Anddenex

Members
  • Posts

    6321
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Anddenex got a reaction from EarlJibbs in Why things are not perfect in the church   
    Yes, and no. This also includes the reason for opposing. The option to "oppose" pertains to the worthiness of the individual being sustained to hold the calling they have been called to: male or female. What has the individual done to make them unworthy of their calling?  How and why a person opposes is very important. These individuals yelling out in a formal meeting are no different than those who called Joseph Smith a "fallen" prophet. 
    The size of an audience is moot to opposing. There are proper manners of behavior to be maintained no matter the size of the audience. If in a ward a person opposes in the back, and the one conducting doesn't see the sign, if the person then yells out "NOOOO" or "I OPPOSE" they would be wrong. They can maintain reverence and speak with the bishop at the conclusion of the meeting. The yelling in a formal meeting, says more about the person opposing than it does the person who is being opposed. 
    Yes, of course. This is why the option to "Oppose" is given, as someone in the audience may know something the current leadership may not know. The appropriate sign is given, and I have no objection against someone raising their hand to oppose. As long as the proper reverence is maintained, the sign given, that is all that matters. The individual who opposed can then speak with their local stake leader as to reasons for their opposition. If it truly is something that pertains to worthiness and not a personal dislike, then it will be brought to the attention to the appropriate leader, and then up to the leading body of the Church.
    I will give you an example of a rightful opposition that was given when a young men was called and then to be sustained to the priesthood. When his name was given, and the signs requested, a mother opposed. In a private meeting the mother gave her reason. Evidence and witnesses were given. The young man was not worthy to hold the priesthood and did not receive the priesthood. 
    The right to oppose is founded upon the principle of worthiness. What has a person done that would make them unworthy of the calling being received, or being sustained that they are already in? Our person opinions have no right in such avenues. I will give a personal example of an individual I nearly did oppose. I worked for the individual. The individual sought to fire me three times over a lie that was told about me. If not for the president of the company actually seeking evidence I would have been let go. We were in the same ward when he was being sustained to a position of leadership. As his name was given I thought carefully if I should raise my hand to oppose, as I was concerned with regard to how I was treated in the workforce by this man. As I pondered and prayed silently, the spirit attested to me that he had done nothing that would make him unworthy of the calling being received. I did not oppose. My personal distrust, dislike, had no place in opposing an individual to the calling being received. These individuals who are yelling, I am 100% confident these individuals have no good reason to oppose their worthiness. They are progressive Mormons with an agenda and they want to be heard; otherwise, they would maintain reverence and give the sign and then report to their local leader.
  2. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Sunday21 in Why things are not perfect in the church   
    Please tell me no one yelled out 'oppose' this time! Honestly, I had thought they had grown out of such things!
  3. Like
    Anddenex got a reaction from Windseeker in Why things are not perfect in the church   
    1) The Church, a living well and its perfection, is an intriguing topic of study due to the many facets that influence decisions made by leaders. As an exemplum, let's review briefly the Children of Israel and Samuel the Prophet. What was the Lord's will regarding the calling of a King? What was Samuel's will? What was the will of the Children of Israel? Two were unified, but the whole was not. This is one major reason the Church has not progressed more toward Zion; the majority is unwilling to move forward. We can review our day and see how the Children of Israel are still pushing back the Lord seeking to push us forward. More than not, the Prophet and the Lord are "unified" or at least the prophet will change his mind when the Lord speaks directly (e.g. Samuel's decision for a King changed when the Lord told him who he wanted). The Children of Israel, if pride encompasses the heart, are not willing to bend so easily. We see examples of this today.
    2) Communication with the Lord is accomplished by the same methods we receive knowledge and instruction from the Lord. The main way the Lord communicates is discovered in Doctrine and Covenants 8:2-3. The Lord will communicate to us and prophets via dreams, visions, angel visitations, and even person visits from the Lord himself. Revelation doesn't change the moment a person becomes a prophet. Primary teachers are able to receive the same methods of communication from the Lord as the Prophet. What then makes it different, stewardship and keys (which are accompanied with different stewardships). Fathers and Mothers have their stewardships and the rights to revelation which no one else does. Bishops have the right to revelation which no one else does. This pattern was instituted with Adam and hasn't changed. I have come to understand that there are two forms of revelation: practical and inspirational. We are all intelligences with given knowledge and power of action which practical revelation is rooted in. Inspirational is when an individual knows God is communicating and the message delivered is purely inspirational. Practical is evident with Samuel choosing one of David's brothers as King. Inspirational is the Lord immediately intervening or revealing his will (this is rarely if ever vague). Samuel was moving forward according to his intelligence, as we all have been commanded to do. We act. We continue to act until the Lord directs otherwise.
