Man! That Was One ~great~ Steak!

[Skylla]

Mocking? No, not at all. Sorry I came across that way.

I sincerely believe the D&C is incorrect (uninspired). Is it okay to say that? (Just checking.) And I sometimes add a little humor along the way. Alas, it wasn't appreciated. Okay, every comic bombs now and then. Tough crowd.

Let me ask you, then. Do you believe meat in warm weather is a sin? Do you believe that meat should only be used in times of famine or cold?

I don't buy it. And saying such isn't meant to be mocking. I just don't see this passage from the D&C as genuinely of God.

Your tone is mocking. There is a respectful way to ask your question. Review the board guidelines.

Skylla

[MormonMason]

There's no argument to it.

The D&C is just wrong on this point ... and a plethora of others.

It, like the BoA, isn't of God.

Never.

We keep them in the closet...where they belong.

Properly exegete the passage, man.

You speak of proper exegesis but you leave off the fuller context of both verses 12 and 13 of section 89??? You are a funny man, Russ.

The verse nowhere says that we should only use meat during the winter or famine. The passage says that meat is to be used with thanksgiving and sparingly, and that the Lord is more pleased when we use it only during times of famine and cold. Nowhere does any of it say we can't use it or must use it only in winter or famine. I have seen that a lot of your contrived contradictions are of this manner of eisegesis.

As an aside, Mormons generally live longer than non-Mormons, and generally are healthier overall, but one thing I have noticed is that rates of colon cancer are high in Utah and Idaho. Lots of people there have steak and potatoes a lot of times during the year. We all know the risks of excessive red meat consumption. Even medical doctors tell us these days to limit our red meat intake. But, you already knew that....

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

My wife just cooked up some maahhvellouss baked potatoes and boiled corn while I stepped outside to grill a couple of perfect medium well New York strips. I got lucky that they came out perfect. Mmmm, mmm, goooooddd!! Dang, that was one good steak. But I got to thunkin'...

D&C 89 states meat should only be used in times of famine or winter.

But our Bibles tells us that meat is okay any time of year. All things in moderation.

This section of the D&C just doesn't align with our Bibles.

Which one should I believe? The D&C or my Bible?

Gotta go with the Bible...again.

It depends...did you use A1. It's that importnat. What is says is... "And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine."

The way I read that he wants not to use it (only) in times of winter...etc. But all year but "Sparingly"

Pa Pa

[Russ]

It depends...did you use A1. It's that importnat. What is says is... "And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine."

The way I read that he wants not to use it (only) in times of winter...etc. But all year but "Sparingly"

Pa Pa

A-!?! Don't insult the meat! If it needs "sauce" someone didn't cook it right, amen?

The point is is that the LDS religion states that God is displeased with meat consumption outside of conditions of famine and cold weather.

The further point is that this contradicts our Bibles. God is not displeased by our partaking of His bounty. All things in moderation...no matter cold or hot outside. The D&C is wrong.

[Russ]

You speak of proper exegesis but you leave off the fuller context of both verses 12 and 13 of section 89??? You are a funny man, Russ.

The verse nowhere says that we should only use meat during the winter or famine. The passage says that meat is to be used with thanksgiving and sparingly, and that the Lord is more pleased when we use it only during times of famine and cold. Nowhere does any of it say we can't use it or must use it only in winter or famine. I have seen that a lot of your contrived contradictions are of this manner of eisegesis.

As an aside, Mormons generally live longer than non-Mormons, and generally are healthier overall, but one thing I have noticed is that rates of colon cancer are high in Utah and Idaho. Lots of people there have steak and potatoes a lot of times during the year. We all know the risks of excessive red meat consumption. Even medical doctors tell us these days to limit our red meat intake. But, you already knew that....

I'll not argue your point of limited meat consumption.

But a clear reading of D&C 89 states God is displeased with meat consumption unless in times of famine and cold weather.

That's anti-biblical and non-Christian.

[Doctor Steuss]

I'll not argue your point of limited meat consumption.

But a clear reading of D&C 89 states God is displeased with meat consumption unless in times of famine and cold weather.

