Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Sky

Should Mormons Eat Meat "sparingly", As Taught In Doctrine & Covenants 89?

The World Health Organization agrees with Doctrine & Covenants 89  

54 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Mormons eat meat "sparingly" and "only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine" in accordance with the Doctrine and Covenants?

    • Yes
      34
    • No
      5
    • We have grocery stores, no one needs to eat meat to survive
      4
    • Mormons should be vegetarian regardless of the D&C
      0
    • No opinion/ indifferent
      7
    • Other - please explain
      6


Recommended Posts

From the article:

 

"There’s one more factor that should influence a lot of people in southern Utah. I like to give credit where credit is due. I’m not LDS (and I’m not trying to push any religious doctrine) but the Mormons say not to eat meat, or at least their scripture does, and they have actually had this one right for almost 200 years. Section 89 of the Doctrine and Covenants, one of the sacred works of the Mormons, reads almost like a tract from PeTA."

 

What do you think?

 

http://suindependent.com/mormons-say-not-to-eat-meat/

Edited by Sky

Share this post


Link to post

I think we should eat meat sparingly, but not eat it just in winter or times of famine. This revelation was given at a time when there were no grocery stores that we could go to to get meat whenever we wanted.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Please do not open a thread that only gives a link to another site. Few like having to go of- site to read an entire blog or article before they can contribute.

 

Always give enough information in the OP to begin a discussion. Either summarize what you are linking to or cut & paste enough to get the point across (without violating Fair Use) Then be specific about what is to be discussed.

 

This applies even for topics coming  from LDS.org. 

 

Thanks.

 

I usually don't board nanny, but sometimes the admins like to restrict privileges for breaking board rules. You might want to edit your OP with a quote from your link.

 

That said...

Arby's! We have the meats.

Share this post


Link to post

Thank's for bringing the WOW up... I was just thinking about this this morning.

No Mormons shouldn't be vegans.

Gen 1
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.


So we should be vegans right?

Wrong! God expands the menu later on...

Gen 9
3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.



Then he restricts the menu again for Israel. No shell Fish, No Pork, etc. etc.

But then its opened up again with the NT church... only food restriction given is strangled things.

Should we eat it sparingly? We should eat all food "sparingly" too much of anything isn't good.

Edited by Zakuska

Share this post


Link to post

I usually don't board nanny, but sometimes the admins like to restrict privileges for breaking board rules. You might want to edit your OP with a quote from your link.

 

That said...

 

Okay, I just edited my opening post and included a quote from the article that I linked.  

Share this post


Link to post

Should we eat it sparingly? We should eat all food "sparingly" too much of anything isn't good.

 

But as an everyday part of your diet, it's probably better to eat whole grains and other plant foods rather than beef and pork, right?  I think so! ;)

Share this post


Link to post

Well... if you never want to eat pork again try this link / experiment.

 

*** WARNING TO THE WEAK OF STOMACH ***

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&q=pork%20maggots%20youtube%20coke&oq=pork%20maggots%20youtube%20coke&aqs=chrome..69i57.5823j0j7

 

As long as its cooked well this isn't an issue. Protien is Protien.

 

We usually do what our nutritionist suggests. We don't make meat the main dish. It's more like a side dish to a main course of a salad or vegetables or something.  We also try and rotate in a lot of fish and poultry.

 

Not enough Protein is also a bad thing.

Edited by Zakuska

Share this post


Link to post

Common sense should say to not make meat the central part of your diet. But it should be a part of

a well balanced one.

Share this post


Link to post

This is one part of the WoW that gets short shrift . I can't count the number of ward suppers I have attended where roast beef was the center attraction. Mind you, I live in cattle country. Then there is Thanksgiving where turkey or ham or turducken rules. The old saying is that it is best not to know how sausage is made. Same holds true for all industrial animal processing. IMO , we would eat less meat if we had to kill and process the animal ourselves.

 

  That said, I have known a few vegetarians who spend all winter unable to keep warm enough , likely because they avoid red meat. One does tire of oatmeal and broccoli  three times a day.

Share this post


Link to post

I voted "other" because D&C 89 definitely does not teach that meat is bad for man.

 

Let’s look at what God said is “good” for you and what He said is “not good” for you.

