Containing 5,717 Articles Spanning 332 Topics
Ex-Mormon News, Stories And Recovery
Online Since January 1, 2005
If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an
Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page
(the one you just landed on)
is an archive containing articles on
"ROBERT L. MILLET".
The Mormon Curtain
- is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can
The Mormon Curtain FAQ
to understand the purpose of this website.
ROBERT L. MILLET
Robert L. Millet, a BYU Professor, famous for stating "True believers will always be challenged by those who refuse to see", as well as stating that Mormons are not obligated to answer everybody's questions. Robert's attitude is that if a question about Mormonism is asked, answer the question that should have been asked.
I don't know if missionaries lie or not, but here is what young Mormons are taught.
Quotes from the video:
We aren't obligated to answer everybody's questions.
You already know more about God and Christ and the plan of salvation than anybody who will attack you.
Answer the right question.
We never provide meat when milk will do. (He repeats this a couple of times.)
This guy gives me the creeps. But at least now I know where some Mormons get the arrogance that they display. And it explains the attitude that Mormons have when it comes to answering questions about their religion.
So do Mormon missionaries lie? I don't know. I don't know a lot of them. I do know that when my wife started taking the discussions, they told her several things that later turned out to be not true.
A lie requires that the liar knows the truth, but says something else. In my own ethical system, concealing facts that can help somebody make a better decision is dishonest. If the other person can be harmed by my concealing a fact, I'm being dishonest. It shows a lack of integrity to claim that you just didn't ask the right question.
I think when they feel like they've been backed into a corner, they get evasive. But I don't think they lie intentionally all the time. I do think they are kept ignorant so they don't give too much away. I think they are kept as busy as they are in order to keep them from learning too much.
Remember how much we've all learned about Mormonism. I know more about Mormonism since leaving than I ever did as a member.
"If you want to know what constitutes the doctrine of the church... 1) Is this doctrine or idea found within the standard works…2) Is it found in what we would call official declarations or proclamations... 3) Is this a doctrine that is taught by the apostles or the first presidency in general conference or other official church gatherings today. 4) Is this found in the general handbooks of the church or in the approved curriculum material of the church. If it doesn't meet one of those four criteria it is not the doctrine of the church. To be sure Brigham Young and a few others taught that [Adam-God] for a period of years. But by the criteria I have just given you it would not qualify as being the doctrine of the church because frankly when President Young passed away that doctrine passed away with him. It has been formally addressed by Spencer W. Kimball in general conference as not being a doctrine that is sound and true. Now the immediate response I'll get from someone is 'wait a minute, Brigham Young was the president of the church at the time.' That's right. And he preached it in general conference. That is correct. My response to that would be, and this is a little tough sometimes, but I have pretty good authority on this one from President Hinckley, and it goes something like this, 'Latter-day Saints do not believe in either apostolic or prophetic infallibility.' Now what does that mean? It means that while we love and sustain and uphold and revere our church leaders, as Joseph Smith once said, 'I never told you I was perfect.' And he said if anyone should expect perfection from me I should expect it from them. So we believe it is perfectly possible for a person who even in a church position of that sort to say something that is in the long run proven not to be so, not to be true."
- Dialog between Robert Millet and Greg Johnson held at Mt. Olympus Presbyterian, April 23, 2006.
(1) Brigham Young preached Adam-God for a quarter of a century. He said God revealed it to him. General authorities got spiritual confirmation of the truth of the Adam-God doctrine. The Adam-God doctrine was made part of the endowment ceremony. This is not BY expressing an opinion. If Adam-God is not true (as was emphasized by SWK) then BY was a false prophet.
If, as Millett is saying, it isn't doctrine until the whole church gets behind it then the church is not led by a prophet. The prophet is, instead, led by the church.
(2) Wasn't Janice Allred excommunicated for saying that the brethren were not infallible? She got into a whole grundle of trouble for going around and pointing out that nowhere in the scriptures does it say the GA's or even the prophet is infallible. Isn't it interesting that we emphasize that "the prophet will never lead you astray" and NEVER allow anyone to question what GBH says. But when Millett is discussing things with non-Mormons and trying to make the church look mainstream he says all kinds of things that would get (and has gotten) members in trouble when they say it to other members. This is hypocricy of a very high order.
I Do Not Have To Categorize Joseph Smith Jr Was Evil Or A Monster, Or A Rapist Or A Pedophile Friday, Jan 19, 2007, at 08:28 AM Original Author(s): Susieq#1 Topic:ROBERT L. MILLET-Link To MC Article-
I do not have to categorize Joseph Smith Jr was evil or a monster, or a rapist or a pedophile in my process exiting from Mormonism and it's impact on my life. I find no reason to see that those terms apply.
I have no need to hate or be angry at Joseph Smith Jr , Mormons or Mormonism either. I understand that others do, but I don't.