    3) This is the "one true Church" nothing supposed. This was inspirational revelation. The First Vision was inspirational revelation. The burning bush was inspirational revelation. The interpreting of Pharoah's dream was inspirational revelation. The Liahona was inspirational revelation, and many more examples from scriptures.
    4) How then do we as members of the Church know when the revelation given to a prophet is practical or inspirational? If we are succumbed with pride, we won't be able to tell and we will often say, "The prophet is not perfect. I don't agree with what he said." We have evidence of this today and recent policies given; although these policies are in direct correlation with scripture, "It is the Handbook. Not doctrine. I don't have to believe it or accept it." The same mentality has been expressed since the beginning. The Children of Israel are still forgetting stewardship.
    5) One of the greatest examples of respect for stewardship, and the imperfection of a prophet/father, is Nephi. As they experienced struggles, even the Prophet/Father murmured against the Lord. Nephi acted, practical revelation (use of our own intelligence that is the same intelligence of God). Nephi then acted in accordance with stewardship, not with pride, paraphrased, "Father (the prophet and patriarch), where shall we go to find food?" Inspirational revelation was received. They acted. They were fed. Until we can have the same heart as Nephi, the Church will continue to struggle, as we are as strong as our weakest link. Strengthen the bottom (wards and stakes) we will strengthen the Church. We have evidence of this lack in General Conference with people screaming out "Opposed" who clearly have a lack of understanding of what it means to oppose someone in their calling (no matter if it is the least calling or one with greater responsibility).
  4. Like
    Anddenex got a reaction from Sunday21 in Why things are not perfect in the church   
    1) The Church, a living well and its perfection, is an intriguing topic of study due to the many facets that influence decisions made by leaders. As an exemplum, let's review briefly the Children of Israel and Samuel the Prophet. What was the Lord's will regarding the calling of a King? What was Samuel's will? What was the will of the Children of Israel? Two were unified, but the whole was not. This is one major reason the Church has not progressed more toward Zion; the majority is unwilling to move forward. We can review our day and see how the Children of Israel are still pushing back the Lord seeking to push us forward. More than not, the Prophet and the Lord are "unified" or at least the prophet will change his mind when the Lord speaks directly (e.g. Samuel's decision for a King changed when the Lord told him who he wanted). The Children of Israel, if pride encompasses the heart, are not willing to bend so easily. We see examples of this today.
    2) Communication with the Lord is accomplished by the same methods we receive knowledge and instruction from the Lord. The main way the Lord communicates is discovered in Doctrine and Covenants 8:2-3. The Lord will communicate to us and prophets via dreams, visions, angel visitations, and even person visits from the Lord himself. Revelation doesn't change the moment a person becomes a prophet. Primary teachers are able to receive the same methods of communication from the Lord as the Prophet. What then makes it different, stewardship and keys (which are accompanied with different stewardships). Fathers and Mothers have their stewardships and the rights to revelation which no one else does. Bishops have the right to revelation which no one else does. This pattern was instituted with Adam and hasn't changed. I have come to understand that there are two forms of revelation: practical and inspirational. We are all intelligences with given knowledge and power of action which practical revelation is rooted in. Inspirational is when an individual knows God is communicating and the message delivered is purely inspirational. Practical is evident with Samuel choosing one of David's brothers as King. Inspirational is the Lord immediately intervening or revealing his will (this is rarely if ever vague). Samuel was moving forward according to his intelligence, as we all have been commanded to do. We act. We continue to act until the Lord directs otherwise.
    3) This is the "one true Church" nothing supposed. This was inspirational revelation. The First Vision was inspirational revelation. The burning bush was inspirational revelation. The interpreting of Pharoah's dream was inspirational revelation. The Liahona was inspirational revelation, and many more examples from scriptures.
