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

[Tacenda]

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?          

Quoting myself because I saw that I once posted this...

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/59741-the-kingdom-of-god-is-within-you-podcast-on-mormon-matters/

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Moreover, DBMormon has endeavored to produce and promulgate Church-wide curriculum on his own via the Internet outside correlated channels. I'm referring to his packet and associated PowerPoint presentation billed as "training for stake leaders" relative to dealing with members who have doubts.

[Calm]

Moreover, DBMormon has endeavored to produce and promulgate Church-wide curriculum on his own via the Internet outside correlated channels. I'm referring to his packet and associated PowerPoint presentation billed as "training for stake leaders" relative to dealing with members who have doubts.

And here I thought my comment Scott actually responded to was a post only I could see.

Edited December 18, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Buckeye and pmcombs, I enjoyed your posts but read them yesterday when life was tough and at a time when I was too tired to respond.  Now that I have been reminded of them, I hope to get back to make a few comments I wanted to...but my memory being what it is, I may forget unless someone like Scott brings the thread to the fore again.  My apologies if I don't, I spend a lot of time thinking about what you (and others have) said and find great value in it even if I didn't agree in some points with it.

[Stone holm]

Moreover, DBMormon has endeavored to produce and promulgate Church-wide curriculum on his own via the Internet outside correlated channels. I'm referring to his packet and associated PowerPoint presentation billed as "training for stake leaders" relative to dealing with members who have doubts.

 

And you feel this is wrong because ?????

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Is this an endorsement of cannibalism?

Well, only those we sacrifice. Oh wait that was Abraham's day when his own Father tried to do it to him...thankfully God stopped Abraham. Few know that (according to some authors) that as a result of obeying God's command that he never saw his wife again. But hey, I would expect no less of my wife.

[Stone holm]

Well, only those we sacrifice. Oh wait that was Abraham's day when his own Father tried to do it to him...thankfully God stopped Abraham. Few know that (according to some authors) that as a result of obeying God's command that he never saw his wife again. But hey, I would expect no less of my wife.

 

Well, if we believed in transubstantiation wouldn't that be pretty close to cannibalism...oh wait we don't believe in that.

[Rob Osborn]

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.

 

 

Interesting indeed. When I first came back to church having been absent for about 10 years I was directed to the class where the new members were taught from the manual Gospel Doctrine- the basics so to speak. I went to that class over and over year after year as the spirit directed me and after about 5 years i came to greater and greater understandings of the gospel and how it works. As time went by I was made teacher of this class and taught according to all that I had been learning and was still learning. I came to realize that most members are not aware of the meat in the very simple doctrines of Christ and so it remains a mystery to them. After about ten years of this class the Bishop thought it wise to stop the class because the same people were just going there over and over again and he didn't like it. So, we started going to the regular class where the "meat" was supposed to be discussed and it was there we realized with the large classroom setting and material covered that pretty much just a little watered down milk was being taught and the main underlying principles of the gospel were still being shrouded in mystery. It was a long lesson for me in how we are trained with a "seminary answer" mentality and we no longer really think for ourselves the deep true doctrines of the very simple principles of the gospel. We thus go to the temple, go to school, and have a set of blinders on that doesn't us really see the true gospel doctrines and what they really mean and how they apply in our lives.

 

The whole milk before meat is true but the fact is that most people aren't understanding the milk first in order for the meat to settle in. We don't really do a very good job of teaching the very simple doctrines of Christ and so the "meat" ends up being debated to no end with no consensus. I will give one small example of a milk before meat and how it applies to what I am saying-

 

