For Those Looking For Meat, How Would You Recognise It?

[Calm]

A number of posters go on quite a bit about only getting milk from the Church.

I would be interested to learn how they would identify when they were being fed "meat" instead.

Not just in vague terms that could apply to almost anything, but something we could use to test any particular concept.

Any takers?

PS: I have always found that having specific expectations of what one desires makes it more likely to actually get it and not instead be paying too much attention to the clutter and noise of daily life around one so that one misses out on what one believes one wants.

[teddyaware]

A number of posters go on quite a bit about only getting milk from the Church.

I would be interested to learn how they would identify when they were being fed "meat" instead.

Not just in vague terms that could apply to almost anything, but something we could use to test any particular concept.

Any takers?

PS: I have always found that having specific expectations of what one desires makes it more likely to actually get it and not instead be paying too much attention to the clutter and noise of daily life around one so that one misses out on what one believes one wants.

For those with spiritual eyes to see and spiritual ears to hear, there's plenty of "meat" being disseminated in Church today, especially in General Conference. I believe one of the main reasons why there are members who don't think the Church is serving meat is because they're not spiritual deep thinkers. Now in saying this I don't mean to say many of these folks are not intellectual, erudite, very clever or scholarly. It's just that the ability to be instructed by the Spirit is a gift, a spiritual that transcends mere human intellect and capacitation to acquire degrees and diplomas from worldly institutions of higher learning.

For the purposes of this thread, The Prophet Joseph Smith is a perfect case study of an individual so gifted. With very little formal education, he stands, in my book, as the foremost intellectual giant of the modern age. He was such a giant of intellect because he learned that the ultimate form of education is to be taught by God Himself, and not by the wisdom and learning of the academic luminaries of a fallen world.

"Reading the experience of others, or the revelation given to them, can never give us a comprehensive view of our condition and true relation to God. Knowledge of these things can only be obtained by experience through the ordinances of God set forth for that purpose. Could you gaze into heaven five minutes, you would know more than you would by reading all that ever was written on the subject." (Joseph Smith)

To the spiritually deep, all things are deep. To the spiritually shallow, all the world seems a desert.

Edited December 14, 2013 by teddyaware

[Calm]

Teddy, I very much agree with you, but I really want to hear from those who say there is no meat in Church and especially from someone who claimed the Church wouldn't even sanction meat, IIRC.

 

We all have different definitions and apparently this is one area where the differences can be extreme, so I would like to know how "meat" is defined for those who say it is lacking and how it could be identified so we can understand what they are exactly looking for and can test if something someone else sees as "meat" meets their requirements.

[The Nehor]

I think it is mostly a craving for intellectual stimulation. I could say that they are spiritually deadened and miss that kind of stimulation but that would be uncharitable.

[juliann]

I'm also rather curious as to why "the church" is held responsible for whatever meat is supposed to mean when we are given such clear instruction to get our own revelation.  It seems to me the church should be a very safe entry point for people at all levels with members taking responsibility to go further on their own...without upsetting the applecart for those who are still learning the gospel.  And if someone takes a lifetime doing that they are still going to be following Christ.   Obviously, fundamentalistic approaches annoy me...but I learned my lesson when the most eye rolling fundamentalist in our ward was the one who spent the most time visiting my invalid dad.

[Stone holm]

By the number of members who were enraged about them discussing the mysteries and the number of people who fainted dead away.

[Bob Crockett]

I get it mostly from the scriptures and scriptural commentaries.  There aren't very good LDS scriptural commentaries, but I've relied upon Reynolds & Sjodahl's commentary on the D&C, one of the very view books actually authorized by the First Presidency; BRM's Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, which is really terrible but at least it is something few have attempted; Jesus the Christ; and Grant Hardy's Book of Mormon reader.

Edited December 14, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[JLHPROF]

Teddy, I very much agree with you, but I really want to hear from those who say there is no meat in Church and especially from someone who claimed the Church wouldn't even sanction meat, IIRC.

