Reader comments
MormonTimes.com: Robert L. Millet: Drowning questions with living waters

Brother Millet:
Having been a member for 27 yrs I have been saying for years now that the lessons in Sacrament, Sunday School, Institute, Relief Society/Priesthood, seminary, etc. is being "refined" to a pure message - when I was taught the discussions it was by flip-chart. When I taught the missionary lessons it was a small booklet where we memorized each discussion, now it is "Preach My Gospel" emphasizing teaching by the Spirit (as all lessons are).
It is NOT, as some might say, that we are now teaching about Jesus, but we are being taught pure(r) doctrine. I have my beliefs about why - but it is more incredibly spiritual to me than even the spirit I felt when being taught the discussions.
Bless you for the understanding that I've received as I've followed you over the years.

I have had occasion to hear some of the most rhetorical, some of the deepest and tenetical lessons in our Sacrament meetings. Usually the Bishop is too embarrassed to interrupt the talks or take occasion to correct, which I understand. It is called discretion and it sometimes places Bishops in a difficult position. But....people need to be sensitive to who may be in the audience and I know non-members do not like to be referred to as swine, but we have some real Pearls of spiritual wisdom that are not always easily understood. It would behoove members of this great church to use a bit of discression in our more public forums. Some of the best lessons or talks i have heard are simple doctrine, but powerful spiritual testimony touches hearts. Talking about our mother in heaven is not appropriate just because it is mothers day. :)

I am surprised that Bruce R. McConkie doesn't know that Christ was married. It's clear in the scriptures (D&C) that marriage is required for the highest of Heaven's Kingdoms. Hence, Christ has to have been married else he will find himself unacceptably assigned as an administering angel.

Despite his lack of knowledge on the marriage subject, McConkie will avow assuredly, nay he will say he knows, that Christ lived on earth and is the son of God in large measure because it is attested to in the scriptures (Bible).

In other words, Millet is saying you want to tell people ONLY what they want to hear until you get them into the water and paying tithing. Tell them only pleasing things ("milk") so they will join the Church and pay into the fat treasury, then later they will figure out all the ugly stuff about Mormonism later. By then they will be so brainwashed they will do what all active Mormons do: cover their ears, close their eyes, and repeat to themselves: "I KNOW it's true! I KNOW it's true! I KNOW it's true!" (repeated three times)

The LDS church - Nothing but a SPECULATIVE religious construct... Nothing more, nothing less.

Millet said. "Anybody can dredge up, dig up, something that was said by somebody in the past. The question though rather, is 'What is being taught today?' ...

And another question comes to my mind, "What will be taught tomorrow?" I feel like I've spent over 50 years trying to learn Church history and doctrine that seems to melt before my eyes. I often wonder why I even listened and believed all that garbage from my past, and why should I trust what is being said today?

In fact, the older I get, the less I listen to the opinions of men and the more I appreciate my own common sense. I've had enough guilt, shame and fear in my life. Let's just keep it simple: Kindness, Honesty and Joy -- who really needs anything else?

Seems to me what Millet is saying is that unless there is scripture or a "thus sayeth the lord" reference, we don't know.

We speculate, we draw conclusions, we guess, we infer, and we analyze but ultimately we don't know for certain.

I feel so sorry for you, George 12:30. Your sad comments make me wonder if you, like many others who continually bash the LDS Church, have any joy in your life at all. That is, except for the times you hear stories on the news about people like Warren Jeffs, Brian David Mitchell or Mark Hacking. I know those stories send the Mormon bashers morale a mile high.

You may find this shocking and totally unbelievable, but I have any friends and family members who joined the LDS Church as adults, and even after listening to the childish, condescending words of people like yourself, they're still active in the LDS Church.

I have researched anti-Mormonism for forty years and have never found one question that there wasn't an answer for. Some of them took some real research and study but there is nothing to fear in the doctrines of the LDS Church if one has a real desire for truth. For an investigator or new member to start by being taught deep doctrine makes as much sense as teaching quantum mechanics to a first grader. Line upon line and the honest in heart will understand.

George

You may be cynical about the LDS church's motives, but consider the simple directive given by the apostle Paul to feed those new to or unacquainted the Gospel, "Milk" before "Meat". The meat does indeed come later for Mormons- in the temple. There are some who cannot handle the meat even after the milk and they may unfortunately fall away. Their roots are most often to weak to take the heat of criticism, doubt, competing priorities, and the very worldly society we live in.

Your accusation that Mormons cover their ears, close their eyes and blindly repeat a mantra of blind belief is just mockery of those who seek to share their personal spiritual witness with others in a setting that strengthens and comforts others of a similar belief. This "witness sharing" is a common practice in Christianity in a variety of settings. Your hostility to this practice reveals your your own disbelief, which you have a right to, but why put down the sincere the beliefs and devotions of others not of your liking?

The simple answer is obvious. Intolerance and bigotry.

