Milk Before Meat

[Deborah]

Over and over again we hear people complaining about how the church is simplifying the curriculum in the church setting. People are whining about being spoon fed and wanting to hear more of the deeper matters. Several thoughts have come to mind in these matters.

First in the matter of being spoon fed or as the critics accuse being given too much milk and not enough meat. Certainly the Lord is not opposed to us continuing to study and pray and gain more knowledge. Joseph Smith formed the School of the Prophets for just such a purpose. Christ often took his close disciples aside to give them added understanding. But what do these things teach us. First in public the basic principles of the gospel were taught. As the people were ready, more would be revealed. The point being not everyone is ready for the greater learning at the same time.

Certainly in today’s worldwide church this principle applies even more. The unified study we do in our church meetings must go out to every country and people at all levels of learning. I do not think for a minute that the Lord expects all of us to be satisfied with that. I do think he expects us to expand on our own if we seek greater understanding of the “mysteries” whether those are matters of doctrine or of church history. I do think he expects us to support those whose knowledge is not as great and whose faith is not as strong by letting them learn as they are ready and able, as Mosiah 4: 27 says “And see that all these things are done in wisdom and order; for it is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength. And again, it is expedient that he should be diligent, that thereby he might win the prize; therefore, all things must be done in order.”

But what has sparked this thread is the real problem I see happening today. Mosiah 18: 21 tells us “And he commanded them that there should be no contention one with another, but that they should look forward with one eye, having one faith and one baptism, having their hearts knit together in unity and in love one towards another.” And in Ephesians 4: 13 we read “Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:”

The Lord is not opposed to scholarship or learning or even discussing the opposing viewpoints which might result as individuals formulate their own understanding of these things. It is by discussing these things we can all learn from one another. What I am sure is disturbing is the contention that arises because of these things. If we as members can’t come to a unity of the faith, how can we hope to be able to establish Zion in the last days where the Lord himself can come down and dwell? Over and over we see in the scriptures where the bickering and complaining of the people resulted in the chastisement of those people until they humbled themselves and called again on God with unified voices. I fear that we as a church are in for some chastisement before we can truly move forward.

[Deborah]

The conclusion of all this of course is could the emphasis back to basics be because of this contention that seems to be growing among scholars and members alike and we need to get back to the basic gospel principles to come to a unity of the faith. No doubt this requires humility for some.

[robuchan]

Google "milk before meat" and you will find this is almost entirely an LDS construct. Yes, Paul used it twice, but I don't think he meant it the way LDS mean it.

I think it might be appropriate to use the phrase "milk before meat" to explain why we teach obedience before sacrifice and consecration. Or faith and repentance before baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Or the fall and the atonement before exaltation.

But LDS seem to use it to explain why we completely ignore certain doctrines. And more egregiously out of context: why we suppress certain historical facts related to the restoration, that don't even have anything to do with doctrine.

[Deborah]

I think it might be appropriate to use the phrase "milk before meat" to explain why we teach obedience before sacrifice and consecration. Or faith and repentance before baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Or the fall and the atonement before exaltation.

Or the principle of the New and Everlasting Covenant before we teach plural marriage and sealings, etc.

Yes, I understand the principle, which is why so many people get into trouble when they try to search out the deeper things before truly understanding the basics.

[CASteinman]

Paul used it twice, but I don't think he meant it the way LDS mean it....But LDS seem to use it to explain why we completely ignore certain doctrines. And more egregiously out of context: why we suppress certain historical facts related to the restoration, that don't even have anything to do with doctrine.

I challenge you to show one instance of this from any manual, Church magazine article or other such source.

Edited July 1, 2012 by CASteinman

[Senator]

Over and over again we hear people complaining about how the church is simplifying the curriculum in the church setting. People are whining about being spoon fed and wanting to hear more of the deeper matters.

If they are perceived to be whining, perhaps it is because they are hungry.

First in public the basic principles of the gospel were taught.