A clear reading of which version? The original, or the one that might have rogue punctuation?

That's anti-biblical and non-Christian.

I agree that your interpretation of LDS scripture is anti-Biblical and non-Christian.

I wonder why it is that we look forward to the day when the lion will lay down with the lamb when evidently itâ??s (according to you) such a good thing to eat as much meat as possible.

[Geaux LSU]

My wife just cooked up some maahhvellouss baked potatoes and boiled corn while I stepped outside to grill a couple of perfect medium well New York strips. I got lucky that they came out perfect. Mmmm, mmm, goooooddd!! Dang, that was one good steak. But I got to thunkin'...

D&C 89 states meat should only be used in times of famine or winter.

But our Bibles tells us that meat is okay any time of year. All things in moderation.

This section of the D&C just doesn't align with our Bibles.

Which one should I believe? The D&C or my Bible?

Gotta go with the Bible...again.

That's a might fancy meal. Did you have to bum the money for that off of CARM posters also?

Yes, your reputation proceeds you.

For those that don't know- this Russ person apparently bummed money off the posters at CARM for a new computer after his blew up or something. He needed those funds so he could get a new computer so he could continue in his calling to trash the LDS online (I suppose it's better than getting an actual job).

From what I hear he came back on bragging about all the great things his new computer would do, while in the meantime another poster on CARM was out hustling a job, trying to pay bills, about to lose his home........while doing all he could to keep a roof over his head. I wonder what those dear CARM posters contributed to him.....

[T-Shirt]

What if a certain comma was placed in verse 13 by mistake. Here is what it would say without the comma:

"And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine."

I think, maybe, JAHS is on to something here. Just a few comments that may shed some light on this issue.

The common meaning of the word, "sparingly" has changed slightly over the years. Today, it tends to mean, "rarely" or "infrequently", but this is not what its more common meaning was in the 19th century. According to Websters 1828 dictionary, the most common definition was, "Not abundantly". In other words, meat was perfectly fine, but a diet "abundantly" or exclusively of meat was not good, fruits and vegetables needed to be added. This was good advice for a frontiersman, who would have found meat to be one of the simplest foods to come by. No need for money or a store or a garden, a short time n the woods with his gun, and he could eat. This verse only limits meat in the sense that it should not be the exclusive source of food in our diet. One can eat meat with every meal and still eat it "sparingly" in the 19th century definition of the word.

This brings me to the other issue that is easily misunderstood in section 89, the seeming prohibition of meat in times other than winter or famine. The fist mention of this is in verse 13:

13 And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.

If you compare this verse to that of the original found in the 1835 D&C, you will find a very slight, yet significant difference. (See Here) The difference is that, originally, the comma after the word, "used" was not there. This completely changes the meaning of the sentence. The coma was an editorial addition in a later version. The original intent, it seems to me, is far more logical. The Quakers had a belief that man should not eat meat at all, but they did allow it in times when food was scarce, such as in winter and famine. In section 49, men were sent on a mission to the Quakers, and one of the things they were told to preach to them was:

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.

Verse 13 of section 89, without the comma, I believe, is a refutation of the Quaker doctrine which was becoming more common at the time. The counsel given in verses 14 and 15 are consistent with verse 21 of section 49. In other words, verse 15 is referring to wild animals (see the immediate antecedent in verse 15). Consistent with section 49, the Lord expects us to hunt wild animals only in times of need or lack of other available food.

Hope that helps.

T-Shirt

[MormonMason]

I'll not argue your point of limited meat consumption.

But a clear reading of D&C 89 states God is displeased with meat consumption unless in times of famine and cold weather.

That's anti-biblical and non-Christian.

Take a look at the previous verse. It is ok to eat meat with thanksgiving and to do it sparingly, and it is pleasing that we should only do so in times of famine, cold or winter, as in the verse upon which you wish us solely to focus. But, just because it is pleasing to the Lord for us to do that way, then, does not mean that we necessarily displease the Lord when we do not follow that advice, so long as meat is used sparingly. Obviously, if there is nothing else to eat year-round, that would be classed as a time of famine. Nowhere in any revelation of the Doctrine and Covenants does it say that we must only eat meat in the winter, etc., or that we would be condemned for doing so. If you had something like that, you might make your case.

