Milk before meat

[zaffiroborant]

Posting wikipedia threads as references displays ignorance and lack of credibility.

Furthermore, taking quotes from LDS leaders and discussing them out of context is dishonest.

The bottom line is that presenting some of the more spurious Mormon Doctrines immediately to someone who has had one viewpoint of Christian Doctrine their whole life is simply not appropriate. This is true for all religions. Not because the doctrines and history are to be ashamed of, but because the person learning for the first time is not in a position to understand those things immediately.

It would be like taking a classroom full of 1st graders and introducing them to Calculus before they even know their times tables. It would blow their mind and many of them would conclude that it must all be nonsense. A foundation has to be built first before you can go to the next level.

‘Milk before meat’ is more about building from the foundation up so that people understand the context of the doctrines and don’t misinterpret or misrepresent them like so many in this Thread of discussion. It is not, however, about dishonesty, embarrassment, or concealment. It is the most effective way to help someone completely understand the Doctrines in context.

Pleeease, give me a list of the “more spurious Mormon Doctrines”.

 

[SuRoj]

SuRoj, welcome to the boards!

I must disagree, however, we answer any and all questions up front. We present EVERYTHING to those who ask. Those who believe in a certain Christian way like us, (Trinitarians), those who believe in restorationism (LDS, JWs), Athiests, Monothiests (Unitarians, Jews, Muslims), Polythiests (Hindus), Thiests (Agnostics, et al), we answer them and we share up front what we know in a way that it would be best suited for them to understand. Thoroughly. The context and the doctrine.

Secondly, I don’t think any First Grader would think Calculous is bunk, I think it may inspire some to learn addition and subtraction adequately to do the cooler stuff. (Myself, I never caught on to math so much, until Beginners Statistics.)

I have asked Mormons on this forum questions, and I have always found them to be helpful and willing to discuss most things; I don’t really think I can complain about the Mormons on this forum.

Thanks for the welcome, adstrinity,

I’m glad to hear that you’ve had a good experience with Mormons on this forum.

While I respect your disagreement, I not only find it hard to believe, I have many close Catholic friends who would disagree with you as well. Among my close friends are traditional Jews. When we have discussions on religion, my Catholic friends start with the basics and work there way to deeper things.

Another issue, while I’m thinking about it is the advantage a Catholic has compared to a Mormon is time. You have to go way back to the 4th Century to discover the controversial history of Catholicism. As a result, most Catholics are either unaware of the controversies or they can ignore it because it has been so long. LDS Church controversies are no more or less serious than Catholics, yet much was printed in newspapers that can be archived.

On your second point. My math example was simply an analogy and plus there are very few First Graders who care much about anything besides recess!

 

[Answersplease]

Constantly bringing up the “horrible history” of the Catholic Church just shows your bigotry and the depths you will go to in order to paint Mormonism as good and Catholicism as bad.

It is NOT about history. If it was about history, then when do you tell them about the Mormon wars and the Mountain Meadow Massacre?

It is about DOCTRINE and the behaviour of your FIRST PROPHET Joseph Smith, and your other prophets like Brigham Young.

When do you tell them that Joseph Smith was a LIAR and an ADULTERER that had sex with other MENS WIVES?

Time after time, EX-MORMONS have said that they would hold back the more CONTROVERSIAL DOCTRINES and give vague answers or fall back on TESTIMONY.

Gene Fadness was a MORMON STAKE PRESIDENT and he said this:

