Milk before meat. This phrase comes out frequently in discussions regarding education about church-related history, theology, or other matters. When is the appropriate time and where is the appropriate place for members to be given milk? When is the appropriate time and where is the appropriate place for members to be given meat? Should the church institutionally ever provide meat? If so, where and when? Is that what Sunday School is for? Is that what Seminary is for? How about Institute?
A while back, John C began a discussion at By Common Consent regarding the role of the Church Educational System in the development or maintenance of members’ testimonies. I wrote my own comments about it at Irresistible (Dis)Grace, and I consider both posts prerequisite reading for this one (aren’t I a stinker?), but I wanted to discuss this issue from a different angle. Near the end of John’s discussion, a commenter, Blain, made this statement:
You can have meat. You just have to find it on your own. Choking on it is a common initial experience, but it doesn’t have to be fatal.
There are two ideas in this statement that can be picked at, of course…the first is whose responsibility it is to seek the “meat”. The second, however, is what one does to consume it safely.
Who’s responsible for the meat?
One divide between many commenters at the BCC post was between whether the church (or some body of the church, like CES or Sunday School) or the individual was primarily responsible for the meat — most of the criticisms of the church’s coverage of controversial issues only make sense if one assumes that the church had a responsibility or duty to inform and educate its members of these controversial details.
Maybe it isn’t, but my thoughts are that if the church wants to at least nominally refer to certain aspects of its institution in terms couched in connotations of learning (e.g., Church Educational System, Sunday School, Seminary, etc.,) then calling out the content provided through these avenues is fair game.
On the other hand, the argument that the church isn’t responsible for these issues has some merit. After all, polygamy really isn’t the show here. Historical race issues really aren’t the main dish either. The church really doesn’t have any reason to publicly air its dirty laundry, either. So, if time is precious, why focus on those issues when the church has other pressing priorities?
So, let’s just assume that individuals are responsible for finding the meat themselves. Great. But then, things aren’t completely resolved…where should they find the meat?
It’s all well and good to say that members should study source documents and dive deep into philosophy and theology and history and who knows what else, but most people simply aren’t going to do that. Instead of everyone having to start from scratch (or, to go with our food analogy, start with butchering the cattle live), it would make sense for people to have places to go (in the same way most of us can get fast food.)
Fast food? Maybe that’s a bad analogy.
…Or maybe it’s a perfect analogy.
So, if we’re talking about people searching for meat, and if it’s reasonable for people to want to find prepackaged deals, then the issue is how will people do quality control? For people who were shocked by some fact about the church they had learned, the problem may not have been that they didn’t research enough, but that they researched extensively but weren’t able to find anything compelling that was sympathetic to the church. From the church’s perspective of maintaining members’ spiritual fitness, so to speak, if the church will not provide meat and leaves members to fend for themselves, then what happens when the products on the market are mostly unhealthy?
How can one ensure meat is safe?
Disregarding Word of Wisdom language that meat should not be eaten, except in times of famine or winter, most people aren’t ideologically opposed to meat. In other words, meat isn’t bad per se. To carry the analogy back to the church, the raw facts of most points of LDS church history or doctrine aren’t bad per se. Two people can come across the same controversy with respect to church history or doctrine, and one can have his testimony shattered, and the other can be unfazed — suggesting that perhaps the decisive factor isn’t always just what the person learned. (For this reason, I understand that informed believers can understandably be annoyed when disaffected members may say things like, “If you knew x, you wouldn’t believe anymore.”)
If the meat itself isn’t necessarily the problem, then what makes the difference? Instead, maybe what makes meat dangerous is how it is prepared. How it is cooked.
Questions for today:
So, here are the real questions: if the church does not institutionally provide meat, then should it at least teach a framework for members to prepare the meat so it is safe? And what would that look like? What are the commonalities of well-informed member testimonies? Is there something that well-informed, thoughtful members commonly do when confronting new or controversial information regarding the church so that their testimonies remain strong (however changed they may be)? Is there something that can be exported to anyone confronting new issues in a reliable way?
