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

[Calm]

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.

You kind of do that though by spelling everything out...or so it seems to me with the way you list things and have step by step processes.

[Calm]

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.

Do you feel we have definite answers to these questions? If so, where have you found them...and if not, are you looking for discussions that come to some sort of conclusion or instead a discussion that shares different ideas and implications?

[Calm]

"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).

Very interesting. Thank you.

I would really like to know his reasoning for this...why keep private doctrines simpler? Why wouldn't they at least be the same?

And very different than what is in the NT with Jesus, IMO.

[JLHPROF]

Do you feel we have definite answers to these questions? If so, where have you found them...and if not, are you looking for discussions that come to some sort of conclusion or instead a discussion that shares different ideas and implications?

 

Well, a bit of both.  I don't expect definitive answers.  I do prefer discussions that share different ideas and implications.  However, I do believe that we downplay or ignore pieces of revealed truth and fail to connect them and that reasonable conclusions can be made and should be a part of our gospel study together.

 

I'll give you one example from my list based on Joseph's quote concerning God as man:

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

 

Ok, so do we have to speculate or is this a revealed truth?

 

Moses 1:33-39 - There have been many worlds that God created, all created with the goal of making man immortal and eternal (like God).

King Follett discourse - God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did, and I will show it from the Bible.

D&C 130:8-10 - God dwells on a great Urim & Thummin type planet, Our earth in a santicfied & immortal condition will become the same (and there are higher kingdoms).

D&C 77:1 - The earth will become sanctified, eternal and immortal.

D&C 88: 17-20,25-26 - The earth will die & be resurrected celestially and those who are resurrected celestial bodies will inherit it and dwell on it as resurrected beings.  Heavenly Father is a resurrected being from his Earth.

 

So asking what happened to the earth our Heavenly Father dwelt on as a mortal man doesn't require a whole lot of speculation if we are only willing to discuss a little deeper and apply simple reasoning.

 

So it is with so many truths we study at Church, if only we are willing to study and discuss beyond the milk.

Edited December 15, 2013 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

But haven't teachings like Adam-God come about by someone reasoning? How would you avoid reasoning that leads into error no matter how sincere and devoted that reasoning is? Orson Pratt's work was considered necessary to be disavowed by the Church. BY's teaching of Adam-God led to discipline issues IIRC, people's standing in the Church being questioned for what was later rejected.

If one accepts reasoning as a way to establish doctrine...or at least as a way to establish what we discuss in church as teachings, how to avoid errors that may lead to significant consequences?

Serious question...not a rhetorical question meant to show why reasoning without revelation is bad as I can see it might be interpreted. I am finding your discussion of the meat/milk debate one of the more thoughtful versions I've encountered.

Edited December 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[JLHPROF]

But haven't teachings like Adam-God come about by someone reasoning? How would you avoid reasoning that leads into error no matter how sincere and devoted that reasoning is? Orson Pratt's work was considered necessary to be disavowed by the Church. BY's teaching of Adam-God led to discipline issues IIRC, people's standing in the Church being questioned for what was later rejected.

If one accepts reasoning as a way to establish doctrine...or at least as a way to establish what we discuss in church as teachings, how to avoid errors that may lead to significant consequences?

Serious question...not a rhetorical question meant to show why reasoning without revelation is bad as I can see it might be interpreted. I am finding your discussion of the meat/milk debate one of the more thoughtful versions I've encountered.

 

Oh I find this very simple...it doesn't establish doctrine.  Reasoning is for our own personal benefit.  What discussion we have in Gospel Doctrine doesn't establish official church doctrine.  But it was Joseph & Oliver discussing and reasoning on the necessity of Baptism that led to the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood.  We HAVE to discuss and apply our God-given reason along with the spirit and come to understanding.

Sometimes we get it wrong, but that is just part of progression and learning, like any small child.  But we don't stay in Kindergarten practicing our alphabet forever either.

