What Would You Consider The Meat Of The Gospel?

[Bernard Gui]

Repentance is the milk and the meat, the bread and the butter, the salt and the pepper, the ice cream and the hot fudge.

Edited May 25, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[JLHPROF]

The meat is understanding the atonement.

 

Kolob, Adam-God, and the like are peripherals. They might be seasoning on the meat but they are not the meat.

 

Why would understanding the atonement be the meat?  I'm not disagreeing, but considering the scriptural definition of meat it seems strange.

 

 I Corinth 3:2 - I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

 

I think there are elements to the atonement that could be considered meat, but the atonement itself is preached to all, not those who are able to bear it.  It is the very first principle of the gospel.  The milk for those just starting in the gospel.

I am just curious which aspects of the atonement you would extend into the "meat" category.

[Gray]

I think early on in the church, the "meat" was polygamy. Now it's any difficult topic.

[JLHPROF]

I think early on in the church, the "meat" was polygamy. Now it's any difficult topic.

 

That was definitely one of the first in the restoration.

What was the meat Paul referred to though, since that's where the term came from?

Perhaps the early Christians had the same issues with polygamy, temple ordinances, and theosis as our current members do.

[Coreyb]

This milk/meat idea is completely relative. In my opinion, whatever ideas you are comfortable with the missionaries teaching your non mormon neighbors is milk. Whatever you would prefer they left out is probably meat.

[The Nehor]

Why would understanding the atonement be the meat?  I'm not disagreeing, but considering the scriptural definition of meat it seems strange.

 

 I Corinth 3:2 - I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

 

I think there are elements to the atonement that could be considered meat, but the atonement itself is preached to all, not those who are able to bear it.  It is the very first principle of the gospel.  The milk for those just starting in the gospel.

I am just curious which aspects of the atonement you would extend into the "meat" category.

The parts that usually take time and experience to understand. Those that many members do not eat yet.

[Seeker59]

The Atonement.

[mormonnewb]

There is a youth video, “Face2Face with the Bednars,” where he repeats a principle I’ve heard him teach, demonstrate and help people experience on a couple of occasions: when we are prepared, we can hear things of the Spirit when nothing about it has been said by anyone speaking. The speakers offer milk, but the Spirit gives us the meat, or those intimate, personal instructions, guidance, insights and “commandments not a few,” often too personal or sacred to share, or to be shared only with the utmost care. This is why Paul would not share it, for example, in the 1 Corinthians 3 letter.

 

Many years ago President Packer was meeting with a large priesthood body, and said that during the upcoming break, we should prepare ourselves for a personal, revelatory experience in his next instruction concerning the meat of a certain matter. Because there was so much irreverent socializing during the break, when we returned, he said he was not able to instruct us in that matter for the reason that we were not prepared, and said he would continue discussing more basic principles.

 

 

Is it possible that the meaty message that Pres. Packer was trying to deliver (and apparently, wildly succeeded in delivering) was "stop all that irreverent socializing in church"?  Is it also possible that he actually gave you all the meat he had been planning to dish out, but only after getting your attention in this way?  Because what you describe is a rhetorical ploy that I've seen used to great effect by quite a few speakers.

 

It relies on the common phenomenon that we tend to focus more on what we have to lose than on what we have to gain.  As you know, if you offer most people a coin flip wager for, say, $10,000, they will decline the bet because the prospect of losing $10K is more painful to them than the joy of gaining $10K.  In the same way, an audience will be more impacted by the thought that they LOST an opportunity to, say, hear the mysteries of God than the thought that they might possibly GAIN such an opportunity.  And think about it.  This experience that you recount didn't happen last Tuesday, did it?  Yet, what I presume is DECADES later, you remember it vividly.  You've heard HUNDREDS of "meaty" conference talks since then, but I'm guessing that this particular "missed" opportunity stands out for you. 

 

The good news is that you didn't likely miss out on ANYTHING.  I suspect that you were given the exact talk President Packer had planned.  I certainly can't back up this theory, but I can't imagine that an apostle of God would have been derailed in his divinely-appointed mission by a group of "rowdy" priesthood holders.  Besides, were all of you faithful Mormons really carrying on and "acting a fool" in the presence of a prophet of God?  I certainly find it hard to believe that you treated that occasion as an opportunity to say, "The apostle's here, let's go nuts!"