Here, it seems to me like blogs like the various ones throughout the Bloggernacle, journals like Dialogue, and of course, apologetics groups like FAIR may be good non-institutional efforts to teach people how to approach the cooking process for new meat, BUT because they are non-institutional, they lack the scope and the force that an institutional church effort would have. To put it in another way, how many people in your ward do you know who would read Wheat & Tares, By Common Consent, Times & Seasons, or the journal Dialogue?
Wheat & Tares 
No kidding. That sort of thing often strikes me wrong when said.
I’m always surprised at how many DO read these things. I’m surprised that the number is higher than zero, that is. But I have encountered quite a few people who read online LDS forums not sponsored by the church.
I think the meat analogy is full of possibilities. Unfortunately, sometimes when people go in search of meat, the meat they find is tainted or mystery meat. Sometimes people don’t have a strong enough stomach to digest it. And sometimes I wonder if we’ve done away with all the meat in our rage to be liked by evangelicals.
Okay, I’ll give some of your questions a smug shot…
I think the church provides tons of meat. Preexistence, eternal past and future, spirit world, degrees of glory, embodied gods, exaltation. It seems that it provides a meatfest like almost no other. They don’t answer every possible question, but there is plenty to chew on.
I think the framework is mostly a fallback on the scriptures, teachings of prophets, and personal revelation.
I think some commonalities of informed testimonies are that they are simple testimonies of core things. Not very many absolutes. This will aloow some flexibility.
When I come accros something controversial I remain patient. Many scholars and critics do not know as much as they think they do. So I keep in mind that I do not have the full picture.
Non institutional help is fine, but many do not feel that they need it. God does not reveal everything all at once. We all must oporate on partial information. The church can not pretend to have received revelation that it has not received – or shouldn’t.
This is why I prefer the pealing away the onion analogy over this milk versus meat.
The problem is what is milk and what is meat is in the eye of the beholder among many other problems with the analogy.
I like Eric’s comments in that if some people took a step back they would see that the LDS church is meatier than most Church’s and encourages, not discourages the search for knowledge.
While there is an indoctrination aspect to the way the Church teaches it’s doctrine and history, the background information is readily available and I cannot understand why some seem not to know this and take advantage of it, if they are interested.
Of course, everyone is going to interpret the results differently. in some cases, it’s no big deal, in others, it is testimony shattering. Not sure why that is.
Re Andrew-
First of all, damn you for making me read two extra posts!!! Secondly, your post at ID was well done, and is what I would have responded with.
For me, finding out about x was not the issue. I expected there to be unsavory aspects of anyone’s history. It started by eroding my trust in the institution. After all, it’s not God in question, or Pres. Monson. For me, it’s the institution itself (which I believe is what we now associate with priesthood authority). The institution makes bold claims, particularly strong truth claims. To feel betrayed, even a little, is enough to get the ball rolling.
It is indeed ironic to so boldly proclaim that people should get their meat elsewhere, while the message is simultaneously sent that one has “fallen” because they got their meat elsewhere.
After thinking about this problem a fair amount, I’ve come to believe that I’m okay with things the way they are. I wish there was more honesty, and less feeling of indoctrination, but OTOH, I think the church’s truth claims and its ability to create a strong community would be compromised. Part of what we enjoy at church (strong community, ease of mobilizing, etc.) is a direct result of our strictness, our indoctrination, and our bold claims.
Also, I’m wondering what exactly prompts us to worry so much about people falling away? When it’s a family member I see how it could be tied to eternal family doctrines. But when we’re talking about CES, what makes us worry? Is it the same thing, or some benevolent flattery we give ourselves that because the church helps it could help others? It seems to me there is enough doctrine in the church to allow us to more comfortably embrace the idea of people “falling away” (read: following their own spiritual path).
I still maintain that everyone should have access to all sources to make up their own minds. If a source is blatantly wrong or inaccurate, that can be noted. Other organizations, religions and countries have been working through this process for years. It doesn’t have to be so difficult. So I don’t understand why the more complicated, nuanced stuff can’t be taught in seminary, GD class, etc. What if there is an acceptance that people will either have a testimony or not, due to factors outside anyone’s (human) control.
