible for man to understand the nature of G-d,” The reason such a statement is obviously false is that the statement is definitive and therefore in and of itself could not be understood – therefore the statement is what we call an irrational contradiction.
Another example of an irrational contradiction is the claim that something is contradictory of scripture.   The problem is that scripture interpretation is contradictory and is preciously why Satan quoted scripture in tempting Christ.
 
BTW added - Question - From your understanding of Christ - did he give himself as an example of unnecessary concepts?  Or do you believe he was perfect (without contradictions in his teachings and examples).  Why was Jesus baptized by John?  Was it "physically" necessary? 
 
The Traveler

I haven't watched the video, nor have I followed this guy. I don't need more ugliness and negativity in my mind. But what I have learned here on this forum has been a valuable lesson in even barely starting to understand the complicated emotions of people who have same gender attraction. I appreciate those who have been forth coming about their struggles. The conflict beween what they have grown up believing and their powerful emotions and passions is so vast.

I don't condone same sex intimate relations in any way. And I do continue to believe that satisfactory relationships can be developed with someone of the opposite sex even if the Hollywood-like attraction isn't there. Wonderful, fulfilling eternal marriages can be had without a full-on focus on the sexual aspect of marriage.  But I do recognize the agony of having to deny oneself something they are attracted to. I feel empathy for those that believe they have to choose between one love ( the gospel) or the other "love" (following their sexual desires).  It's a tough, tough thing to have SSA. I wouldn't ever trade my own bag of life troubles for that. 
The only problem I have is with a few friends who have let anger, and cynicism and putrid rhetoric against the church become their new religion. I understand they have been hurt in the past. Things may have turned out differently for them if they'd waited 30 years to "come out". The Church is so much more knowledgeable and compassionate now than it was back then. But these gay people just can't let it go. They seem to enjoy watching the suffering of those they stab their sword of bitterness with. I have never felt so much evil from a so called "friend", as when I was the one being stabbed about a year ago. I'm struggling to forgive or forget. The whole exchange I had with these friends was simply horrible. Nightmarish. They have just gone too far and, sadly, I see this more and more in the world's response, too. That's what's souring my attitude towards the lgbt coilition in general. The few on this board are pretty civil. But my other friends I refuse to get anywhere near anymore. It's just too ugly. 
(OK- retreating back into my happy bubble. )
 

I remember the first time a Protestant Christian sought out an answer to this question from my companion and I, and honestly, this question puzzles me now just as it did then. 1) The comparison between Joseph Smith's first vision and Muhammad's visitation is comparing an apple to an orange. 2) The Church of Jesus Christ claims to be Christian, not a different religion. Here are highlights that appear to be apparent unless someone is turning a blind eye:
1) Joseph Smith' first vision was of the Father and the Son (Jesus Christ). These weren't messenger angels from God, it was God that visited him. 
2) Gabriel, according to LDS doctrine, Gabriel appeared to Mary confessing to her of her role in being the birth mother of the Savior, Jesus Christ.  Gabriel also announced the birth of John who would be a forerunner to Jesus Christ, preparing the way of the Savior and who would ultimately baptize the Savior declaring his role.
3) A primary role prophets have before God is to bear witness of Jesus Christ, they are testators of his divinity and mission. Here is a quote from Joseph Smith, "The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it."
Lorenzo Snow, one who filled the role of prophet later, "The spirit of God descended upon me, completely enveloping my whole person, ... dispelling forever, so long as reason and memory last, all possibility of doubt or fear in relation to the fact handed down to us historically that the 'babe of Bethlehem' is truly the Son of God." (emphasis added)
David O Mckay, "Members of the Church of Christ are under obligation to make the sinless Son of Man their ideal. He is the one Perfect Being who ever walked the earth; the sublimest example of nobility; Godlike in nature; perfect in his love." (emphasis added)
4) All truth is received by the Spirit of God, as all revelation from prophets to us has been received and proclaimed (Moroni 10: 3-5, John 15: 26). As given evidence also, the Lord (Jesus Christ) praised Peter because truth of who Jesus Christ was, was delivered to him by the Father through revelation. The Father reveals truth to his children, his sons and daughters, via the spirit which testifies of Christ.
5) In light of 1-4, we receive the following admonition and warning, D&C 50:17-18, "Verily I say unto you, he that is ordained of me and sent forth to preach the word of truth by the Comforter, in the Spirit of truth, doth he preach it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?
"And if it be by some other way it is not of God."
In short, the question asked already provides the answer in reference to LDS doctrine, "According to these revelations Jesus was not...the son of God..."  Ergo, Muhammad would be considered a false prophet as he did not bear witness, nor declare, the divinity of Christ...the "fundamental principles of our religion" the "obligation" of all members of the Church, and who have received witness from the testator of Christ.
Thus, the question puzzles me then, and still does.
 