Marie,

In response to your query about the speed in which converts are baptized, you are correct that the sooner the better. In fact, during my mission in Australia, our mission president – who at that time was a General Authority in the church – introduced the Day of Pentecost Discussion. Several missionaries brought people whom they had invited to the chapel. Most had not even had one discussion, we just invited people to a movie followed by a spiritual discussion. We showed them the film “Joseph Smith’s First Vision” and then went through a summary of all the discussions in about 40 minutes. Each set of missionaries then took their invited guests into separate rooms where we bore a strong and emotional testimony and then asked them to pray about the feelings they were experiencing at the time. If they agreed to baptism, we quickly took them through the Word of Wisdom (dietary laws) and the tithing requirements and then took them to the baptismal font, which was filled and ready to go. Many people were baptized that way. ( I write about this in greater detail in my written testimony which can be found on the Coming Home Network Website.) The mission president in Australia said this new way of teaching was inspired by God. It was called “Day of Pentecost” because it was like the Spirit coming on the church when 3,000 converts were baptized in one day. He also said many countries in Latin American were bringing in new converts in this way. This new way of teaching was controversial with the local leadership because they said the new converts just didn’t know enough about the faith and were falling into inactivity. But our mission president said the Day of Pentecost discussion was revealed to Him by the Lord and would always be the way the gospel would be taught in the Sydney mission. Shortly afteward, he was released, a new mission president (the former mission president’s cousin) came in and took us back to the old way of teaching. (The new president had to be released as well because he was promising sister missionaries that if they weren’t married in this lifetime they would be sealed to him in the hereafter, but that’s another story.)
When I was in the mission home in Salt Lake City before going to Australia we were specifically told not to teach the “deeper” things to new converts. Obviously, you couldn’t tell them about the temple ceremony and we were to only hit lightly on the Doctrine of Eternal Progression, about men becoming gods of their own worlds. “Don’t give them the meat before the milk,” was said alot. If they asked about men becoming Gods, we were to say something vague like, “Our Father in Heaven wants us become perfect just as He is perfec.” and then move on to something else. If they persisted or were challenging us, we resorted to bearing out testimony. In the traditional way of teaching, converts could be asked about baptism as early as the third discussion. Setting a bapismal date was key. Often within a month. This was because we knew that “enemies of the church” would be getting to them to try and discourage them or give them “anti-Mormon” literature.
My experience coming into the Catholic church was dramatically different. I attended Mass for nearly three years before joining and took RCIA for one year. There were no evasive answers, no covering up anything, a ready acknowledgement of the scars of our history rather than trying to explain them away or cover them up.
One of the posters on here (I still haven’t figured out how to highlight a section and respond to it, like all of you do!) said something about their being no follow-up after Mormon converts are baptized. Actually, we did work at retention of new converts though that was primarily the duty of the members. In my experience, Mormons are better than Catholics at staying in touch with new members and making sure they are part of the community.
That’s all for now! God bless!

 

[Answersplease]

Gene Fadness is a former MORMON STAKE PRESIDENT and he said this:

Marie,

In response to your query about the speed in which converts are baptized, you are correct that the sooner the better

 

[SuRoj]

Pleeease, give me a list of the “more spurious Mormon Doctrines”.

zaffiroborant,

This list would be subjective. What I think are spurious doctrines, others may think are the ‘meat’. So, first I will list what I consider to be the real ‘meat’ of Mormon Doctrine, then the spurious list. Neither list will be complete because it’s late and I’m about to go to sleep. So, if you are sincerely asking and you want more, I’ll happily give you more another day. Just let me know.

Examples of what I consider to be the real ‘meat’ of Mormon Doctrine:
-Salvation comes in and through Jesus Christ.
-The Atonement (His Grace) of Jesus Christ is infinite and redeems mankind from the fall.
-Charity, the pure Love of Christ is key. Without it everything else fails.
-The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is literal and all mankind will be resurrected because of Him.
-The Nature of the Godhead (Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, Holy Ghost)
-Having faith in the Lord Jesus Christ
-Repentance (defined as turning your heart away from the world and sin and towards Christ and His Righteousness)
-Ordinances authorized by Christ (baptism, sacrament, temple)
-Agency
-Eternal Marriage
-The Holy Bible as the Word of God (The stick of Judah)
-The Book of Mormon as Another Testament of Jesus Christ (The stick of Joseph)
-Amos 3:7 (Prophets/Apostles authorized by Christ to witness of Jesus Christ and lead souls by word, deed, inspiration, and example to Christ, our Savior)
-Continued Revelation from the Living Christ.
-The literal 2nd Coming of Jesus Christ to reign on earth as King of Kings and Lord of Lords
(This is the essential ‘meat’ of Mormon Doctrine. There is a lot more to each point and there is much more to add to the list, but that is a start.)

Spurious Mormon Doctrines (These are often misrepresented by both Mormons and non-Mormons alike.):
-Plural wives (Note: Any Mormon entering into this practice after 1890 is excommunicated from the Church, but people still like to bring it up after all these years.)
-Who can and cannot hold the Priesthood Authority (i.e. blacks having to wait until 1978 and women not authorized to this day)
-3 Nephites and John remaining on earth
-Kolob
-‘As man is God once was and as God is man may become’.
-Ordinance work for the dead
-Garden of Eden was located in Missouri
(There are others, but those are the main ones people in and out of the LDS Church like to speculate on.)

 

[Answersplease]

The underhanded tactic of constantly bringing up “horrible Catholic history” in order to paint Mormonism as good and cast Catholicism in a bad light…

JUST MAKES ME MAKE MORE MORMON THREADS.

