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

[Stone holm]

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.

Actually, it was pretty funny. The Sunday School President taught the class because of the snowstorm, he used to be a student of mine. We were sitting in the back row as always , so he was watching her slap my hand down. I think we were both struggling not to start laughing. I was trying to correct a random comment by a member who said that the Utah anti polygamy statute had been struck down by a Federal Court, which isn't completely accurate, but she didn't want me to shove the meeting off the rails by correcting the comment. The instructor and I laughed about it later, he probably would not have minded if we had flown off the rails.

[mfbukowski]

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.

Was I "told"?

 

No I actually read the D&C before I was baptized because I actually wanted to know what Mormons believed.  Why would I wait for someone to tell me?

[mfbukowski]

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 it is really naive to even think that anyone knows the answers to these questions.

 

Ask the spirit and figure them out for yourself- your answers will be as good as anyone's.  THAT is the "meat" of the gospel.

 

The meat is that we believe in personal revelation and don't need to be taught as children.  We are all prophets if we have a testimony of Christ.

[mfbukowski]

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.....

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.

There IS no "official church doctrine" on this topic- other than all the stuff that has been quoted already, and we do not even have a clear definition of doctrine anyway!  

 

I am having trouble understanding what you want.

 

What good does discussion about the "meat" do if it is not doctrinal anyway?  You want some opinions of old guys in your high priest"s group?  I am just not getting this at all.

 

We should not blame our own reluctance to study these things out in our own minds on the church.  It is our responsibility to figure this stuff out and not expect to be fed pablum like babies.

Edited December 16, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

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

I owe you a few more rep points for that one.

[mfbukowski]

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?

I definitely agree that should be told more explicitly to follow the spirit about these matters and that we need to understand that even prophets are mortal men who make mistakes.

 

The good news is that I think the church is headed in that direction, pretty clearly.

[halconero]

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.

 

I think we're starting to arrive at a consensus. I agree with most of your points, but would differ on the last two paragraphs, but not outright disagree.

 

I think the issue is not with the basic lesson manuals, or the standard platitudes, but with how we use them. 

 

For instance, on point number three "our ability to become as God is" you said that it was "Meat if some depth was included as to what that means."

 

Here is what the Gospel Principle's manual has to say on that, as well as what was addressed in class:

 

"Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life God lives. He lives in great glory. He is perfect. He possesses all knowledge and all wisdom. He is the Father of spirit children. He is a creator. We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation."

 

What are the attributes and works of God as described in the manual?

 

- Glorified

- Perfect 

- All knowing

- The Father of spirit children

- A creator

 

It's a simple matter in class to write these down on the board, and then ask the question "So what does it mean to be exalted and become like God, and gods ourselves?"

 

I know I'm preaching to the choir, on this, but I think the problem lies not in a deficiency in material, or the lack of a place in the Church to discuss the "meat." It's that many do not know how to teach it, talk about it, or ponder it. I think you nailed it on the head when you said that many times people gloss these things over.

 

This neglect of vital doctrines of the gospel, in a church setting can come in many ways:

 

1. Read straight through a lesson, having class members read paragraph after paragraph. No consideration is made to involve the class through questions, the invitation to bear testimony or express thoughts, and the reading of scriptures. These activities are encouraged in many of the manuals, including the introduction to the Gospel Principles manual. It encourages us to stick to doctrine, but also "Invite Diligent Learning."

 

2. Dancing around the sensitive issues. Some members get awkward around the more peculiar and unique portions of the doctrine. Despite the manual for investigators, less-actives, and recent converts containing chapters talking about our "Heavenly Parents," the War in Heaven, and the nature of Exaltation, many will skip over the more explicit parts of these chapters in an effort to not offend, scare away, or overload investigators.

 

3. Not understanding the significance of the doctrine. A deeper and more lasting impression of the doctrine found in the lessons and manuals of the Church can be had by simply stopping and asking "what did that paragraph say about Heavenly Parents/Godhood/Prophets?'

 

There are instances where lesson plans cut corners, or neglect to mention a vital aspect found in the scriptures or sermons of the Prophets, but I believe this to be the exception rather than the rule.