In the church we teach the simple ordinance of baptism as the means whereby we become washed from the sins of our past. This perhaps is what we call the "milk". But in order to understand the "meat" we must understand why it was that Christ was baptized. Well, this takes us back to the "milk" part because our first casual definition isn't really cutting it. A person is baptized in the simultude of Christ's death and resurrection and one must already be worthy for the ordinance before it happens. He first must repent and take care of all past transgressions that can be possibly addressed. Once he is to this point then the baptism is the contract one enters with God to be obedient to all that God has commanded. The promises that come with obedience to  this contract are that we will always have the spirit of God to dwell with us, no matter what. Now back to the "meat" so that it can truly be understood as to why Christ was baptized. Christ was baptized because he too was not exempt from making the contract with God to be obedient to his every command. The covenant of baptism is thus the means whereby we enter into the path of obedience showing by "action" as a witness that we will do all that God asks us or commands us to do. The whole process of turning to God starts with faith, then repentance, then baptism and finally the gift of the Holy ghost. Whereas baptism does cleanse us through Christ being in the simultude of his death and resurrection and us taking upon his very name, we oft times forget that the covenant of baptism is the witness we show to the Father that we are willing to be obedient to all that God asks us to do. The typical "seminar answer" for the question "why was Jesus baptized?" is "To fulfill all righteousness" and not very much understand this meat because they fail first to properly drink and digest the milk before it. Not very many people, will answer to the effect of "Christ was baptized because he too had to witness to the Father that he would be willing to be obedient to his will." 

[mfbukowski]

Quoting myself because I saw that I once posted this...

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/59741-the-kingdom-of-god-is-within-you-podcast-on-mormon-matters/

That's it!

 

It's a journey, not a destination.

[JLHPROF]

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. 

 

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. 

 

A friend of mine recently compared correlation with the council of Nicea.  A group of elders a couple of hundred years after the church was founded look over all the history, scriptures, revelations, sermons, prophetic teachings etc, and determine which are true and which aren't, and then let us know what stays "official" and can be published and taught.

 

The danger: well, remember what we got from the council of Nicea.

[Stone holm]

A friend of mine recently compared correlation with the council of Nicea.  A group of elders a couple of hundred years after the church was founded look over all the history, scriptures, revelations, sermons, prophetic teachings etc, and determine which are true and which aren't, and then let us know what stays "official" and can be published and taught.

 

The danger: well, remember what we got from the council of Nicea.

Well we haven't resumed burning heretics at the stake yet, that only comes later when the Christian Right gets control.

[Calm]

And you feel this is wrong because ?????

If Scott's reasoning follows my own at all, it is not so much of a concern, just a bewilderment that he is suggesting solving what he sees as a problem by using the same type of tools that he is claiming caused the problem in the first place.

 

I see his method as contradictory to his goal.

[Stone holm]

If Scott's reasoning follows my own at all, it is not so much of a concern, just a bewilderment that he is suggesting solving what he sees as a problem by using the same type of tools that he is claiming caused the problem in the first place.

 

I see his method as contradictory to his goal.

I would think it was just trying to fill a perceived void.

[Calm]

I would think it was just trying to fill a perceived void.

But why repeat the problem you are trying to get leaders to reject?

 

I don't have a problem with him supplying a need that he sees.  I know lots of people that are asked by their ward or stake to teach something the local leaders feel there is a need for and if someone has been asked a few times, then it makes sense to create a program to have available on request.  I've had relatives and friends do that over the years.  As far as publicizing it, it can be taken too far, but while I think DB may have phrased his efforts in this area awkwardly at times, I don't see any red flags myself.

 

However, my confusion arises from the way DB describes what he feels is a problem with the teaching in the Church and where he sees the need for the leadership to step in to steer the membership down another path...I just don't get the connection between his stated goal and how he outlines they should go about it.  It comes across to me as the very thing he is trying to avoid.  Now perhaps I've misunderstood it, so I will summarize what I see so that I can be corrected if I've missed something.  At a very basic level DB seems to be saying the leadership needs to wean the members of their desires for how to manuals and lists from others and to teach them be independent, think for themselves and to rely more on the Spirit speaking to them and less of looking to others for answers as well as telling them what is right and what is wrong and then he makes some rather specific lists that outline what the members should be rejecting and accepting.