 

Also, aren't we taught that HF equips His servants with that which they need to accomplish His purposes?  I find it hard to believe that HF didn't equip Pres. Packer with the skill to keep a group of faithful priesthood holders in line.  Instead, I suspect that he had your FULL attention after the break.  You were all feeling so bad about losing out on the opportunity to hear "meat" directly from HF's mouthpiece, you darn sure weren't going to amplify your folly by missing whatever else he had to say.

 

Isn't this exactly the same ploy Paul used in his letter to the church in Corinth?  While he tells them that they weren't ready for meat, look what he dishes out in the 13th chapter:

 

 

13 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

 

I can't think of ANYTHING meatier than this in the entire NT (outside of Christ's teachings in the four Gospels).  If Paul really thought that the church in Corinth wasn't ready for such meat, he wouldn't have "cast these pearls before swine."  But like Pres. Packer almost two centuries later, he knew they could handle the meat that had been prepared for them, but he had to first condition his audience to truly hunger for it.

[Avatar4321]

President Packer isn't meant to "keep us in line".

He is meant to teach us correct principles. We are responsible for governing ourselves.

[CV75]

Is it possible...

Learning the Gospel is a subjective experience, so I think that regardless of the many teaching devices the Lord’s servants employ, those hearers who are prepared for meat will get meat and those who are unprepared for meat will at least get milk (if they will receive it). I think this occurs no matter what is actually said.

 

So in the context of gospel learning, I do not see “meat” and “milk” as objective designations, and I don’t think Paul and Elder Packer did, either, as much as I like 1 Corinthians 13. When a gospel teacher like those apostles offers milk or withholds meat by design, I think he acknowledges the Spirit will leverage a fuller message as necessary to any prepared individual. He just wants to treat his part of it responsibly, especially when it comes to sharing what he considers meat.

 

Another example: I recall a member of the Twelve warning an entire stake conference that it is possible that his apostolic blessing could be revoked if they did not leave the building reverently. For those few that tried to be reverent, I’m sure the blessing remained!

[Gray]

That was definitely one of the first in the restoration.

What was the meat Paul referred to though, since that's where the term came from?

Perhaps the early Christians had the same issues with polygamy, temple ordinances, and theosis as our current members do.

 

I think one of the major controversies in the early church was whether or not the law of Moses still applied to Christians. Maybe that's what he was referring to. 

 

From glancing at 1 Cor 3, though, it sounds more like he delivered the barest introduction to the gospel (milk) to a group of saints and left it to someone else to fill in the details (meat). 

Edited May 27, 2015 by Gray

[The Nehor]

I can't think of ANYTHING meatier than this in the entire NT (outside of Christ's teachings in the four Gospels).  If Paul really thought that the church in Corinth wasn't ready for such meat, he wouldn't have "cast these pearls before swine."  But like Pres. Packer almost two centuries later, he knew they could handle the meat that had been prepared for them, but he had to first condition his audience to truly hunger for it.

 

I can, but you need the Spirit to pull it off. You get the same thing from Jacob in the Book of Mormon:

 

"Behold, if ye were holy I would speak unto you of holiness; but as ye are not holy, and ye look upon me as a teacher, it must needs be expedient that I teach you the consequences of sin." Note that he taught beauties of the atonement. What are these teachings of holiness? Probably in those sealed portions of the Book of Mormon? The stuff we must be tried before we are ready for?

 

It can cynically be seen as a rhetorical technique but I believe that in some cases it happens. The rebuke is needed and people need to know that higher standards will result in higher teachings. Apostles do it all the time. I have experienced a lesser form of it on occasion when I have taught in Church. An insight comes to me or I am reminded of some insight into what we are discussing and I bring it up and go all mealy-mouthed and cannot articulate it (rare for me; teaching tends to come easily for me) or the Spirit just seems to constrain me and tell me to shut up for now. I have no right to tell my class about it as I do not have keys like apostles and other leaders do but I believe them when they say it happens. I had a bishop who lovingly quoted the above passage from the Book of Mormon and then called the ward to repent of their sins.

Edited May 28, 2015 by The Nehor

[Tacenda]

I was surprised when Jeanne  said  "The choice is still theirs to make..Dehlin, and all the other "dissenters" did not make these decisions for anyone.  Getting the meat instead of the milk changes everyone in some way" I certainly agree that getting meat will change you but I'm just stumped to know what Dehlin serves that is meat. So what do you all consider to be the meat of the Gospel? Specifics would be nice. To me a serving of meat would be a 5 minute view of the Celestial Kingdom or sure revelation on just what the Book of Revelation is trying to tell me or even the history of the Earth from God's point of view, not mans speculation and lies (re-writting history). ie: the mysteries of the Kingdom of God. Come on you all school me.