 

I'll say it again though, that I think we're coming to a consensus. Perhaps our difference lies in my belief that the "meat" of the Gospel is already in the Church setting (Sunday School) and manuals, and that it can be taught in a manner appeasing, but in its fullness, to even a new comer. Many are ignorant of the material, either through neglecting to truly study or discuss it, or actively choosing to not partake of it.

Edited December 16, 2013 by halconero

[CV75]

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.

Cool--thank you!

[CV75]

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

Hmmm--that could be it, too! Flyonthewall had a good way of putting it. "Strong" in my mind means certain, true, indisputable, well-defended, etc. as in qualifying for a witness from the Holy Ghost.

 

But I'm also wondering whether Josepeh Smith considered this sermon in the grove a public or a private setting. I would vote public.

[Stone holm]

Was I "told"?

 

No I actually read the D&C before I was baptized because I actually wanted to know what Mormons believed.  Why would I wait for someone to tell me?

And you think that anywhere near a majority of converts do that? I knew more doctrine than most members when I joined the Church. Most people join the Church because they were fellow shipped, or because they were strongly touched by the Spirit, or they liked the youth programs, not because they understand our doctrine. Many will never have better than a 3rd grade education in the Gospel. Have you for example ever listened closely to an explanation of the Atonement? I mean, can you get a more central doctrine that is nearly always explained with platitudes and statements that do not withstand serious reflection?

[cinepro]

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.

I, for one, think that "meat" is another word for "interesting".

I have always found the gospel, and particularly Church History, to be very, very interesting. I don't think it is possible to be bored when truly discussing the gospel or the scriptures or history, and there is always something new to learn.

And yet, boredom reigns supreme in many of our classes and meetings.

When I teach a lesson or give a talk, part of my preparation is to ask "what is the most interesting thing about this?"  What are the questions people might have?  What is something that they don't know?  If I were sitting in the class, what would I be thinking about?

 

I usually start off my EQ lessons with a few "trivia" questions somewhat related to the topic at hand to get people thinking.  It's quite a bit of fun, and people really seem to enjoy it.

 

Yesterday, I started off my lesson by asking the EQ where in the New Testament we can read about Jesus' birth. Everyone knew Luke 2, but I asked where else?  No one said "the book of Matthew" (some guessed Isaiah (?) or Revelation).  So we spent a few minutes discussing the two different stories, and I even had them read the verses that are quite contradictory between the two stories.  I guarantee you no one was bored!

 

So, would reading a few verses from the New Testament be considered "meat"?  Why would it?  But I guarantee you, finding out that Luke's story of Jesus explicitly says that Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth ~40 days after Jesus' birth (and apparently without a detour to Egypt), while Matthew says the wise men found Jesus when he was a "young child" living with Mary and Joseph in a house in Bethlehem (where apparently Mary and Joseph had always lived and they only lived in Nazareth after they had gone to Egypt), that's meat!

Edited December 16, 2013 by cinepro

[Tacenda]

I, for one, think that "meat" is another word for "interesting".

I have always found the gospel, and particularly Church History, to be very, very interesting. I don't think it is possible to be bored when truly discussing the gospel or the scriptures or history, and there is always something new to learn.

And yet, boredom reigns supreme in many of our classes and meetings.

When I teach a lesson or give a talk, part of my preparation is to ask "what is the most interesting thing about this?"  What are the questions people might have?  What is something that they don't know?  If I were sitting in the class, what would I be thinking about?

 

I usually start off my EQ lessons with a few "trivia" questions somewhat related to the topic at hand to get people thinking.  It's quite a bit of fun, and people really seem to enjoy it.

 

Yesterday, I started off my lesson by asking the EQ where in the New Testament we can read about Jesus' birth. Everyone knew Luke 2, but I asked where else?  No one said "the book of Matthew" (some guessed Isaiah (?) or Revelation).  So we spent a few minutes discussing the two different stories, and I even had them read the verses that are quite contradictory between the two stories.  I guarantee you no one was bored!

