.

[_Jersey Girl]

In mainstream Christianity, to what does the "meat" (deeper teachings?) refer?

~td~

I think you're impression that "meat" refers to deeper teachings is a product of Mormonism. As I implied in a previous post to Ezias, reading and understanding the Bible needs to be facilitated in context.

Having said that, I'll take a whack at your question. :-)

In Mormonism, the verses that were posted are understood to mean what is learned in the temple. "Deeper teachings" as you call it, are additonal and previously withheld from members.

In mainstream Christianity, the verses that were posted are understood to refer to spiritual immaturity vs spiritual maturity. The "meat" has to do with perserving in teachings, if you will, that are freely available.

Mainstream Christians who research, study and begin to understand Mormonism, take exception to the application of "milk before meat" in Mormonism. It is viewed as something that is kept from members, where in Christianity there is nothing hidden from members that is not freely found in the Bible and has more to do with growing in understanding of one's relationship with/to Christ, devoting oneself to relying on that relationship as a matter of guidance throughout one's life.

In other words, there ARE no "deeper teachings" in mainstream Christianity. There is deeper understanding.

[_harmony]

In other words, there ARE no "deeper teachings" in mainstream Christianity. There is deeper understanding.

Very profound, Jersey Girl.

[_MsJack]

I think that the explanations offered here to truth dancer's question are all good ones, especially Jersey Girl's.

I do want to point out that the "meat" in Mormonism doesn't just refer to temple teachings though. Mormons pretty much use it as a catch-all to avoid discussing anything which potential converts might find difficult. For example:

"[H]ow to address this [Lorenzo Snow Couplet theology] with nonmembers[?]. My advice: don’t. This is difficult doctrine. Remember, milk before meat.”

The Trinity is a difficult doctrine to understand---it could be considered "meat" in the classical Christian system---yet I think you'll be hard-pressed to find a practicing non-LDS Christian who refuses to discuss it or even intentionally tries to avoid it if a non-Christian wants to learn about it. Nothing is hidden in our system, not even the things that do make us uncomfortable (such as Bible difficulties).

The only exception to that I would make is that I might refuse to discuss something with someone who's obviously just looking to argue and doesn't actually want to learn anything about my beliefs.

[_msnobody]

BJM said, "I do want to point out that the "meat" in Mormonism doesn't just refer to temple teachings though. Mormons pretty much use it as a catch-all to avoid discussing anything which potential converts might find difficult."

What you said reminded me of the statement in the missionary manual Preach my Gospel on p. 52 listed under the section Teaching about the Fall where it states, "When first teaching this doctrine, do not teach everything you know about it. Explain very simply that God chose two of His children, Adam and Eve, to become the first parents on earth. After their transgression they were subject to both sin and death. By themselves they could not return to live with Heavenly Father. The Lord spoke to Adam and taught him the plan of salvation and redemption through the Lord Jesus Christ. By following that plan, Adam and his family could have joy in this life and return to live with God." No mention of the fall being a good thing.

[_MsJack]

Interesting quote, msnobody. Thanks for providing it.

[_harmony]

Nothing is hidden in our system, not even the things that do make us uncomfortable (such as Bible difficulties).

I know a few Mormons who would say that's because you don't have anything sacred. They might not be that blunt, but that's what they would be thinking. (I wouldn't agree with them...)

[_Yoda]

Nothing is hidden in our system, not even the things that do make us uncomfortable (such as Bible difficulties).

I know a few Mormons who would say that's because you don't have anything sacred. They might not be that blunt, but that's what they would be thinking. (I wouldn't agree with them...)

So does that mean that everything is "difficult" for Mormons to discuss is "sacred"?

*sigh*

That's a sad cop-out on our part.

[_huckelberry]

rest of Christianity has nothing sacred? I find that a bizarre sentiment. I admit I do not recall hearing it before.

I have heard that Protestant doctrine is limited compared to all the complex this that and the others Mormons learn. There is a good deal of truth in that comparison. I think Brigham Young once complained his Protestant neighbors could keep all their doctrine in a match box. (or something like that) I have considered that and decide to my view it is better that way. I do not see all that much value in Mormon labyrinths.

But I am sure a Mormon believer would value all that Mormon doctrine differently. But not seeing the sacred in Jesus dying on the cross? Surely there is enough common ground in beliefs that people would recognize that which is sacred. True it happened in a most public manner. Is there something about sacred which conflicts with public? Maybe Mormons have an idea of sacred distinct from what the rest of Christian peoples understand.

I think in some book somewhere a person could find a definition of sacred focused upon being set apart and separated from the world or common life. That definition certainly fits some Jewish use and some other religious cultures as well. In Christian experience that expectation undergoes a pointed reversal. The sacrifice is ordinary human life done out in public, in a sense in the streets. The set apart become" therefore be no longer conformed but made new in mind and spirit.

I suppose that a Christian could find some place for sacred as set apart but it would never be as central when the most important things in Christianity are out in the street.

[_Yoda]

But not seeing the sacred in Jesus dying on the cross? Surely there is enough common ground in beliefs that people would recognize that which is sacred. True it happened in a most public manner. Is there something about sacred which conflicts with public?

This, by far, is what I find most sacred about ALL Christian religions. I personally believe that when it comes down to it, Christ doesn't really care where we worship Him, as long as we do.

That is why, for those of us, who are rather disaffected members, but who are Christian nonetheless, we don't feel hypocritical about worshiping Christ in the religion we were brought up in.

I have been frustrated with some ex-Mormons on the board, who seem rather dismissive of Jason, Harmony, Moksha, and myself, who tend to balance both worlds. Our need, for a board like this, to freely address our concerns, becomes very important. For some of us, it is our only outlet.

[_Nightlion]

Or, there is this quote from pink floyd "if you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding, how can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?" It seems like meat comes before milk there.

This happens a lot. The Pink Floyd lyric is: beets, not meat.
"HOW CAN YOU HAVE ANY PUDDING IF YOU WONT FINISH YOUR BEETS!"

1 Cor. 3: 2
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.
Heb. 5: 12
12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

The Ancient Jews and even the Gentiles were familiar with lots of strange notions. Its like trampling and LDS investigator with all the anit-mormon crap that's out there. Not that any of that crap is savory meat, God forbid.

In building the Church it is crucial to lay a proper foundation. The first principles need to be accomplished precisely or the prospect looms of having built upon a sandy foundation.

That is my entire campaign against LDS hypocrisy. They have let fall and are trampling upon the basic necessity of bringing people to Christ so that they can be born of him, properly baptized in Christ's name by fire and of the Holy Ghost.

What does this scripture mean in a regular christian non Mormon context and interpretation?

The apostles had this in mind. The people needed to be grounded in the gifts and powers of the Holy Ghost. Then they are taught of God and can easily withstand every wind of doctrine by the cunning craftiness of evil designs of Joseph Smith haters......oops you just wanted old Christian ideas....sorry.