Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

D&c 49


Recommended Posts

But how could Joseph have made a "usage error" like that in verse 18, when he just used the word properly in verse 15?

Are there any examples of similar usage errors in any of Joseph's other writings?

 

 

It isn't that he didn't know the proper usage of "forbiddeth". That's not the problem.

 

It's that he forgot he was combining it with the word "abstain". It's a natural slip-up.

 

If he had said, " he that forbiddeth the consumption of meats" it would have read as he intended.

 

Purely grammatical error here. Honest.

Link to comment

It isn't that he didn't know the proper usage of "forbiddeth". That's not the problem.

 

It's that he forgot he was combining it with the word "abstain". It's a natural slip-up.

 

If he had said, " he that forbiddeth the consumption of meats" it would have read as he intended.

 

Purely grammatical error here. Honest.

This makes sense to me. This is a fairly common sort of error, actually.

Link to comment

It isn't that he didn't know the proper usage of "forbiddeth". That's not the problem.

 

It's that he forgot he was combining it with the word "abstain". It's a natural slip-up.

 

If he had said, " he that forbiddeth the consumption of meats" it would have read as he intended.

 

Purely grammatical error here. Honest.

If it's such "a natural slip up," and a "purely grammatical error," then why aren't there any other examples of this kind of slip up in any of Joseph's other writings?

 

Can you (or anyone else) point to any?

This makes sense to me. This is a fairly common sort of error, actually.

Again, if it's so common, why aren't there any other examples of this kind of slip up in any of Joseph's other writings?

 

Why can't you (or anyone else) point to any?

Edited by inquiringmind
Link to comment

If it's such "a natural slip up," and a "purely grammatical error," then why aren't there any other examples of this kind of slip up in any of Joseph's other writings?

 

Probably because most of the time, they were careful enough in the editing not to allow them to slip through.

 

That's like asking why, if you find one error in a newspaper, the newspaper is not chock full of them.

Link to comment

The closest thing I could find was this.

 

The original of the next passage (current-day verse 5 again) was “& Remember also the Promises which were made to you if you transgressed them”. The modified reading makes for a different reconstruction of an unknown commandment “& Remember also the Promises which were made to you if you did not transgress them”.

http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/09/23/revelation-book-1-digging-in/

 

But I'm not sure that's really the same kind of mistake.

 

It looks like he (at first) just left out the word "not," and that might be a little different from what you and palerider are suggesting in D&C 49.

Link to comment

But not all of his writings were edited and published.

 

The Joseph Smith Papers project has made all kinds of unpublished material available online, and I haven't seen one example of Joseph making this kind of mistake.

 

Can anyone point to one?

 

Inquiringmind,

 

I have to agree with Scott Loyd here, in that it is a common writing error that people make. I don't know if it was one that Joseph made commonly because, as Scott has said, his writings were heavily edited.

 

Regarding his unedited writings, I'd like you to think about what you're asking us to do here. Trying to go back over copious, unedited photos of manuscripts and read for errors (of the type you specifically want) is no easy task and pretty time consuming. 

 

Even if one takes it from a doctrinal point of view, there are very few times (although there are a few) when Joseph strayed terribly far from doctrine that was biblically supportable. And the dietary laws are not one of them.

 

I think Judaic,Christian, and Mormon doctrines bear this out in general, especially in view of the Word of Wisdom. There are a few specific animals that were prohibited for consumption under the Mosaic dietary laws, but there is no restriction from eating meat in general.

 

Plus when one reads the 49th section as being a "correction" given to the Shakers regarding their doctrines it becomes hard to see Joseph as giving his blessing to the doctrine of being a vegetarian.

 

From the church history website regarding section 49:

 

"Reaffirming that baptism is indispensible, the revelation proceeded to denounce several of the Shakers’ dearly-held beliefs, declaring that marriage is ordained of God, that animals were given to man for food and clothing, and that “the son of man cometh not in the form of a woman neither of a man traveling on the earth."

 

Even if one attempts to structure this sentence in modern terms, it becomes terribly awkward: 

 

"Whoever commands you not to not partake of meats, that people shouldn't eat, isn't ordained of God."

 

This almost borders on gibberish.

Edited by Palerider
Link to comment

Is it true that 1 Nephi 1:19 originally read as follows (in the 1830 edition)?