    4) How then do we as members of the Church know when the revelation given to a prophet is practical or inspirational? If we are succumbed with pride, we won't be able to tell and we will often say, "The prophet is not perfect. I don't agree with what he said." We have evidence of this today and recent policies given; although these policies are in direct correlation with scripture, "It is the Handbook. Not doctrine. I don't have to believe it or accept it." The same mentality has been expressed since the beginning. The Children of Israel are still forgetting stewardship.
    5) One of the greatest examples of respect for stewardship, and the imperfection of a prophet/father, is Nephi. As they experienced struggles, even the Prophet/Father murmured against the Lord. Nephi acted, practical revelation (use of our own intelligence that is the same intelligence of God). Nephi then acted in accordance with stewardship, not with pride, paraphrased, "Father (the prophet and patriarch), where shall we go to find food?" Inspirational revelation was received. They acted. They were fed. Until we can have the same heart as Nephi, the Church will continue to struggle, as we are as strong as our weakest link. Strengthen the bottom (wards and stakes) we will strengthen the Church. We have evidence of this lack in General Conference with people screaming out "Opposed" who clearly have a lack of understanding of what it means to oppose someone in their calling (no matter if it is the least calling or one with greater responsibility).
  5. Like
    Anddenex reacted to zil in Where do Mormons Believe the Garden of Eden was?   
    Sometimes, words just get in the way.
  6. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Just_A_Guy in Where do Mormons Believe the Garden of Eden was?   
    Well, it's not a requirement of Mormonism to believe that Eden was in any particular location (I know Mormons who beleive there was never a literal Garden of Eden at all).  That said, Mormonism--including Smith and Young--has traditionally read the Biblical creation account literally, placing the garden itself in or near modern-day Jackson County, Missouri; and Mormon scripture names Spring Hill, Missouri as a site where Adam lived after his expulsion from Eden; early Mormons called the place "Adam-ondi-Ahman".
    It's also worth noting that early Mormons (and even many modern ones) took a literalist approach to Genesis 10:25--when the text says that in the days of Peleg "the earth was divided", many saw that as a physical separation of the land masses.  So the current physical distance between these American sites and Mesopotamia, hasn't historically given Mormons too much heartburn. 
    You ask what I believe, personally?  I believe Adam was a real person, an ancestor to the entire human race, who at some point in his life passed through what is now the midwestern United States just as our scriptures say he did.  I believe he took some action--maybe eating a fruit, or maybe something else--that resulted in a) Adam's learning to distinguish good from evil, in b) the mortality of humankind, and in c) the entire earth's falling from its paradisaical state.  Where the idea of a "Garden of Eden" fits into this, and whether it was a geographical place or just a metaphor for the earth's former glory, I don't know.  If it existed I'm rather disinclined to place it in Mesopotamia--partly on the basis of Smith's and Young's statements leading me to lean towards a North American setting; and partly because I just can't make heads or tails of the geography Genesis proposes.
  7. Like
    Anddenex reacted to zil in Where do Mormons Believe the Garden of Eden was?   
    In addition to JAG's excellent answer, please note all the Jerusalems in the world.  Repeated names don't mean much of anything - if we do it today, what was to stop them doing it ages ago?*  Were the current places named after the ones in the story of their first parents, or were they the actual places near where their first parents lived?  Or did a tradition develop through their efforts to try to locate where their first parents lived, and being unaware of more distant possibilities, they deduced or assumed it had to be someplace known to them?
    *According to Nibley, in the culture of the Middle East, it isn't unusual for people to give their own name to a place. (After all, if no one's around, and no one's left a sign or a map behind, how is the new arrival to know the now-former name of the place?)
    Hmm.  And if, for the sake of argument, the land masses were all one (until the days of Peleg), who's to say which current rivers used to all be joined into one river (system) back before they all split up?
    Combine all those questions / possibilities with the fact that Eden's location is irrelevant to my eternal salvation and I'm content to just go with what Joseph Smith said and not worry about it further.