 

We all have different definitions and apparently this is one area where the differences can be extreme, so I would like to know how "meat" is defined for those who say it is lacking and how it could be identified so we can understand what they are exactly looking for and can test if something someone else sees as "meat" meets their requirements.

 

Well, as one who frequently bemoans the lack of meat I feel I should respond.

 

For me, the number one factor defining meat of the gospel is whether the item is focused in our current day to day mortal life, or if the item of doctrine is focused in the eternities and the conditions of the Gods.  And it is different than "intellectual stimulation" as that is applying mortal academia to the gospel, not eternal depth.

 

Those lessons focused on the first principles or ordinances of the gospel have much spiritual merit, but don't qualify as meat since they are generally understood by members and apply to levels we've already achieved.  Lessons on tithing, baptism, repentance, gifts of the spirit, missionary work, the three degrees of glory etc are Mormonism 101, and if they are taught only on a basic level they stay in the milk category.  They have meat potential, but the lesson manuals keep the level basic and don't allow for a lot of depth.

 

The best examples I can give of "meat" sermons come from Joseph Smith - the King Follett discourse is completely meat, as is his discourse on the three grand orders of priesthood.  Agree with them or disagree with them BRM's Seven Deadly Heresies and BY's infamous discourses on the nature of Adam are meat, (which contradict each other).  The entirety of the temple endowment (when properly understood) is meat.  Orson Pratt's "The Seer" contains much meat.  Even the Lectures on Faith contain more meat on the first principle of faith than is generally taught.

 

In short, if the focus of a lesson is on basic principles that should be understood before baptism takes place (or perhaps from the unendowed), then it's milk.

If the focus of a lesson is on future or eternal condition or the way the Gods exist it's meat.  After all, become like God is our main goal.

I would love to see more discussion of the depth of the gospel.

[teddyaware]

Teddy, I very much agree with you, but I really want to hear from those who say there is no meat in Church and especially from someone who claimed the Church wouldn't even sanction meat, IIRC.

 

We all have different definitions and apparently this is one area where the differences can be extreme, so I would like to know how "meat" is defined for those who say it is lacking and how it could be identified so we can understand what they are exactly looking for and can test if something someone else sees as "meat" meets their requirements.

And I understand where you're going with this. I think what needs to be understood is that the things our leaders teach us in General Conference, as well as in other venues, are meant to be verbal springboards that will propel the inspired listener into the realm of the Spirit, wherein the Holy Ghost will enlarge, extend and amplify the words of the prophets beyond the basic framework of ideas presented in the addresses or writings. Often the further light and knowledge the Spirit conveys in this manner will be what the scriptures refer to as "the deep things of God" (i.e. things God reveals by revelation in strict confidence to those who are morally and spiritually prepared to receive them).

The Prophet Joseph Smith explained the above principle by the following example:

"There are three grand secrets lying in this chapter, 2 Pet. 1, which no man can dig out, unless by the

light of revelation, and which unlock the whole chapter as the things that are written are only hints of things which existed in the prophet's mind, which are not written concerning eternal glory." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 304)

So Joseph here tells us that the second chapter of Peter's second epistle contains only hints as to what Peter was actually thinking. Joseph goes on to say that personal revelation is only way to get beyond the mere hints that lay on the surface of Peter's writing and into the realm of deeper knowledge. In the same way, the meaning of the temple ordinances are not spoon fed to us either -- only revelation can plum the depths to find the mysteries of godliness contained therein.

So those who complain there isn't enough meat being taught are simply revealing for all to see that they want to be spoon fed, rather than put in the faithful spiritual work necessary in order to become one of those who are made privy the revelations that comprise the meat of the gospel.

Edited December 15, 2013 by teddyaware

[JLHPROF]

So those who complain there isn't enough meat being taught are simply revealing for all to see that they want to be spoon fed, rather than put in the faithful spiritual work necessary in order to become one of those who are made privy the revelations that comprise the meat of the gospel.