 

And it came to pass that the Jews did not mock him because of the things which he testified of them; for he truly testified of their wickedness and their abominations; and he testified that the things which he saw and heard, and also the things which he read in the Book, manifested plainly of the coming of a Messiah, and also the redemption of the world.

Link to comment

Is it true that 1 Nephi 1:19 originally read as follows (in the 1830 edition)?

 

And it came to pass that the Jews did not mock him because of the things which he testified of them; for he truly testified of their wickedness and their abominations; and he testified that the things which he saw and heard, and also the things which he read in the Book, manifested plainly of the coming of a Messiah, and also the redemption of the world.

 

I have checked two different sources and it appears that it did indeed say "did not mock him..."

Link to comment

I have checked two different sources and it appears that it did indeed say "did not mock him..."

Thank you.

 

Now is this true?

 

February 21, 2006 by K. Petty
This is Kathleen from Dialogue writing. I was trolling through some Dialogue magazines looking for information about the Word of Wisdom and found this in the opening paragraph of an article by Thomas G. Alexander. (“The Word of Wisdom: From Principle to Requirement, ” 14, No. 3 [Fall 1981] 78 – 87). In May of 1898 the First Presidency and the Twelve were discussing the Word of Wisdom. One member read from the 12th volume of the Journal of Discourses where Brigham Young seems to support the idea that the Word of Wisdom is a commandment. “Lorenzo Snow, then President of the Council of Twelve agreed, saying that he believed the Word of Wisdom was a commandment and that it should be carried out to the letter. In doing so, he said, members should be taught to refrain from eating meat except in dire necessity, because Joseph Smith had taught that animals have spirits.” Wilford Woodruff agreed the Word of Wisdom is a commandment, but thinks no action should be taken except that “members should be taught to refrain from meat.” (p. 78)

http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/21/eating-meat/

 

Were Lorenzo Snow and Wilford Woodruff semi vegetarians (who avoided eating meat except in dire necessity), and is that what they taught the Church?

Link to comment

Alexander is a good scholar so if that is an accurate portrayal of his words, I would assume he was right. It sounds like it might be a good idea for you to find the Dialogue article and read it...I believe they are online.

I can't answer your second question, would not be surprised if it was answered in that article though.

Link to comment

Does this make sense?

The interpolation of a footnote

And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God; 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. (D&C 49: 18-19)

There is so much confusion about the meaning of this sentence among latter-day saints. The problem lies in that when a person reads “forbiddeth to abstain from meats,” they can’t seem to process the phrase. Then, when they read the next phrase, “that man should not eat the same,” they erroneously think that this phrase is clarifying and defining the action of the person who is doing the forbidding, and not the action of the person who is doing the abstaining.

An erroneous and misleading footnote

There is also a footnote to the word “forbiddeth” found in verse 18 which is erroneous, which reads: “IE biddeth to abstain, see v. 19.”

This footnote would have us believe that the word “forbiddeth” was erroneously written and should be instead “biddeth,” which means the exact opposite. The only reasoning we are given of why we should substitute a word which means the exact opposite for the word that is actually in the revelation, is that verse 19, according to whoever put in this footnote, suggests that the Lord is stressing that meat “is ordained for the use of man for food” and therefore this is the reason why a person who “bids to abstain from meats” would be contrary to the will of the Lord and not a person who “forbids to abstain from meats.”

The section and verse headings

Additionally, the section heading gives this information: “Some of the beliefs of the Shakers were that…the eating of pork was specifically forbidden, and many did not eat any meat;…The revelation refuted some of the basic concepts of the Shaker group.”

Because of the comments found in the section heading, specifically, that this revelation refuted some of the basic concepts of the Shaker group and that one of these basic concepts was the abstaining from pork, we are immediately conditioned upon reading the revelation that the verses which deal with the eating of animal flesh will contain a refutation of abstaining from meats. But just to make sure that this idea is sunk deep into our minds, regardless of what the revelation says, we find that the verse heading summarizes verses 17-21 as being an approval of eating meat: “17-21, Eating of meat is approved;

Faulty logic

All of this reasoning is completely faulty, devoid of logic and of simple English grammar. Let’s take a look at this scripture and pick it apart, using the simple rules of English.