  8. Like
    Anddenex got a reaction from classylady in A problem with milk before meat   
    Although I understand what you are expressing the notion isn't correct. The Church actually does give meat, it is whether or not we are listening to the right voice to hear. Meat is nothing more than simple truths which are learned line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little through the spirit of truth. We have all we need to learn the meat of doctrines, the question is whether or not we are searching, pondering, and praying for the Lord to open up our minds to them. It has never been the responsibility of the Church to teach meat. The Church is to teach the basic principles of salvation and then for us to follow and then learn through the power of the Spirit. This is what Adam taught. This is what Noah taught. This is what Jesus taught. This is what our latter-day prophets have taught.
    I am at a point that meat is given regularly, as the scriptures specify, "time-to-time" from the Lord through hearing basic principles. A love basic scriptural doctrine comes from Moses 6:60. As my mission president did with me, this is all I will give you and allow the true teacher to teach you the meat. This is much better than having someone tell me everything. As my first thoughts with my mission president sharing this were, "Well, thanks, but that didn't help much." Over a course of many years, he was wise not to share anything more as this allowed me to learn through the spirit of truth.
    The essays are a result of anti-Mormon lies and partial truths. These aren't meat. They are basic doctrines and clarifications of past events -- not meat. Meat is the mysteries that are revealed through the spirit of truth. If you listen, and study, meat will be revealed to you via basic doctrines and until you understand these basic doctrines (I am not meaning regurgitating what we have heard, but actually understanding them, as anyone can repeat what someone said). The meat will be discovered and understood through basic doctrines.
    When searching for meat, the result for me was never to go to outside sources, but to actually look to the source of all truth and that is through faith, study, and prayer.
    EDIT: I will often not share what I have learned that is deeper (don't like using this word as I don't believe in deep doctrine anymore) because I have come to understand there is a reason why our Father in heaven doesn't tell his prophets to share everything they know, which some have already highlighted.
  9. Like
    Anddenex reacted to zil in A problem with milk before meat   
    October 2016 General Conference, Saturday afternoon session, talk by W. Mark Bassett of the Seventy - seems relevant to this conversation, however you want to define milk and meat. (Just ended.)
  10. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Just_A_Guy in A problem with milk before meat   
    For my part, I'm unconvinced that Adam-God, was actually a part of the temple liturgy at any point. 
    Here's what we know:  That Brigham Young is in St. George in early 1877 as the temple there is nearing completion.  He instructs his secretary, L. John Nuttall, to commit the endowment ceremony to written form.  Nuttall's journal entries for February 10, 12, and 13 note that he spent the day writing down various aspects of the endowment ceremony and procedures (including a "lecture"--probably the "lecture at the veil"--on February 10), and then spent each evening with Brigham Young reviewing his work.  However, his journal entries for these dates do not seem to include the actual material he was transcribing. 
    Nuttall's journal also records an after-dinner meeting with Brigham Young on February 7, 1877 where "Prest Young was filled with the spirit of God & revelation".  Young began by reminiscing about the development of the endowment in Nauvoo, and then proceeded to offer a discourse about creation, Adam and Eve, and the parenthood of Jesus that was all pretty classic Adam-God.  This, many writers assume, is the basis for the lecture at the veil that Nuttall will transcribe three days later. 
    But, here's the thing:  At no point does Nuttall's journal itself tie the February 7 discourse with the "lecture at the veil", or any other part of the temple ceremony.  Other than the chronology, there is no real link.  And if you think about it--if your job is to write down something that someone else says, why are you going to wait for three days to do it? 
    And, the Church had been administering the endowment regularly since 1855 when the Endowment House was completed.  If Adam-God were part of the 1855 endowment, then why is Orson Pratt publicly disagreeing with Young over Adam-God in 1868?  If Nuttall's unambiguous, February 7 text were added to the endowment in 1877 and was uniformly included thereafter, then why are Church members debating the issue in 1895; and why is the Church pooh-poohing Adam-God in the 1902 Improvement Era and consistently disavowing it for the rest of the 20th century? 
    I don't doubt that Nuttall and his contemporaries (including, most obviously, Brigham Young) saw connections between Adam-God and the temple ceremony.  The ceremony as practiced during the Territorial period may have even had hints pointing in that direction.  But in the absence of the actual documents from the St. George temple's archives I'm inclined to believe that Young's February 7 teachings were intended merely as a fireside chat, not as an integral part of the endowment. 
