151 replies to this topic

[Log]

I do believe that was the first post that DWhitmer has made that I have found informative.  And his post will, undoubtedly, inspire rousing choruses of "And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God!," in the key of B-flat.  And, of course, such singers will be chanting the wrong song.

Man, I do want me some steak, though.

Edited by Log, 03 May 2012 - 11:44 PM.

[DWhitmer]

Log, on 03 May 2012 - 11:43 PM, said:

I do believe that was the first post that DWhitmer has made that I have found informative.  And his post will, undoubtedly, inspire rousing choruses of "And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God!," in the key of B-flat.  And, of course, such singers will be chanting the wrong song. Man, I do want me some steak, though.

Predictable response, no offense, but look at the verse,

Who so forbids

What?

Abstainers of flesh, (Vegetarian)

Are what?

Not ordained of God.

To sum, it is the people againt flesh abstainers who are against God.

Edited by DWhitmer, 03 May 2012 - 11:49 PM.

[Log]

Huh what?  You predicted my response?  Somehow, I doubt you understood my response.  Otherwise, you wouldn't have said that.

[DWhitmer]

Log, on 03 May 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

Huh what?  You predicted my response?  Somehow, I doubt you understood my response.  Otherwise, you wouldn't have said that.

I don't mean personally, that canned response is predictable from LDS, plus a few others, but once reviewed without the blind filters of tradition, the truth is contrary, yet coherent across all books of scripture.

[Log]

I was agreeing with you and predicting the canned response.

[DWhitmer]

Log, on 03 May 2012 - 11:57 PM, said:

I was agreeing with you and predicting the canned response.

I understand. Do you see the correct reading though?

[Log]

Yes, I do.

[DWhitmer]

Log, on 04 May 2012 - 12:07 AM, said:

Yes, I do.

I'm impressed, most can't see it with conginitive dissonance and such.

[Log]

Well, the common "interpretation" indeed has never sat well with me.  Forbiddeth is the opposite of commandeth.

Quote

18 And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God;
19 For, behold, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which cometh of the earth, is ordained for the use of man for food and for raiment, and that he might have in abundance.
20 But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin.
21 And wo be unto man that sheddeth blood or that wasteth flesh and hath no need.

The WoW is perfectly - unambiguously - clear on this subject, howsoever one chooses to interpret the above.

Quote

12 Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;
13 And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.
14 All grain is ordained for the use of man and of beasts, to be the staff of life, not only for man but for the beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, and all wild animals that run or creep on the earth;
15 And these hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger.

So, yeah.  I gotta agree.

Edited by Log, 04 May 2012 - 12:47 AM.

[selek1]

Log, on 04 May 2012 - 12:21 AM, said:

Well, the common "interpretation" indeed has never sat well with me.  Forbiddeth is the opposite of commandeth.

The WoW is perfectly - unambiguously - clear on this subject, howsoever one chooses to interpret the above.

So, yeah.  I gotta agree.

Except, of course, that the litany DWhitmer posted does not constitute a "vegetarian lifestyle."

Vegetarians, as a rule, exclude meat and usually dairy products from their diets.  The more extreme and radical "vegans" abstain from any animal products.

There is a distinct and profound difference between "use sparingly and with thanksgiving" and "thou shalt not".

As usual, DWhitmer is imposing his own interpretation on the facts, implying a dichotomy and contradiction where none actually exists.

Under the most charitable interpretation, DWHitmer is engaging in Inductive, rather than deductive reasoning.

http://www.nakedscie...20Reasoning.htm

A less charitable interpretation is that he is letting his conclusions drive the facts rather than the other way round.

Edited by selek1, 04 May 2012 - 02:29 AM.

[Log]

selek1, on 04 May 2012 - 02:17 AM, said:

Except, of course, that the litany DWhitmer posted does not constitute a "vegetarian lifestyle."

Yo, bro, "even a broken clock..."

Take it for what it is.

[David T]

Not sure if anyone has brought it up, but there's a fantastic article in the Winter 2012 Journal of Mormon History that discusses the history of the Word of Wisdom in its first decade, exploring that rather than the traditional simple view of 'Loose suggestion -> Eventually strict commandment' it was somewhat more of a roller-coaster, beginning as strict and official abstinence in Kirtland (with the Sacrament being a notable exception), with moderation growing into the interpretation during the Nauvoo period. Started strict, went looser, and then became strict again. Still working through the paper, but it's very interesting.

[DWhitmer]

selek1, on 04 May 2012 - 02:17 AM, said:

Except, of course, that the litany DWhitmer posted does not constitute a "vegetarian lifestyle."

Vegetarians, as a rule, exclude meat and usually dairy products from their diets.  The more extreme and radical "vegans" abstain from any animal products.

There is a distinct and profound difference between "use sparingly and with thanksgiving" and "thou shalt not".

Circular reasoning is quite often had among those who love to hear themselves. Once more you've failed to either refute or confirm original source material (note anyones interpretation). I'll make this easy, start with J.Smith and end with Lorenzo Snow.