I don’t agree with the milk before meat policy in general, even with my own kids. Obviously when they were younger, there are questions that I can’t answer quickly. My answers were more basic. As they get older, I can be more detailed because they have a broader understanding of concepts like money, relationships, countries, politics.
Finally, I never had a chance to comment on either of the original posts, but if it really is spending a third of the tithing funds at CES, it’s a little shocking (to me). It really shouldn’t be so much for a worldwide church/non profit organization. Are people simply justifying their own existence?? I believe it doesn’t have to be so complicated. But I’m not in charge and never could be.
Just got on break for my training class dealie today, so I’ll try to answer some posts. I’m posting from a computer that only has Internet Explorer 7 (ugggh), so I’m guessing at comment numbers…if I get them wrong, I apologize.
re 1:
Stephen,
Yeah, fortunately, I think I know enough thoughtful believers that I don’t say things like that too often.
re 2:
hawkgrrrl
I think it also depends on where you are. I know some people talk about their wards as if there are several people who go to the various nacle sites in one ward. I would contrast this with my ward, where I doubt anyone goes on the Mormon interwebs. (then again, I must admit that I haven’t been regularly attending for a few years, haha.)
I think that there are several posts (heck, an entire book) about the church either emphasizing or de-emphasizing the meat in order to be more or less distinctive.
re 3:
Eric,
I think Hawkgrrrl’s point about the meat being deemphasized is somewhat relevant at sometime. Sometimes I think that the church in years past was a lot more interesting and exciting than today…but I would say that the LDS church has a lot of meaty doctrines…but we just don’t go into them as far as we could.
re 4,
Jeff,
You say you’re not sure why it is that people interpret the results differently. Do you have any conjectures why? (Actually, do I even want to ask this question?)
re 5,
jmb,
I’m just making up for your sucking me into a conserveconomics post.
but seriously, good post. Even if the discussion is getting kinda heated.
Maybe it’s because the church’s goals (at least one of them) to strengthen the membership of the Church wherever they may be. that’s for anyone, not just our own personal family members.
re 6?
aerin,
ahaha, that was something I missed from the BCC post. Yeah, I don’t know how much education should cost, but something that is that highly represented in an organization should be optimized for its effectiveness…however that optimization would look.
I would go so far as to suggest that the reason why so many members “worry” about others falling away is because of an innate fear within themselves that questions why the other person chose a different path. As in, they are worrying for themselves as well. Also possibly a desire to take a more a more active role in their own lives and make decisions for themselves that they see the other person has made and they have not.
I am a big believer in that most people just “go along” because they are lazy and it’s easier to do so. You have to be motivated to go and find the meat and maybe that’s what the Church counts on is that not everyone is motivated. That and the stigma attached to being “that person” in the ward or the family…..
Milk vs Meat: This is just another Correlation word trick to make everyone think they are all talking about the same thing.
I can remember the war by the Church against ” No Man Knows My History”, when it knew most of the history Brodie wrote was correct__but didn’t wantthis ‘Meat’ out. Now, most of the her history is in line with accepted Church History.
“Is there something that well-informed, thoughtful members commonly do when confronting new or controversial information regarding the church so that their testimonies remain strong (however changed they may be)?”
Not sure that I have an easy answer to this – I was fortunate to have a Sunstone reading Institute teacher, and everything was presented pretty matter of factly, and that presentation made everything pretty tame.
I also think that the easiest way to minimize the “new” factor is to put it into the Primary manuals (as much as possible, anyway). If “everybody knows that”, it can’t ever have that much shock value.
I guess I would say that if you treat it as secretive, concealed, shocking, or whatever, that is how it will be perceived. If you make it plain and matter of fact, then that is how it will be perceived. Kind of like parents who over-react (or don’t) to stuff their kids do – how we (the church) react sends a message, like it or not.
man… is that an egg yolk or a relatively spherical dollop of melted cheese on that meat patty?
