LDS Are LDS still instructed to evade or give incomplete answers?

[Rescued One]

Answer the question they should have asked.

"Always remember, as holiness grows within and you are entrusted with greater knowledge and understanding, you must treat these things with care. The Lord said, 'That which cometh from above is sacred, and must be spoken with care, and by constraint of the Spirit' (D&C 63:64). He also commanded that we must not cast pearls before swine or give that which is holy to dogs (see 3 Ne. 14:6; D&C 41:6), meaning sacred things should not be discussed with those who are not prepared to appreciate their value."
https://www.lds.org/liahona/2006/06/a-sense-of-the-sacred?lang=eng

" '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).
"We can teach the gospel with plainness and simplicity, focus on fundamentals, and emphasize what matters most. We do not tell all we know, nor do we teach on the edge of our knowledge. The Prophet Joseph Smith explained that 'it is not always wise to relate all the truth. Even Jesus, the Son of God, had to refrain from doing so, and had to restrain His feelings many times for the safety of Himself and His followers, and had to conceal the righteous purposes of His heart in relation to many things pertaining to His Father’s kingdom.' "
Robert L. Millet
https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/volume-4-number-3-2003/what-our-doctrine

Secrets (Milk Before Meat)
Definition

When Mormons spread their beliefs through the work of missionaries, there is a strict protocol that must be followed in order to best encourage conversion to the LDS faith. Only the basic tenets of Mormonism, which are the most appealing and universally acceptable, are shared with potential new members. Such a careful approach is taken in order to prevent audiences from hearing a piece of information that is too advanced for one unacquainted with LDS life. This heavier knowledge, if not presented in a logical manner after one is familiar with Mormonism, has the potential to skew one’s perspective
of the faith. Behavior of this kind is encouraged throughout the Church and is known as
“milk before meat” (Millet, “Milk”).

The concept finds scriptural precedent in Jesus teaching that gospel prerequisites
should be observed when teaching or learning sacred information (Matt. 7:6-7). After
preaching on the profound truths associated with his own suffering in the Garden of
Gethsemane, notably humankind’s need to repent, Jesus warns: “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). When applied to the
Mormon faith, it is understandable that one who knows very little about LDS doctrine
will probably not understand or appreciate teachings concerning “temples, sealing
powers, eternal life, or the potential godhood of man” (Millet, “Milk”).
https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/indexablecontent/uuid:64c3cc23-51fe-4bf9-ab3d-eeb937b30b7e

How can they perish? LDS teach that everyone will live forever.

 

[Greg J.]

I don't know, but that would be a little weird. If one is not in danger of being torn to pieces, the "do not cast your pearls" scenario is probably not happening. More to the point, if you are conscious of how your words will be received, only say what is good for building them up (what would lead them to Jesus and the truth). Paul became all things to all people so he could do this, but he also preached raw truth to unbelievers all the time. There are exceptions, such as when it is important that you not be seen as denying the Lord Jesus.

 

[Rescued One]

Do you think LDS are sometimes seen as denying the Lord Jesus by not revealing some of their teachings?

 

[Greg J.]

I don't know how they are seen by others. I'm somewhat unplugged from potential sources of that information. However, people who are seen as examples of Christ should be open about the truth (but not foolish about it). It is not in God's nature to hide truth—that is the nature of sin. Mind you we are so blind that it can look like God hides the truth, but the problem is at our end, not his. I would have a problem with any evangelizing person intentionally hiding truths about God. It belies a heart tainted by sin, or at least someone that is ignorant or confused, rather than one that is knowledgeable and pure in their intentions. Note that not revealing something because it would be bad for the listener would be be the result of a good heart. It's the heart that can have the problem. What they say or not say flows from that.

 

[Ironhold]

I don't know, but that would be a little weird. If one is not in danger of being torn to pieces, the "do not cast your pearls" scenario is probably not happening. More to the point, if you are conscious of how your words will be received, only say what is good for building them up (what would lead them to Jesus and the truth). Paul became all things to all people so he could do this, but he also preached raw truth to unbelievers all the time. There are exceptions, such as when it is important that you not be seen as denying the Lord Jesus.

There's an entire cottage industry of material devoted to people trying to argue why they think we're all going to Hell, with much of that material being overt falsehoods and blatant misrepresentations.

The raw hate that so many mainline Christians have towards us is staggering to behold, as is the fact that they'd rather remain in ignorance than hear anything they disagree with.