 

So, would reading a few verses from the New Testament be considered "meat"?  Why would it?  But I guarantee you, finding out that Luke's story of Jesus explicitly says that Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth ~40 days after Jesus' birth (and apparently without a detour to Egypt), while Matthew says the wise men found Jesus when he was a "young child" living with Mary and Joseph in a house in Bethlehem, that's meat!

Cinepro, this makes me wonder if God really only wants the meat to be what has always been inside us.  "We" are the meat, not scripture, religion, manmade ideas, it's within us.  And we  don't zero in on it.  Of course "we" aren't anything without our maker and that is trumped often with men trying to be Him.  Our pathway to Him gets blocked by outside influences, wrong information, bad religion, wrong thoughts and imagery.  Could this be?          

[Stone holm]

I, for one, think that "meat" is another word for "interesting".

I have always found the gospel, and particularly Church History, to be very, very interesting. I don't think it is possible to be bored when truly discussing the gospel or the scriptures or history, and there is always something new to learn.

And yet, boredom reigns supreme in many of our classes and meetings.

When I teach a lesson or give a talk, part of my preparation is to ask "what is the most interesting thing about this?"  What are the questions people might have?  What is something that they don't know?  If I were sitting in the class, what would I be thinking about?

 

I usually start off my EQ lessons with a few "trivia" questions somewhat related to the topic at hand to get people thinking.  It's quite a bit of fun, and people really seem to enjoy it.

 

Yesterday, I started off my lesson by asking the EQ where in the New Testament we can read about Jesus' birth. Everyone knew Luke 2, but I asked where else?  No one said "the book of Matthew" (some guessed Isaiah (?) or Revelation).  So we spent a few minutes discussing the two different stories, and I even had them read the verses that are quite contradictory between the two stories.  I guarantee you no one was bored!

 

So, would reading a few verses from the New Testament be considered "meat"?  Why would it?  But I guarantee you, finding out that Luke's story of Jesus explicitly says that Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth ~40 days after Jesus' birth (and apparently without a detour to Egypt), while Matthew says the wise men found Jesus when he was a "young child" living with Mary and Joseph in a house in Bethlehem (where apparently Mary and Joseph had always lived and they only lived in Nazareth after they had gone to Egypt), that's meat!

 

I would say you are very close, "meat" does mean "interesting" it also means that it is not simply a platitudinous discussion stopper.  While Christ wanted us to be one, I don't think he meant that we should stop discussing things or pushing the envelope to discover more and more about life and the eternities.  He never intended us to be satisfied with platitudes. 

[pmccombs1]

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.

 

So, for me it has to do with what Jacques Lacan once called "the Real."  From where I stand, modern LDS teaching--which has been correlated and standardized--lacks the Real.

 

What does this mean?  Often we think of language in terms of something that is known. Words are mapped onto things in this programmatic way, and that's what makes a dictionary so useful. Yet, when we speak, we create language that parallels our desire. It's this creative process, and you have to constantly preserve a certain ambiguity of words until you get the full context of what is going on. Only then can you resolve to a proper understanding of what is really being said, independent of what the words mean by themselves. 

 

Have you ever had the experience where a phrase or sentence (or music, or art) has been witnesses a thousand times, but suddenly it enters you with a distinct force? Prior to that moment, you "understood" the technical map of the language, but now you understand the thing that the language is trying to convey.  The unspoken part of it has entered in and you have received the Real. 

 

The Real is essentially that which has no deterministic mapping to language; there are no words for who we are on the inside, which we try to express. And yet, it is possible to convey the Real through this creative process of using language.

 

By standardizing and correlating (and repeating, repeating, repeating), we subject language to a program and return it to the dictionary. It ceases to be a creative force that can convey the essence of the Real. Or at least, it does this less reliably, in my experience. We are now in the realm of the known and of the certain, where absence and desire do not exist. 

 

I admit that what I hear in my church meetings can often be emotional. We have latched on to the importance of emotion as a signifier of truth. But I personally look for "eureka" moments--those times when my mind is lit up with the Real. I know when it happens because I can't sit still. I get antsy, and my brain takes off at a thousand miles per hour. It's like pure light has come in and suddenly I understand. Everything makes sense; things come together. It's that feeling. That's the meat.