A couple of days ago, I was reading in the journal of one of my grt, grt, grt... Grandmothers. Her first hearing of the message of the restoration preached, was as a young sixteen year old girl, standing on the streets of England. She, for the first time, heard the doctrine of plural marrige. It struck her with such great force, that at that very moment she knew it was true principle, and that she must join herself with this body of Saints in America.

I guess it's in the eye of the beholder, what the basics are!

[Deborah]

She, for the first time, heard the doctrine of plural marrige. It struck her with such great force, that at that very moment she knew it was true principle, and that she must join herself with this body of Saints in America.

And at that time plural marriage was being practiced and needed to be taught.

[Deborah]

If they are perceived to be whining, perhaps it is because they are hungry.

Even my little grandkids know where the cupboard is when they are hungry.

[Senator]

And at that time plural marriage was being practiced and needed to be taught.

Yes.

Pretty meaty, basic stuff...

[Senator]

Even my little grandkids know where the cupboard is when they are hungry.

Maybe the cupboard many have been conditioned to look to for food, are the Prophets, Seers and Revelators.

[Deborah]

Pretty .... basic stuff...

....for that time, but why do we need to emphasize it now. We need to emphasize the basics of what is needed today for salvation and we have a lot of different issues that weren't issues then. I still have a hard time believing anyone investigating the church doesn't know something about polygamy and because of that can ask questions and then can get a brief explanation of the principle. I've never been in a SS or RS when the question has been asked that it has been ignored or unanswered.

[Deborah]

Maybe the cupboard many have been conditioned to look to for food, are the Prophets, Seers and Revelators.

We have scriptures, we have book stores, we have libraries (and even in libraries outside of Utah there are sections with Mormon writings). We have Institutes and Seminaries. We always have members in the ward whom everyone knows have a lot of knowledge and can ask. Joseph Smith received revelations after asking a question. That seems to set the criteria for when more information needs to be given.

To expand on the analogy of the cupboard...my little 3 year old g-daughter can't reach anything but she knows to get a stool or to find an bigger kid or adult to get what she needs. I think it is a little disingenuous for those who claim we don't give people enough to then claim the people are too stupid anyway to know where to look or when to ask.

[Senator]

....for that time, but why do we need to emphasize it now. We need to emphasize the basics of what is needed today for salvation and we have a lot of different issues that weren't issues then. I still have a hard time believing anyone investigating the church doesn't know something about polygamy and because of that can ask questions and then can get a brief explanation of the principle. I've never been in a SS or RS when the question has been asked that it has been ignored or unanswered.

Why did you edit my words from "Pretty meaty, basic stuff" to just "Pretty....basic stuff"?

The "meaty" had intentional meaning. Part of the intention of my statement was to suggest that meats appear to have been a regular public staple in the spiritual/doctrinal diets of the early saints. Why not now? Is the doctrine of plural marriage a meat, or a milk? It seems the early saints were quite accustomed to cutting their teeth on meat.

If plural marriage was a milk; what does that say about today's milk?

[Deborah]

Why did you edit my words from "Pretty meaty, basic stuff" to just "Pretty....basic stuff"?

Because plural marriage today is not practiced, it is not part of the basics that we need for our salvation. It is something to understand but why do we need to emphasize it? Furthermore there are so many groups that have distorted what plural marriage means, which btw to the Lord is an abomination outside the New and Everlasting Covenant, that to make it part of the regular dialogue is in itself deceiving because it puts an emphasis on it that is not warranted.

[Deborah]

Here is meat for today. Do we support the Church's stand to uphold marriage as ordained and defined by God, or do we allow it to lead us to question and maybe even leave the church because we are so unhappy about the church's stand. The pioneers would never have faced such an issue in their day. No one would have contemplated it.

We are in a country consumed by debt. We have been warned over and over to stay out of and get out of debt. That is an issue that the impoverished pioneers did not have to face, at least in the early years of the church.