Yes, I said that. When I first got online in 2000, the overt anti-Mormon hostility I found was so great that death threats against Mormons who wouldn't yield were a dime a dozen. Theology forums were the sites of gutter brawls instead of scholarly debate. And it really hasn't gotten all that better.

If anything, all that's changed is the excuses I see people make for trying to justify the level of hate against us.

Hence why members are encouraged to be tactful in dealing with people and ponder each step before taking it: there are some folks out there who would rather be right than be correct, and they'll twist everything put in front of them to stay that way. Members are responsible for knowing when it's best to re-focus the discussion or even bow out entirely, especially for their own personal safety.

 

[dzheremi]

Do you think LDS are sometimes seen as denying the Lord Jesus by not revealing some of their teachings?

I know this wasn't asked to me, but I think it is probably more accurate to say that they are seen as denying the Lord Jesus the more they reveal of their teachings. It is only at the most surface level that they can claim to affirm the Lord Jesus. When you dig a little deeper, a different picture emerges, and it is not Christ-affirming.

 

[Rescued One]

" '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).

Given that LDS teach that all will be resurrected and exist somewhere, I wonder what their definition of perish means.

 

[dzheremi]

Don't they still have 'Outer Darkness' or whatever it's called? Maybe they mean the people who perish will go there.

 

[Rescued One]

I know this wasn't asked to me, but I think it is probably more accurate to say that they are seen as denying the Lord Jesus the more they reveal of their teachings. It is only at the most surface level that they can claim to affirm the Lord Jesus. When you dig a little deeper, a different picture emerges, and it is not Christ-affirming.

Yes, I agree. Because their goal is to win converts, they don't seem to want to know the real Lord Jesus. I felt as though it was deceptive for them to paint such a rosy picture to me, only to later learn that some of their most anti-biblical teachings were withheld from me.

 

[Rescued One]

Don't they still have 'Outer Darkness' or whatever it's called? Maybe they mean the people who perish will go there.

Well, they keep saying that very few will go there.

Hell
Latter-day revelation speaks of hell in at least two senses. First, it is the temporary abode in the spirit world for those who were disobedient in mortality. In this sense, hell has an end. The spirits there will be taught the gospel, and sometime following their repentance they will be resurrected to a degree of glory of which they are worthy. Those who will not repent, but are nevertheless not sons of perdition, will remain in hell throughout the Millennium. After these thousand years of torment, they will be resurrected to a telestial glory (D&C 76:81–86; 88:100–101).

Second, it is the permanent location of those who are not redeemed by the Atonement of Jesus Christ. In this sense, hell is permanent. It is for those who are found “filthy still” (D&C 88:35, 102). This is the place where Satan, his angels, and the sons of perdition—those who have denied the Son after the Father has revealed Him—will dwell eternally (D&C 76:43–46).
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/hell

Outer darkness is the permanent hell.

 

[Greg J.]

There's an entire cottage industry of material devoted to people trying to argue why they think we're all going to Hell, with much of that material being overt falsehoods and blatant misrepresentations.

The raw hate that so many mainline Christians have towards us is staggering to behold, as is the fact that they'd rather remain in ignorance than hear anything they disagree with.

Yes, I said that. When I first got online in 2000, the overt anti-Mormon hostility I found was so great that death threats against Mormons who wouldn't yield were a dime a dozen. Theology forums were the sites of gutter brawls instead of scholarly debate. And it really hasn't gotten all that better.

If anything, all that's changed is the excuses I see people make for trying to justify the level of hate against us.

Hence why members are encouraged to be tactful in dealing with people and ponder each step before taking it: there are some folks out there who would rather be right than be correct, and they'll twist everything put in front of them to stay that way. Members are responsible for knowing when it's best to re-focus the discussion or even bow out entirely, especially for their own personal safety.

Good post. People of all stripes, including those that call themselves Christian, attack other people due to their own pain (sometimes being defensive). Their attitude can come through in a post on this web site without them technically violating the site policy of discussing the content of a person's post and not attacking the person themselves. In all areas of life they'll blame others to avoid facing the truth about the magnitude of their own psycho-emotional damage (which they perceive as making person unacceptable and is painful, but is an important part of following Christ). It reveals what is in their hearts and not usually anything about the attacked person.

You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.” (Matthew 12:34-37, 1984 NIV)

I knew a missionary faithful to Jesus who had spent over a dozen years in Afghanistan (who the Lord made leave a year or so before the war started). He said he preferred the company of local Muslims than Christians, because they were so polite and hospitable (and also, iirc, liked talking about God).