 

These days, I find this experience more outside of the church than in it, though I understand there are many here whose experiences may differ from my own.

 

Maybe there's lots of meat to be found in the church's teachings. It isn't necessarily a matter of content, though. I guess that's what I'm trying to say. It's obscured by presentation and supposes that all receptacles are of one kind. We aren't.

[Calm]

But I guarantee you, finding out that Luke's story of Jesus explicitly says that Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth ~40 days after Jesus' birth (and apparently without a detour to Egypt), while Matthew says the wise men found Jesus when he was a "young child" living with Mary and Joseph in a house in Bethlehem (where apparently Mary and Joseph had always lived and they only lived in Nazareth after they had gone to Egypt), that's meat!

I am curious as to why you view that as "meat". It has little connection with the nature of God and the Eternities from what I can see and thus is quite a different view than JHL's description. His I get quite easily on why he views it. Yours I don't. Perhaps you can identify what makes that specific item "meat" to help clarify your reasoning.

PS: I don't think it's a bad idea, anything that causes people to take a closer look at scriptures is a good idea in my view...well, almost anything.

Edited December 16, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Maybe there's lots of meat to be found in the church's teachings. It isn't necessarily a matter of content, though. I guess that's what I'm trying to say. It's obscured by presentation and supposes that all receptacles are of one kind. We aren't.

I believe I understand what you are describing, but given that all receptacles (and I have to admit that sounds too passive to me for what you are aiming for) are different, how would you suggest one lesson be sculpted to meet everyone's needs at the same time?

[Calm]

Cinepro, this makes me wonder if God really only wants the meat to be what has always been inside us.  "We" are the meat, not scripture, religion, manmade ideas, it's within us.  And we  don't zero in on it.  Of course "we" aren't anything without our maker and that is trumped often with men trying to be Him.  Our pathway to Him gets blocked by outside influences, wrong information, bad religion, wrong thoughts and imagery.  Could this be?

If this is so, then how would you suggest the instruction be crafted to maximise this?

[cinepro]

I am curious as to why you view that as "meat". It has little connection with the nature of God and the Eternities from what I can see and thus is quite a different view than JHL's description. His I get quite easily on why he views it. Yours I don't. Perhaps you can identify what makes that specific item "meat" to help clarify your reasoning.

PS: I don't think it's a bad idea, anything that causes people to take a closer look at scriptures is a good idea in my view...well, almost anything.

 

 

It's "meat" because they learned something new.

 

If anyone in the class was already familiar with it (and, based on the discussion we had, I don't think anyone in the class of 25 elders was), then it probably would have been "milk" to them.  Obviously, it's a totally relative definition.

 

Based on my experience teaching, that's one of the things people desire the most.  Obviously, "feeling the spirit" and "learning by the spirit" are the primary goals, and I try to prepare an environment in which that can happen (and I believe it often does), but I can't prepare for those things to specifically happen.  If I do, I find it veers too far into artificial sentimentality and my cynicism kicks in.  So I shoot for moments of learning, and at least one really good joke.

 

(My joke yesterday was in the closing of the lesson, where I expressed my testimony of Lorenzo Snow and said how much I enjoyed teaching this year and finding out about the two things he loved the most: 1) the Gospel and 2) really long paragraphs.)

[The Nehor]

"We" are the meat, not scripture, religion, manmade ideas, it's within us.

 

Is this an endorsement of cannibalism?

[Buckeye]

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.

 

Cal, this is a wonderful question.  Thanks for asking.  I don't have time to review all of the posts in this thread, so I apologize if my ideas are repeats.  For me, "meat" is not so much the gospel topic being discussed (i.e., "deep deep doctrine"), but the way in which the discussion takes place.  "Meat" simply means a discussion in which mature members can grow in their understanding and testimony as opposed to "milk" in which the members rehash things they've heard a hundred times and leave the meeting having wasted an hour.