It's true that there can be lasting consequences when someone starts preaching pet doctrines and private interpretation of scripture.  Joseph Smith also said: "What is the rule of interpretation? Just no interpretation at all. Understand it precisely as it reads." TPJS 276.

 

But I think I have shown the value in going beyond the milk and the first principles of the gospel, and I have shown my opinion as to how to recognize the meat - not as academia, but as reading what the scriptures and prophets have taught us on the things of eternity instead of limiting ourselves to those things that brought us into the Kingdom.

 

And I wish we had more opportunity to discuss the meat.  A man is saved no faster than he gains knowledge and knowledge is the difference between exaltation and mere salvation, at least according to the prophet.  Limiting ourselves to the first principles and not moving forward in knowledge is damming up our progression.

[Stone holm]

But haven't teachings like Adam-God come about by someone reasoning? How would you avoid reasoning that leads into error no matter how sincere and devoted that reasoning is? Orson Pratt's work was considered necessary to be disavowed by the Church. BY's teaching of Adam-God led to discipline issues IIRC, people's standing in the Church being questioned for what was later rejected.

If one accepts reasoning as a way to establish doctrine...or at least as a way to establish what we discuss in church as teachings, how to avoid errors that may lead to significant consequences?

Serious question...not a rhetorical question meant to show why reasoning without revelation is bad as I can see it might be interpreted. I am finding your discussion of the meat/milk debate one of the more thoughtful versions I've encountered.

Reasoning is expected of us, and if we reason it out wrong in good faith, The Lord will correct us. The problem with being afraid of using reasoning is that it discourages us from actually thinking about doctrine. The opposite merely sets us up to be led astray by false teachings by those we believe are speaking for God.

[CV75]

Very interesting. Thank you.

I would really like to know his reasoning for this...why keep private doctrines simpler? Why wouldn't they at least be the same?

And very different than what is in the NT with Jesus, IMO.

Just butting in: for me, "strong" does not necesarily mean complex (the principle that Joseph taught in this sermon is really quite simple), but that the negative reaction it solicits from the worldly/carnal mind, and the beneft it gives the faithful, is strong.

[teddyaware]

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.

But a Church sponsored "forum" is the wrong place for the mysteries to be taught. It would seem that by very design such a forum would allow those who are not ready to be exposed to the "meat" and to wade up to their eyeballs into things that will likely confuse, perplex, offend of mystify. The are several scriptural passages that make it clear the Lord wants His people to know only those things they are ready to know and digest. Alma makes this principle unmistakably clear:

"9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; andhe that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.

11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his willdown to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell." (Alma 12)

Edited December 15, 2013 by teddyaware

[halconero]

Oh I find this very simple...it doesn't establish doctrine.  Reasoning is for our own personal benefit.  What discussion we have in Gospel Doctrine doesn't establish official church doctrine.  But it was Joseph & Oliver discussing and reasoning on the necessity of Baptism that led to the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood.  We HAVE to discuss and apply our God-given reason along with the spirit and come to understanding.

Sometimes we get it wrong, but that is just part of progression and learning, like any small child.  But we don't stay in Kindergarten practicing our alphabet forever either.

It's true that there can be lasting consequences when someone starts preaching pet doctrines and private interpretation of scripture.  Joseph Smith also said: "What is the rule of interpretation? Just no interpretation at all. Understand it precisely as it reads." TPJS 276.

 

But I think I have shown the value in going beyond the milk and the first principles of the gospel, and I have shown my opinion as to how to recognize the meat - not as academia, but as reading what the scriptures and prophets have taught us on the things of eternity instead of limiting ourselves to those things that brought us into the Kingdom.

 

And I wish we had more opportunity to discuss the meat.  A man is saved no faster than he gains knowledge and knowledge is the difference between exaltation and mere salvation, at least according to the prophet.  Limiting ourselves to the first principles and not moving forward in knowledge is damming up our progression.

 

I can agree with that. 