 

The Lord stated that it is “not good” if a man drinks “wine or strong drink” and that tobacco is “not good” for man.

 

He also said that grain and fruit are “good for the food of man.”

 

God stated that “hot drinks,” which He revealed were coffee and tea, “are not for the body or belly,” but He never said anything about meat being bad for you.

 

First, let's look at verses 14-15. When the Lord said in verse 15, “These hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger,” He was referring to the “wild animals that run or creep on the earth” that are cited at the end of verse 14. Any other interpretation would leave us eating meat ONLY in times of famine and excess of hunger.

 

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.

 

Now for verse 13, which originally had no comma after the word “used.” It originally read, “And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.”

 

Apostle James E. Talmage added the comma in 1920. Before he added the comma, verse 13 said that it is pleasing to the Lord that the flesh of beasts and fowls should not be eaten only in times of winter, cold, or famine but should be eaten in other times as well.

 

The added comma clearly reverses the meaning of verse 13. With the comma, it reads, “And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.”

 

The new Talmage version would mean that it would please the Lord if you ate meat only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine, and if you eat meat at any time other than “times of winter, or of cold, or famine,” it is clearly displeasing to the Lord.

 

I have Teachings of the Latter-day prophets from Brigham Young to Thomas S. Monson, and I have read anything I could find regarding what the prophets have said about meat and the Word of Wisdom. No prophet has ever spoken disparagingly about eating meat. They have never said people should eat less meat or eat it sparingly.

 

As for verse 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,” I am sure the Lord had a reason for telling the saints at Kirtland, Ohio to eat animals sparingly in 1833. It could be that they did not have a lot to go around, or it could be that they had an abundance and some of the saints were gorging themselves on meat while neglecting fruits and grains. Hence, He told His children that fruits and grains are good for them.

 

If meat was bad for us the Lord would have sad so, just like He did with “wine or strong drink,” and that tobacco is “not good” for man, and “hot drinks,” which He revealed “are not for the body or belly.”

 

Again, the Lord never said meat is “bad” or “not good” for man to eat.

 

That is my take.

Share this post


Link to post

Tony does every one of your posts contain a lot of scripture verses? I'm wondering for a friend.

Share this post


Link to post

I voted "other" because D&C 89 definitely does not teach that meat is bad for man.

 

Let’s look at what God said is “good” for you and what He said is “not good” for you.

 

The Lord stated that it is “not good” if a man drinks “wine or strong drink” and that tobacco is “not good” for man.

 

He also said that grain and fruit are “good for the food of man.”

 

God stated that “hot drinks,” which He revealed were coffee and tea, “are not for the body or belly,” but He never said anything about meat being bad for you.

 

First, let's look at verses 14-15. When the Lord said in verse 15, “These hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger,” He was referring to the “wild animals that run or creep on the earth” that are cited at the end of verse 14. Any other interpretation would leave us eating meat ONLY in times of famine and excess of hunger.

 

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.

 

Now for verse 13, which originally had no comma after the word “used.” It originally read, “And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.”

 

Apostle James E. Talmage added the comma in 1920. Before he added the comma, verse 13 said that it is pleasing to the Lord that the flesh of beasts and fowls should not be eaten only in times of winter, cold, or famine but should be eaten in other times as well.

 

The added comma clearly reverses the meaning of verse 13. With the comma, it reads, “And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.”

 

The new Talmage version would mean that it would please the Lord if you ate meat only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine, and if you eat meat at any time other than “times of winter, or of cold, or famine,” it is clearly displeasing to the Lord.

 

I have Teachings of the Latter-day prophets from Brigham Young to Thomas S. Monson, and I have read anything I could find regarding what the prophets have said about meat and the Word of Wisdom. No prophet has ever spoken disparagingly about eating meat. They have never said people should eat less meat or eat it sparingly.

 

As for verse 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,” I am sure the Lord had a reason for telling the saints at Kirtland, Ohio to eat animals sparingly in 1833. It could be that they did not have a lot to go around, or it could be that they had an abundance and some of the saints were gorging themselves on meat while neglecting fruits and grains. Hence, He told His children that fruits and grains are good for them.

 

If meat was bad for us the Lord would have sad so, just like He did with “wine or strong drink,” and that tobacco is “not good” for man, and “hot drinks,” which He revealed “are not for the body or belly.”