This is part my explanation:
I do not find that subjective characterizations are applicable, or necessary for my personal exit process and "recovery." I understand that others do, but I don't.
I have very clear reasons for my process. I share it just like everyone else shares theirs. Mine is as valuable as anyone else's. There is no hierarchy of authority here. This is not Mormonism anymore.
We all can do it our own way, use what works for us, with no requirement to accept someone else's view, opinion, or position. Don't like mine. That's OK. There is no I do not have to categorize Joseph Smith Jr was evil or a monster, or a rapist or a pedophile in my obligation to use it or to accept it. Ignore it. This is not Mormonism anymore.
I am a loss, personally, to find anything credible, positive, productive or helpful in any process that is venomous, that denigrates or personally attacks anyone in that process.
So, I don't use it.
My experience is that it does not contribute to my process, is not conducive to my relationships with my friends and loved ones that are still Mormons or are former Mormons. So, I would not and do not use that kind of attitude, or language or characterizations.
We do not know who is reading our words here. It is important to me to keep the lines of communication open and seen as a reliable, credible person to deal with. Those things are important to me. I understand that is not true for everyone.
It is obvious that leaving Mormonism is a "Do It Yourself Project" with no rule book or manual. We do it the way we want. It is our process that has valuable to us. It is clearly not the same for everyone.
The great thing about the process is that there is no grand list of right or wrong ways to do it, no fear of no recriminations from any authority, no rules or advice that apply to everyone. What a relief!
This is my observation from watching the process for about eight years and talking to hundreds of people on the Internet and in emails. I understand that it is not the same for everyone.
If what I post is helpful, fine. If not. Fine. You like me? OK. You don't like me? OK. I do not take offense. I give no one that power.
Robert Millet spoke to the Mission Prep Club about how to handle the tough anti-Mormon questions missionaries may face while on their missions.
Believe it or not, I actually took the time to watch the entire 45-minute video. I did have to pause the video occasionally and walk away to breath so I wouldn't bash in my computer monitor.
The basic gist of the video is this... If a non-member asks you a tough question, "answer the question they SHOULD be asking". For example, when someone asks you "Do Mormons believe that they can become Gods?" answer them by saying, "A 14 year old boy named Joseph Smith knelt down to pray in a grove. He asked Heavenly Father which church he should join..." You then bear witness of the first vision. Basically, you're acknowledging their question about the church, but not answering their question. He went on to say that by jumping into the meat of the LDS doctrine, you are only going to confuse and drive potential converts away. He then said, "Don't provide meat when milk will do..."
Can I just tell you that this video sent chills up my spine? It was SO HORRIBLE to see him telling these missionaries to basically avoid and distract people from the truth!!! These missionaries just nodded their heads in agreement like good little sheeple.
In a F.A.R.M.S. article by Robert L. Millet “The Book of Mormon, Historicity, and Faith” http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/displ..., Millet freely admits that the historicity of the Book of Mormon is central to faith in Mormonism's claims. However in a world where reality does not support ANY substantiation of these claims, Millet offers one other life line to those who become aware of the lack of any supporting factual collaboration of Book of Mormon claims. Quoting a former professor who was responding to a questions regarding the historicity of the Bible...he quotes:
"Let me just say that I feel it doesn't really matter whether the Israelites crossed the Red Sea as a result of Moses parting that body of water in a miraculous way, or whether they actually tiptoed across the waters of the Red Sea. What matters is that the Israelites then and thereafter saw it as an act of divine intervention, and the event became a foundation for a people's faith for centuries."
In Mormon parlance this statement could be rewritten to state: “Let me just say that I feel it doesn't really matter whether Joseph Smith actually saw God the Father and Jesus Christ or that he had a visit with an angel named Moroni or held actual golden plates. What matters is that the early members of the church and members thereafter viewed these stories as an act of divine interaction in the activities of the human family and that these events became a foundation for a people's faith for centuries." In other words...it doesn’t matter what reality is...if enough people believe in something irrespective of its authenticity and it becomes a foundation for faith...then that is enough...we should just be happy and accept that...and live our lifes in faith.
Well Bro. Millet... BULL SHIT ! I will not give my life to a false religion just because some people feel that it makes their life better or makes them a better person. If Mormonism can’t produce the evidence (and it can’t) then it should be rejected whole cloth for what it is...a fraud.
Since this seems to be the theme of several threads now...
"Whenever someone asks me an antagonistic question, I never answer that question. Instead I answer the question they should have asked."
Sounds a lot like the way Turley treated the Swedes.
Isn't it strange how the first Mormon response usually ends up being a lie, and only when pressed do they end up admitting they were wrong? From Hinckley's embarrassing interviews in the late 90's, to Holland's interview for the BBC.