We are facing a new danger made even more attainable by the Internet, and that is pornography. The pioneers would have been appalled at such things but it is something we are faced with daily when even going to what looks like an innocent site can open up something offensive but which stays in our minds.

We face issues our forefathers could not comprehend. Why should we spend time talking about something that is in the past that they had to deal with, except to learn from their faith and determination to do what the Lord asked.

Edited July 1, 2012 by Deborah

[CASteinman]

Part of the intention of my statement was to suggest that meats appear to have been a regular public staple in the spiritual/doctrinal diets of the early saints.

What do you consider to be meaty that we do not have now? A review of those things might lead to insights.

[Senator]

Because plural marriage today is not practiced,

Neither is human/child sacrifice. Yet we still rehash and draw upon the story of Abraham's sacrifice.

it is not part of the basics that we need for our salvation.

No, but the principles and lessons emeshed in the, Divine-meets-human narrative, are.

It is something to understand but why do we need to emphasize it?

Because of the narrative, and the integral part it played in the birth of this church.

Furthermore there are so many groups that have distorted what plural marriage means, which btw to the Lord is an abomination outside the New and Everlasting Covenant, that to make it part of the regular dialogue is in itself deceiving because it puts an emphasis on it that is not warranted.

All the more reason to teach about it, in my estimation.

Edited July 1, 2012 by Senator

[blackstrap]

I challenge you to show one instance of this from any manual, Church magazine article or other such source.

Pick any manual wherein D&C 132 is discussed,particularly the latest priesthood manuals.If the High Priest Group can't handle it I guess noone can.

[Senator]

We face issues our forefathers could not comprehend.

I would suggest the human experience, as separated by time, isn't as disconnected as you discribe.

There is nothing new under the sun

Why should we spend time talking about something that is in the past that they had to deal with, except to learn from their faith and determination to do what the Lord asked.

Exactly because of the bolded!

Edited July 1, 2012 by Senator

[Deborah]

Neither is human/child sacrifice. Yet we still rehash and draw upon the story of Abraham's sacrifice.

Note that I said I said "except to learn from their faith and determination to do what the Lord asked." That is why we discuss Abraham's sacrifice.

Because of the narrative, and the integral part it played in the birth of this church.

And I agree it should be mentioned as part of the history of this church. But it seems to me the critics are wanting us to discuss it in great depth without understanding it in context.

[CASteinman]

Pick any manual wherein D&C 132 is discussed,particularly the latest priesthood manuals.If the High Priest Group can't handle it I guess noone can.

If you do not understand the purpose of priesthood instruction manuals you may be confused anyway... but exactly how is the argument "milk before meat relevant" here? Does it appear in the manual? Is it used to explain something not taught in the manual?

Please be precise.

[Deborah]

I would suggest the human experience, as separated by time, isn't as disconnected as you discribe.

There is nothing new under the sun

Certainly not as pertains to principles to be learned. We all have our individual circumstances to learn those eternal and very ancient principles.

[Senator]

And I agree it should be mentioned as part of the history of this church. But it seems to me the critics are wanting us to discuss it in great depth without understanding it in context.

Why should we let the critics write our internal discussions?

Edited July 1, 2012 by Senator

[blackstrap]

Is section 132 still doctrine or not? It seems to be treated like section 89 in that the emphasis is almost always on the first half with only passing reference to the second half. I noticed this in the priesthood manual lately.The last half of 132 was not referenced AT ALL. Milk before meat apparently still applies even to those who have been in the church for over 50 years. I miss the separate manuals,sorry.

[Deborah]

Is section 132 still doctrine or not? It seems to be treated like section 89 in that the emphasis is almost always on the first half with only passing reference to the second half.

Because the first half is what matters and was given to explain the second half and the second half is not applicable to our day in that we are not required to live the Law of Abraham but we are still to abide by the New and Everlasting Covenant (which is a lot more than just marriage).