So go ahead and keep doing it.

There are plenty of “interesting” things in Mormonism to make threads about. I just don’t put them all out at once.

 

[SuRoj]

Answersplease:
Answersplease,

You’ve mentioned this a couple of times now. I don’t have time to go back and read all the other posts to find examples of what you are talking about so I will share a few of my thoughts.

I want to make clear that I have a deep love for my Catholic friends and I do not feel any malice whatsoever towards the Catholic Church. I have no reason to.

I agree with you that history really should take a back seat to doctrine. However, I ask you to be consistent. You mentioned, in a previous post, your opinion about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young-two prominent historical figures in LDS Church History. Going back and scrutinizing every little thing they may or may have not said, is putting history in front of doctrine.

I have read a large portion of the History of the Catholic Church written by Catholic historians. The history is rich and full of beautiful stories. I have never said that it is a ‘horrible history’. Did bad things happen? Of course. When people are involved, bad things happen. The same holds true for Mormonism.

My point is, I would love to keep discussions solely about doctrine. In fact, that would be so refreshing! But, so often people still bring up the ‘snap shots’ of some of the misrepresented ‘bad things’ about LDS history to distract the discussion.

I’m with you on this. Let’s just stick to the doctrines.

 

[adstrinity]

What is “Agency”?

And, if Mormons believe that the God of this planet was once a pysical body on another planet, why not just go back to the God who created all the planets before everything and worship Him? What happened to God (the first God)?

 

[Answersplease]

Answersplease,

You’ve mentioned this a couple of times now. I don’t have time to go back and read all the other posts to find examples of what you are talking about so I will share a few of my thoughts.

I want to make clear that I have a deep love for my Catholic friends and I do not feel any malice whatsoever towards the Catholic Church. I have no reason to.

I agree with you that history really should take a back seat to doctrine. However, I ask you to be consistent. You mentioned, in a previous post, your opinion about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young-two prominent historical figures in LDS Church History. Going back and scrutinizing every little thing they may or may have not said, is putting history in front of doctrine.

I have read a large portion of the History of the Catholic Church written by Catholic historians. The history is rich and full of beautiful stories. I have never said that it is a ‘horrible history’. Did bad things happen? Of course. When people are involved, bad things happen. The same holds true for Mormonism.

My point is, I would love to keep discussions solely about doctrine. In fact, that would be so refreshing! But, so often people still bring up the ‘snap shots’ of some of the misrepresented ‘bad things’ about LDS history to distract the discussion.

I’m with you on this. Let’s just stick to the doctrines.

You brought up the bad things about Catholic history TWICE and now you want to just stick to doctrine, AFTER I exposed your TACTICS.

As for Joseph Smith, HE IS YOUR RELIGIONS FOUNDER AND FIRST PROPHET.

As for Brigham Young, HE WAS YOUR PROPHET AND HE SAID ALL HIS SERMONS WERE SCRIPTURE.

And Moroni 10:5 say that they may KNOW THE TRUTH OF ALL THINGS.

So, what ever your “Prophets” say are fair to point out.

 

[Answersplease]

Answersplease,

You’ve mentioned this a couple of times now. I don’t have time to go back and read all the other posts to find examples of what you are talking about so I will share a few of my thoughts.

I want to make clear that I have a deep love for my Catholic friends and I do not feel any malice whatsoever towards the Catholic Church. I have no reason to.

I agree with you that history really should take a back seat to doctrine. However, I ask you to be consistent. You mentioned, in a previous post, your opinion about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young-two prominent historical figures in LDS Church History. Going back and scrutinizing every little thing they may or may have not said, is putting history in front of doctrine.

I have read a large portion of the History of the Catholic Church written by Catholic historians. The history is rich and full of beautiful stories. I have never said that it is a ‘horrible history’. Did bad things happen? Of course. When people are involved, bad things happen. The same holds true for Mormonism.

My point is, I would love to keep discussions solely about doctrine. In fact, that would be so refreshing! But, so often people still bring up the ‘snap shots’ of some of the misrepresented ‘bad things’ about LDS history to distract the discussion.

I’m with you on this. Let’s just stick to the doctrines.

You brought up the bad things about Catholic history TWICE and now you want to just stick to doctrine, AFTER I exposed your TACTICS.

As for Joseph Smith, he is your first “Prophet” and religion’s founder.

As for Brigham Young, he was your “Prophet” and he said all his sermons were scripture.

And Moroni 10:5 say that they may know the truth of all things.