 

Again, the Lord never said meat is “bad” or “not good” for man to eat.

 

That is my take.

I have heard the comma/no comma rational. From what I understand they are not sure who put it in, but they assume it was Talamage because he was the editor. There is no indication that he was authorized by FP to put the comma in there. 

Share this post


Link to post

  That said, I have known a few vegetarians who spend all winter unable to keep warm enough , likely because they avoid red meat. One does tire of oatmeal and broccoli  three times a day.

Yeah, I need animal protein for some reason and unfortunately eggs and dairy are not enough. Fish is enough...as long as it is not canned. Beef however right now is easier to prepare due to having some microwavable beef dishes that healthy and having that significant animal protein allows me to go all night without having to get up and eat something so I can sleep so I am not going to feel guilty about eating it.

Share this post


Link to post

I like cheeseburgers too much. So I'm glad the church doesn't enforce that part of the WOW.

Share this post


Link to post

The lamb and the lion are not best of friends yet.

Share this post


Link to post

I posted yes too quickly, because I was thinking of a study recently that red meat, processed meats, etc could be as deadly as smoking......

Share this post


Link to post

Moderation.  Nuf said. :air_kiss:

Share this post


Link to post

But as an everyday part of your diet, it's probably better to eat whole grains and other plant foods rather than beef and pork, right?  I think so! ;)

You mean the anti-carb hobbyists have it wrong?

Share this post


Link to post

I posted yes too quickly, because I was thinking of a study recently that red meat, processed meats, etc could be as deadly as smoking......

I think I heard of the same study, but what I understood was that the processed meats are placed in the same category as smoking but are far from being as deadly, because they are not consumed in nearly as great abundance as tobacco products.

Share this post


Link to post

I voted "other" because D&C 89 definitely does not teach that meat is bad for man.

 

Let’s look at what God said is “good” for you and what He said is “not good” for you.

 

The Lord stated that it is “not good” if a man drinks “wine or strong drink” and that tobacco is “not good” for man.

 

He also said that grain and fruit are “good for the food of man.”

 

God stated that “hot drinks,” which He revealed were coffee and tea, “are not for the body or belly,” but He never said anything about meat being bad for you.

 

First, let's look at verses 14-15. When the Lord said in verse 15, “These hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger,” He was referring to the “wild animals that run or creep on the earth” that are cited at the end of verse 14. Any other interpretation would leave us eating meat ONLY in times of famine and excess of hunger.

 

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.

 

Now for verse 13, which originally had no comma after the word “used.” It originally read, “And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.”

 

Apostle James E. Talmage added the comma in 1920. Before he added the comma, verse 13 said that it is pleasing to the Lord that the flesh of beasts and fowls should not be eaten only in times of winter, cold, or famine but should be eaten in other times as well.

 

The added comma clearly reverses the meaning of verse 13. With the comma, it reads, “And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.”

 

The new Talmage version would mean that it would please the Lord if you ate meat only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine, and if you eat meat at any time other than “times of winter, or of cold, or famine,” it is clearly displeasing to the Lord.

 

I have Teachings of the Latter-day prophets from Brigham Young to Thomas S. Monson, and I have read anything I could find regarding what the prophets have said about meat and the Word of Wisdom. No prophet has ever spoken disparagingly about eating meat. They have never said people should eat less meat or eat it sparingly.

 

As for verse 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,” I am sure the Lord had a reason for telling the saints at Kirtland, Ohio to eat animals sparingly in 1833. It could be that they did not have a lot to go around, or it could be that they had an abundance and some of the saints were gorging themselves on meat while neglecting fruits and grains. Hence, He told His children that fruits and grains are good for them.

 

If meat was bad for us the Lord would have sad so, just like He did with “wine or strong drink,” and that tobacco is “not good” for man, and “hot drinks,” which He revealed “are not for the body or belly.”

 

Again, the Lord never said meat is “bad” or “not good” for man to eat.

 

That is my take.

Mormoms really don't live the word of wisdom. They pat themselves on the back for not smoking or drinking alcohol or avoiding coffee and tea which are actually quite good for you. Yet so many a Mormons are over weight, have diabetes and other health problems that come from over eating. But hey avoid a glass of wine or w couple beers a day and God loves us.