And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God;

Definitions of the words involved

Everyone knows what the word “forbiddeth” means, but in case there are some who still haven’t learned its definition, I will write it here, taken from the Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary:

Definition of Forbid

1
: to proscribe from or as if from the position of one in authority : command against <the law
forbids
stores to sell liquor to minors> <her mother
forbids
her to go>

2
: to hinder or prevent as if by an effectual command <space
forbids
further treatment here>

Most people know what the words “command against”, “hinder” and “prevent” mean, but some may not know what the word “proscribe” means, so I again write its definition here, taken from the above mentioned dictionary:

Definition of Proscribe

1
: to publish the name of as condemned to death with the property of the condemned forfeited to the state

2
: to condemn or forbid as harmful or unlawful :
PROHIBIT

Finally, in case a person is unsure of the meaning of the word “abstain,” I include its definition here:

Definition of Abstain

: to refrain deliberately and often with an effort of self-denial from an action or practice

From the above definitions, it is apparent that both definitions of the word “forbid” can apply to this revelation. In the case of definition #1 of “forbid,” a person can forbid to abstain from meats by condemning, either publicly or privately, the practice of abstention from meats, calling those who practice abstention sinners and/or unhealthy; or he may forbid the practice of abstention from meats, using it as a sign of unworthiness for any number of callings or even for a temple recommend. Those who forbid in this manner would be persons garbed in the authority of the priesthood or persons who acted as if they possessed authority to speak against the practice of abstention from meats. Such people may actually command a congregation or group of church members against practicing abstention from meats and preach that such a practice is of the devil.

In the case of definition #2 of “forbid,” a person who abstains from meats may be hindered or prevented from abstaining by the circumstances they find themselves in, such as being invited to eat at a member’s house or church function and discover that everything offered is meat or meat-based, not due to necessity or famine, but due to the willful disobedience or ignorance of the Lord’s law of meat consumption. Such an individual or family, finding themselves in such a circumstance, would have to leave and find nourishment elsewhere, or go hungry or participate in eating meat in a time which wasn’t winter or famine or cold, thus being forced to break the law also....

The comma and phrase that follows the word “meats” is but a clarifying phrase, clarifying the meaning of abstention from meats. In other words, the Lord doesn’t mean people who avoid touching meats or being around meats, but He specifically is talking about people who don’t eat meats. The people who don’t eat meats are The Abstainers, and these people are the ones being wronged by The Forbidder. Thus, it is The Abstainer who is justified and is not called to repentance, whereas it is The Forbidder who is the one who is devoid of the Spirit of God, who “is not ordained of God.”

...

The interpolation of the footnote

Our footnote (“IE biddeth to abstain, see v. 19.”) claims to have received revelation that “forbiddeth” means “biddeth,” which would make the sentence mean the exact opposite of what it does, and it seems to take its authority from an interpretation of verse 19, which reads:

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. (D&C 49: 19)

It is important to note that verses 18 and 19 are both part of the same sentence, so in order to understand both verses, we must take all parts of the sentence together when interpreting it in any way. Accordingly, here is that sentence:

And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God; 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. (D&C 49: 18-19)

It becomes apparent, once a person understands that The Forbidder is the one being condemned, that the Lord is attempting to teach His law concerning the eating of meat, which is currently found in D&C 89: 12-13 and 15, in which it is indicated that the Lord is pleased when meat is not consumed, but that He allows it only during times of cold or famine or winter.

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; and it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine…And these hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger. (D&C 89: 12-13, 15)

The key to the revelation found in D&C 49: 19 are the words of the Lord revealing just what these animals and fowls and everything else that comes of the earth are ordained for. They are

ordained for the use of man for food and for raiment, and that he might have in abundance. (D&C 49: 19)

These creatures are ordained for food and for raiment, but additionally they are ordained that man might have in abundance. You cannot have an abundance of animals and of fowls and of that which comes from the earth if you are killing these things and eating them. Abundance comes from allowing things to live and multiply.

The Lord was attempting to teach these Shakers and all others who would get the chance at reading this revelation, that He neither commands nor forbids to abstain from meats, and that He neither commands nor forbids to eat meats, that each person has their free agency and could do what they wanted to do with the things of the earth, including killing and eating them, for He ordained that man can kill and eat animals in certain, specific circumstances, namely, in times of famine and excess hunger, in winter, in cold, or in other words, to save their lives, but that there were stiff penalties assigned to those who killed and ate flesh without having a genuine need to do so.

