NOM

Check out the description of Robert "Pretentious-'L.'-between-my-first-and-last-name-so-I-sound-like-a-General-Authority" Millet's new book "Whatever Happened to Faith?":

When respected religious educator and author Robert L. Millet talks with those who are troubled by newly public historical information, anti-Mormon propaganda, the Church's position on marriage, family, and gender issues, or other concerns, he's empathetic and wants to help. He pleads, "When did we lose our believing hearts and confidence in the Lord's servants? Whatever happened to faith?"

From the author of Living in the Eleventh Hour and Grace Works, this timely book is all about faith—what it is, what is isn't, how it is developed, and how we may remain solid and steadfast in our beliefs and convictions. His is a call to pay little heed to the way society is moving and an invitation to be a part of a counter culture of faith and devotion. Therein is safety and peace.

https://deseretbook.com/p/whatever-happ ... -hardcover

How dare he ask me "whatever happened to faith?"! I'll tell you what happened to faith - I had complete faith in the Church, faith that it was what it claimed to be, that it was honest with me, that it was acting in my best interest instead of its own, that the evidence was in favor of its truth claims - and the Church utterly and completely betrayed that faith. I'm offended that I am supposed to ignore the lies, deceptions, and betrayals and just keep having "faith".

Just go ahead and keep blaming the victim. Jerk move Millet.

Whatever happened to faith? It got surgery and is no longer blind.

Whatever happened to perspective? It was broadened by information- data and facts, that had been obscured by direction of leaders who realized the Truth is not always helpful.

He pleads, "When did we lose our believing hearts and confidence in the Lord's servants? Whatever happened to faith?"

I lost my believing heart when the things I believed in turned out to be highly unlikely. I lost my confidence in the Lord's servants when I stopped believing in a Lord with servants, at least in the way the LDS church describes it.

I stopped using faith for my beliefs when I saw that it looked exactly like confirmation bias.

Mr. Millet, you can keep your faith.

He's not talking about faith.

Faith is belief without evidence. What he's describing is belief in spite of evidence. That's not faith. That's stupidity.

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2017 11:12 am He's not talking about faith.

Faith is belief without evidence. What he's describing is belief in spite of evidence. That's not faith. That's stupidity.

Precisely.

Alternate title: "What happened to Burying Your Head in the Sand?"

Faith is a useless and untenable epistemology, so it was discarded.

What the hell happened to Honesty? Answer that question and then circle back around to what happened to faith.

Emower wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2017 4:48 pm What the hell happened to Honesty? Answer that question and then circle back around to what happened to faith.

To quote Robert Millet, "You're asking the wrong question."

Whatever happened to faith?

With all the emphasis that the church places on "knowing" things with an absolute certainty I could ask the same question.

"Whatever happened to faith?"

That's a clown question, bro.

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2017 11:12 am He's not talking about faith.

Faith is belief without evidence. What he's describing is belief in spite of evidence. That's not faith. That's stupidity.

or delusion.

"When did we lose our believing hearts and confidence in the Lord's servants? Whatever happened to faith?"

I realized they, and faith, were unreliable.

Faith changes. We adapt.

When we were children we believed as children. When we got older and could search the internet, things changed. We had access to new information. The faith of our childhood may have been worthwhile, but it was undermined when we learned of the deception hidden within many things we were taught. Our faith changed and we adapted.

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2017 11:12 am He's not talking about faith.

Faith is belief without evidence. What he's describing is belief in spite of evidence. That's not faith. That's stupidity.

Thanks for the sound bite, Oliver.

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Mon Aug 07, 2017 5:59 am

When respected religious educator and author Robert L. Millet talks with those who are troubled by newly public historical information, anti-Mormon propaganda, the Church's position on marriage, family, and gender issues, or other concerns, he's empathetic and wants to help. He pleads, "When did we lose our believing hearts and confidence in the Lord's servants? Whatever happened to faith?"

https://deseretbook.com/p/whatever-happ ... -hardcover

So here's something that chaps my hide about the apologists duplicity (and by association the church). In the above quote they openly admit that the stuff members stumble across is "newly made public". And yet below, I have copied a statement from a prominent Mormon apologist who posts regularly on a pro-defense Mormon website the following spin which I believe is fully intended to make unknowing members feel stupid or lazy or inadequate for not having already been familiar with all of the crap that the church has tried to suppress since the beginning.

"I was always familiar as a young adult with stories of seerstones and money-digging, and of the ordination of Black men in Joseph's time. All that information was readily available, and even the Tanners constantly printed newsletters and documents about every possible scandal a Mormon might have been involved in, from the Mountain Meadows Massacre to possible assassination schemes by Orrin Porter Rockwell."

So there you go........."I knew all this stuff when I was growing up and it was READILY AVAILABLE so what the hell was the matter with you? Don't you remember being taught this stuff in Gospel doctrine, priesthood, Relief Society, etc.?" Oh, and by the way, weren't we told to stay AWAY from what the Tanners wrote???? Yet here he almost suggests that we should have been reading the Tanners as a source of church history all along.....

The arrogance with which they make these statements is only surpassed by the hilarity of seeing them make such a slip as the quote from Millet's book. They just can't keep their story straight with all of the misrepresentations they're making.