 

One thing with which I disagree is that such discussion, meditation, and pondering need take place in all sunday school meetings. I would say that the purpose of those meetings is to expound on the revealed word, invite the Spirit, and encourage those in attendance to go and receive revelation through prayer, discussion, study and pondering. Of course many don't, and this can be the fault of both the teacher and those in attendance at time. (Can you imagine if people actually studied the lessons before coming to class, armed with their own insights, revelations, and guidance?)

 

The risk in speculating so much in a 40-50 minute period is that many would leave confused, rather than uplifted, and do not then go ponder these things. 

 

And so I teach simple, but still weighty, truths in my class. I do teach that we can potentially become gods and goddesses, that Heavenly Father had a mortal experience, and that we can obtain these things in and through the atonement of Christ. I also write down scriptures, ask questions, and bear testimony that all there should go and study these things on their own, discuss them with their friends and family, and even ponder them in the temple.

[teddyaware]

Very interesting. Thank you.

I would really like to know his reasoning for this...why keep private doctrines simpler? Why wouldn't they at least be the same?

And very different than what is in the NT with Jesus, IMO.

One cannot take one quote from the Prophet Joseph Smith, in isolation from all the other things he taught in relation to the mysteries of the kingdom, and expect to come up with a definitive understanding of his views in relation to how we should handle the "meat" of the gospel. For example, the following two quotations from the prophet must be factored in before we can fully understand what he meant when he said he taught deeper things in public than he did in private. Here they are:

"If I revealed all that has been made known to me, scarcely a man on this stand would stay with me.' and 'Brethren, if I were to tell you all I know of the kingdom of God, I do know that you would rise up and kill me." (Joseph Smith)

and...

" The reason we do not have the secrets of the Lord revealed unto us, is because we do not keep them but reveal them; we do not keep our own secrets, but reveal our difficulties to the world, even to our enemies, then how would we keep the secrets of the Lord? I can keep a secret till Doomsday. (DHC 4:478-479"

After factoring in the above two quotes, it's obvious that in the first quote in question the Prophet Joseph was actually saying that he teaches in public only the deeper things THAT HE IS ALLOWED TO TEACH. There are a great many things pertaining to the gospel he kept secret, things that he never revealed either publicly or privately

Edited December 15, 2013 by teddyaware

[JLHPROF]

But a Church sponsored "forum" is the wrong place for the mysteries to be taught. It would seem that by very design such a forum would allow those who are not ready to be exposed to the "meat" and to wade up to their eyeballs into things that will likely confuse, perplex, offend of mystify.

 

One thing with which I disagree is that such discussion, meditation, and pondering need take place in all sunday school meetings. I would say that the purpose of those meetings is to expound on the revealed word, invite the Spirit, and encourage those in attendance to go and receive revelation through prayer, discussion, study and pondering. Of course many don't, and this can be the fault of both the teacher and those in attendance at time. (Can you imagine if people actually studied the lessons before coming to class, armed with their own insights, revelations, and guidance?)

 

 

So where then is a member supposed to discuss and expand their understanding of the gospel if there is no forum within the church that is appropriate for discussing the mysteries.  It seems to me that more meat gets discussed on this board than in the Church, and since it has no guidance from priesthood leadership we get weird and wild (and sometimes fun) theories.

I think it is far more harmful to allow members to gather privately and start espousing all their personal theories and wild speculations.

 

I think it is so important that the Church should provide a forum wherein those who are experienced in the doctrines and history of the gospel can discuss deeply, reason spiritually, and ponder the mysteries of godliness.

And while that forum may not be sacrament meeting there should be a forum provided by the Church, in my opinion.

[Flyonthewall]

Just butting in: for me, "strong" does not necesarily mean complex (the principle that Joseph taught in this sermon is really quite simple), but that the negative reaction it solicits from the worldly/carnal mind, and the beneft it gives the faithful, is strong.