I'm going to start my answer by dispelling a couple of common myths about LDS views (I'm not saying that you believe these myths @Steve Noel, but I'm just making sure the bases are covered).
Myth #1: LDS do not use the scriptures as a ruler of truthfulness.  This is SO far from the truth!  LDS study and refer to the scriptures near constantly in their religious life.  Every hurdle life throughs at use is judged how to handle it with scripture, and how to be comforted/find strength to endure the hurdles from the pages of scripture.  New teachings and knowledge are judged via scripture and the Spirit.  (Note: when I say "scripture" I mean the actual God-breathed scriptures, not men's flawed thoughts on what they think scripture says- less we all become Pharisees).
Myth #2: Because LDS believe in continuing revelation, they will just believe any "revelation" regardless of how ridiculous it is.  Again SO far from the truth!  Yes, it is true that LDS do believe in continuing revelation: that's how God has always worked and He does not change.  But we are also heed the scripture's warnings about false prophets- warnings found abundantly in the Bible and other LDS scriptures.  New teachings are not whimsically accepted, but go through a rigorous process of judging against scripture and via consulting directly with God.  This process happens on the church level, but also on the level of each individual- when they first come into the church (yes, we are aware that the Joseph Smith story can seem out there) and for each experienced member as they learn new things (I myself have gone through this process intensively this week in my private studies).  
Now on to Muhammad: he claims revelation, but that does not mean LDS or any other person should blindly accept them just because he says so.  From the LDS perspective, Muhammad's teaching are clearly against the Truth based on his rejection of Christ's Sonship alone.  This Sonship is clearly and unmistakably established in scripture and via the witness of the spirit.  So yes, Muhammad is rejected.
 
Please forgive us for our suspicion Steve.  We... honestly it is so easy to become biased and suspicious of non-LDS folks on-line-- at points it seems that the trolls outnumber the honest 10 to 1.  

Well, he's not here.  I don't know what he would do or not do, and neither do you.  For all you know, he wouldn't give me the time of day, and would instead have his men slay me as a heretic or something.
Can I ask you a similar question?
1. All teachings and experiences must be judged by scripture.
2. No, not any of the thousands of other holy books out there, not the Kesh Temple Hymn, or the Hindu Rigveda, or the Zoroastrian Avesta, or the Quran.  Torah yes, Tanakh no.  Some books yes, apocrypha no.  Out of all the scriptures, all the holy works, from all human civilization, you are talking about none of them except the Lutherian Canon that one particular group of folks figured was scripture back in the 1500's-ish, and the idea stuck.
3. That hand-picked set of books, which testify of a particular kind of a particular God - that's the scripture you're talking about.
So, ok.  Everything must be judged by scripture.  What makes your scripture right and others' scripture wrong?

I mean, when I ask myself that question, I know the answer.  I gave it above.  Just wondering about your answer.  You say "evangelicals insist".  So, what makes evangelical insistence take precedence over other insistence?  
"Jesus is God and Mohammed was wrong, because a particular group of humans with which I associate, insist that a certain group of books are right."
I know you don't like relying on the 'arm of flesh' any more than I do here...

We get sloppy in our everyday discourse, but before proceeding one should note that Mormonism technically distinguishes between "scripture" (any true thing said by any person under the influence of the Holy Spirit--under that definition, a passing remark in Sunday School--or even a number of posts to LDS.net--could fit the bill) versus "canon" (deriving, I think, from an old English word denoting a measuring stick).  The latter does indeed serve as a sort of "check and balance" against which new revelation can be evaluated--with the caveat that often, the canon is not as unambiguous or clear as many folks would like to believe it to be.  
I think it is hypothetically possible for the Bible to disprove the claims of a Mohammed, or a Joseph Smith, or a David Koresh--but unless the Holy Spirit tells me that there is merit to any of those individuals' claims, I may never bother to undertake the analysis at all (as with Mohammed or Koresh).  And when I subject Smith to that sort of analysis, what I keep finding is that the Bible doesn't really say what Smith's fiercest critics say that it says. 
And for Mormons, the flip side of accepting the primacy of the canon is that the reason the Church accepts it in the first place, is that the Holy Spirit has confirmed its reliability to us.  We don't consider either the Bible or the other books of the LDS canon to be self-proving on the basis of their own infallible logic or consistency or some sort of external evidence, the way some mainstream Christians seem to view the Bible.  We accept the canon because we find, through trial and experience, that it brings us into closer communion with God. 

This question is the summum bonum of the discussion.
We love the Bible. As a Church, we've spent millions of dollars and almost as many hours producing a world class, award-winning edition of the AV. All of our doctrines are based on the Bible. Joseph Smith read, and had his scribes write from his dictation huge portions of the Bible, and, using the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, restored much of what had been taken from the sacred tome (nearly every page got some emendments), in an effort that took 14 years, plus another three or four to get it in shape to print.
Each of our other three Standard Works refers to the Bible directly, and in the footnotes added during and subsequent to formatting the LDS edition we have thousands of cross references back to the Bible.
The only thing that separates our doctrine from yours is that your interpretations of the Bible and ours do not match. So, we arrive at @Carborendum's question: whose interpretations are valid (if anyone's are), and, more importantly, how do we know?
Lehi

Asked and answered. Mohamet did not teach that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, among a host of other things that disqualify his being a true prophet.
Further, you misread us when you say that "Latter-day Saints do not 'appeal to the Bible' to judge a teaching". We do, and we do so often. But it is not our ultimate source: God through the Holy Ghost is, and They use Their prophets and Apostles to reveal if and when a teaching is not of God.
Lehi