  11. Like
    Anddenex got a reaction from Latter Days Guy in A problem with milk before meat   
    This is why "milk" is constantly, repetitively taught, so that we may understand the differences between "doctrine," "personal opinion," and decisions made by general authorities in our past. If this is a struggle for you Zarahemla, here are a few good articles on this subject for you to ponder:
    1) http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_temples/Endowment/Adam-God_and_the_"Lecture_at_the_Veil"
    2) http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_temples/Endowment/Changes
    3} http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Adam-God_theory
    As you will learn quickly, when you attend the temple (if you haven't already), not everything in the temple ceremony (endowment) is doctrine. As to the sacred nature of the temple, these things are not discussed here because they are secret; they are sacred.
    This is an important difference to note: secret vs. sacred. Secret is what anti-Mormons like to use when referring to sacred doctrines, ordinances, or ceremonies which are not open to "public" scrutiny -- and rightfully so. Meat is not secret. Meat is sacred. Revelation from God, when he reveals something to us personally, is sacred not secretive. The notion follows what the Lord said in specifying, "Do not cast your pearls before swine."
    The second anointing is an ordinance that there isn't much information. In some circles, and as to my knowledge, this also refers to a washing and anointing of feet. This again is not secretive, it is sacred. This is also important to understand and know the difference. People who have had the veil rent, and have had the Lord visit them, this is not something a person goes around with boasting and loud mouth to the world, not because it is secret. It is a sacred experience. God does nothing in secret. He keeps sacred what is sacred. There is no dark corner the Lord, or our Father in heaven hides. All truths are open to all, if they seek them, and if they seek them they should then understand what is sacred, not secret, and then as we study we begin to realize meat is often not shared in a similar vein of Nephi's words, paraphrased, "The Lord forbids me, or I am constrained by the spirit not write." I have had this experience while writing in my journal. A truth was revealed and as I began to write the truth, I was constrained not to write anymore. The subject matter was for my mind, my experience. It is sacred, not secret.
  12. Like
    Anddenex got a reaction from zil in A problem with milk before meat   
    This is why "milk" is constantly, repetitively taught, so that we may understand the differences between "doctrine," "personal opinion," and decisions made by general authorities in our past. If this is a struggle for you Zarahemla, here are a few good articles on this subject for you to ponder:
    1) http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_temples/Endowment/Adam-God_and_the_"Lecture_at_the_Veil"
    2) http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_temples/Endowment/Changes
    3} http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Adam-God_theory
    As you will learn quickly, when you attend the temple (if you haven't already), not everything in the temple ceremony (endowment) is doctrine. As to the sacred nature of the temple, these things are not discussed here because they are secret; they are sacred.
    This is an important difference to note: secret vs. sacred. Secret is what anti-Mormons like to use when referring to sacred doctrines, ordinances, or ceremonies which are not open to "public" scrutiny -- and rightfully so. Meat is not secret. Meat is sacred. Revelation from God, when he reveals something to us personally, is sacred not secretive. The notion follows what the Lord said in specifying, "Do not cast your pearls before swine."
    The second anointing is an ordinance that there isn't much information. In some circles, and as to my knowledge, this also refers to a washing and anointing of feet. This again is not secretive, it is sacred. This is also important to understand and know the difference. People who have had the veil rent, and have had the Lord visit them, this is not something a person goes around with boasting and loud mouth to the world, not because it is secret. It is a sacred experience. God does nothing in secret. He keeps sacred what is sacred. There is no dark corner the Lord, or our Father in heaven hides. All truths are open to all, if they seek them, and if they seek them they should then understand what is sacred, not secret, and then as we study we begin to realize meat is often not shared in a similar vein of Nephi's words, paraphrased, "The Lord forbids me, or I am constrained by the spirit not write." I have had this experience while writing in my journal. A truth was revealed and as I began to write the truth, I was constrained not to write anymore. The subject matter was for my mind, my experience. It is sacred, not secret.
  13. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Jane_Doe in A problem with milk before meat   
    Nope.
    It is however, a very advance topic that requires intense study of the basics and medium topics before it can be approached in any profitable manner.  
  14. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Colirio in A problem with milk before meat   
    Are we, as members of Christ's church with the gift of the Holy Ghost, not entitled to receive revelations just like the prophets and apostles? 