I was thinking along the same lines... "strong" does not necessarily mean "deep" or "little known" or "meat".

It could simply mean "well founded" or "easy to understand".

I would suspect that doctrines of the church are like ogres...er onions...they have layers. The meat may be found in a deeper comprehension of the milk.

Take a look at the parable of the Good Samaritan. If you simply read the words of the parable, it is a good lesson in how to treat others(milk); but if you look a the symbolism of each part of the parable, it takes on a much deeper and richer meaning(meat).

Like the parables, that were taught with the purpose of keeping deeper understandings hidden until the hearer is ready to understand, so too are the doctrines. The meat is out there in the open but inaccessible until the individual is ready for it.

IMHO.

[JLHPROF]

One cannot take one quote from the Prophet Joseph Smith, in isolation from all the other things he taught in relation to the mysteries of the kingdom, and expect to come up with a definitive understanding of his views in relation to how we should handle the "meat" of the gospel. For example, the following two quotations from the prophet must be factored in before we can fully understand what he meant when he said he taught deeper things in public than he did in private. Here they are:

"If I revealed all that has been made known to me, scarcely a man on this stand would stay with me.' and 'Brethren, if I were to tell you all I know of the kingdom of God, I do know that you would rise up and kill me." (Joseph Smith)

and...

" The reason we do not have the secrets of the Lord revealed unto us, is because we do not keep them but reveal them; we do not keep our own secrets, but reveal our difficulties to the world, even to our enemies, then how would we keep the secrets of the Lord? I can keep a secret till Doomsday. (DHC 4:478-479"

After factoring in the above two quotes, it's obvious that in the first quote in question the Prophet Joseph was actually saying that he teaches in public only the deeper things THAT HE IS ALLOWED TO TEACH. There are a great many things pertaining to the gospel he kept secret, things that he never revealed either publicly or privately

 

I agree with this, but I don't find your quote and my quote mutually exclusive.  Joseph Smith did teach stronger doctrines publicly, but he also kept secret those things he wasn't allowed to teach.

He kept things like the temple ordinances, plural marriage, second anointings etc quiet and limited to those who were prepared.

But he also taught things like the King Follett sermon, the three grand orders of priesthood, the principles of calling and election and so many other things publicly.

 

This aversion to meat just limits our progression, out of fear that we might learn something we aren't immediately ready to accept and we might have to overcome our weakness.  Going to High School can be scary after Elementary school, but eventually we have to move on and learn more.  And it would be better if a forum were provided to help those who have finished elementary gospel to move into secondary gospel.

 

Joseph also taught that "God hath not revealed anything to Joseph, but what he will make known unto the Twelve, and even the least Saint may know all things as fast as he is able to bear them..."

We and all members are responsible to make ourselves ready to receive meat and that requires being willing to move beyond the first principles and basic doctrines.  If we don't then we are only limiting ourselves and limiting God's ability to use us in his Kingdom.

[teddyaware]

I agree with this, but I don't find your quote and my quote mutually exclusive.  Joseph Smith did teach stronger doctrines publicly, but he also kept secret those things he wasn't allowed to teach.

He kept things like the temple ordinances, plural marriage, second anointings etc quiet and limited to those who were prepared.

But he also taught things like the King Follett sermon, the three grand orders of priesthood, the principles of calling and election and so many other things publicly.

 

This aversion to meat just limits our progression, out of fear that we might learn something we aren't immediately ready to accept and we might have to overcome our weakness.  Going to High School can be scary after Elementary school, but eventually we have to move on and learn more.  And it would be better if a forum were provided to help those who have finished elementary gospel to move into secondary gospel.

 

Joseph also taught that "God hath not revealed anything to Joseph, but what he will make known unto the Twelve, and even the least Saint may know all things as fast as he is able to bear them..."

We and all members are responsible to make ourselves ready to receive meat and that requires being willing to move beyond the first principles and basic doctrines.  If we don't then we are only limiting ourselves and limiting God's ability to use us in his Kingdom.

