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

[Senator]

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 higjack a Church class or meeting as a platform for their own ruminations.

 

They should start their own private study groups.

[Monster]

I guess meat for me meat would be to have an actually discussion at church. More than anecdotal stories for the faithful. I can read the scriptures form here to eternity, but it is through human conversation that new ideas are explored. I believe that is what is laking. Honest conversation and opinion about what is the nature of God.

[halconero]

I guess meat for me meat would be to have an actually discussion at church. More than anecdotal stories for the faithful. I can read the scriptures form here to eternity, but it is through human conversation that new ideas are explored. I believe that is what is laking. Honest conversation and opinion about what is the nature of God.

 

I can agree with that. I'm not sure if that's the fault of any particular one group or person. I would say that there has been a push for discussion and input in recent years. Some, if not most, are slow on the uptake. From a personal perspective, I would say that this isn't atypical of many sunday school-style setting in many religions.

[Stone holm]

I guess meat for me meat would be to have an actually discussion at church. More than anecdotal stories for the faithful. I can read the scriptures form here to eternity, but it is through human conversation that new ideas are explored. I believe that is what is laking. Honest conversation and opinion about what is the nature of God.

 

I tend to agree with this.  There are an awful lot of platitudes bandied about, to the extent that even the Atonement is given very little thought.  If you apply the "why" test to explanations given of the Atonement by most members, after about the third or fourth "why" -- they are completely stumped.  That should not be the case with regards to the very most important doctrine in the Church.

[mfbukowski]

I guess meat for me meat would be to have an actually discussion at church. More than anecdotal stories for the faithful. I can read the scriptures form here to eternity, but it is through human conversation that new ideas are explored. I believe that is what is laking. Honest conversation and opinion about what is the nature of God.

Unfortunately you have a little catch 22 in that situation.

 

What a religion IS is a particular viewpoint on what the nature of God is.  So what religions do is teach that viewpoint.  Nothing surprising there.  It would kind of be like the Democrat party having discussions about whether or not Democrats should be the libertarians, or a school dedicated to teaching French teaching Italian.

 

They are not in the business of doing that.

 

If you want a religious discussion group, start one.  Oh wait- that's what we do here.  This ain't church. 

[Stone holm]

Unfortunately you have a little catch 22 in that situation.

 

What a religion IS is a particular viewpoint on what the nature of God is.  So what religions do is teach that viewpoint.  Nothing surprising there.  It would kind of be like the Democrat party having discussions about whether or not Democrats should be the libertarians, or a school dedicated to teaching French teaching Italian.

 

They are not in the business of doing that.

 

If you want a religious discussion group, start one.  Oh wait- that's what we do here.  This ain't church. 

 

Really, the snippets that I have heard about the School of the Prophets sounds an awful lot like what he is describing.

[mfbukowski]

Really, the snippets that I have heard about the School of the Prophets sounds an awful lot like what he is describing.

That was a school.  You learn about other religions in school, not church.

 

I am sure those brethren had never studied other religions and that part of their education was seriously lacking and necessary.

[Stone holm]

That was a school.  You learn about other religions in school, not church.

 

I am sure those brethren had never studied other religions and that part of their education was seriously lacking and necessary.

 

So Sunday School is what?  I may be mistaken, but I think that the reference was probably to Sunday School classes -- and you think that most of the members have studied other religions and that part of their education is no longer seriously lacking or is it just no longer necessary because we now know it all.

[mfbukowski]

Unfortunately you have a little catch 22 in that situation.

 

What a religion IS is a particular viewpoint on what the nature of God is.  So what religions do is teach that viewpoint.  Nothing surprising there.  It would kind of be like the Democrat party having discussions about whether or not Democrats should be the libertarians, or a school dedicated to teaching French teaching Italian.

 

They are not in the business of doing that.

 

If you want a religious discussion group, start one.  Oh wait- that's what we do here.  This ain't church. 

[Scott Lloyd]

So Sunday School is what?