Edited December 18, 2013 by calmoriah

[pmccombs1]

A friend of mine recently compared correlation with the council of Nicea.  A group of elders a couple of hundred years after the church was founded look over all the history, scriptures, revelations, sermons, prophetic teachings etc, and determine which are true and which aren't, and then let us know what stays "official" and can be published and taught.

 

The danger: well, remember what we got from the council of Nicea.

 

Yes, I think we would be wise to consider that danger. It is written in our our scriptures that the gospel will never again be taken from the earth. I wonder if that eliminates human agency to discard it? I've witnessed some orthodox Christians, when confronted with the possibility of apostasy, who point to their scriptures which allegedly claim that the gates of hell will never prevail against the church.

 

Chances are we have meat, and we've always had meat. Only nowadays we praise the "full banquet" of chicken nuggets and Big Macs, which are highly processed and said to be meat. Soon enough we'll forget where the real meat is stored: nicely salted in the home pantry instead of at the corner vending machine.

Edited December 18, 2013 by pmccombs1

[Scott Lloyd]

But why repeat the problem you are trying to get leaders to reject?

 

I don't have a problem with him supplying a need that he sees.  I know lots of people that are asked by their ward or stake to teach something the local leaders feel there is a need for and if someone has been asked a few times, then it makes sense to create a program to have available on request.  I've had relatives and friends do that over the years.  As far as publicizing it, it can be taken too far, but while I think DB may have phrased his efforts in this area awkwardly at times, I don't see any red flags myself.

 

However, my confusion arises from the way DB describes what he feels is a problem with the teaching in the Church and where he sees the need for the leadership to step in to steer the membership down another path...I just don't get the connection between his stated goal and how he outlines they should go about it.  It comes across to me as the very thing he is trying to avoid.  Now perhaps I've misunderstood it, so I will summarize what I see so that I can be corrected if I've missed something.  At a very basic level DB seems to be saying the leadership needs to wean the members of their desires for how to manuals and lists from others and to teach them be independent, think for themselves and to rely more on the Spirit speaking to them and less of looking to others for answers as well as telling them what is right and what is wrong and then he makes some rather specific lists that outline what the members should be rejecting and accepting.

I think calmoriah has nicely restated her point here.

 

DB's Internet-disseminated lecture outline and PowerPoint was discussed at length on a thread here earlier this year, and I expressed my discomfiture about it then, but that's not really calmoriah's point here nor the point of my agreement with her here.

 

Perhaps my bringing up the "training for stake leaders" package as an example was unwise, if it is going to get us off track here. If so, I beg your pardon and ask everyone to disregard it.

[Ahab]

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.

Start a thread and share what you know whille asking questions to help stimulate more discussion.  There are many people who post and read threads on this site who know a lot about the "meat" God has revealed to us, individually, and I'd be very surprised if you already know and accept all we have been given to date.

 

For example, how about starting a thread where we can talk about where babies come from.  Not just mortal babies, but babies that will be born in heaven to couples who have been resurrected with celestial glory.  And how our families will be structured, including all of the children that we have had and will continue to have through all generations of time and throughout all eternity.

 

Sure, you'll get some naysayers and doubters who will chime in and say that some of what we are saying isn't true, but I'm pretty sure there will still be enough people to continue the discussions and share a lot of the meat we've been given.  Bring all you can bring to the table.

[JLHPROF]

Start a thread and share what you know whille asking questions to help stimulate more discussion.  There are many people who post and read threads on this site who know a lot about the "meat" God has revealed to us, individually, and I'd be very surprised if you already know and accept all we have been given to date.

 

For example, how about starting a thread where we can talk about where babies come from.  Not just mortal babies, but babies that will be born in heaven to couples who have been resurrected with celestial glory.  And how our families will be structured, including all of the children that we have had and will continue to have through all generations of time and throughout all eternity.

