As time passes, more information comes to light, more research is done, and we see that the LDS doctrines, foundational events, etc are untenable, and LDS frequently will rely on claiming that they have received a witness of the Holy Ghost, so none of the difficulties really matter, since they know that it’s “true” anyway (you can see this sort of argument over at Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board). Many LDS also put things up on the mental shelf, resorting to either deal with the difficulties later, or just believe that there has to be a reason for the difficulty, and that we may not know the answer until we’re on the other side (I’ve had such discussions with active LDS friends a few times).
LDS apologetics, most especially the material put out by FAIR and FARMS/MI, many times causes more questions to be asked then answered. Things like Michael Ash’s Shaken Faith Syndrome (I purchased and read his latest edition) don’t really help, and instead cause a sort of dichotomy between what the apologists are saying, and what the LDS leaders, the prophets and apostles, are saying, and have said, including in General Conferences. With the internet, we now have more ways to read what LDS leaders have stated, in official capacities (and not just their mere “opinion”), throughout LDS history. It then becomes a matter of whether we believe what the living prophets and apostles have taught and teach, or whether we believe the apologist interpretations and re-imagining of Mormonism (which really is ironic to me in light of LDS arguments against theologians, the philosophies of men, not listening to/following the prophets and apostles, etc), casting doubts on the reliability of the teachings of the apostles and prophets, including in General Conferences (i.e. the “opinion” argument).