 

I don't think that is the case at all.  It is not an issue of wanting to be spoonfed (aka taught) instead of putting in the spiritual work.

It is an issue of having a forum where deeper doctrines can be openly discussed.  Joseph Smith said he always taught stronger doctrines publicly than he did privately.  Our current church gatherings teach the exact opposite, and deep discussion tends to be frowned upon as "speculation" or "contention".

 

All those of us who want meat are seeking is a forum within the church we love where the eternal mysteries are allowed to be discussed, we aren't asking to be spoonfed the mysteries.

[Tacenda]

The meat is that we can be Gods and Goddesses, simple! That's it, nuff said. We never talk about the end goal. Many members don't even know about it. Especially new members! Were you told Ellen? If you're reading. I didn't know about it and went to the temple for years. That's it in a nut shell. Besides the full history, the mistakes, etc.

[Stone holm]

Well, as one who frequently bemoans the lack of meat I feel I should respond.

 

For me, the number one factor defining meat of the gospel is whether the item is focused in our current day to day mortal life, or if the item of doctrine is focused in the eternities and the conditions of the Gods.  And it is different than "intellectual stimulation" as that is applying mortal academia to the gospel, not eternal depth.

 

Those lessons focused on the first principles or ordinances of the gospel have much spiritual merit, but don't qualify as meat since they are generally understood by members and apply to levels we've already achieved.  Lessons on tithing, baptism, repentance, gifts of the spirit, missionary work, the three degrees of glory etc are Mormonism 101, and if they are taught only on a basic level they stay in the milk category.  They have meat potential, but the lesson manuals keep the level basic and don't allow for a lot of depth.

 

The best examples I can give of "meat" sermons come from Joseph Smith - the King Follett discourse is completely meat, as is his discourse on the three grand orders of priesthood.  Agree with them or disagree with them BRM's Seven Deadly Heresies and BY's infamous discourses on the nature of Adam are meat, (which contradict each other).  The entirety of the temple endowment (when properly understood) is meat.  Orson Pratt's "The Seer" contains much meat.  Even the Lectures on Faith contain more meat on the first principle of faith than is generally taught.

 

In short, if the focus of a lesson is on basic principles that should be understood before baptism takes place (or perhaps from the unendowed), then it's milk.

If the focus of a lesson is on future or eternal condition or the way the Gods exist it's meat.  After all, become like God is our main goal.

I would love to see more discussion of the depth of the gospel.

More seriously I agree with this, Joseph taught that it was imperative that we learn about the nature of God.

[DBMormon]

As your OP is directed at least in part to me, I would say this.   I want the manuals to soften up on teaching people direct lines in the sand and instead refer them to rely and depend on the the spirit

- teach directly that blind obedience is not the goal and that all should live by the spirit.

-  Teach people that there are exceptions to rules and that sometimes commandments are in conflict.  Teach people how to make the call when this happens

- Teach people that there Tithing can be 10% of net, gross, or leftover and it is between them and the Lord - haven't seen that in the manual despite the First Presidency stating that as the official policy

- Acknowledge some of the flaws of our leaders rather then paint them as near perfect men we should idol worship

- Give people more of the bumps in our history so they can be prepared for the real world

- Don't over simplify why Thomas Marsh or Simonds (Symonds) ryder (rider) left the church

-  Let's at least give as much air time to treasure digging as Leg surgery

- Let help people know that the Word of wisdom has been fluid, that both Joseph Smith and Jesus drank real alcohol so people can see how fluid it was. 

-  Help people see that many of the lines we draw in our wards and in our culture really don't exist (private word of wisdom interpretations)

-  Help members really come to terms with Leaders who attempt to speak for the Lord but whom the Church actually does not acknowledge them doing so "Mormon Doctrine" "Doctrines of Salvation"

-  Lets help members see that Doctrine does change and that sometimes the Lord's true Church really does screw up (don't put it on the website in a place that one has to be aware where to find it or get lucky but let's have a lesson on this in our Sunday School)

- Let's discuss Grace and Works, Justification and Sanctification, the atonement in deeper ways

 

Do you want more?

