.

[_harmony]

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.

"hidden" = secret. Our secrets are all sacred, ya know that, Liz. Nothing else is secret or hidden; it's the lazy members who just don't seek it out and then complain about it when they find out.

Bleah.

[_MsJack]

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...)

I think you're right on both counts, harmony---that some Mormons would say that, and that they would be wrong to think so.

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 have to respectfully disagree with Brigham Young. Let me explain a little bit about my own experience.

When I came to BYU, I was so eager to learn everything I could about Mormonism. I wanted to know the ins and outs of LDS doctrine, the historical and social context for the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price, textual-critical theories surrounding their scriptures, etc.

What I found instead was a bunch of rinky-dink 2-credit religion courses which barely scratched the surface of these issues. That wouldn't be a bad thing in itself if there was a higher level of courses being offered for those who desire a deeper study. But there isn't. The deepest courses on Scripture I took were the Hebrew and Greek ones, and those were on texts from the Bible which had a world of secular, evangelical, and Catholic scholarship to draw from. And they required you to know Hebrew and Greek. What's someone who doesn't want to learn Hebrew or Greek supposed to do?

Pearl of Great Price was the first course I took, and I was looking forward to hearing the pro-LDS side of the Book of Abraham papyri controversy. Indeed, the teacher did assign John Gee's A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri as a text. But he never actually assigned any readings from it (!). He pretty much just said, "Enjoy the book on your own, we're going to talk about other things." The entire class dealt with the theology and teachings of the PoGP. We never got into any serious discussions of Egyptology or the Book of Abraham papyri.

There's plenty of contextualization of the Doctrine & Covenants through the study of Mormon history, but as far as the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price go, BYU doesn't offer anything other than surface-scratching beginner religion courses.

I'm at seminary now, and I'm just amazed at the depth and variety of classes I can take on the Christian tradition. I can do entire courses on a single book of the Bible or on Jonathan Edwards or on a very specific aspect within the evangelical tradition. There's 2000 years of Christian history to study, about 500 years of it Protestant specifically, and it is incredibly rich and layered and vast. I saw nothing like it at BYU outside of my language courses on the New and Old Testament books and some of the Mormon history courses.

Mormons would probably contest that they don't offer such a variety of religious courses because they lack a professional clergy and therefore have not nearly the need for it. But I don't think that's all there is to it. With the Book of Mormon and PoGP lacking manuscript traditions and having questionable historical credibility, I think there just isn't anywhere deeper to go.

Point being, any LDS statements to the effect that Protestants or other Christians lack depth in doctrine and theology are not rooted in fact. We have meat, it's out on the table, and we're eating it. Even better, we aren't slapping people's hands away from our table like some Latter-day Saints do theirs.

[_truth dancer]

Thanks for the responses to my question.

As a believer I really struggled with the idea that only really brilliant members could have access to the "meat."

My impression or understanding from reading the New Testament was that truth would be available to even the "least" and that the "change of heart" or the transformation of soul was unrelated to understanding theology, grasping the deep doctrines, or being the chosen or elite. I believed that the two great commandments were really the essence of our spiritual journey and all else was just human additions, meant to help but ultimately, at least for me it makes the pure message of Godliness messy, complicated, and nonsensical.

The "milk before meat" idea really disturbed me on every level, from the deception to the elitism; it never felt holy.

~td~

[_Nightlion]

. Even better, we aren't slapping people's hands away from our table like some Latter-day Saints do theirs.

Prophet centrism has gutted LDS depth. To maintain a prophet centric church the people are not taught how to accomplish the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost. Thereby defeating God's intent to teach every man and lead unto himself and draw them ever closer.

Having been drawn of God ten years I took it upon myself to research LDS deep doctrine and ended up rewriting LDS theology to a great extent. I discovered an hitherto unknown stage of existence that LDS scripture supports and is needed to make sense of everything else. I got slapped down for my efforts. They put me on probation for teaching an elder's quorum my findings. It was patently obvious when I demonstrated the doctrine from LDS scripture. I was not making stuff up.

What it did was threaten the peace and power and mystic and awe of THE PROPHET and flipping over the chessboard of LDS protocols by changing how the game is played and disallowing how everyone is already invested in getting ahead.

But the Christian depths are more about learning and being skilled in learning the learning that is written and becoming familiar with all the learning that has been learned and using the proper nomenclature for expounding the ever learning learning of those learned learns. Know what I mean?

[Rikiti]

.

[_MsJack]

Ezias ~ I think that the LDS take on "milk before meat" likely comes from D&C 19:22, where it is used as a justification for hiding things from the world.

From there it's been read eisegetically into the text of the Bible.

[_Nightlion]

.

From there it's been read eisegetically into the text of the Bible.

See there? Just so very soteriologically so.

Go Jimmy
Go Jimmy
Go Jimmy

[Rikiti]

.

[Rikiti]

.

[_huckelberry]

Ezias ~ I think that the LDS take on "milk before meat" likely comes from D&C 19:22, where it is used as a justification for hiding things from the world.

From there it's been read eisegetically into the text of the Bible.

Bridget, I think that pretty accurately sums up the matter. Well stated.

Ezias, I hope you will sometime take the time to look at some better Protestant books. Godmaker and other antimorman stuff is trash. If you look you can find Protestant writing on whatever leval of thought and learning which you choose to look for.