I wholeheartedly agree. That's why I'm what you might call a voracious "gospel meat eater." I delve into the mysteries all the time; I just keep the majority of what I learn to myself.

[teddyaware]

So where then is a member supposed to discuss and expand their understanding of the gospel if there is no forum within the church that is appropriate for discussing the mysteries.  It seems to me that more meat gets discussed on this board than in the Church, and since it has no guidance from priesthood leadership we get weird and wild (and sometimes fun) theories.

I think it is far more harmful to allow members to gather privately and start espousing all their personal theories and wild speculations.

 

I think it is so important that the Church should provide a forum wherein those who are experienced in the doctrines and history of the gospel can discuss deeply, reason spiritually, and ponder the mysteries of godliness.

And while that forum may not be sacrament meeting there should be a forum provided by the Church, in my opinion.

There is such a forum. It's called the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost and you.

Edited December 15, 2013 by teddyaware

[The Nehor]

So where then is a member supposed to discuss and expand their understanding of the gospel if there is no forum within the church that is appropriate for discussing the mysteries.  It seems to me that more meat gets discussed on this board than in the Church, and since it has no guidance from priesthood leadership we get weird and wild (and sometimes fun) theories.

I think it is far more harmful to allow members to gather privately and start espousing all their personal theories and wild speculations.

 

I think it is so important that the Church should provide a forum wherein those who are experienced in the doctrines and history of the gospel can discuss deeply, reason spiritually, and ponder the mysteries of godliness.

And while that forum may not be sacrament meeting there should be a forum provided by the Church, in my opinion.

 

Through experience I can tell you that grouping those interested in the "mysteries" you get more weird and wild theories thrown around then you otherwise do. The Church Leadership knows this. I have seen "Gospel Intellectuals" classes and small gatherings of people meeting to discuss what they call "deep doctrine". They invariably blow up in fireworks of wild speculation, ego, contention, and apostasies as the learned start imagining that they are wise. If I were a Bishop and was given the option to have such a class EVEN IF I was in charge and always present I would turn it down. I would more likely run away screaming.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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.

(No pun intended) Meat is something you can sink your teeth into, and harder to crew. I think the milk if given to us to nurse along our faith. Meat is when we move from faith to knowing...unshakable faith if you will. You can survive on a milk only diet, but not as satisfying as the different food group. Edited December 16, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[CV75]

Through experience I can tell you that grouping those interested in the "mysteries" you get more weird and wild theories thrown around then you otherwise do. The Church Leadership knows this. I have seen "Gospel Intellectuals" classes and small gatherings of people meeting to discuss what they call "deep doctrine". They invariably blow up in fireworks of wild speculation, ego, contention, and apostasies as the learned start imagining that they are wise. If I were a Bishop and was given the option to have such a class EVEN IF I was in charge and always present I would turn it down. I would more likely run away screaming.

This reminds me of why we have 2 Timothy 2 where it says to avoid “foolish and unlearned questions [as to the things of the Spirit] …knowing that they do gender strifes.”

 

Where 1 Corinthians 2 shows that the “meat” is that which is of a most spiritual nature, I don’t know why anyone would disparage the “milk” (1 Corinthians 3), since a meat lover would be able to discern both good and evil (Hebrews 5) only by practicing the first principles unto repentance, in humility and meekness (D&C 19).

[halconero]

Awesome class today in Gospel Principles, we watched the "Earthly Father, Heavenly Father" mormon message, a small portion of President Ucthdorf's talk from October 2011 on what we mean to Heavenly Father and discussed exaltation.

We talked of exaltation as the uplifting and maturation of children in a family, enabled through sacrifice, familial covenants (both earthly and with our Heavenly Family), and our ability to become as God is.

We explored the idea that God knows from experience what we go through in this mortal condition.

All of us left with a stronger conviction of our familial and species relationship with God, gratitude for Christ's atonement, and a deeper understanding of his love, power, and understanding.

