Recently at church I’ve become lactose intolerant. My mind needs to be stimulated with new and intriguing thoughts, or I become bored and fidgety. But all I get at church is milk. Every time somebody tries to bring up something interesting, or heterodox, somebody else will say we need to have “Milk before meat”. [1]
Ok, I understand the idea behind milk before meet. It is a metaphor for an infant’s nutrition. Paul used it in his letter to the Corinthians to say that the new converts needed just the basics [2]. I get that. That is what the Gospel Essentials class is for. I also understand that Sacrament Meeting talks should probably be milk. But why Gospel Doctrine Class, Why High Priest Group?
I’m a 60 year old man, 5th generation Mormon, and I have sat through literally thousands of hours of milk teaching. And just like a child that only was fed milk its entire life, I’m starting to become weak without the meat.
Paul didn’t say never eat meat, he just said drink your milk first. OK, I’ve done that, so where’s the beef? It is not in GD class unless you have a progressive teacher. It’s not even in HPG! Here you have the most seasoned and learned men in the ward. In my HPG there are 4 former bishops, and two former SP counselors. If anybody can take the meat, it would be them! This was not always the case. Before correlation we had priesthood manuals written by John Widtsoe, Lowell Bennion, and O.C. Tanner [3]. Even our favorite apologist, Daniel Peterson, agrees that the current state of church manuals needs fixing [4].
Correlation has turned us all into vegetarians!
My only nourishment is non-church approved sources. Before the Internet, it was Sunstone magazine and Dialogue. In the early 1990’s the first Mormon discussion on the Internet added some more meat. I was very active on Mormon-L. Books by “Signature” line my bookshelf. With the internet there is meat everywhere today, but nothing on Sunday. The only church approved place for real discussion might be an institute class, or in the religion department at BYU. But why not on Sunday? Why can’t I go to church and be mentally and spiritually fed?
[1] “And I command you that you preach naught but repentance, and show not these things unto the world until it is wisdom in me. For they cannot bear meat now, but milk they must receive; wherefore, they must not know these things, lest they perish” (D&C 19:21-22).
[2] 1 3:2 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] John A. Widtsoe, Rational Theology: As Taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (currently reprinted by Signature Books as a part of its Signature Mormon Classics)
Lowell Bennion, Teachings of the New Testament
O.C. Tanner, Christ’s Ideals for Living
[4] See interview at Mormon Heretic
Wheat & Tares 
AMEN!
Maybe we have too many sacred cows to allow any of them to be slaughtered.
God doesn’t even seem to be internally consistent on this principle. The introduction of polygamy, for example, was like giving a piece of sashimi to a newborn – with a big glob of wasabi on top.
Give up trying to change the institution. Instead, skip Sunday School and head to your car to read the scriptures, along with an excellent scriptural commentary by N.T. Wright, John Walton, Peter Enns, Adam Miller, or David Bokovoy, to name just a few. You’re 60 and I’m about to turn 65. Time is precious. We shouldn’t waste it tilting it windmills.
Farside, you can read in class as well. BTW, many classes appreciate a little meat now and then.
So, you are an adult, I presume. Can you not spiritually feed yourself? Ultimately, you are responsible for your spirituality, no one else. If you need meat, go find it. I know that sounds snarky, but it’s not meant that way. And I am surprised that your HPG isnt more like that , tho. My husband learned a lot in our HPG…we have the Stake Patriarch and a former Stake Pres, sev Bishops, he came home with a new insight almost every week. (He is now assigned to a prison branch…where he learns all kinds of different things, lol)
Paul did say to serve milk before meat, but he also cautioned against eating meat when doing so might be troublesome to those weaker in faith, as a matter of charity.
Nothing stops anyone from getting all the meat he or she wants in private study or small group interactions outside the church classroom. Don’t wait for a Sunday School teacher to give meat — one can go and get it him- or herself.
Good point ji, I should have put something about hurting the weaker in faith as a reason Paul gave for the milk before meat. But that doesn’t explain why my HPG should only sustain itself on milk. There is nobody “weaker in faith” in there, and yet our lessons are a rehash of “milk” from GC. I think we’ve been so accustom to milk in all our lessons (via correlation) they any hint of meat “upsets out digestive system” .
