Close Topic Options

Meat of the Gospel - Page 4

These have been some great posts. I see meat as a part of the gospel that we as an individual do not yet understand. Sometimes when I learn something new I think, man this is some seriously deep stuff or full on meat; then with a bit of time, after learning more it starts to become milky. This would be like a new member learning about the Godhead. For some to see the Godhead as three separate personages is a very meaty belief, but as time and knowledge move on it becomes less meaty.

With this point of view I find it hard to say what is and isn't meat to anyone but me. The part that I love is that there is always meat for me to find.

I find this a very good point, I have often pondered on how the Lord can command people to do some things that seem amoral. As I study the scriptures and what some prophets have done like when Moses commands the children of Levi to kill 3,000 men, for not standing on the Lords side (Ex32). Elijah gets the people to gather up the 450 prophets of Baal not letting one escape and he kills them all (1King 18). Then on the other hand we have Saul (1 Sam 15) who was told to kill, and not only kill men but all the men women and all the children even the suckling infant. Now he saved the only the king alive. He was then punished and was literally a sinner for not killing. Then to end the story Samuel the prophet of God has the king brought to him. He then doesn't just kill him, in what might seem a humane way, if there is such a thing but cutes him up into pieces.

I think this ties into the meat in the way that it would take a more then and understanding of principles of milk to understand the reason prophets of God would be called to do such things.

Gospel the Meat

Not sure I understand that statement even with your follow on explanation. The 'meat' is usually referred to as the foundation or the 'basics' of everything. You cannot understand advanced principles 'mashed potatoes and gravy' if you do not have a base from which to learn 'deeper' things. For me the 'meat' is Jesus Christ. Usually in Church I hear so little of the 'meat' and a lot about a GA or someone else that was nice to someone instead of Him who will save us all. Then we wonder why some Churches have problems accepting Mormons as Christians.

Meat of the Gospel Studies Doctrine Mormon

Not sure I understand what you mean with these statements, could you expand on it I would really like to understand your view.

I think you are saying the meat is the basics of the teachings of Jesus Christ, is this correct ?

Page 4 Gospel the Meat

What about what I said do you not understand?

Meat = Jesus Christ
Gospel = Good News

The Meat of the Gospel

Jesus Christ's Good News

Jesus Christ is the ALL of the Gospel. Many fail to realize this. I know what it means to dabble in all kinds of 'deep' doctrine as we do in the Mature LDS Board and in the end result there are many things that remain open with a hole of unknown. However the main thing that must be ascertained is the quoted verse above along with the following:

Hope that clears it up for you. Feel free to clarify my quote from what you said as you have not done that yet.

Gospel the Meat

Thank you, that has clarified for me what you meant. The way I was referring to meat was in relation to milk and meat as mentioned in (1Cor 3:2, Heb 5:12-14). The meat referred to here as I understand is of deeper doctrines compared to not so deep or basic principles and advanced principles. Earlier I meant that a principle that could seem basic to one person might seem very advanced to another; so then meat can be any principle that an individual doesn't understand.

You mentioned an article to read before sharing thoughts; I was not able to find the article, so if this was not really in line with that article my apologies still getting use to how this is all done.

Meat of the Gospel

Using that interpretation I can say the same. Even when you (I am speaking in general terms here not you specifically) move from 'milk' to 'meat' you begin to see that the milk may not fully be understood or that you are in fact missing something from the puzzle being built and need to revert back to milk. I know it may sound like I'm Posting in riddles but really after years of studying Deeper Doctrines I find myself with more questions than answers.

Oddly enough after years of eating meat as a child to teen I ate meat (speaking about animal meat now) and when I started to read and learn about the effects of meat I ate it rarely. Today I'm a vegetarian and have eliminated meat altogether from my diet. Now you may want to know why I am bringing up real meat here... Well my point is that you may think going to meat is progress when in fact you discover it is not the direction you should take at all. There are so many things in life that we are made to believe just because others believe it is so and if you get enough people believing something is the way it is then it must be true, the fact is it is not. Now that I have confused you sufficiently please see my off topic message below and Reply in that Thread.

Rather off topic, but...
Your other piece about an article I Replied to here: Source 1

Meat the Gospel - Page 4

I agree with what you say about the needing at times to revert back to milk. I feel it is something that should be continually done. I think milk is a Fundamental part, the foundation that everything is built on.

Meat the Gospel Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 4

I'm glad that you agree however to not be misunderstood by my riddles what I am saying is a little deeper than that. I am in fact not discounting the need for meat or deeper Doctrines at all nor saying one needs to revert back to milk and do no research, but what I am saying is to ensure that when we do move on into deeper waters we are sailing in the right direction. For instance and as an example ONLY as I will not dwell on it here because it will become off topic and it is also Discussed more in depth in another Thread but consider for instance the Journal of Discourses. You may read a quote within it on a specific piece of Doctrine and dive deeper into the subject of that quote, but first how do we know what is being said is true? Is it in fact Doctrine? Is it early Church Doctrine but not present day Doctrine? Why is it no longer practiced? Is it relevant? Who said it? Who recorded it, who published it? You see as you dive into it more questions arise and suddenly you find yourself having to reverse and wonder about the quote to begin any further research.