     
    Who was giving Moses meat? Who gives President Monson meat? 
     
    Are the channels of revelation from that same God from which they receive instruction not open in our lives? 
     
    If not, then I suggest we start drinking that milk with a little more repentance juice stirred in until the channels are fully open. 
     
    This is applies to me, too btw. I should probably start taking a repentance multivitamin.....
  15. Like
    Anddenex got a reaction from Colirio in A problem with milk before meat   
    Although I understand what you are expressing the notion isn't correct. The Church actually does give meat, it is whether or not we are listening to the right voice to hear. Meat is nothing more than simple truths which are learned line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little through the spirit of truth. We have all we need to learn the meat of doctrines, the question is whether or not we are searching, pondering, and praying for the Lord to open up our minds to them. It has never been the responsibility of the Church to teach meat. The Church is to teach the basic principles of salvation and then for us to follow and then learn through the power of the Spirit. This is what Adam taught. This is what Noah taught. This is what Jesus taught. This is what our latter-day prophets have taught.
    I am at a point that meat is given regularly, as the scriptures specify, "time-to-time" from the Lord through hearing basic principles. A love basic scriptural doctrine comes from Moses 6:60. As my mission president did with me, this is all I will give you and allow the true teacher to teach you the meat. This is much better than having someone tell me everything. As my first thoughts with my mission president sharing this were, "Well, thanks, but that didn't help much." Over a course of many years, he was wise not to share anything more as this allowed me to learn through the spirit of truth.
    The essays are a result of anti-Mormon lies and partial truths. These aren't meat. They are basic doctrines and clarifications of past events -- not meat. Meat is the mysteries that are revealed through the spirit of truth. If you listen, and study, meat will be revealed to you via basic doctrines and until you understand these basic doctrines (I am not meaning regurgitating what we have heard, but actually understanding them, as anyone can repeat what someone said). The meat will be discovered and understood through basic doctrines.
    When searching for meat, the result for me was never to go to outside sources, but to actually look to the source of all truth and that is through faith, study, and prayer.
    EDIT: I will often not share what I have learned that is deeper (don't like using this word as I don't believe in deep doctrine anymore) because I have come to understand there is a reason why our Father in heaven doesn't tell his prophets to share everything they know, which some have already highlighted.
  16. Like
    Anddenex reacted to estradling75 in A problem with milk before meat   
    A question answered if one has understood the milk that the church currently teaches
  17. Like
    Anddenex got a reaction from Latter Days Guy in A problem with milk before meat   
    The Adam-God theory isn't doctrine, never was, although some people (i.e. Brigham Young) believe it. Joseph Fielding Smith (might actually be his father) has an interesting perspective regarding the Adam-God theory (again, never doctrine. Joseph Smith in his teaching shared some interesting thoughts, some which weren't doctrine -- not meat). This isn't meat. An example of meat would be learning more about Heavenly Mother (an actual revealed truth). An example of meat would be the study of our "intelligences (revealed truth)." Meat = the statement "eternal lives" and exactly what does this mean now and after the resurrection (revealed truths). Another example of meat and simple truths is the Atonement -- for further understanding and more enlightenment, I have already shared Moses 6:60, begin studying the principles and let God teach you through the Spirit of truth. 
    It appears what you are referring to is not "meat" of the gospel but actual statements made by previous prophets, or history, which the Church is now more addressing to help those who might be struggling with aspects of their personal faith. If so, then the Church is already doing what they should, and in an address to Harvard Law students, Elder Holland mentioned the Church could do better, which is why the Church is now coming out with more options to learn, rather than anti-Mormon literature. 
    It is helpful to know the difference. 
  18. Like
    Anddenex got a reaction from zil in A problem with milk before meat   
    The Adam-God theory isn't doctrine, never was, although some people (i.e. Brigham Young) believe it. Joseph Fielding Smith (might actually be his father) has an interesting perspective regarding the Adam-God theory (again, never doctrine. Joseph Smith in his teaching shared some interesting thoughts, some which weren't doctrine -- not meat). This isn't meat. An example of meat would be learning more about Heavenly Mother (an actual revealed truth). An example of meat would be the study of our "intelligences (revealed truth)." Meat = the statement "eternal lives" and exactly what does this mean now and after the resurrection (revealed truths). Another example of meat and simple truths is the Atonement -- for further understanding and more enlightenment, I have already shared Moses 6:60, begin studying the principles and let God teach you through the Spirit of truth. 