These are all simple things, but deepened by talking of "meat."

I don't think talking of Urim and Thummim, speculating on that which has not been revealed, or discussing the exact actions we can undertake as gods would have produced the same results, nor the same spirit.

Will we learn those nuances? Indeed, but it's useless to go for the higher rungs on a ladder before climbing the first few steps.

Perhaps institute, or seminary would be a place to discuss such things, as well as personal and communal study. But I believe that the Church is best trying to help us understand the fundamental "rungs of a ladder" so we can climb the higher ones. There is meat there, but we have to learn how to cook it, before it becomes useful to us.

[Calm]

Just butting in: for me, "strong" does not necesarily mean complex (the principle that Joseph taught in this sermon is really quite simple), but that the negative reaction it solicits from the worldly/carnal mind, and the beneft it gives the faithful, is strong.

Are you saying what he meant was he was more forceful when speaking publicly and had a gentler touch privately?

[Calm]

So if I remember correctly the way things were as a child, RS and Priesthood and possibly Senior Sunday School was set up to allow for such discussion that JLHProf would like to see.

If I am right, perhaps someone a few years older than I am can inform us what they were like in his or her experience.

[JLHPROF]

Awesome class today in Gospel Principles, we watched the "Earthly Father, Heavenly Father" mormon message, a small portion of President Ucthdorf's talk from October 2011 on what we mean to Heavenly Father and discussed exaltation.

We talked of exaltation as the uplifting and maturation of children in a family, enabled through sacrifice, familial covenants (both earthly and with our Heavenly Family), and our ability to become as God is.

We explored the idea that God knows from experience what we go through in this mortal condition.

All of us left with a stronger conviction of our familial and species relationship with God, gratitude for Christ's atonement, and a deeper understanding of his love, power, and understanding.

These are all simple things, but deepened by talking of "meat."

I don't think talking of Urim and Thummim, speculating on that which has not been revealed, or discussing the exact actions we can undertake as gods would have produced the same results, nor the same spirit.

Will we learn those nuances? Indeed, but it's useless to go for the higher rungs on a ladder before climbing the first few steps.

Perhaps institute, or seminary would be a place to discuss such things, as well as personal and communal study. But I believe that the Church is best trying to help us understand the fundamental "rungs of a ladder" so we can climb the higher ones. There is meat there, but we have to learn how to cook it, before it becomes useful to us.

 

Oh, I think you misunderstand me somewhat.  It sounds to me like you talked about the meat of exaltation, just from a different perspective.

Cosmology is only one of many sides of the meat of the gospel.  Let me clarify.

 

1. We explored the idea that God knows from experience what we go through in this mortal condition. - This is 100% a meat approach.

2. We talked of exaltation as the uplifting and maturation of children in a family. - Definitely meat.

3. our ability to become as God is - Meat if some depth was included as to what that means.

 

Surprise!  Sounds like you had a meat lesson without any wild speculation.  Congrats to a well prepared teacher.

 

I would wager (based on years of experience) that the majority of Gospel Principles lessons on exaltation were not nearly as deep.

Most of them tend to be very milky rhetoric about living with Heavenly Father for eternity and receiving all that Christ has without discussion or explanation what that entails.

 

You don't have to speculate on Urim & Thummim planets to go deep or get meat.  But you do have to go beyond the standard platitudes and basic lesson manuals that we all can quote.

[Stone holm]

My wife kept slapping down my hand today so that I would not derail Gospel Doctrine class by responding to a comment that was not quite accurate, she felt quite enough meat had already been provided.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

My wife kept slapping down my hand today so that I would not derail Gospel Doctrine class by responding to a comment that was not quite accurate, she felt quite enough meat had already been provided.

Your wife may have been wise, since I teach professionally (when my back allows) I learned a long time ago not to let students take over class. I am in no way suggesting you did this, but it does happen in Church as well, most like my teaching style and some think they should be the instructor.