Share this post


Link to post

The lamb and the lion are not best of friends yet.

The lion adores lamb so we are halfway there.

Share this post


Link to post

Should we eat it sparingly? We should eat all food "sparingly" too much of anything isn't good.

 

It sounds good to put everything in the same category, but it lessens the doctrine.

 

Sparingly means "less than everything else".

You can't put everything at the same level and say sparingly. If that was God's intent to eat all foods sparingly, he would not have singled out one item on the menu.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Robert F. Smith
      Yasemin Saplakoglu, "There May Be a Link Between Coffee and Lung Cancer, Study Suggests," LiveScience, April 3, 2019, online at https://www.livescience.com/65136-coffee-lung-cancer.html .
       
    • By LisaALu
      Born and raised LDS, married in the Temple...the whole 9 yards.  Well....except I like to drink, sometimes socially, other times to "make things go away".  My husband and I started on a vacation 17 years ago, and justified that since it was out of the country....we went every other year, came back, prayed for forgiveness and moved on.  But in the last 2-3 years we have become far more involved.  We can go 4-5 months and then binge for 2 weeks.  Then we set a new time frame and start over.  We don't go to the Temple because we feel that we shouldn't.  So here is the thing...our recommends are 3 days from expiring and the counselor is bugging us to schedule.  STUCK!  TO be clear, neither of us have an issue with doctrine, Joseph Smith or Priesthood....or any of the other usual things.  We have always clung to our faith.  So what we have  in a sense going on, is that we want our cake and to eat it too.  The dilemma is what to do about the counselor.  If we don't go within a certain time for a renewal, we hit the Bishops radar...if we get called in, he's going to want to know why. I am not ready to come clean, I don't want help.  But I don't want to lie in a sacred interview.  To add to the mix, we are going to Europe and plan on drinking a lot of wine.  Later this year another vacation where we will be drinking a lot.  If you are wondering, no, it's not alcoholism on either side...it's that binge thing.  We hold out and then binge in our "off" time.  Knowing that we have no intention of quitting this year...I feel I am stuck with 2 choices.  First, come clean to the Bishop, and deal with consequences, such as being removed from our callings (we have limited our other activities such as Temple and off and on with Sacrament) OR we lie...(it's hard to write that).  If we just get through those interviews, we are off anyones radar while we continue to seek our way through this mess we made.  I want the whole Eternity thing.  My husband is more of a closed book and can't say what he wants.  He wants me...for ever, but he is hurt by the church....I should say WE are hurt by people in the church...their cultural stupidity and not doctrine..  Our 4 children have all opted out, my husband says "if they aren't going to be there, why would I work so hard to be there" of course he doesn't mean that about me.  So it's complicated.  We know the people aren't true, but the church is.  But boy can they do damage.  So I am looking for thoughts. Ps, anyone know how to ask the counselor for time without it going on the Bishops agenda?
    • By Marginal Gains
      Scott Lloyd, on a different thread, said:
      Which begs the question (if one agrees with Scott) about how we differentiate between the bits of the Word Of Wisdom that are binding, and which aren’t?
    • By Mystery Meat
      As an attorney, I spend my day dealing with nuance and subjectivity. Perhaps, few words are more subjective in the commandments of God, then the word sparingly when it comes to the consumption of meat. I would be curious to know how each of you treat this part of the Word of Wisdom. It has been on my mind as of late and I feel like a change is in order in my life.
      Note: this thread is not the place to discuss the Word of Wisdom as a commandment, the love of animals, or what science has to say about anything. If you can't stay on topic, you will be removed.
    • By HappyJackWagon
      I just finished reading an interesting Dialogue article by Thomas G. Alexander called The Word of Wisdom: From Principle to Requirement. http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V14N03_80.pdf
       
      The author walks us through the evolution of the WoW from a principle with a blessing to a requirement for full fellowship and worthiness. He illustrates how social and political pressures combined with past statements of church leaders and scriptural study to influence the evolution of the WoW to a commandment in the church. He claims there is no evidence a "revelation" was received which changed the status of the WoW from principle to revelation.
       
      Are any of you familiar with this article? What are your thoughts about looking at the WoW as an example of how doctrine and policy change within the church?
       
       
      FYI- Bill Reel- This would be an interesting topic for a podcast.
×
×
  • Create New...