    It appears what you are referring to is not "meat" of the gospel but actual statements made by previous prophets, or history, which the Church is now more addressing to help those who might be struggling with aspects of their personal faith. If so, then the Church is already doing what they should, and in an address to Harvard Law students, Elder Holland mentioned the Church could do better, which is why the Church is now coming out with more options to learn, rather than anti-Mormon literature. 
    It is helpful to know the difference. 
  19. Like
    Anddenex reacted to zil in A problem with milk before meat   
    I think we're talking about two different things.
    Gospel Basics: Pray, study scripture, pay tithing, etc.
    Beyond Gospel Basics: What I assume Zarahemla is asking for (and, from their replies, what Anddenex, Estradling75 and Jojo Bags are commenting on).  I would list them here, except they're actually the same as the basics, only they become advanced when they sink into your heart until they change who you are.
    What you are mentioning in above paragraphs are things like church history, online lies/distortions of our beliefs, eloquent refutations of or alternatives to what we believe, etc.  I doubt anyone here thinks members should not be prepared, in some way, for encountering these things.  We probably all disagree as to how and to what extent.
    But I do NOT think this is what Zarahemla was asking for.  I think he was asking for the mysteries of God, new revelations, new doctrine.
  20. Like
    Anddenex got a reaction from An Investigator in A problem with milk before meat   
    Although I understand what you are expressing the notion isn't correct. The Church actually does give meat, it is whether or not we are listening to the right voice to hear. Meat is nothing more than simple truths which are learned line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little through the spirit of truth. We have all we need to learn the meat of doctrines, the question is whether or not we are searching, pondering, and praying for the Lord to open up our minds to them. It has never been the responsibility of the Church to teach meat. The Church is to teach the basic principles of salvation and then for us to follow and then learn through the power of the Spirit. This is what Adam taught. This is what Noah taught. This is what Jesus taught. This is what our latter-day prophets have taught.
    I am at a point that meat is given regularly, as the scriptures specify, "time-to-time" from the Lord through hearing basic principles. A love basic scriptural doctrine comes from Moses 6:60. As my mission president did with me, this is all I will give you and allow the true teacher to teach you the meat. This is much better than having someone tell me everything. As my first thoughts with my mission president sharing this were, "Well, thanks, but that didn't help much." Over a course of many years, he was wise not to share anything more as this allowed me to learn through the spirit of truth.
    The essays are a result of anti-Mormon lies and partial truths. These aren't meat. They are basic doctrines and clarifications of past events -- not meat. Meat is the mysteries that are revealed through the spirit of truth. If you listen, and study, meat will be revealed to you via basic doctrines and until you understand these basic doctrines (I am not meaning regurgitating what we have heard, but actually understanding them, as anyone can repeat what someone said). The meat will be discovered and understood through basic doctrines.
    When searching for meat, the result for me was never to go to outside sources, but to actually look to the source of all truth and that is through faith, study, and prayer.
    EDIT: I will often not share what I have learned that is deeper (don't like using this word as I don't believe in deep doctrine anymore) because I have come to understand there is a reason why our Father in heaven doesn't tell his prophets to share everything they know, which some have already highlighted.
  21. Like
    Anddenex got a reaction from zil in A problem with milk before meat   
    Although I understand what you are expressing the notion isn't correct. The Church actually does give meat, it is whether or not we are listening to the right voice to hear. Meat is nothing more than simple truths which are learned line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little through the spirit of truth. We have all we need to learn the meat of doctrines, the question is whether or not we are searching, pondering, and praying for the Lord to open up our minds to them. It has never been the responsibility of the Church to teach meat. The Church is to teach the basic principles of salvation and then for us to follow and then learn through the power of the Spirit. This is what Adam taught. This is what Noah taught. This is what Jesus taught. This is what our latter-day prophets have taught.
    I am at a point that meat is given regularly, as the scriptures specify, "time-to-time" from the Lord through hearing basic principles. A love basic scriptural doctrine comes from Moses 6:60. As my mission president did with me, this is all I will give you and allow the true teacher to teach you the meat. This is much better than having someone tell me everything. As my first thoughts with my mission president sharing this were, "Well, thanks, but that didn't help much." Over a course of many years, he was wise not to share anything more as this allowed me to learn through the spirit of truth.