And yes, you are also correct that I can get a full load of meat outside of Sunday classes, and I do! the point of my post was the lac of meat in classes.
Ever consider the fact that Paul could have been wrong? Is there something that says he never made a mistake?
It has always bothered me more than I can say that people are brought into the church — and even born into the church — and shielded from what core beliefs are. What does that say about the degree of our personal conviction or about the degree of trust we can place in certain doctrines?
If these things were open and forged in the fire, as it were, wouldn’t we be more clear about how they impact in our lives or whole lives through? Wouldn’t’ people who convert actually be converted rather and disappearing within 6 months or a year?
Mormons have never shied from being a peculiar people. Why do we shy from being a transparent people?
Your comment that you might find meat in an institute made me laugh. I’ve been taking institute classes for a few years now and I’ve only had one teacher who ever gave us more than the usual Sunday school lesson.
Bill,
I like meat, too. I can’t speak for the powers-that-be — but I do have a fear of encouraging more meat — who do we trust to teach the meaty lesson? I don’t want a meat lesson from either an ultra-zealous right-winger or a weirdo left-winger, if either one is going to insist his or her meat is correct and all others are wrong.
Since it is so easy and so common to turn doctrine into dogma, and since one member’s doctrine is another member’s folklore, really, maybe it is best that we stick to milk in our worship meetings. But that milk needs to shift away from talks about talks towards far more scripture and testimony. In such a case, I think the meat will be better accepted when presented as scripture and testimony.
As we try to learn to sit in council with the new curriculum program, and if we can actually sit in council rather than teaching lessons, then there might be an opportunity for more meat. But sitting in council is contrary to our lived tradition, oddly so. Our ward councils most certainly are not good examples of sitting in council. I hope we can learn what it means to sit in council, and allow for the sharing of perspectives that can occur if we are able to do so.
But, because we split adult PH quorum meetings by age (except for youngsters who are HPs — and except when I occasionally give up and go to the Elders quorum meeting), we have in our HP group both new converts and a perenially visiting nonmember. Some of our teachers/discussion leaders are sensitive to their presence, some are not. I wonder how Bishop Bill managed to get nobody “weaker in faith” in his group.
I have found ways to introduce in SS and HP group at least non-homogenized (non-correlated) milk — sometimes even cheese (haven’t yet tried any of the really odoriferous varieties) — apparently without offending anyone in SS GD or HP. But the aim is always to hold interest, stimulate scripture study, and motivate Christian living. (Lowell Bennion and O.C. Tanner were good at that; Hugh Nibley not so much.) Still, I’m told and believe there are wards where my non-correlated approach would not be tolerated.
Could it be that we are to eat meat “sparingly” and “only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine”? I think some SS and HP classes may be times of famine for some of us.
In my experience, the meat is served in primary, The children are not fully correlated or socialized. They have a low tolerance for sour milk. They won’t eat kangaroo meat or jackalope meat and such. They ask honest questions. One curious 10 year old in primary many years ago was permanently kicked out because he was asking too many hard questions and it was destroying the testimonies of the other children and some of the leaders.
One example: the song, “Heavenly Father, Are you really there? Do you answer each and every child’s prayer?…” The discussion of these fundamental questions are meaty and are seldom entertained by adult classes.
Volunteer to teach the monster boys in primary or the girls of the same age. Throw away the manual, they have been through it at least twice. Gain their confidence so that they don’t just mess around. Ask them the hard questions. Let them use their phones to find answers. You might get released from the steak fry that will follow quickly, but maybe not.
Why does ‘meat always equate to topics that might scare off new members? There is a sooo much in our history, doctrine, and scriptures and almost all of it can be taught in such a way that it is engaging rather than threatening.
Mind putting polygamy in an engaging way?
It puzzles me that people hold up O. C. Tanner’s manual as a pattern of what the Church could be … has anyone actually read it? I personally find it unremarkable, but to each his own.
ReTX,
I agree, and I think we might as well dive right into the engaging stuff, so long as we have one eye out for newcomers who don’t know the lingo.
In my experience, worrying about scaring off the new members is worse than actually scaring off the new members. When we’re overcareful, we start sounding cagey, which makes us sound even more cult-like and creepy.