 

A significant way to find "meat" is to place two gospel themes together which cause conflict.  For instance, we believe that we should be self-reliant and scripture teaches that if you are prepared you shall not fear.  However, we are also taught to rely on the arm of the Lord and not our own strength.  How can both those things be true?  By wrestling with an apparent conflict, we suss out greater truths.  Hopefully, we can leave the class with a better understanding of these principles, both their strengths and their limitations.

 

Another way to find meat is to focus discussion on the hard parts of a topic - the parts members may be failing at - rather than the easy parts to which we nod our heads and sit comfortably on our rameumptons.  For instance, if the lesson is the WOW, focus on the verses about grains (are oats really only meant for horses?), eating meat sparingly and in times of winter/famine (I can attest the MTC fails this one big time), and about eating fruits/vegetables in the "season thereof" (so no strawberries in January?).  In my experience, most WOW lessons focus on tabacco/alcohol and other vices that no one in the room is struggling with.  Is there a time/place to discuss those vices?  Absolutely.  But for most church classes, you'd get a much higher return on the time by focusing on corn syrup, exercise, and waist lines than on smoking and drinking. 

 

If there is an underlying theme for "meat," I believe it is the need for "opposition in all things."  Gospel lessons need to involve some element of opposition, some conflict.  That can come by juxstaposing gospel themes, it can come by focusing on areas where members actually need to grow, and it can come by bringing in new information that challenges fixed beliefs (e.g., "did you know there were spittons in the SL Temple when it was first dedicate").  It takes tact and preparation in order to foster an environment of opposition without crossing over into contention.  When contention enters, the spirit leaves and great harm can be done.  But in my experience, too ofter we fail to tread into the conflict for fear of risking contention.  That's why so many church lessons are milk (and not even 2% milk at that) rather than meat.

Edited December 16, 2013 by Buckeye

[mfbukowski]

And you think that anywhere near a majority of converts do that? I knew more doctrine than most members when I joined the Church. Most people join the Church because they were fellow shipped, or because they were strongly touched by the Spirit, or they liked the youth programs, not because they understand our doctrine. Many will never have better than a 3rd grade education in the Gospel. Have you for example ever listened closely to an explanation of the Atonement? I mean, can you get a more central doctrine that is nearly always explained with platitudes and statements that do not withstand serious reflection?

This is my fault?

 

In general, people do not think things through, or understand, or even want to understand, ideas in depth.  Welcome to the real world.

 

People don't know what they don't know.  If you want tax advice you talk to a tax guy OR LEARN YOURSELF.  If you want to fix your car, you  talk to a mechanic OR LEARN YOURSELF.  If you want to understand theology you train yourself in it.

 

Not everyone wants to learn the nuances.  Those who do, can.

 

And frankly, as is clear from this board, all the "meat" does is confuse people.  If you are not ready for it, you don't know how to handle it.

Edited December 16, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Stone holm]

This is my fault?

 

In general, people do not think things through, or understand, or even want to understand, ideas in depth.  Welcome to the real world.

 

People don't know what they don't know.  If you want tax advice you talk to a tax guy OR LEARN YOURSELF.  If you want to fix your car, you  talk to a mechanic OR LEARN YOURSELF.  If you want to understand theology you train yourself in it.

 

Not everyone wants to learn the nuances.  Those who do, can.

 

Well, except most people would say if you want to understand theology you ask your minister (Bishop, Prophet, GAs, Sunday School Teacher, etc.) or LEARN YOURSELF.  Most people on this Board seem to fall into the diy category when it comes to theology, most members on the other hand are inclined to the first.

[pmccombs1]

I believe I understand what you are describing, but given that all receptacles (and I have to admit that sounds too passive to me for what you are aiming for) are different, how would you suggest one lesson be sculpted to meet everyone's needs at the same time?

 

I'm suggesting that one lesson can't be sculpted to meet everyone's needs at the same time. I don't think it's a good thing that the church is the same everywhere you go. 

 

We have an institution that sanitizes things. We know what angels are and what Jesus is, so if the figures in a Carl Bloch painting aren't doctrinal, then correlation will desecrate the painting in order to present the correct image. 