Why don't they teach the meat to investigators unless they're afraid of scaring people away. OTOH, there's a lot out there that join when they know the meat, we kinda stand out, no other church has our meat.

[The Nehor]

Why don't they teach the meat to investigators unless they're afraid of scaring people away. OTOH, there's a lot out there that join when they know the meat, we kinda stand out, no other church has our meat.

 

Fortunately the bulk of the meat is hidden away. If you try to teach it to those who are not ready they do not understand it. When we compare meat and milk we are comparing them to infants. If you feed steak to an infant the infant gets a little uncomfortable and will probably spit it out or spit it up. They cannot digest it and trying to feed it to them is awkward. We do not withhold the steak because we want to feel superior to the infant. We do it for their health.

 

That may sound patronizing and it kind of is but it is also a reality. God protects his teachings for those who can hear them. I have seen a few apostates who were once strong temple attenders who had great insights. When they left a few mocked the temple but none really understood what it meant anymore. It is the same with the meat of the gospel. There is some spiritual "magic" to the meat. It is taught only by the Spirit though this can be aided by a competent temporal teacher at times. You could not write up a "meat of the gospel" manual and teach a class on it. The scriptures teach milk and meat and the reader tends to get what they need. Some progress from milk to meat faster, others slower, and some choose never to get there. I wish I could speak more about it but I am not sure how far along I am myself on this road.

[sethpayne]

 

Then there are the manure doctrines, false doctrines---often hobby horses---packaged up to look like they are of sparkly special spiritual substance, but they won't pass the smell taste and the only way any member is going to feel like they are getting something is if they can pass off a barrowful to another member who is so impressed with their knowledge, skill and commitment.  The member uses this stuff to create an exotic environment in order to nuture the looked for elite, esoteric, rarified doctrine they expect to be given for their efforts but they tend to have such a overrich environment helped along with artificial spiritual boost so that growth is too much and too fast and in the end not a lot of real flavour to their fruit.

 

Well Spencer just happens to be a friend of mine.

 

[mapman]

I think that's a great question Tacenda. Personally, I don't think the reason that missionaries don't teach investigators about everything is because we are afraid of scaring them away. The scriptures instruct missionaries to focus on the first principles of the Gospel (and frankly, I think that is good advice for all of us):

 

For example, DC 19:20-21

And I command you that you preach naught but repentance, and show not these things unto the world until it is wisdom in me. For they cannot bear meat now, but milk they must receive; wherefore, they must not know these things, lest they perish.

 

It was a popular topic for sermons in the early days of the church to emphasize to the elders that they should preach the first principles of the Gospel. Here are some examples:

 

Joseph Smith

“Oh, ye elders of Israel, hearken to my voice; and when you are sent into the world to preach, tell those things you are sent to tell; preach and cry aloud, ‘Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand; repent and believe the Gospel.’ Declare the first principles, and let mysteries alone, lest ye be overthrown. … Preach those things the Lord has told you to preach about—repentance and baptism for the remission of sins.”

“I spoke and explained concerning the uselessness of preaching to the world about great judgments, but rather to preach the simple Gospel.”

“The Elders [should] go forth … in all meekness, in sobriety, and preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified; not to contend with others on account of their faith, or systems of religion, but pursue a steady course. This I delivered by way of commandment; and all who observe it not, will pull down persecution upon their heads, while those who do, shall always be filled with the Holy Ghost; this I pronounced as a prophecy.”

“If there are any doors open for the Elders to preach the first principles of the gospel, let them not keep silence. Rail not against the sects; neither talk against their tenets. But preach Christ and him crucified, love to God, and love to man; … thereby, if possible, we may allay the prejudice of the people. Be meek and lowly of heart, and the Lord God of our fathers shall be with you forevermore.”

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-28?lang=eng

 

Hyrum Smith

“Preach the first principles of the Gospel—preach them over again: you will find that day after day new ideas and additional light concerning them will be revealed to you. You can enlarge upon them so as to comprehend them clearly. You will then be able to make them more plainly understood by those [you] teach.”

https://www.lds.org/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missionary-service/what-is-my-purpose-as-a-missionary?lang=eng

 

I think the reason is because the first principles of the Gospel are the essence of Mormonism, so they come, well, first. Missionaries exist to preach the Gospel/first principles, and once accepted, they are taught by other teachers. If you read through early Mormon records, the first principles of the Gospel were absolutely central to how people viewed Mormonism and was what most attracted to them to the religion, because it provided a simple and explicit path back to heaven (I think the autobiography of Parley P. Pratt is the perfect example of this. His whole conversion narrative is focused on the first principles).