This is from the Church's Handbook 2:

 

 

12.1 Purposes of Sunday School

All Church members ages 12 and older are members of Sunday School. Those of other faiths are also welcome to attend and participate in Sunday School classes. The purposes of the Sunday School organization are to:

1. 1.

   Strengthen individuals’ and families’ faith in Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ through teaching, learning, and fellowshipping.

2. 2.

   Help Church members “teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom” (D&C 88:77) at church and at home.

 

 

If there is a direct or implied message there that Sunday School is intended to provide a forum for debates or the exposition or exploration of personal theory, conjecture and opinion, I fail to discern it.

Edited December 23, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Rob Osborn]

 77 And I give unto you a commandment that you shall ^ateach one another the ^bdoctrine of the kingdom.

 78 Teach ye diligently and my ^agrace shall attend you, that you may be ^binstructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand; (D&C 88:77-78)

 

The way I understand this scripture is that we are supposed to discuss all points of the gospel that we may be instructed more perfectly in theory. This would include discussions of the "meat" of the gospel, things not readily known, even things that have never entered into the heart of man.

 

 

 

T

[Scott Lloyd]

 77 And I give unto you a commandment that you shall ^ateach one another the ^bdoctrine of the kingdom.

 78 Teach ye diligently and my ^agrace shall attend you, that you may be ^binstructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand; (D&C 88:77-78)

 

The way I understand this scripture is that we are supposed to discuss all points of the gospel that we may be instructed more perfectly in theory. This would include discussions of the "meat" of the gospel, things not readily known, even things that have never entered into the heart of man.

 

 

 

T

"... that are expedient for you to understand."

 

Which rules out most personal conjecture and speculation.

[Stone holm]

 77 And I give unto you a commandment that you shall ^ateach one another the ^bdoctrine of the kingdom.

 78 Teach ye diligently and my ^agrace shall attend you, that you may be ^binstructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand; (D&C 88:77-78)

 

The way I understand this scripture is that we are supposed to discuss all points of the gospel that we may be instructed more perfectly in theory. This would include discussions of the "meat" of the gospel, things not readily known, even things that have never entered into the heart of man.

 

 

 

T

RobOsborn we are having an unforecast chill out here because heck just froze over as I agree with you.

[Scott Lloyd]

RobOsborn we are having an unforecast chill out here because heck just froze over as I agree with you.

So you're going to ignore that pesky "expedient for you to know" clause as well.

[Rob Osborn]

"... that are expedient for you to understand."

 

Which rules out most personal conjecture and speculation.

Nothing wrong with a little conjecture and speculation. Some of those discussions have led to some very profound insights. One thing that sucks is when you get everyone like robots who only have the typical seminary answer and they have no real idea of what they are programmed to say. You have to get people thinking and the only way you do that is to ask the right questions. When you do that it causes people to analyze and think about the things they say and perhaps question the deeper meanings of godliness. One quick question to show what I mean- In the parable of the wheat and the tares, what physical locations on the earth are the wheat stored in?

[Stone holm]

Nothing wrong with a little conjecture and speculation. Some of those discussions have led to some very profound insights. One thing that sucks is when you get everyone like robots who only have the typical seminary answer and they have no real idea of what they are programmed to say. You have to get people thinking and the only way you do that is to ask the right questions. When you do that it causes people to analyze and think about the things they say and perhaps question the deeper meanings of godliness. One quick question to show what I mean- In the parable of the wheat and the tares, what physical locations on the earth are the wheat stored in?

You really have to stop this, people will forget that we are normally antagonists and you are driving up the heat bill.

[Bernard Gui]

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.

In my experience the meat comes in personal revelation...kind of like room service.

[Stone holm]

So you're going to ignore that pesky "expedient for you to know" clause as well.

Yep, because Correlation does such a boring job of trying to be the judges of what is expedient, what I have been hearing is that the School of the Prophets did not consist of constantly exchanging platitudes. As late as last Sunday a member came up to me and said that we will never grow in understanding if we don't start pushing the envelope a little.

[Stone holm]

In my experience the meat comes in personal revelation...kind of like room service.

Except some hotels suck.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yep, because Correlation does such a boring job of trying to be the judges of what is expedient, ...