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 7:21, 1984 NIV)

People who are not abiding in Christ or are not obedient to the Father are not doing the will of the Father. Being a faithful church attender or being faithful to one's church can mean absolutely nothing at all. (It is what is one's heart that matters.) They do not get sanctified and often are simply not saved at all, regardless of what label they identify with. People maintain allegiances to a label ("Christian" or "XYZ Church" or "I follow 'Paul'" [1 Corinthians 3]) to be feel they have value and are accepted (which makes them feel like they are Good and loved) according to how they've been programmed—which is why it is a good general rule of thumb to:

Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, (from Hebrews 12:2, 1984 NIV)

Failing to see (and act) that Scripture is to lead us to a two-way connection with the living God himself (Galatians 3:24) lends itself to self/church/denomination/holy book "worship" (idolatry). As we can see in the media these days, calling oneself a Christian or a member of "XYZ" sadly does not tell us anything about what someone truly believes or their character. We all would do well to examine ourselves to see why we have the associations we claim. Is it because we have submitted to Jesus and desire to please him with all (Mark 12:30) our words and actions?

 

[Ironhold]

Good post. People of all stripes, including those that call themselves Christian, attack other people due to their own pain (sometimes being defensive). Their attitude can come through in a post on this web site without them technically violating the site policy of discussing the content of a person's post and not attacking the person themselves. In all areas of life they'll blame others to avoid facing the truth about the magnitude of their own psycho-emotional damage (which they perceive as making person unacceptable and is painful, but is an important part of following Christ). It reveals what is in their hearts and not usually anything about the attacked person.

A decade back I was on one such message board where the hatred was so visible.

One of the people who was criticizing the LDS faith was herself a former member. As she tried to argue, she kept referencing the words of J. Edward Decker, the man she said led her out of the church. This raised alarm bells for quite a few of us, as Decker has a very poor reputation even among non-LDS circles; the gist of it is that he's been caught lying about so many things, from his personal history to his allegations about the church, that no one who's wise to him trusts him anymore.

When we explained this to her, she decided that she would re-investigate matters.

Some time later, she came back and admitted that we were right: the material she'd read was so full of false material as to be untrustworthy, and so now she was going to investigate the LDS faith all over again.

In response to this, a user who went by the name "Minister Paul" had an absolute fit. This person and their wife had made nuisances of themselves in the past, up to and including posting alleged passages of scripture that didn't actually exist (IE, they'd cite verse 38 in a chapter that ended at verse 29) and posting dirty limericks about people they didn't like. If we had known what church he was with, we'd have contacted his superiors about this.

Well, when he read her statement about investigating things all over again, his response was to pen a shocking open letter to her husband. In the letter, he ordered the husband to use "any means necessary" to prevent her from re-joining the LDS faith, and that if she did re-join it meant that the husband had failed in his duties as both a husband and a Christian.

He couldn't understand why two-thirds of the forum turned on him in a single afternoon.

Minister Paul and his wife were both banned from the forum because the site administration finally couldn't ignore what they were doing. But by the time they had gotten around to it, the woman had already posted her farewell message: she and her husband had found the open letter so shocking and repulsive that it had made their minds up for them; both would be joining the LDS faith, if only to get away from any denomination that would have this person as a minister.

That's the kind of thing I've seen.

Under such circumstances, I think you can understand why LDS leadership is telling people that sometimes it's best to just say your peace and back away slow.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

A decade back I was on one such message board where the hatred was so visible.

One of the people who was criticizing the LDS faith was herself a former member. As she tried to argue, she kept referencing the words of J. Edward Decker, the man she said led her out of the church. This raised alarm bells for quite a few of us, as Decker has a very poor reputation even among non-LDS circles; the gist of it is that he's been caught lying about so many things, from his personal history to his allegations about the church, that no one who's wise to him trusts him anymore.

When we explained this to her, she decided that she would re-investigate matters.

Some time later, she came back and admitted that we were right: the material she'd read was so full of false material as to be untrustworthy, and so now she was going to investigate the LDS faith all over again.

In response to this, a user who went by the name "Minister Paul" had an absolute fit. This person and their wife had made nuisances of themselves in the past, up to and including posting alleged passages of scripture that didn't actually exist (IE, they'd cite verse 38 in a chapter that ended at verse 29) and posting dirty limericks about people they didn't like. If we had known what church he was with, we'd have contacted his superiors about this.

Well, when he read her statement about investigating things all over again, his response was to pen a shocking open letter to her husband. In the letter, he ordered the husband to use "any means necessary" to prevent her from re-joining the LDS faith, and that if she did re-join it meant that the husband had failed in his duties as both a husband and a Christian.