Edited December 15, 2013 by DBMormon

[halconero]

The meat is that we can be Gods and Goddesses, simple! That's it, nuff said. We never talk about the end goal. Many members don't even know about it. Especially new members! Were you told Ellen? If you're reading. I didn't know about it and went to the temple for years. That's it in a nut shell. Besides the full history, the mistakes, etc.

 

I'm sorry, I just don't see a lot of this.

 

I mean...I'm preparing a lesson for tomorrow that includes this:

 

Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith inJesus Christ will receive special blessings. The Lord has promised, “All things are theirs” (D&C 76:59). These are some of the blessings given to exalted people:

1. 1. 

   They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76:62).

2. 2. 

   They will become gods (see D&C 132:20–23).

3. 3. 

   They will be united eternally with their righteous family members and will be able to have eternal increase.

4. 4. 

   They will receive a fulness of joy.

5. 5. 

   They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge (see D&C 132:19–20). President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The Father has promised through the Son that all that he has shall be given to those who are obedient to His commandments. They shall increase in knowledge, wisdom, and power, going from grace to grace, until the fulness of the perfect day shall burst upon them” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 2:36; italics in original).

And this:

"The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: “When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil [died] before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 268).

Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 345–46).

Our Heavenly Father knows our trials, our weaknesses, and our sins. He has compassion and mercy on us. He wants us to succeed even as He did."

 

What class is this you may ask?

 

Gospel Principles...the class taught to investigators, less active members and recent converts.

I've taught that lesson (Chapter 47, for those wondering, it's the last in the manual) about 5 times the past 3 years. Once near the end of my mission when we had to substitute in a YSA ward, 3 times as a Gospel Principles teacher in two different wards, and 1 more time as part of an Elders' Quorum presidency.

Tomorrow I'll be teaching it for a 6th. 

 

Not to mention that it says the same thing explicitly in the preceding chapter on Final Judgement.

Edited December 15, 2013 by halconero

[JLHPROF]

As your OP is directed at least in part to me, I would say this.   I want the manuals to soften up on teaching people direct lines in the sand and instead refer them to rely and depend on the the spirit

- teach directly that blind obedience is not the goal and that all should live by the spirit.

-  Teach people that there are exceptions to rules and that sometimes commandments are in conflict.  Teach people how to make the call when this happens

- Teach people that there Tithing can be 10% of net, gross, or leftover and it is between them and the Lord - haven't seen that in the manual despite the First Presidency stating that as the official policy

- Acknowledge some of the flaws of our leaders rather then paint them as near perfect men we should idol worship

- Give people more of the bumps in our history so they can be prepared for the real world

- Don't over simplify why Thomas Marsh or Simonds (Symonds) ryder (rider) left the church

-  Let's at least give as much air time to treasure digging as Leg surgery

- Let help people know that the Word of wisdom has been fluid, that both Joseph Smith and Jesus drank real alcohol so people can see how fluid it was. 

-  Help people see that many of the lines we draw in our wards and in our culture really don't exist (private word of wisdom interpretations)

-  Help members really come to terms with Leaders who attempt to speak for the Lord but whom the Church actually does not acknowledge them doing so "Mormon Doctrine" "Doctrines of Salvation"

-  Lets help members see that Doctrine does change and that sometimes the Lord's true Church really does screw up (don't put it on the website in a place that one has to be aware where to find it or get lucky but let's have a lesson on this in our Sunday School)

- Let's discuss Grace and Works, Justification and Sanctification, the atonement in deeper ways

 

Do you want more?

 

Ok, DB & I both want more meat, but I see a clear difference here.

