DiscussMormonism.com

Anyone else read this article about Bob "answer the question they should have asked" Millet? There are a couple jawdroppers in here, but I want to put it out here for you all before commenting myself.

http://mormontimes.com/WC_education.php?id=1843

Thoughts?










________________________________________________________________

Here's the part that I thought was funny:

That work is to help those who are not LDS to understand its doctrine. It also includes getting members of the LDS Church to know the doctrine. "We've got to get on the same page," Millet said.

Truth can be recognized by the whisperings of the Holy Ghost, according to Millet. How significant that truth is may be gauged by how it is perceived outside the church. "The significance (of a truth) may be known by the loud jangles of opposition," Millet said.

Um, if the Holy Ghost is so good at telling Mormons the truth, why are they so confused?

beastie wrote:Um, if the Holy Ghost is so good at telling Mormons the truth, why are they so confused?

I would venture that the problem is that we use it so rarely.

I would venture that the problem is that we use it so rarely.

Well, not all Mormons can be like you, Nehor, and have personal vistations from deity, can they?

Still, the Mormons I knew would beg to disagree with you anyway. They seemed to try to rely on the HG for just about everything. One recent example is the MAD poster who speculated about whether or not it was right to ask the HG for guidance on where to go for lunch (and then shared some faith promoting story about how the HG helped in that instance, If I recall correctly).

So maybe the real problem is that Mormons keep the HG so busy doing things like telling them where to go to lunch and where their car keys are that the HG just doesn't have time to teach all those plain and precious truths?

I know I certainly prayed for the guidance and inspiration of the HG every day I was a believing Mormon. But then I was one of those doofuses who actually did believe that becoming a god in LDS theology actually did meant people one's own universe one day.

beastie wrote:

I would venture that the problem is that we use it so rarely.

Well, not all Mormons can be like you, Nehor, and have personal vistations from deity, can they?

Still, the Mormons I knew would beg to disagree with you anyway. They seemed to try to rely on the HG for just about everything. One recent example is the MAD poster who speculated about whether or not it was right to ask the HG for guidance on where to go for lunch (and then shared some faith promoting story about how the HG helped in that instance, If I recall correctly).

So maybe the real problem is that Mormons keep the HG so busy doing things like telling them where to go to lunch and where their car keys are that the HG just doesn't have time to teach all those plain and precious truths?

I know I certainly prayed for the guidance and inspiration of the HG every day I was a believing Mormon. But then I was one of those doofuses who actually did believe that becoming a god in LDS theology actually did meant people one's own universe one day.

Good to meet a fellow doofus.

The irony is that one of the things I learned from that experience is that the Holy Ghost is better at teaching then such experiences. Admittedly, he did do most of the teaching in that one too. That we I mentioned included me in it. Hence I used we and not them. I live far beneath what revelation I should and could have.

I don't pray to get advice on my lunchtime activities. I'd like to think that if the Holy Ghost really thinks I need Fuddrucker's more then Chipotle he can tell me.

The Nehor wrote:

beastie wrote:Um, if the Holy Ghost is so good at telling Mormons the truth, why are they so confused?

I would venture that the problem is that we use it so rarely.

The Holy Ghost or the truth?

Henry Jacobs wrote:
The Holy Ghost or the truth?

Perhaps both. I don't think the malady is exclusive to LDS nor do I think the problem is more severe among them though.

Sigh... Millett is really getting to me. I am tired of the spin. The rewriting of history. The constant publication of new books, without any real research. No substantial contribution to Mormon scholarship whatsoever. And now he insists that all should be on the same page that HE is on. Please. I am sorry... but sometimes I can't help but think the dude is one huge state-puff-spiritual-twinkie. This is one of those times.

He is right that Mormons are all over the place, but he is absolutely wrong in insisting there is a single page to "get on to".

That work is to help those who are not LDS to understand its doctrine.
It also includes getting members of the LDS Church to know the doctrine.

It may be helpful for, ya know, the PROPHETS to help with this. ;-) Or is this now the job of apologists to tell the membership what the church actually holds as truth? (sigh) (They do seem to be leading the way lately)

"We've got to get on the same page," Millet said.

And which page would that be? I'm very serious in asking this question. If the leaders, (the ones who commune with Jesus Christ himself), can't figure out what is truth, or don't tell the membership what they are suppose to hold as doctrine in the LDS church how is the membership suppose to be on the same page.

It seems what members believe is church doctrine is so all over the place that they no one would ever be able to figure out what is actual doctrine, if there were such a thing.

Truth can be recognized by the whisperings of the Holy Ghost, according to Millet. [/quote

Which is great except for the fact that it seems to speak too quietly for even the very prophets to hear. Either the HG misleads a lot of people or people misinterpret what they think they hear because this "method" of discovering truth seems pretty unreliable to say the least.

]How significant that truth is may be gauged by how it is perceived outside the church. "The significance (of a truth) may be known by the loud jangles of opposition," Millet said.

Hmmm so the louder jangles of opposition the more is significant the truth?

As far as I can tell the two most objectionable bits of LDS doctrine were the racism and polygamy.

Hmmm...

On a positive note, I do think Millet has at the very least identified a problem in the LDS church.

I wonder how it will be addressed?

td