He couldn't understand why two-thirds of the forum turned on him in a single afternoon.

Minister Paul and his wife were both banned from the forum because the site administration finally couldn't ignore what they were doing. But by the time they had gotten around to it, the woman had already posted her farewell message: she and her husband had found the open letter so shocking and repulsive that it had made their minds up for them; both would be joining the LDS faith, if only to get away from any denomination that would have this person as a minister.

That's the kind of thing I've seen.

Under such circumstances, I think you can understand why LDS leadership is telling people that sometimes it's best to just say your peace and back away slow.

It's very irrational to take an internet message board persona so seriously.

"Minister Paul" could be anyone. He could be a hateful "evangelical Christian" as you surmise he is. But he could be anything else, as well. He could be a former "evangelical Christian" who has a strange complex against his former faith. He could be an atheist who wants to make Christians look bad. He could be a mormon who is playing the role of an agent provocateur. Frankly, the way you describe this person, he (or she, for all we know) sounds so outlandish and extreme that it's hard for me to believe it's a real person. Sure, there are real people who are pretty far out there, but that's also the kind of exaggerated character someone would play to discredit a group they see as the enemy.

You seem to think that a lot of Christians "hate" mormons. Well, I hate to break it to you, but most Christians don't know much about mormons at all. Perhaps in Utah and some other western states where mormons are more prevalent people have more awareness. Where I live, in NJ, and where I work in NYC, most people only know about the musical "The Book of Mormon" and know that the mormons have missionaries, don't drink tea or coffee or alcohol, try to be "good" in all areas of life, and are a Christian sect or denomination. SOME people are a little more aware of the religion's quirks, mostly to the extent that they know the mormons have extra-biblical scripture (BoM) and that their founder was Joseph Smith who they consider a prophet. They know also that Brigham Young was a leader of the religion. That's about it. Most people I know wouldn't know what I was talking about if I mentioned a Mormon Temple or Mormon underwear. Oh and by the way, one of the things that almost EVERYONE I know thinks about the mormons is that polygamy is permitted - they believe mormons don't do it but that they can if they want; it's a common stereotype that people do believe.

So I think a lot of the "hate" you perceive is not nearly as real or prevalent as you think it is. I think you've been directly affected or hurt by it so you see it as bigger than it might be, which is understandable. You seem to rely almost solely on anecdote as your evidence, which is a sign that this is probably more of a personal experience issue than something as epidemic as you portray it to be.

If that woman re-joined the mormon church to get away from a certain character on the internet, that is not only irrational but also the wrong impetus by which to join up with any church or religion. I certainly wouldn't want someone to "become a Christian" or join my church in order to "get away from" any particular person or group. The two things are not related so it's irrational to use one as the basis for the other.

 

[Rescued One]

Any person who hates Latter-day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, Hindus, Muslims, Pagans, is not a Christian and doesn't know God's word. Any LDS who accuses Christians of hate doesn't know what God says about Christians.

Titus 3
3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. 4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, 5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; 6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; 7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Saying that a hypocrite is hateful doesn't reflect on Christians. Anyone can be a hypocrite and pretend to be a Christian. A true Christian recognizes a hypocrite.

 

[BigDaddy4]

A decade back I was on one such message board where the hatred was so visible.

Why do you keep bringing up the past which has nothing to do with this thread or anyone on it? Can you please keep it on topic?

 

[Phil 1:21]

Why do you keep bringing up the past which has nothing to do with this thread or anyone on it? Can you please keep it on topic?

Perhaps he sees a parallel. If so, I can't say I blame him.

 

[drstevej]

Ironhold, when you post to me here on CF, do I get meat or milk?

 

[Rescued One]

Perhaps he sees a parallel. If so, I can't say I blame him.

Are you criticizing Christians and Christian Forums again? This part of Christian Forums is for debating; who are you debating?

 

[Phil 1:21]

Are you criticizing Christians and Christian Forums again? This part of Christian Forums is for debating; who are you debating?

My post was sufficiently clear. I'm not interested in your goading. Have a blessed day.

 

[Ironhold]

Any person who hates Latter-day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, Hindus, Muslims, Pagans, is not a Christian and doesn't know God's word. Any LDS who accuses Christians of hate doesn't know what God says about Christians.

Titus 3
3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. 4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, 5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; 6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; 7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Saying that a hypocrite is hateful doesn't reflect on Christians. Anyone can be a hypocrite and pretend to be a Christian. A true Christian recognizes a hypocrite.

So your response is "No True Scotsman"?