    The essays are a result of anti-Mormon lies and partial truths. These aren't meat. They are basic doctrines and clarifications of past events -- not meat. Meat is the mysteries that are revealed through the spirit of truth. If you listen, and study, meat will be revealed to you via basic doctrines and until you understand these basic doctrines (I am not meaning regurgitating what we have heard, but actually understanding them, as anyone can repeat what someone said). The meat will be discovered and understood through basic doctrines.
    When searching for meat, the result for me was never to go to outside sources, but to actually look to the source of all truth and that is through faith, study, and prayer.
    EDIT: I will often not share what I have learned that is deeper (don't like using this word as I don't believe in deep doctrine anymore) because I have come to understand there is a reason why our Father in heaven doesn't tell his prophets to share everything they know, which some have already highlighted.
  22. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Jojo Bags in A problem with milk before meat   
    The Latter-day Saints are choking on the milk,  which is why it's being repeated.   All too many of them are not doing the basics let alone being able to accept anything advanced.   Give them meat and they'll choke to death.   Joseph Smith once said that if he were to reveal everything the Lord told him, many of the Saints would seek his life.  This is because what he learned would be against their traditions.   It is the same today, because many LDS believe more in their secular education than in the truth. Joseph also said that with some members that when something comes along that is against their traditions they "fly apart like glass."  Brigham Young said that with many of the Saints tradition is stronger than the truth.   Asking for more advanced knowledge will simply condemn you if you are not living up to the basics. 
  23. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Jane_Doe in A problem with milk before meat   
    I hear you here, and used to fill the same way.  The solution is to quit being a passive passenger in learning.  Look deeper & apply deeper.  Some concepts (like God loves you) have really simple nursery-level milk lessons, which are actually word-for-word identical for the most advance meat-course.  The difference is not the words of the lesson, but how deeply into your soul you let the lesson penetrate and lift you. 
  24. Like
    Anddenex reacted to zil in A problem with milk before meat   
    A few thoughts:
    Go look up wherever it is that Paul wrote about itching ears.  Seems applicable.  (Itch can't appear that many times in scripture...) Go re-read Matthew chapter 5.  Have you mastered everything taught therein?  If not, you're not ready for something new and interesting.  (It is my belief and I suspect prophets and apostles have taught this, but it's too late right now for me to go hunting for it, that until a sufficient percentage of us have mastered a sufficient percentage of what we already have, we will not receive more.  If you want more, master what you already have, then the Lord will give you more.) President Kimball (I believe) once said he'd never been in a boring Sacrament meeting - presumably because he was there to learn from the Spirit, not from the speaker / teacher.  I suspect he also wasn't self-deceiving and tried hard to extract the pieces which applied to him and which he needed to work on.  Learning requires immense effort.  (In other words, if you need something new and interesting, go to the Lord in humble prayer, with real intent, and be willing to receive whatever he gives you, through the Spirit.) There are ample resources for you to do personal study on things which will be new and interesting to you.  Church is where we are to "preach nothing but repentance" until such time as the Lord tells us otherwise.  Church is the place to learn doctrine, not be entertained, shocked, or debate some divisive issue. Until the students in the class spend as much effort preparing for the class as the teacher spends, and until they stop sitting in the class like bumps on logs, and share their own insights, and ask their own questions, and engage in teaching one another, there's not much the teacher can do besides teach the lesson - teaching is a 2-way street.  But if everyone came fully prepared, and participated, the discussion could go much deeper than it usually does (in my experience). In other words, if you're bored, that's your fault, not the teacher / speaker's fault - because you decide whether you're going to feel the Spirit, and the Spirit is never boring.  If you want to learn something new, all you need is to go do it, using tools and methods already available.  And yes, that is infinitely harder than having some intellectual-type scratch your itchy ears for you.
  25. Like
    Anddenex reacted to Just_A_Guy in A problem with milk before meat   
    Fundamentally, church is a milk bar and a hunting school.  Speaking generally, we're supposed to get basic sustenance there and acquire the skills we need to go find the meat on our own.