Bishop Bill,
You’re right. You’re spot on. This milk before meat atrophy is what makes church lessons seem so boring and contrived to so many people. Paul didn’t mention potatoes, but if he lived now, he might have. In my experience, people manage the gristly, tough meat much better with some boring, starchy well-knowns in the same pot.
I apologize if I’m over-stretching the metaphor, but to me, the feast one makes on the words of Christ can be a many-flavored, multiple-dish group meal. And we’re in trouble if we follow the exact same recipe each time without varying. Ideally, I’d like my feast to include an array of new ideas from parts unknown, perhaps some fruits of wisdom gleaned from the tropics, or some traditional African vegetables, paired with some sort of secular French wine, and maybe an Asian dumpling dessert based on a recipe handed down from the time of Confucius, if you follow me.. Once one has had enough meat and potatoes, one can start to enjoy something brand new and untried, something one can really savor and sink one’s teeth into.
THAT is what I would like to try in Sunday School, with a group of interested but cautious learners. I understand that’s a high bar.
Alice,
I think for me, the trouble with the topic of polygamy is trying to put it in an UN-engaging way. For me, I’d teach it like this:
Milk level: call in sick. I really don’t know what the watered-down version is. I’d be dead scared to answer if a primary kid asked me why we have polygamy in the doctrine.
Potatoes level: care for the widows, James 2:18
Meat level: abrahamic covenants; James 2:21.
Testing for possible poison level: maybe this doctrine was uninspired or even downright evil; if so, how does that change our testimony, and how are we going to make that judgment defensible and intelligible to others? Even if it is poison, does it automatically kill everything else in the testimony, or is there some conceivable emetic or medicine to apply to salvage what is good?
(Can’t really do poison-testing in Sunday School, though. Unless you only have 4-5 class members, maybe…?)
Mike,
A good friend of mine in our last ward recently shared with me the following.
While teaching her Primary class about the atonement, she read the passage from Luke 22 about Christ bleeding from every pore in the garden (Luke 22: 43-44). One little kid piped up and asked: “If he bled from every poor, why wasn’t he covered in blood when he was arrested shortly thereafter? If he was, someone would have had said ‘eeuww’ or something.” My friend wisely responded that scripture actually says that Christ’s “sweat was AS IT WERE great drops of blood falling to the ground,” not that he actually was bleeding.
The children seemed impressed with this, so much so that they apparently shared it with their parents, one of whom complained to the bishop about this sister’s teaching. She was promptly summoned to the bishop’s office and told that she was teaching false doctrine since some general authority had said that the Savior really did bleed from every pore. One week later she was released.
Mercifully, we are no longer in that ward. (By the way, Bart Ehrman in his fine book “Misquoting Jesus,” makes a very compelling case that verses 43-44 of chapter 22 of Luke were not in the original text; rather, they were added later by a scribe, something that was not unusual.)
Several years ago, Suzanne Strumpet Shea wrote a book called “Sundays in America,” which chronicled the author’s experience of attending a different church every weekend. After attending a Mormon service, she said that the only thing non-Mormons need to fear about Mormonism was that Mormons would bore the world’s population to death. Sadly, she never attended Primary.
The author of the letter to the Hebrews, speaking to the Jews, who had the oracles (prophecies) of God and should have recognized Jesus, had this to say about milk:
“For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic elements of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food; for everyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is unskilled in the word of righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, for those whose faculties have been trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.”
Hebrews 5:12-14
“Milk before meat” is a constant refrain, but eventually one needs solid foods to grow to maturity.
As has been previously noted David O McKay said that if the correlation program was instituted it would destroy the church .It was and sure enough it has . Any hope of meat at church is futile. Further more doing the same thing over and over in the hope of getting different results is Einstein’s famous definition of insanity. By all means go to GD and Priesthood butyou will be happier if you simply give up on expecting anything but boring drivel.It is a tragedy but beyond our power to change. The Correlaionists and Strengthening the Members Committee
guys have long ago won that battle
Bellamy, I’ve heard that sentiment attributed to David O. McKay several times, but have so far been unable to find a quotation or source. Anybody got one?
Screen name, Yes I’ve read and used O.C. Tanner’s manual. It’s a dated but still sometimes useful collection of sources on Christian virtues — sources outside the correlated manuals. It’s best value to me has been as a model of what can be done. Using it the way some use the current manuals would likely be as deadly boring and the current crop.
