Milk before meat, the mormons may have gotten it right!

  • Thread starter Thread starter why_me
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Ok, then please point out in scriptures where there were secrets specifically taught as the temple ceremony is. That is, where are the scriptures that tell us the meat is secret handshakes, tokens, special underwear, annointing body parts, etc.?

These “secrets” have to be identified somewhere in scriptures or they were made up by a man 1800 years after the death and resurrection of the Lord.

This has to apply to the topic as Mormons have said they can’t talk about the “meat”, the temple ceremony, as taught by Christ. Therefore it appears they use this as justification to keep from telling converts about the ceremony up front. To us it appears that is not spoken about in order to “hook” a convert in as deeply as possible before revealing that which would make anyone walk away if it were spoken about early in the conversion process.
Click to expand...
Gee do you think maybe those scriptures are not there because the rituals were secret?
 
Catholic_Dude said:
No. Paul is saying we can’t get into the INTERESTING spiritual truths because you Corinthians mind’s are in the gutter, so Paul has to go back to the do’s and dont’s (milk) of what it means to be Christian.
Click to expand...
I think that this may be correct. He was addressing the church. The corinthians were basically a wicked people and the wickedness of the population was affecting the church as chapter 3 in first corinthians shows.
 
mfbukowski said:
Gee do you think maybe those scriptures are not there because the rituals were secret?
Click to expand...
:rotfl:

Also, I must say, that Paul said and wrote more than what we now have in the new testament. Much has been lost. To assume that all that Paul taught and said is in the bible would be a stretch.
 
mfbukowski said:
Gee do you think maybe those scriptures are not there because the rituals were secret?
Click to expand...
why_me said:
Also, I must say, that Paul said and wrote more than what we now have in the new testament. Much has been lost. To assume that all that Paul taught and said is in the bible would be a stretch.
Click to expand...
Then explain how that secret was revealed, in such detail, 1800 years later.:rolleyes:
 
Tsuzuki said:
“And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.” - 2 Nephi 31:21"Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen." - D&C 20:28
Click to expand...
Ah. Thank you. I was going to ask, ‘How can the Holy Spirit be just a spirit when they believe the other Two had bodies…,’ but, it is irrelevant now. Thank you for supplying this knowledge. This is good to know.

I am kinda envious of you having all those different belief sets to read. I was psyched when I found out my parent’s sattelite stations include BYU TV. BYU TV! I mean, I haven’t yet watched it, but, I can at any time. 🙂

I rather like the learning about others and again, I am in awe that you take the time to read about what is truth to the other religions. Not all people want that knowledge…and the rest of us just can’t be bothered to really look for it.
 
mfbukowski said:
How does God reveal things? You better ask him that
Click to expand...
Through “borrowing” from mystery religion initiatory ceremonies that go as far back as the early Christian days of 1717?

Seems rather unlikely.

I know of no other orthodox Christian faith that participates in this “milk before meat”. Simpler concepts are used as a starting point for more complex ones, but those more complex contents aren’t denied from the outset.

See polygyny.
 
Tsuzuki said:
“And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.” - 2 Nephi 31:21

“Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.” - D&C 20:28
Click to expand...
So this is where I get confused with Mormonism. Is it 3 in 1 God or 3 separate Gods? They seem to mix it up a bit.:confused:
 
Don’t worry about it. They say whatever they think will please the hearer. Their writings are so self-contradictory that they have no trouble doing that.
 
ralphinal said:
I just re-read them. In light of your post, I now think that they are a command to trick people into becoming Mormon. The first time I read them, I took them to mean that you should teach about repentance. Again, I will ask: why not tell the whole story and let peopel judge for themselves?
Click to expand...
Here is why:

Matthew 4:

17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Mark 6:

12 And they went out, and preached that men should repent.

Luke 24:

46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

zerinus
 
Jerusha said:
Don’t worry about it. They say whatever they think will please the hearer. Their writings are so self-contradictory that they have no trouble doing that.
Click to expand...
I just read this.

This struck me as uncharitable.

This may be true, though. I would ask you to please provide proof of the self-contradictory writtings and you may have provided some or all with citation. Somebody could refute it and say that the same thing could be proved in Catholocism.

The difference, is, though, would the Mormons explain how these seeming differences could be reconciled?
 
adstrinity said:
The difference, is, though, would the Mormons explain how these seeming differences could be reconciled?
Click to expand...
I have followed this debate for several years, and have seen many of these contradictions. And really don’t have the time to dig them out.

I invite them to reconcile those contradictions.
 
adstrinity said:
I would ask you to please provide proof of the self-contradictory writtings and you may have provided some or all with citation.
Click to expand...
We’ve had dozens of threads on this; in fact, most Mormon threads devolve into discussion about this. Their “prophets” aren’t considered infallible so Mormon teachings shift and change like sand dunes. Things that were taught by, for example, Brigham Young and which exerted great influence on the LDS church for a century or more, are routinely dismissed by modern Mormons as holding no import. It gets very frustrating and I have to assume that this is what Jerusha was referring to.
 
why_me said:
It has often been said on this section of the forum that the mormons give milk before meat. And this is said in criticism of the mormons. And yet, in the KJV bible we find the same principle. I think that the criticism that mormons give milk before meat should now be laid to rest.

I found this today in the New Testament: 1 Corinthians Chapter 3:

1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
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.
3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

It seems that Paul was also feeding the early church, milk before meat because of the carnal nature of the human being. And then we have this verse from Hebrews chapter 5, verse 12-14:

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.
13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

And then finally, 1 Peter chapter 2:1-2:

1 Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,
2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby.

And so, the mormons may have gotten it right. Milk should be before meat.
Click to expand...
:sleep: :shamrock2:
 
mfbukowski said:
How does God reveal things? You better ask him that
Click to expand...
I had thought surely your Church history would say how those secret things were revealed to a man of your Church in such detail since they are clearly not in scriptures. Or, maybe you’re not allowed to speak of how these things were revealed 1800 years later? :rolleyes: Your refusal to address the question directly seems to validate the accusations that those secret ceremony rituals were taken from the Masons. 🤷
 
adstrinity said:
I just read this.

This struck me as uncharitable.

This may be true, though. ** I would ask you to please provide proof of the self-contradictory writtings and you may have provided some or all with citation**. Somebody could refute it and say that the same thing could be proved in Catholocism.

The difference, is, though, would the Mormons explain how these seeming differences could be reconciled?
Click to expand...
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4152087#post4152087
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
So this is where I get confused with Mormonism. Is it 3 in 1 God or 3 separate Gods? They seem to mix it up a bit.:confused:
Click to expand...
They don’t mix it up. Your confusion stems from the fact that the Bible does not teach the Trinity. That is your own inventions—and I agree, it is confusing.

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
They don’t mix it up. Your confusion stems from the fact that the Bible does not teach the Trinity. That is your own inventions—and I agree, it is confusing.

zerinus
Click to expand...
Honestly, If the “Great and Abominal Church” wanted to insert its obvious “Platonic philosophy” into the Scriptures, don’t you think they would have done a better job of it?

Wouldn’t the best way to insert “inventions” into religous dogma be to simply place it into the canon (which those same people developed?)

Occams razor: not friendly to restorationists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top