And surely, blood shall not be shed, only for meat, to save your lives; and the blood of every beast will I require at your hands. (JST Gen. 9: 11)

The evidence that the Lord is decidedly against the killing and eating of animals where there is no need is found in D&C 49: 21:

And wo be unto man that sheddeth blood or that wasteth flesh and hath no need. (D&C 49: 21)...

The false footnote revisited

Another problem with this pesky footnote (“IE biddeth to abstain, see v. 19.”) is that we find the same use of the word “forbiddeth” in another part of the revelation, in verse 15, which reads:

And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man. (D&C 49: 15)

Here, in this sentence, if we use the same rules followed by our uninspired footnote, that “forbiddeth” means “biddeth,” what we get is something entirely at odds, again, with our revealed religion. Putting the word “biddeth” into this sentence renders it:

And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso [biddeth] to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man.

The sentence becomes entirely contradictory...

 

More on the subject of meats

In 1 Timothy 4: 1-3 we find another interesting reference to meat-eating:

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. (1 Tim. 4: 1-3)

In this scripture, we get a view of another false doctrine, that of commanding to abstain from meats. Just as he who forbids to abstain from meats is not ordained of God, because each person has the free agency to not eat meat, should they desire not to eat, so is he who commands to abstain from meats not ordained of God, since everyone has the free agency to eat meat, should they desire to eat, knowing that it is allowable under certain, justifiable circumstances.

It should be noted that if we use the word “biddeth” in D&C 49: 18, we essentially get the counsel recorded in 1 Timothy 4: 3, that “commanding to abstain from meats” is not of God. “Biddeth to abstain” is the same as “commandeth to abstain.” The Lord, knowing that he had already covered the sin of commanding to abstain in 1 Timothy 4: 3, apparently decided he was going to cover the other sin of forbidding to abstain, which was equally sinful...

The Shakers

It is interesting to note that verses 18-21 of section 49 actually are telling the Shakers that although their doctrine of abstaining from pork was not inspired of God and was not the true doctrine of God, they would not be forced to abandon the practice should they decide to continue to abstain from eating pork or any other meat...

http://ldsanarchy.wordpress.com/2007/10/16/the-interpolation-of-a-footnote/

Edited by inquiringmind
Link to comment

What is "Dialogue," and how do I find it?

 

(Is it available online?)

 

And if this is true, why is meat served at so many LDS Church functions today?

Because that was the POV of those leaders then, but not the POV apparently of our more recent leaders if what is currently being taught is an accurate reflection of what our leaders feel is what is needed by our members in direction from leadership (as opposed to what they decide to do themselves once they have learned more through personal study and personal revelation...which may vary from person to person as God teaches people what they need most first IMO and thus people may receive lessons of the Spirit in a different order).

Dialogue is a journal on Mormon thought, history, culture, etc. some articles are wonderful, others not so good.

Link to comment

The Book of Mormon tends to mirror the phrasing used in the King James Version of the Bible, including, I would surmise, the use of terms that were archaic even in Joseph's day.

Maybe it wasn't that archaic in the 19th century.

 

From Wilford Woodruff's Journal.

 

I have waded swamps and swum rivers, and have asked my bread from door to door; and have devoted nearly fifty years to this work.

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-wilford-woodruff/chapter-9?lang=eng

 

And

WE concluded to go down Arkansas River and cross into Tennessee. We could not get passage on the boat, be- cause of the low water, so we went on the bank of the river and cut down a sound cottonwood tree, three feet through, cut off a twelve-foot length, and in two days we dug out a canoe. We made a pair of oars and a rudder, and on the 11th of March, 1835, launched our canoe, and commenced our voyage down the Arkansas river, without pro- visions. The first day we sailed twenty-five miles, and stopped at night with a poor family who lived on the bank of the river. These kind folks gave us supper and breakfast, and, in the morning, gave us a johnny-cake and piece of pork to take with us on our journey. We travelled about fifty miles that day, and at night stopped in a village called Cadron, at an old tavern, which was deserted. We made a fire in the tavern, roasted a piece of our pork, ate our supper, said our prayers, went into a chamber, lay down on the bare floor, and were soon asleep.

http://archive.org/stream/millennialstar9915eng/millennialstar9915eng_djvu.txt

 

So maybe you were right when you said bread

 

...could be used to convey the generic definition of bread as anything edible.