 

Sure, you'll get some naysayers and doubters who will chime in and say that some of what we are saying isn't true, but I'm pretty sure there will still be enough people to continue the discussions and share a lot of the meat we've been given.  Bring all you can bring to the table.

 

Now that is tempting...to start speculative or deep discussion threads...but then cometh the CFR's and the "official" church website quotes.

And I like the idea of a thread discussing our Spirit childhood (and potential future childhoods of our spirit children)...oh, I can hear the objections now.

[Stone holm]

Now that is tempting...to start speculative or deep discussion threads...but then cometh the CFR's and the "official" church website quotes.

And I like the idea of a thread discussing our Spirit childhood (and potential future childhoods of our spirit children)...oh, I can hear the objections now.

Not from me. Recently a very spirited discussion exploded in GD class about where children remained sealed in the case of divorces, etc. The Bishop's wife who is our local Correlation agent about went ballistic and the discussion was cut short. I sat there thinking about those Sisters who had very earnest questions which we were not allowed to discuss, and I got a very strong impression, this is not right people needed that discussion more than the manual's platitudinous warm and fuzzy brain dead lesson.

[Calm]

never mind

Edited December 19, 2013 by calmoriah

[JLHPROF]

The Bishop's wife who is our local Correlation agent about went ballistic and the discussion was cut short. I sat there thinking about those Sisters who had very earnest questions which we were not allowed to discuss, and I got a very strong impression, this is not right people needed that discussion more than the manual's platitudinous warm and fuzzy brain dead lesson.

 

And that, right there, is my number one issue with the "milk only" perspective and with correlation.  We should be allowed to discuss simple (and complex) gospel topics freely whether there is an official church teaching on it or not.

[Calm]

 whether there is an official church teaching on it or not.

As a side note, there is an official teaching on this...

 

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/08/children-of-divorce

 

“Please note that a cancellation of sealing of a wife to her husband does not affect children born in the covenant or previously sealed. Such children are entitled to birthright blessings, and if they remain worthy, are assured the right and privilege of eternal parentage regardless of what happens to their natural parents or the parents to whom they were sealed.”

 

 

 

As to the next question, “What happens to the children in the next life when there has been a cancellation of sealing of the parents?” it is understood that in the case of a cancellation of the sealing of the woman to the man, this does not cancel the sealing of the children to the parents, since they were born in the covenant, which is a birthright blessing. They remain in the status of the sealing to their parents and can never be sealed to anyone else. The decision as to with whom they will go will be determined by the Lord in the hereafter.

 

Regarding being born in the covenant the General Handbook of Instructions states, “Children born in the covenant cannot be sealed to anyone, but belong to their natural parents. This rule is not altered byadoption, consent of the natural parents, request of the child after becoming of age or death of the natural parents.” (P. 101.)

 

 

 

https://www.lds.org/new-era/1975/12/qa-questions-and-answers?lang=eng

This was an older handbook, if it has changed for the more recent ones perhaps someone could point this out.

[mercyngrace]

 

 

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

 

It tastes good with Heinz 57.

[Stone holm]

It tastes good with Heinz 57.

Lol

[Scott Lloyd]

And that, right there, is my number one issue with the "milk only" perspective and with correlation.  We should be allowed to discuss simple (and complex) gospel topics freely whether there is an official church teaching on it or not.

You can discuss it freely. Just not in an official Church forum, where the discussion implicitly carries the official Church imprimatur, where there is risk that the line between authoritative doctrine and people's private conjecture could get blurred, and folk doctrine stands to get entrenched and perpetuated. People shouldn't assume they have the right to hijack a Church class or meeting as a platform for their own ruminations.

 

Have we not learned anything at long last from the recent disavowal of past speculative theories regarding the priesthood restriction?

 

Again, I find it remarkable that some of the same folks who complain about Correlation also cry long and loud about those past theories.

Edited December 23, 2013 by Scott Lloyd