What I want to see is more doctrinal meat.  What I don't want to see and I think is mislabeled as "meat" is a focus on academia or on going against the church status quo.  In the above quote I only see 2 or 3 items I would remotely label meat.

 

The other items seem more like a desire to bring up and flog the flaws in our history, our church and our religion.  This is NOT the meat.  This is simply faith weaking discussion.  Not that those flaws should be ignored, but this meat vs milk is an issue of depth of doctrine, and should not be changed into an issue of bristling against authority or tradition - there is a definite "fight the man" tone to this quote.  Rebellious discussion does not have a good history among the children of God.  But understanding the mysteries of eternity that are so neglected helps those children to become as God.

[BlueDreams]

The meat is that we can be Gods and Goddesses, simple! That's it, nuff said. We never talk about the end goal. Many members don't even know about it. Especially new members! Were you told Ellen? If you're reading. I didn't know about it and went to the temple for years. That's it in a nut shell. Besides the full history, the mistakes, etc.

I have to agree with Halconero on this. I was quite surprised to hear that was the one....considering my current ward I swear it's mentioned at least twice a month in some sort of gospel lesson at church by commenters.

 

With luv,

BD

[Tacenda]

I have to agree with Halconero on this. I was quite surprised to hear that was the one....considering my current ward I swear it's mentioned at least twice a month in some sort of gospel lesson at church by commenters.

With luv,

BD

You and Halconero are making me question my listening, reading and comprehension skills. Edited December 15, 2013 by Tacenda

[DBMormon]

Ok, DB & I both want more meat, but I see a clear difference here.

What I want to see is more doctrinal meat.  What I don't want to see and I think is mislabeled as "meat" is a focus on academia or on going against the church status quo.  In the above quote I only see 2 or 3 items I would remotely label meat.

 

The other items seem more like a desire to bring up and flog the flaws in our history, our church and our religion.  This is NOT the meat.  This is simply faith weaking discussion.  Not that those flaws should be ignored, but this meat vs milk is an issue of depth of doctrine, and should not be changed into an issue of bristling against authority or tradition - there is a definite "fight the man" tone to this quote.  Rebellious discussion does not have a good history among the children of God.  But understanding the mysteries of eternity that are so neglected helps those children to become as God.

 

 

I disagree - I want to help people learn to live by the spirit and to do so that have to learn that not everything is spelled out and to make their way through nuance.

[JLHPROF]

I'm sorry, I just don't see a lot of this.

 

I mean...I'm preparing a lesson for tomorrow that includes this:

 

Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith inJesus Christ will receive special blessings. The Lord has promised, “All things are theirs” (D&C 76:59). These are some of the blessings given to exalted people:

1. 1. 

   They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76:62).

2. 2. 

   They will become gods (see D&C 132:20–23).

3. 3. 

   They will be united eternally with their righteous family members and will be able to have eternal increase.

4. 4. 

   They will receive a fulness of joy.

5. 5. 

   They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge (see D&C 132:19–20). President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The Father has promised through the Son that all that he has shall be given to those who are obedient to His commandments. They shall increase in knowledge, wisdom, and power, going from grace to grace, until the fulness of the perfect day shall burst upon them” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 2:36; italics in original).

And this:

"The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: “When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil [died] before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 268).

Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 345–46).

Our Heavenly Father knows our trials, our weaknesses, and our sins. He has compassion and mercy on us. He wants us to succeed even as He did."

 

What class is this you may ask?

 

Gospel Principles...the class taught to investigators, less active members and recent converts.

I've taught that lesson (Chapter 47, for those wondering, it's the last in the manual) about 5 times the past 3 years. Once near the end of my mission when we had to substitute in a YSA ward, 3 times as a Gospel Principles teacher in two different wards, and 1 more time as part of an Elders' Quorum presidency.

Tomorrow I'll be teaching it for a 6th. 

 

Not to mention that it says the same thing explicitly in the preceding chapter on Final Judgement.