JR, one of the best accounts of the birth correlation and David O. McKay’s role in the process can be found in Greg Prince’s excellent work, “David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism.”
Correlation did not happen over night; rather, it was a complex and protracted political battle between the Quorum of the Twelve, led by Harold B. Lee, and the First Presidency. In a nutshell, the Q12 wanted take over many of the responsibilities of the First Presidency, including control over all auxiliaries and their curricula. David O. McKay had considerable reservations about this power grab by Lee and his colleagues which he expressed in the following diary entry in October 1963 (pp. 154-55 of Prince’s book):
“I inquired if the counselors know what the Correlation Committee is doing, and said that it is a matter that should be handled very carefully or it will get out of hand; that at present it is too indefinite for the Church as a whole. President Tanner commented that he thinks he knows what they are trying to do, but that he had some fear that we are organizing this to a point where it would be somewhat in the nature of regimentation, and that he things the program should be very carefully checked before we go forward. I agreed implicitly, and said that the Correlation Program must be carefully checked before we go any further. We agreed that the Correlation people should submit to the First Presidency, briefly, but full the program of the Committee, and the the First Presidency would go over it to get it clearly in their minds before it is given out to the Church.”
But Lee had the momentum and was intent on placing day-to-day control of the church under the Q12. This, combined with McKay’s non-confrontational nature and advancing age (he was 93 at the time), resulted in the First Presidency’s ultimate acquiescence.
Prince devotes an entire chapter in his book to this subject. As I said, it is complicated. But when you read McKay and Tanner’s concerns about correlation getting out of hand and their fear that the church seemed to be heading down the path of over-regimentation, you can only say: “If you only knew how prophetic your words turned out to be.”
“Mind putting polygamy in an engaging way?”
Engaging might not be the right word, but absolutely. I’ve done it. When I’ve mentioned early women leaders in the church (like Eliza R. Snow), I’m absolutely open about their polygamous wife status. I talk about how weirded out I am by the entire thing, but that these woman deserve our honor and respect for sacrificing for their faith something that I absolutely and utterly never could. I talk about the negatives, but also some positives for some (not all) of the women.
I feel like we call any detailed church history that touches on uncomfortable subjects ‘too much meat’ (and I did lose my teaching calling over just this topic for just this reason) but have found that the class members find it fascinating, interesting, and faith-promoting. The person who complained essentially equated ‘meat’ with ‘might make someone uncomfortable,’ but it doesn’t have to be that way. Heck, very few people don’t already know the Mormons practiced polygamy. What’ s the point in not being open about it?
Well, I can certainly agree with your intent and being open about it all.
I have felt the same way as you. I feel like every Sunday we are just rehashing the same things. I find it so hard to pay attention.
You said “The only church approved place for real discussion might be an institute class…”. Not here, at least in our adult Institute class. Every time I would bring up something to try and get a discussion going on something else besides the same canned answers everyone would be completely silent or they would find a way to bring it back to the basic answers we have always heard. I feel like everyone is so afraid of the meat that they refuse to even consider it. Even the Institute teacher , uneasy with the thought of a meat discussion, would find a way to take it back to the milk. Milk is safe for most people. To them even considering meat is “going down a dangerous road”, as I have heard people say many times. I find it frustrating!
When I was in my Master’s program at Purdue, I attended one of the institute classes offered during the week (Doctrine and Covenants/Church History). There were only two other students in the class and they both were also graduate students. All three of us had previously attended BYU and had completed the religion course regimen there. We weren’t attending the institute course for CET certification. That semester the instructor, who was also the institute director, basically tossed out his normal lesson plan and the four of us sort of held a group seminar on topics from Church History. The institute director was not dogmatic and we had very interesting and thought provoking discussions. It became one of the highlights of my week. That was 36 years ago and unfortunately, that was the last time I had interaction like that. I think Bishop Bill would have liked it.
I don’t see anything like that happening in a large Gospel Doctrine class. One would think HP group meetings would be a good forum for meaty discussions, but that’s never been the case in groups I’ve attended – even when I did the instructing. I think a reason for that is the dogmatic thinking that permeates the groups/quorums I’ve attended. It absolutely kills meaningful discussion.