 

Sometimes it is the winged variety of angels that convey the Real, and sometimes it is the Black Jesus who conveys the Real, and sometimes it is the shabby, homeless prophet who conveys the Real; different images, symbols, and languages speak to different people whose worldviews simply cannot receive the spirit of a thing in a medium that is foreign to them. 

 

I suspect that much of the past growth of the church has relied more on American exceptionalism than it has on some spiritual connection. During my time as a missionary in Brazil, the poor came in they went out again. But, we were taught the best marketing strategies by the area authority and we retained the middle-class and those who looked up to some sort of American notion of success.

 

When I walked into a Catholic congregation, the people looked Brazilian in the way they dressed and groomed. The building matched local tastes. The art was all local and had its own distinct flavor. The speech and the teachings took on a local tenor and turned to local saints and local miracles. Butcher was as much a church calling as was priest, so long as the butcher glorified God through his craft. The rich and the poor stood side-by-side.  

 

At our characteristic LDS meeting houses, everyone looked more-or-less American and came from roughly the same social background. Although we had poor families, there was less diversity within the group. In poor cities and favelas, branches didn't last long because they didn't have "priesthood" stock. Yes, the priesthood all dressed up in the familiar business casual (aka Sunday best), with white shirts and neckties, and they needed basic leadership skills. The brethren were usually clean-shaven. The paintings were the same copies we get here in the U.S., the hymns were all the same arrangements, and the talks used the same sources and the same style of language that we find familiar in America (albeit in Portuguese, of course). The people were taught to believe that someone else told them what God wanted them to do and where they were expected to serve in the kingdom, which always seemed tightly connected to institution rather than the family or community. None of them heard their own calling; it was always issued by a member of the hierarchy, and this "calling" could change with the wind.

 

I once invited a Catholic couple to view the Testaments up at Temple Square. I had to use all of my considerable manliness in order to keep myself from bawling at that scene where Jesus heals the blind man. But these Catholics... nothing. The whole spectacle was a total mystery to them. I was worried for them, you know. Could they be beyond feeling? Satan has great hold over those people! 

 

Actually, it must have been for them something like the first time I tried a diet Coke. I couldn't stand it... that aspartame taste... ick.  But then I went on a diet and started drinking it regularly. Now I daresay it tastes pretty darn good to me. So we make stuff that resonates with us, and we have to find people like us, or turn them into us, in order to get them to consume it.

 

What we have is very much a franchise religion, mass-produced and packaged by experts and "authorized" servants high up the chain. We take Theuth's view of things, and not Thamus'. Ours is a very popular format, to be sure, disseminating volumes of goods to millions of people. And they are goods, mind you. These are good things, but they are only secondary goods if they fail to convey the Real. When you receive a secondary good, sometimes that fools you and eliminates the possibility that you will ever receive the primary good. Then systemic evil happens: The "good" things that prevent wholeness and healing through a constant regime of self-medicating. You have to constantly keep yourself in that institution-inspired ritual indulgence when its gospel doesn't actually speak to your soul. And when you stop saying your industry-standard prayers, and stop reading your industry-standard-works, and stop attending your industry-standard meetings, then you wither on the vine, because you never got the meat, or in other words, the Real never spoke to you enough to change who you are.

 

So I'm interested in vocational religion that is very local. I see prophets as voices in the wilderness and authority as pervasive and creative rather than concentrated, delegated, and correlated. 

Edited December 16, 2013 by pmccombs1

[Stone holm]

I'm suggesting that one lesson can't be sculpted to meet everyone's needs at the same time. I don't think it's a good thing that the church is the same everywhere you go. 

 

We have an institution that sanitizes things. We know what angels are and what Jesus is, so if the figures in a Carl Bloch painting aren't doctrinal, then correlation will desecrate the painting in order to present the correct image. 

 

Sometimes it is the winged variety of angels that convey the Real, and sometimes it is the Black Jesus who conveys the Real, and sometimes it is the shabby, homeless prophet who conveys the Real; different images, symbols, and languages speak to different people whose worldviews simply cannot receive the spirit of a thing in a medium that is foreign to them. 