I would like to see a study on the psychology of Christians in the various denominations. It seems to me that Baptists are a certain "kind" of people, that Catholics are a couple of different kinds, Jehovah's Witness' are another kind. Etc.

It makes me wonder if perhaps religious sect may be almost has hard wired as many other parts of our personalities. Trying to convince someone of something they don't believe is pretty difficult and almost meaningless activity.

If the Spirit testifies to someone what is right then that's one thing. But most of us are poorly equipped to convince someone that just doesn't want to believe something they don't want to believe.

George,
Who says that the mormon church brainwashes people? You never see other religions going head to head with one another trying to find out what is true and not true. Everyone goes against the mormon church.. Why? Because, the mormon church never says that our church is true cause of this and yours isn't because of this. All religions have some of the same believes. In the mormon religion we have free agency just like everyone else. We choose to not drink coffee, smoke, do drugs or whatever it might be. We CAN do them if we want. But we choose not too. And for the record.. No one covers their ears, and eyes repeating that they know its true. I don't know where you got that from. Maybe you should read up on some stuff before you start saying things that aren't true. HA HA

You should realize that most often, the more knowledgeable Latter-Day Saints become of everything in Church History, scriptures, etc. the more dedicated they are and the stronger their testimonies are. NOT brainwashed, as you put it. I've read everything that every critic can put up against my faith, I've read everything that Joseph Smith did that I can find, and the more I learn, the more I believe and admire the Church, Joseph Smith, etc and the more I believe in Jesus Christ. This is generally the experience of Latter-Day Saints, with only a few exceptions.

I embrace the truth, but what Millet is saying, is that it is good to teach arithmetic before algebra, and teach algebra before Calculus and so on. He is not saying that Calculus should not be eventually taught. He is just saying that deeper doctrines of the Church should be preceded by the simpler ones. For the life of me, I don't know what is wrong with that.

I think it's important for members (and non-members) to understand what constitutes Church doctrine.

1. Comes from the standard works
2. If the members of the Church sustain it in General Conference (D&C 26:2)
3. If it's taught by the First Presidency as a Presidency.

In other words there are leaders with opinions, their opinions do not make it doctrine. This was especially common in the early days of the church. Much of the "anti-Mormon ammunition" comes from quotes of LDS apostles that voiced their opinion.

There's no reason to pay heed to it, it was just their opinion, and in some cases those same apostles were reprimanded by the First Presidency in their time for teaching false doctrine (even if it was unknowingly.)

Of course it is hard to nail down the mormon story. It is like the Harry Potter story there is no end to the imaginary chapters. One can make of it what ever they wish and just add a little of their own flavoring and maybe write a book about it.

This article is true, but I think it is more the exception, then the norm.

I find that member answers to questions are usually not adequate enough. Example:

Question: "What kind of evidence is there for the Book of Mormon?"
Answer: "Evidence doesn't matter, we just need to pray to know the truth...(proceeds with testimony)".

This isn't the wrong answer, but I don't think it would hurt to throw in a couple examples of evidence before the testimony. There are honest people out there who really would like to know.

I'll be honest, my testimony has been greatly strengthened by studying evidence of the BoM's divinity and other evidences.

There are times when members struggle because they heard one tid-bit of false info from an anti-mormon and nobody in the church will show them the truth.

"There are times when members struggle because they heard one tid-bit of false info from an anti-mormon and nobody in the church will show them the truth."

I've had the same problem. Often no one even seems to know the truth. They tell you you are "asking the wrong questions" or that you shouldn't read "anti-Mormon" literature. But hey, it's out there, and inquiring minds want to know the answers.

For me, it really doesn't help to read more or pray more, I just end up with more questions. I've even been through the temple, and Yep, more questions than answers.

I really think they all just hope you'll shut up and stop asking.

Using evidences against non-members and investigators may not be the right thing to do, but long-time members who already have a grounded testimony would greatly benefit each of us.

I wouldn't mind it if LDS manuals, like Gospel Doctrine, included some small physical evidences during each lesson, maybe near the end.

If we're studying Alma 42 one week, for example, it would be great to hear the teacher show us what Chiasmus is and how the chapter makes use of it. You know, something physical to chew on.

If the Church, as an institution started trying to push little things like this more, I think members would be greatly enriched. Of course, without detracting from the Spiritual confirmation of the truth.

Some religious concepts get thown against the wall and stick, others don't. The Lord will only allow true doctrine to stick(prevail) - he is in charge and ultimately decides how this passion play of life will end up, no matter what the apostles and prophets opinions are. In early Christianity it was much the same - the leaders bickered and wrestled with doctrine, but the Lord's agenda went on (until the apostosy). Somehow God puts up with less than perfect and knowledgable prophets and apostles. But @ the end of the day his work will go on, in spite of Earth and Hell.

Some truths aren't very useful. . . (a tip of the hat to Elder Boyd K. Packer)