Moroni 10:5

And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

So, what ever your “Prophets” say are fair to point out.

 

[Answersplease]

Posting wikipedia threads as references displays ignorance and lack of credibility.

Furthermore, taking quotes from LDS leaders and discussing them out of context is dishonest.

I don’t have time to go back and read all the other posts to find examples of what you are talking about…

You are rude and if you think that the articles and quotes are wrong or taken out of context, THEN PROVE IT.

And jumping on a thread and ranting about how ignorant people are WITHOUT reading the whole thread just proves your lack of credibility.

And calling people names like “ignorant” without proof just shows how kind and loving your religion really is.

 

[Stephen168]

Anyone who really knows and understands the history and doctrine of Mormonism, will never feel a need to do anything but share the truth with confidence.

I have no problem when my Christian friends purposefully avoid the Jesuit and also Crusades discussion; along with hundreds of other ‘dark spots’ in Christian history.

You have to go way back to the 4th Century to discover the controversial history of Catholicism. As a result, most Catholics are either unaware of the controversies or they can ignore it because it has been so long.

I guess Consistency, Fairness, and Truth is a one way street.

 

[Answersplease]

I apologize for the double posts in #142 and #143,

#143 was supposed to be an edit of #142, but I must have pressed the wrong button by mistake.

 

[aquabatix]

Did you convert or return to the Catholic Church?

Stephen168,
Sorry for the delay in responding. Yes I was a new convert to the RCC. Since I was converted the LDS right before this, I went into examining the RCC with much more care and scrutiny then ever. I felt that the “milk before meat” tactic used when I was an investegator to the LDS was deceptive and left me feeling tricked and betrayed. Those missionaries knew my past and what religious traditions I came from, so there was no excuse as to why they would not be more specific when telling me theirs as they were a different view of God and other things. So when I went to RCIA, I searched heavily on the internet and books for every anti-Catholic opinion. If they could answer these issues to my satisfaction, then I would consider converting. They were able to, openly, honestly and easily. So here I am.

 

[dianaiad]

Pleeease, give me a list of the “more spurious Mormon Doctrines”.

Well, in my experience, Zaf, I would say that the 'more suprious Mormon doctrines" are those presented by folks whose entire purpose is to present Mormonism in the most negative light possible, and who will present inaccurate and out of context claims about LDS beliefs under the pretext of educating people about it.

 

[sablouwho]

Yes I was a new convert to the RCC. Since I was converted the LDS right before this, I went into examining the RCC with much more care and scrutiny then ever. I felt that the “milk before meat” tactic used when I was an investigator to the LDS was deceptive and left me feeling tricked and betrayed. Those missionaries knew my past and what religious traditions I came from, so there was no excuse as to why they would not be more specific when telling me theirs as they were a different view of God and other things. So when I went to RCIA, I searched heavily on the internet and books for every anti-Catholic opinion. If they could answer these issues to my satisfaction, then I would consider converting. They were able to, openly, honestly and easily. So here I am.

Interesting to hear that you were an LDS convert before going into RCIA. I was an LDS investigator myself. I read a lot of anti-Mormon stuff on my own, though, so I didn’t personally experience the “milk before meat” tactic that you describe. My missionaries were unable to avoid topics that I brought up. Though generally when I wanted answers I had to go to LDS theologians, most of my questions were simply too complicated for the missionaries.

I hope you don’t mind my asking–did you have a testimony of the BoM before you got baptized (or, did you think that you did at the time?) If so, how did you loose it later on? Were you a believer of any sort in Jesus prior to becoming LDS?

When I read the entire BoM I had a sense that God’s fingerprints were somehow on it. Despite this, I wasn’t able to ever feel good about the idea of getting baptized. When some doctrines were taught, I felt, for lack of a better term, “spiritually nauseous”. So it didn’t matter to me how wonderful the people were, how wonderful the community was (boy, mainstream Christians could learn a lot from LDS in this respect, and IMO would be the better for it), and even that I had a sense of God in the BoM. There was just something going on that made it clear to me that joining the LDS was not part of God’s desire for my life.

Truth be told, there are some Catholic teachings that I find rather iffy. But somehow I feel the pull toward the RCC despite them. Whereas the teachings in the LDS that I found “iffy” really pushed me away.

Anyway, I’d be really curious to hear more about your LDS experiences. I am still trying to make sense out of my own, so I find it interesting to talk to others who have gone thru something similar.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Well, in my experience, Zaf, I would say that the 'more suprious Mormon doctrines" are those presented by folks whose entire purpose is to present Mormonism in the most negative light possible, and who will present inaccurate and out of context claims about LDS beliefs under the pretext of educating people about it.

ad hominem.