If Mormons lose perspective of the centrality of the first principles of the Gospel they are building on sand and everything will become distorted. It is like a Buddhist who doesn't know the four noble truths and the eightfold middle path or a Muslim who doesn't know the five pillars of Islam. It doesn't make any sense.

Edited May 28, 2015 by mapman

[Thinking]

So what do you all consider to be the meat of the Gospel?

 

Anything that requires apologetics to explain.

[The Nehor]

Anything that requires apologetics to explain.

 

If that is the meat then the meal sucks. Luckily I consider that stuff to be the brussel sprouts without enough butter. Not bad and I understand they are good for me even if I do not know why but I do not sit down hoping for a heaping helping of them. I just eat them and also eat the tasty satisfying stuff.

[saemo]

I was surprised when Jeanne  said  "The choice is still theirs to make..Dehlin, and all the other "dissenters" did not make these decisions for anyone.  Getting the meat instead of the milk changes everyone in some way" I certainly agree that getting meat will change you but I'm just stumped to know what Dehlin serves that is meat. So what do you all consider to be the meat of the Gospel? Specifics would be nice. To me a serving of meat would be a 5 minute view of the Celestial Kingdom or sure revelation on just what the Book of Revelation is trying to tell me or even the history of the Earth from God's point of view, not mans speculation and lies (re-writting history). ie: the mysteries of the Kingdom of God. Come on you all school me.

Hebrews 6:1-3 lays out the basics. Verse 1 beginning with "let us leave behind the basics" "and advance to maturity", then listing what those basics are.

Milk represents an immature faith, and meat represents a mature faith. In 1 Corinthians Paul chides the community for their immature faith, which symptoms include a "fleshly" view of himself and the Apostles, rather than a faith that is animated by the Holy Spirit. He lectures them on the basics of church hierarchy and the role of himself and the Apostles. (Servants.)

This does not mean the meat was hidden from them, such as found in Hebrews. The Christian community at Corinth were asking Paul for a discussion on the meatier things of which they were aware, but he refused because of their infighting, viewing this as a sign of an immature faith.

Immature faith is a childish faith, which is not the same as a child like faith. A mature faith has the quality of being child like, not childish.

[rodheadlee]

Why don't they teach the meat to investigators unless they're afraid of scaring people away. OTOH, there's a lot out there that join when they know the meat, we kinda stand out, no other church has our meat.

Can you learn algebra or geometry before addition and subtraction ?

[Jeanne]

One who believes in the restoration, in Joseph Smith and the prophecy for the "fullness of the gospel" has every right to expect and deserve the meat of that fullness..Born in the Covenant or a convert.one and the same needs to make the covenants in full knowledge of that fullness..otherwise, words are just empty..and promises seem broken..there is a need for faith but truth can't depend on faith. At one time I believed or had faith to believe in that fullness but now it sounds like a contract with a corporation.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Jeanne

[rodheadlee]

I think the King Follett Discourse has meat in it. https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng

[Avatar4321]

The meat comes line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little.

It comes through prayer, scripture study, and keeping the commandments.

[rodheadlee]

 At one time I believed or had faith to believe in that fullness but now it sounds like a contract with a corporation.

I really don't understand how you feel that way. I've been to wards in Riverside, CA, Huntington Beach CA, San Pedro, CA, A town in TN, Annapolis, MD, Hampton Va, New Bern NC,  Coco Village, FL, Marathon, FL, Key West, FL, Grand Cayman, Pago Pago, American Samoa and Stockton, CA (I'm probably missing some) Las Vegas, NV Henderson, NV and I've always felt the Holy Spirit present, nothing even close to a corporate atmosphere. Even though I wear my hair long and in a pony tail and smell like an ashtray no one has been anything but loving towards me.

[jcake]

I attended a class at the church office building some years ago.  It was taught by Lee Donaldson, and there he instructed us about  the milk and the meat.   The meat is not something better or higher than the milk. The milk is what comes first.  When we are infants, milk is our food, we eat meat after we have grown some.  The milk is the gospel, the atonement, faith, repentance, the mighty change that comes from belief in our savior, it must come first.  The meat is the ordinances, baptism, confirmation, endowment, etc, which come second.  If you do the ordinances first, before you have the milk of the gospel, they are without meaning.  Sometimes, people in the church, because it is the thing to do, participate in ordinances for which they are not ready.  

 

The meat isn't something higher and better, it is something that must come second.