[mfbukowski]

DWhitmer, on 04 May 2012 - 08:19 AM, said:

Circular reasoning is quite often had among those who love to hear themselves. Once more you've failed to either refute or confirm original source material (note anyones interpretation). I'll make this easy, start with J.Smith and end with Lorenzo Snow.

You know the history doesn't make one iota of difference to me whatsoever.   It's a healthy lifestyle (WOW)- it's a good thing to separate us socially from "the world" , for me it works well in a pragmatic sense, and the church wants me to do it, so I really don't care much about this discussion.

But dude, you really come off with a giant chip on your shoulder- and whatever it is you are selling- there is no way I would buy it just from your attitude.

"By their fruits"... and all that.    You need to learn a tad about being a good missionary- putting it simply.

[selek1]

Log, on 04 May 2012 - 07:43 AM, said:

Take it for what it is.

A poorly informed and thinly veiled rant by an avowed anti-Mormon with an axe to grind?

Believe me- I already took that into account.

[selek1]

DWhitmer, on 04 May 2012 - 08:19 AM, said:

Circular reasoning is quite often had among those who love to hear themselves. Once more you've failed to either refute or confirm original source material (note anyones interpretation).

That is quite true, but it is not necessary for you to confess your sins to me.

More to the point, there is no need to refute the original source material, for the problem lies not with the Prophets- but with your conclusions.

Or to steal a phrase, "the trouble lies not in your stars, but within yourself".

No one cares to dispute that the Prophets lived lives of sobriety and restraint or that they ate flesh sparingly.

The problem lies in your insistence that those choices constitute an embracing of a specific lifestyle and political philosophy, adn then using that assumption as a bludgeon against the Saints as a whole.

The lifestyles which the Prophets practiced bears only the slightest resemblance to vegetarianism as it is commonly understood- and none whatsoever to the more extreme veganism.

In point of fact, none of these men embraced the overarching philosophy of vegetarianism, and you have provided no evidence suggesting that they would do so were they alive today.

You are attempting to saddle them (for your own polemical purposes) with a philosophy and lifestyle they themselves did not claim- and which they would likely reject.  This rejection is especially likely when one considers the degree to which vegetarianism has been tainted by New age philosophies, Neo-Druidism, and putative-Gaia worship.

You are (once again) extrapolating far beyond the data and drawing dubious conclusions based on rampant assumption instead of factual evidence.

Or as the great philosopher Inigo Montoya might say, "You keep using those quotes.  I do not think they mean what you think they mean."

Edited by selek1, 04 May 2012 - 08:45 AM.

[DWhitmer]

mfbukowski, on 04 May 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

You know the history doesn't make one iota of difference to me whatsoever.   It's a healthy lifestyle (WOW)- it's a good thing to separate us socially from "the world" , for me it works well in a pragmatic sense, and the church wants me to do it, so I really don't care much about this discussion.

Well, the Adventist have even less endorsements of a cave-man free from needless slaughter diet than LDS and somehow they figured out how life's going to be through the Millennium and are preparing by living now and it should, or back to the Garden of Eden. To be different from the world is admirable, but LDS have been repeatedly rebuked when it comes to how they interpet the WoW by following the least lines of resistance.

mfbukowski, on 04 May 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

But dude, you really come off with a giant chip on your shoulder..."By their fruits"

No one was ever moved away from danger by soft talking and I want to see as few Mormons going to hell for the mistreatment of the BoM. Sorry for trying - not.

"Whoso shall declare more or less than this (Book of Mormon) and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil...and the gates of hell stand open to receive such." (3 Nephi 11:40)

selek1, on 04 May 2012 - 08:38 AM, said:

A poorly informed and thinly veiled rant by an avowed anti-Mormon [not anti-BoM] with an axe to grind? Believe me- I already took that into account.

Look in the mirror buddy, you're anti-Book of Mormon, in fact, you don't even live the Word of Wisdom.

Edited by DWhitmer, 04 May 2012 - 09:13 AM.

[mfbukowski]

selek1, on 04 May 2012 - 08:45 AM, said:

Or as the great philosopher Inigo Montoya might say, "You keep using those quotes.  I do not think they mean what you think they mean."

That is the precise crux of every philosophical argument!

[DWhitmer]

mfbukowski, on 04 May 2012 - 09:07 AM, said:

That is the precise crux of every philosophical argument!

Looks like the Mesoapologists here don't want to be embarrassed by the discussion on the Fulfilled Land Prophecies page and have banned this poster. Sad.

http://www.mormondia...cies-fulfilled/

Edited by DWhitmer, 04 May 2012 - 09:12 AM.

[selek1]

DWhitmer, on 04 May 2012 - 09:05 AM, said:

Look in the mirror buddy, you're anti-Book of Mormon, in fact, you don't even live the Word of Wisdom.

  In your opinion.

The Lord, my Bishop, reason, and my conscience disagree with your assessment.