 

As I've tried to make clear to you on a number of occasions, Correlation serves the prophets and apostles and, in fact, exists to carry out their wishes. So if you have a problem with Correlation, you have a problem with the prophets and the apostles.

 

... what I have been hearing is that the School of the Prophets did not consist of constantly exchanging platitudes.

 

 

I don't know how fairly your remark reflects what goes on in your own ward, but it doesn't accurately characterize what happens in mine. Nor am I persuaded that it reflects what happens in the Church at large.

 

As late as last Sunday a member came up to me and said that we will never grow in understanding if we don't start pushing the envelope a little.

 

If such envelope-pushing entails the risk of corruption of the doctrine, I can do without it in official Church venues.

 

As I said earlier, you're free to ruminate and chatter all you want about personal conjectures and speculation. You can do it here. You can do it on other message boards. You can start a blog. You can publish pamphlets, books or periodicals. You can organize a conference. You can host a podcast or sell CDs. Yes, you can even start a "study group" on your own time and turf, if that's your thing.

 

Just don't expect to hijack Church classes and meetings for that purpose, where unauthoritative discourse or dialogue might be erroneously regarded as carrying the Church's imprimatur.

Edited December 27, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[volgadon]

As I've tried to make clear to you on a number of occasions, Correlation serves the prophets and apostles and, in fact, exists to carry out their wishes. So if you have a problem with Correlation, you have a problem with the prophets and the apostles.

 

While I can't speak for Senator, in my case I have a problem with much of the work of Correlation, not with the prophets and apostles whom I support and uphold as such.

[Scott Lloyd]

While I can't speak for Senator, in my case I have a problem with much of the work of Correlation, not with the prophets and apostles whom I support and uphold as such.

I was addressing Stone holm with the above post, not Senator.

 

And without anything more specific to go on in your comment, I remain unpersuaded that Correlation ordinarily performs work, whether you find it problematic or not, that does not carry the consent and blessing of the Brethren.

 

Bear in mind I have some personal experience here, as my work is routinely vetted by Correlation, and I personally interact with its representatives weekly.

Edited December 27, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Stone holm]

I was addressing Stone holm with the above post, not Senator.

 

And without anything more specific to go on in your comment, I remain unpersuaded that Correlation ordinarily performs work, whether you find it problematic or not, that does not carry the consent and blessing of the Brethren.

 

Bear in mind I have some personal experience here, as my work is routinely vetted by Correlation, and I personally interact with its representatives weekly.

Correlation exists to make sure that no one goes off the rails, to further orthodoxy, and to concentrate power. It is, because the Church is true, relatively benign. My only complaint is that in its quest to avoid controversy, not irritate political allies, and make the gospel accessible to those who are either intellectually challenged or lazy, it has created manuals that are filled with warm and fuzzy lessons, platitudes, sanitized history, and silly questions.

[Rob Osborn]

Correlation exists to make sure that no one goes off the rails, to further orthodoxy, and to concentrate power. It is, because the Church is true, relatively benign. My only complaint is that in its quest to avoid controversy, not irritate political allies, and make the gospel accessible to those who are either intellectually challenged or lazy, it has created manuals that are filled with warm and fuzzy lessons, platitudes, sanitized history, and silly questions.

I agree. And, I might add, If there is ever anything that doesn't quite make sense, there is no avenue at church to explore it. I learn more about doctrine on these boards than I do in church mostly.

[Stone holm]

I agree. And, I might add, If there is ever anything that doesn't quite make sense, there is no avenue at church to explore it. I learn more about doctrine on these boards than I do in church mostly.

 

Unfortunately, I have to agree.  We had a rogue Gospel Doctrine teacher who was really excellent and only used the topics of the manual lesson as his guide, he got released.  Our current teacher pushes the envelope, but not quite as hard -- I fear his days are limited as well.  In my experience, there is nothing more deadly boring and pointless as an instructor who slavishly sticks to the manuals lesson plans.  Not sure I understand who comes up with the questions that the manuals pose -- but really people.