As long as mormons work at pulling Catholics away from truth and into darkness, there will always be people who help them see the light.

 

[SuRoj]

What is “Agency”?

And, if Mormons believe that the God of this planet was once a pysical body on another planet, why not just go back to the God who created all the planets before everything and worship Him? What happened to God (the first God)?

Hi adstrinity,

I do want to say, that I appreciate the fact that you were quick to welcome me to this forum. As a guest to this Forum, it is nice to feel like I am welcome to be here. Also, I haven’t participated in very many Forums in my life, so I’m still learning how to navigate everything.

To answer your first question: Agency, according to LDS Doctrine is the ability and privilege God gives people to choose and to act for themselves.

Your second sets of questions about God are ones I have asked myself. The reality is that not much has been revealed and accepted as official LDS Doctrine about this concept. Most that is written is mere speculation and not founded on canonized scripture. That is the main reason most Mormons don’t talk much about it. Those types of specifics have not be established as official Mormon doctrine. Does that make sense? Let me know because it is important to me that I directly answer all questions.

 

[SuRoj]

You brought up the bad things about Catholic history TWICE and now you want to just stick to doctrine, AFTER I exposed your TACTICS.

As for Joseph Smith, HE IS YOUR RELIGIONS FOUNDER AND FIRST PROPHET.

As for Brigham Young, HE WAS YOUR PROPHET AND HE SAID ALL HIS SERMONS WERE SCRIPTURE.

And Moroni 10:5 say that they may KNOW THE TRUTH OF ALL THINGS.

So, what ever your “Prophets” say are fair to point out.

Answersplease,

I have learned the past few years that when participating in forums or sending emails the tone and intention of the writer is not always clear. Since I am new and we don’t know each other, I want to establish that my tone and intention is honestly kind and friendly. As I’ve mentioned a few times in this thread, some of my dearest friends are active Catholics. As a result, I view this Forum much the same as when my Catholic friends and I sit down and have a great conversation in mutual respect. My intention is to have enjoyable friendly discussions and learn from people on this thread and participate when I have anything to say. Also, as with all of my friends, I have no issue when people are blunt with me and I will be blunt as well. Not in a negative way, but in a straightforward friendly way.

So, in the spirit of friendly and kind discussion, I want to respond to you in the order of your statements above.

If you look back at my comments regarding Catholic history I was simply mentioning it in context of comparative analysis. It was an honest attempt to state that BOTH Mormons and Catholics have things in their history which are not to be proud of. I was not intending in anyway to criticize, only state a fair comparison. If anything, I feel equally critical of Mormon history as I do any other religion’s history. I’ve just found that many people are inconsistent in that they openly criticize LDS History and never mention anything about their own. I also know that many Mormons do the exact same thing. So, once again, I am excited to get away from ‘dark spots’ in ANY Church’s history and focus on the current teachings and established doctrines.

I have no tactics on this forum. So, I’m not sure what you ‘exposed’ or what you are really talking about. I say this sincerely. I am not trying to pick a fight. I am just being honest and friendly in tone. My purpose on this thread is to learn, participate, and enjoy some good open discussions. I do not plan ahead anything I write. I am simply writing what is on my mind according to my life experiences. No tactics. Just trying to participate. I really agreed with you, and continue to agree with you that it is more productive to stick to doctrine.

Yes, Joseph Smith is the Founder and first Prophet and Brigham Young was the second. Any doctrines established by them are definitely pertinent things to discuss. However, speculating about other aspects of their life unrelated to doctrine and the current LDS Church teachings is irrelevant. Personally, I do not believe everything these men said should be considered scripture. Unfortunately some Mormons and non-Mormons forget a related Mormon teaching, which is that we do not believe Prophets are infallible. Mormon Doctrine is that the only one who is infallible and perfect in all things is Jesus Christ. As a result, I have no problem disagreeing with certain things any of the Prophets have said or done.

Having said that, you are completely right. It is totally fair to point out anything Prophets have said.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Well, in my experience, Zaf, I would say that the 'more suprious Mormon doctrines" are those presented by folks whose entire purpose is to present Mormonism in the most negative light possible, and who will present inaccurate and out of context claims about LDS beliefs under the pretext of educating people about it.

I was just curious which doctrines a member of the LDS church would consider spurious. I think it’s an odd word to use to describe ones own doctrine.