 

The issue with meat vs milk in this lesson isn't "does the Church teach that we can become Gods?" but the issue is "what does it MEAN that we can become Gods, and HOW did God become God".  That is the depth.  I'll give one example from the above lesson plan:

 

Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did”

 

Ok, this teaches us that we can become like God.  At that level it's almost milk with a bit of meat.  Now let's ask some questions based on this that would fall in the meat category:

1. Does this quote mean that Joseph Smith taught that since every world has a Savior that our Heavenly Father was the Savior of his earth too?  It seems like he clearly taught that.

2. Does that mean that only former Saviors get to be God of a world or that they are the first to become God of a world others have later opportunties?

3. What happened to our Heavenly Father's earth?  Was it Celestialized as our earth is prophesied to become?

4. God was once a man like us - what are the implications of that fact.

5. What does eternal increase really mean - populating worlds, reproducing the race of the Gods (the Eloheim), progressing and growing for all eternities.

 

Ok - discuss these points (and others) in a lesson on God being a man like us and we might begin to scratch the surface of understanding what it means that we are potential Gods.

[JLHPROF]

I disagree - I want to help people learn to live by the spirit and to do so that have to learn that not everything is spelled out and to make their way through nuance.

 

Well, that I agree with and can get behind

[halconero]

The issue with meat vs milk in this lesson isn't "does the Church teach that we can become Gods?" but the issue is "what does it MEAN that we can become Gods, and HOW did God become God".  That is the depth.  I'll give one example from the above lesson plan:

 

Ok, this teaches us that we can become like God.  At that level it's almost milk with a bit of meat.  Now let's ask some questions based on this that would fall in the meat category:

1. Does this quote mean that Joseph Smith taught that since every world has a Savior that our Heavenly Father was the Savior of his earth too?  It seems like he clearly taught that.

2. Does that mean that only former Saviors get to be God of a world or that they are the first to become God of a world others have later opportunties?

3. What happened to our Heavenly Father's earth?  Was it Celestialized as our earth is prophesied to become?

4. God was once a man like us - what are the implications of that fact.

5. What does eternal increase really mean - populating worlds, reproducing the race of the Gods (the Eloheim), progressing and growing for all eternities.

 

Ok - discuss these points (and others) in a lesson on God being a man like us and we might begin to scratch the surface of understanding what it means that we are potential Gods.

 

I think you're going from meat into that gross soy substitute stuff vegans like to sneak onto my plate, i.e. not meat at all.

 

How much speculation do you want on that which hasn't been explicitly revealed?

[JLHPROF]

I think you're going from meat into that gross soy substitute stuff vegans like to sneak onto my plate, i.e. not meat at all.

 

How much speculation do you want on that which hasn't been explicitly revealed?

 

Not speculation, just intelligent reasoning as God expects from man.  When the Prophet Joseph Smith says "the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” it is NOT speculation to ask if our Heavenly Father was the Savior of a world.  It is educated reasoning based on a prophet's inspired words.  We don't need EVERY word we believe to be explicitly revealed, God expects us to study and come to understanding of the Gospel.

Believe me, the things I said are meat.  Gross soy substitute stuff would be speculating about truths on which we have no light.  Like, what is God's favorite color?

 

WHENEVER we read the scriptures we apply our reasoned understanding to what is written.  We do the same thing with the inspired teaching of the Lord's prophets in our generation.   This is not speculation, it is simply using the gifts the Lord gave us to come to a deeper understanding of the gospel.

[Calm]

By the number of members who were enraged about them discussing the mysteries and the number of people who fainted dead away.

I am sorry, I don't understand what you are saying here.

[Calm]

.  Joseph Smith said he always taught stronger doctrines publicly than he did privately.

this is a new one to me, I think. CFR please.

[JLHPROF]

this is a new one to me, I think. CFR please.

"I am bold to declare I have taught all the strong doctrines publicly, and always teach stronger doctrines in public than in private." - Joseph Smith

History of the Church 6:473-479 (also TPJS pg 370).