Speaking as someone who, thanks to having RnY surgery five years ago, nibbles and picks at anything reasonably solid and or of substance, and subsists largely on pastes, smoothies, and purees (still better than getting an early start on the “dirt nap” thanks to morbid obesity)…
“Milk” was literally that an infant suckled at his mother’s breast. Of course, breast-feeding beyond the second and even third birthdays wasn’t uncommon in the days of yore. Not only the blandness and simplicity of mother’s milk, but also the dependency. Necessary when one is spiritually an infant…but ya gotta grow up sometime….
“Meat’ isn’t just “carne”, it simply means solid, adult food. In that sense, bread and vegetables can be “meat”. Now, you can be a “steak and potatoes” man, and do just fine…but the foodies know that there’s a culinary universe just waiting to be explored! I’m not implying gluttony, either, far from it (and I know all too well from personal experience). I’m implying that, while we can respect our health by eating to live, there is an art and enjoyment, so we can have “joy” and within reason “live to eat”. So the Gospel offers a veritable smorgasboard. The best part is that there’s no limits on trip to the buffet, and you don’t have to go to the bathroom and purge to take in more.
re 9,
KT,
Interesting idea…so do you think that members who are more “secure” in their testimony are going to be less likely to worry about where others are with respect to the church?
re 11:
Prometheus,
yeah, it seems that some people get through these issues because of a particularly well-informed person in their lives…but of course, not everyone can have, say, a Sunstone-reading Institute teacher environment.
re 12:
SUNNofaB.C.Rich,
That is a raw egg yolk. Also, that steak tartare is basically uncooked.
To me, that photo at the top of the post is basically a death trap, which is why I posted it.
re 13,
Douglas,
So, you say the Gospel offers a veritable smorgasboard, but isn’t there a sense in which you have to go outside the church environment to access that smorgasboard. But in that case, how do you make sure that you’re finding the best quality solid food, so to speak, and that you’re preparing and cooking it right?
@ Andrew,
“To me, that photo at the top of the post is basically a death trap, which is why I posted it”.
IMO, any doctor would say your meat and egg dish would be an OK meal (after cooking). Just not one you should eat three times a day.
Are you saying__in ‘milk before meat’__ that meat is a death trap for Mormons? I know many Mormons who do.
re 15:
Bob,
You say “(after cooking)”. But to me, steak tartare (which is basically cooked less than rare) and raw egg (uncooked) is a bad idea. Then again, I’m not a doctor.
The point is: milk before meat is fine. If the church doesn’t want to provide meat, that’s fine.
But if people find meat, then my thing is that meat has to be properly prepared to be safe to consume…where will people learn to properly prepare and cook meat?
My point is that meat isn’t bad, as long as you properly prepare for it. How many members are prepared?
I don’t remember exactly who in the Church said it but I heard that the mission of the Church is to proclaim the gospel and that is why most General Conferences and Sacrament Meetings are variations of the missionary lessons.
But it would be nice if the CES were to kick it up a notch.
On the other hand maybe we are given the milk so often because we can’t seem to even handle it. Maybe we are taught to forgive a great deal because we are unforgiving jerks.
just my two cents.
#16: Andrew,
“The point is: milk before meat is fine. If the church doesn’t want to provide meat, that’s fine”.
IMO__ it is not fine to not provide what they promise/claim to provide.
Who Pasteurizes and Homaginalizes the Milk?
The Church does. They make sure (in their minds), what is safe to drink. If the Church does not like the ‘meat’, they will hide it, not have it in the manuels, will not sell in their book stores , they will not teach it in their Sunday schools.
You know all this time I thought that the Church was holding back…giving us milk instead of meat. Now i realize you can’t give what you don’t have. The truth is the modern Church doesn’t have any meat to give. Any meat we did have was from Joseph and we have ignored or rejected what he gave us until we have very little meat remaining. So I will stop complaining…the leaders can’ give what they don’t have. The butcher shop is closed.
“First of all, damn you for making me read two extra posts!!!”
First of all, damn you for putting pictures of high calorie hamburgers before me just before supper! Yumy-ee!
haha, FireTag, haha.