Link to comment

Yes, it makes sense, no, that doesn't mean it is right. Follow the arguments and decide for yourself which one is more accurate, I don't think anyone can do that for you and you will just remain confuse if you depend on others to determine what is truth for you.

I disagree with some of what he writes and agree with other parts. This for example: "These creatures are ordained for food and for raiment, but additionally they are ordained that man might have in abundance. You cannot have an abundance of animals and of fowls and of that which comes from the earth if you are killing these things and eating them. Abundance comes from allowing things to live and multiply."

There are tons (literally) more chickens, turkeys, cattle due to people wanting to kill and eat them. Abundance does not solely come from 'living and let live' approach.

Link to comment

Maybe it wasn't that archaic in the 19th century.

 

From Wilford Woodruff's Journal.

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-wilford-woodruff/chapter-9?lang=eng

 

And

http://archive.org/stream/millennialstar9915eng/millennialstar9915eng_djvu.txt

 

So maybe you were right when you said bread

Perhaps.

 

But the impression I get here is that Wilford, for poetic or rhetorical reasons, is using the term "bread" in the scriptural sense, as in "Give us this day our daily bread."

Link to comment

Well, I wrote it out and sent it in to FAIRLDS. However, I guess someone was paying attention to this thread and it got changed over the weekend. (enter bittersweet feeling here). This is the new explanation;

 

Just as past members struggled as individuals and a group to keep some parts of the Word of Wisdom, it is arguable that some members today likewise struggle. As with the former members, the Lord is merciful and has not yet created a "standard" for meat consumption—each member and his or her conscience settles the matter with him or herself.

 

With respect to the question of why we do some things (tend to eat lots of meat) but not others (don't drink tea), the reason for that likely has much to do with the concept of following the counsel of living prophets. The current Church Handbook says "hot drinks" means tea and coffee, and it forbids the use of illegal drugs, even though neither "tea" nor illegal drugs are explicitly mentioned in the Word of Wisdom. Like other scriptures, we rely on guidance from living prophets to help us to know how Doctrine and Covenants Section 89 should be applied in our time. With respect to eating meat sparingly, that remains a "word of wisdom," but, unlike refraining from tea, is not mentioned in the current Handbook and has not been publicly mentioned by any General Authorities for many years.

 

It does sound a lot better than before.

Link to comment

Well, I wrote it out and sent it in to FAIRLDS. However, I guess someone was paying attention to this thread and it got changed over the weekend. (enter bittersweet feeling here). This is the new explanation;

Just as past members struggled as individuals and a group to keep some parts of the Word of Wisdom, it is arguable that some members today likewise struggle. As with the former members, the Lord is merciful and has not yet created a "standard" for meat consumption—each member and his or her conscience settles the matter with him or herself.

With respect to the question of why we do some things (tend to eat lots of meat) but not others (don't drink tea), the reason for that likely has much to do with the concept of following the counsel of living prophets. The current Church Handbook says "hot drinks" means tea and coffee, and it forbids the use of illegal drugs, even though neither "tea" nor illegal drugs are explicitly mentioned in the Word of Wisdom. Like other scriptures, we rely on guidance from living prophets to help us to know how Doctrine and Covenants Section 89 should be applied in our time. With respect to eating meat sparingly, that remains a "word of wisdom," but, unlike refraining from tea, is not mentioned in the current Handbook and has not been publicly mentioned by any General Authorities for many years.

It does sound a lot better than before.

Excellent, and thanks for your help in making FairMormon better. I did mention your concern to the general membership (I dont do wiki myself) and that usually gets something addressed, but I prefer people to write to FairMormon themselves as they can add details that may not have been mentioned in a passing reference as well as it gives additional motivation to improve and to be careful not only in that specific instance, but in general. It is important to learn that the extra effort is really worth it in others' eyes as the knowledge one needs to continually work on something can be overwhelming (like housework, the work of making the FairMormon wiki the best it can be never ends) It also demonstrates whether someone is serious in their concerns and not just wanting to whine, don't you think. ;) Edited by calmoriah
Link to comment

Thanks for suggesting I send it in. I know what you mean about being serious about it and taking action. I think though this world has given many (including myself) the old greeting conversation;

 

"Hi. How are you?"

 

"Can't complain."

 

"No one would listen anyway, right?"

 

I am glad this turned out better.

Edited by thatjimguy
Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...