 

I suspect that much of the past growth of the church has relied more on American exceptionalism than it has on some spiritual connection. During my time as a missionary in Brazil, the poor came in they went out again. But, we were taught the best marketing strategies by the area authority and we retained the middle-class and those who looked up to some sort of American notion of success.

 

When I walked into a Catholic congregation, the people looked Brazilian in the way they dressed and groomed. The building matched local tastes. The art was all local and had its own distinct flavor. The speech and the teachings took on a local tenor and turned to local saints and local miracles. Butcher was as much a church calling as was priest, so long as the butcher glorified God through his craft. The rich and the poor stood side-by-side.  

 

At our characteristic LDS meeting houses, everyone looked more-or-less American and came from roughly the same social background. Although we had poor families, there was less diversity within the group. In poor cities and favelas, branches didn't last long because they didn't have "priesthood" stock. Yes, the priesthood all dressed up in the familiar business casual (aka Sunday best), with white shirts and neckties, and they needed basic leadership skills. The brethren were usually clean-shaven. The paintings were the same copies we get here in the U.S., the hymns were all the same arrangements, and the talks used the same sources and the same style of language that we find familiar in America (albeit in Portuguese, of course). The people were taught to believe that someone else told them what God wanted them to do and where they were expected to serve in the kingdom, which always seemed tightly connected to institution rather than the family or community. None of them heard their own calling; it was always issued by a member of the hierarchy, and this "calling" could change with the wind.

 

I once invited a Catholic couple to view the Testaments up at Temple Square. I had to use all of my considerable manliness in order to keep myself from bawling at that scene where Jesus heals the blind man. But these Catholics... nothing. The whole spectacle was a total mystery to them. I was worried for them, you know. Could they be beyond feeling? Satan has great hold over those people! 

 

Actually, it must have been for them something like the first time I tried a diet Coke. I couldn't stand it... that aspartame taste... ick.  But then I went on a diet and started drinking it regularly. Now I daresay it tastes pretty darn good to me. So we make stuff that resonates with us, and we have to find people like us, or turn them into us, in order to get them to consume it.

 

What we have is very much a franchise religion, mass-produced and packaged by experts and "authorized" servants high up the chain. We take Theuth's view of things, and not Thamus'. Ours is a very popular format, to be sure, disseminating volumes of goods to millions of people. And they are goods, mind you. These are good things, but they are only secondary goods if they fail to convey the Real. When you receive a secondary good, sometimes that fools you and eliminates the possibility that you will ever receive the primary good. Then systemic evil happens: The "good" things that prevent wholeness and healing through a constant regime of self-medicating. You have to constantly keep yourself in that institution-inspired ritual indulgence when its gospel doesn't actually speak to your soul. And when you stop saying your industry-standard prayers, and stop reading your industry-standard-works, and stop attending your industry-standard meetings, then you wither on the vine, because you never got the meat, or in other words, the Real never spoke to you enough to change who you are.

 

So I'm interested in vocational religion that is very local. I see prophets as voices in the wilderness and authority as pervasive and creative rather than concentrated, delegated, and correlated. 

 

Well that got a very deserved rep point.  True but "ouch!"  My eldest son and his wife, who are probably the most elitest in the family, just took callings in Spanish speaking Ward.  I asked why.  They said, their current Ward was too affluent and they were afraid that it was going to mess up their kids.  My son said, we do a pretty good job of messing up our kids on our own, we don't need the fact they are living in an affluent Ward to help us.  I was shocked, my son is a partner in a law firm and his wife is on the faculty of the university medical school where they live.  They are firmly upper middle class but they still could see the problem.  Plus I think the Ward where the adults speak Spanish, the teenagers speak English, and the primary kids don't know what the heck they are speaking has been refreshing, exciting and reinvigorating for them.

[Tacenda]

Is this an endorsement of cannibalism?

Ah, I see, I'm Dean, you're his sidekick Jerry. And I didn't even know it. That's what I get when seeing the glass darkly. Or whatever that saying is!