Thanks Eric. Your citation is correct
ji –
“Nothing stops anyone from getting all the meat he or she wants in private study or small group interactions outside the church classroom.”
In my neck of the woods the stake presidency would shut down a small study group.
I read on my own but long for real people to talk with.
Hot off the presses . If you want “meat” you should read or hear the 3 hour long talk given at the Wisdom through the Ages Conference in Gilbert today. along with the 137 footnotes. ITopics covered included who our Heavnly Mother is , what her relation to Mary the mother of Christ is,the real meaning of the parable of the Garden of Eden, who the father of Adam is and who the father of Eve is and why the old Adam God theory is so wrong.. Also mentioned are such things as Jeremiah’s understanding of HM, why Josiah got it wrong and did Mary have any children other than Jesus.All coupled with a close reading of the scriptures which support each conclusion reached. There were a few amusing jabs at the Correlation Committee and a comparison of Van Gough and Monet. That should keep you well and truly feed for a while. Oh the taklk is available at the conference website
Eric,
They sound like great kids with wonderful enquiring minds and I have every sympathy with the primary teacher. Unfortunately it’s not just something a GA said. In our remaining scriptural canon (D&C 19:18 “bleed at every pore” and Mosiah 3:7 “blood cometh from every pore”) it’s not nearly so ambiguously stated.
I’m also someone who’d love more meat in lessons (https://wheatandtares.org/2014/02/13/musings-on-milk-and-meat/). I can’t say I’ve noticed much improvement since my post 4 years ago, which is depressing!
Hedgehog,
I am aware of those scriptural references, but I don’t think they settle the issue. I believe those passages would never have found their way in to the B of M or D&C if Joseph Smith had not previously read similar language in Luke 22.
As I noted above, there is some very compelling evidence that Luke’s reference to Christ bleeding in the garden was never part of the original text. Further, most Mormon scholars acknowledge that Joseph’s cultural environment—including the books and religious texts he had read—influenced his writings. That influence would have been even more pronounced in his case for the simple reason that nothing he wrote was a literal translation of anything. He was not fluent in any ancient languages and lacked the capacity read the markings on the golden plates or Egyptian papyruses.. While I believe the B of M and the D&C are inspired works, they come to us, like all scripture, through a flawed human filter which the Lord gives to men “in their weaknesses, after the manner of their language.” D&C 1:24.
Thus, canonization does not equal pure, accurate, unadulterated truth. Not by a long shot. Not in my book anyway. (BTW, thanks for the link to your musings on “milk and meat.” I thought your post was quite good.)
Far side I wouldn’t disagree with you. I was simply pointing out that the orthodox position is stronger than the word of a GA as cited by Eric.
Hedgehog, I figured as much, and your point is well taken. (By the way, Eric and FarSide are one and the same. So much for my anonymous screen name.)
I don’t usually agree with Bill. This time, I think he brings up a topic that resonates with me. I feel church leaders could do more to improve gospel and church history teaching. To begin with, using the “Essays” as part of our course of study would be useful.
I usually don’t agree with Jared, but I wish I could give his comment 10 thumbs up!!!
Also, the idea of having the ‘meat’ discussions in High Priests Group doesn”t really help those of us who crave intellectual stimulation at church and happen to be female.
Joni,
I don’t know about your ward, but based on what the sisters have told me over the years in the various places I have lived, the quality of the lessons in Relief Society is far superior to what you get in an Elders Quorum or HPG. Maybe that is because they don’t wait until Saturday night to prepare.
Eric, one of the greatest reasons for inferior EQ lessons is that almost all the male talent is removed from EQ (to HPG, bishopric, full time missions, SS, YM). It isn’t universal – I’ve had some great EQ lessons – but when a twenty-something Elder is up against the a seasoned sister in RS whose husband is in the stake presidency (and probably mostly because of HER), you don’t have a fair match.
Jared, I’ll take this as a win!
Bill & MH- High Five, we found something to agree on!
The TLDR from Bellamy is that apparently pre-reincarnated Jesus and ???? begat Adam.
And Elohim and the Divine Heavenly Mother begat Eve, …but don’t worship Her.
I happen to find that doctrinally untenable, however I respect the contrast of SnufferCon to GenCon where we are told we will get doctrinal revelation, but haven’t had any new theological teachings since 1918 with section 138.