After all is said and done, Paul the apostle suggests that we should not eat meat if it offends our brother. Dare you say he is unbiblical?

[flameburns623]

I think, maybe, JAHS is on to something here. Just a few comments that may shed some light on this issue.

The common meaning of the word, "sparingly" has changed slightly over the years. Today, it tends to mean, "rarely" or "infrequently", but this is not what its more common meaning was in the 19th century. According to Websters 1828 dictionary, the most common definition was, "Not abundantly". In other words, meat was perfectly fine, but a diet "abundantly" or exclusively of meat was not good, fruits and vegetables needed to be added. This was good advice for a frontiersman, who would have found meat to be one of the simplest foods to come by. No need for money or a store or a garden, a short time n the woods with his gun, and he could eat. This verse only limits meat in the sense that it should not be the exclusive source of food in our diet. One can eat meat with every meal and still eat it "sparingly" in the 19th century definition of the word.

This brings me to the other issue that is easily misunderstood in section 89, the seeming prohibition of meat in times other than winter or famine. The fist mention of this is in verse 13:

13 And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.

If you compare this verse to that of the original found in the 1835 D&C, you will find a very slight, yet significant difference. (See Here) The difference is that, originally, the comma after the word, "used" was not there. This completely changes the meaning of the sentence. The coma was an editorial addition in a later version. The original intent, it seems to me, is far more logical. The Quakers had a belief that man should not eat meat at all, but they did allow it in times when food was scarce, such as in winter and famine. In section 49, men were sent on a mission to the Quakers, and one of the things they were told to preach to them was:

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.

Verse 13 of section 89, without the comma, I believe, is a refutation of the Quaker doctrine which was becoming more common at the time. The counsel given in verses 14 and 15 are consistent with verse 21 of section 49. In other words, verse 15 is referring to wild animals (see the immediate antecedent in verse 15). Consistent with section 49, the Lord expects us to hunt wild animals only in times of need or lack of other available food.

Hope that helps.

T-Shirt

Thanks, T-shirt! Missionaries who taught me long years ago made this point but I wasn't certain what they based the idea on. Great clarification!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Incorrect. JS made no such claim that eating meat is a sin.

Russ. Lets look at what the open of the section 89 says. IT says not by way of commandment. When the WoW was originally given it was not a commandment. Later it was revealed that certain things the Lord expects of us. So you orignial statement is false in and of its self. I can eat meat all I want and it will never be counted as a sin. It has been speculated that meat was no longer a concearn of for the summer months becuase of the firdge. Meat goes bad in the summer and is hard to keep freash.

Russ,

I dont think you intentional forgot to reply to my post. Here it is again. THe main point is the WoW when it was originally given was not a commandment.

[JAHS]

I think, maybe, JAHS is on to something here. Just a few comments that may shed some light on this issue.

The common meaning of the word, "sparingly" has changed slightly over the years. Today, it tends to mean, "rarely" or "infrequently", but this is not what its more common meaning was in the 19th century. According to Websters 1828 dictionary, the most common definition was, "Not abundantly". In other words, meat was perfectly fine, but a diet "abundantly" or exclusively of meat was not good, fruits and vegetables needed to be added. This was good advice for a frontiersman, who would have found meat to be one of the simplest foods to come by. No need for money or a store or a garden, a short time n the woods with his gun, and he could eat. This verse only limits meat in the sense that it should not be the exclusive source of food in our diet. One can eat meat with every meal and still eat it "sparingly" in the 19th century definition of the word.

This brings me to the other issue that is easily misunderstood in section 89, the seeming prohibition of meat in times other than winter or famine. The fist mention of this is in verse 13:

13 And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.

If you compare this verse to that of the original found in the 1835 D&C, you will find a very slight, yet significant difference. (See Here) The difference is that, originally, the comma after the word, "used" was not there. This completely changes the meaning of the sentence. The coma was an editorial addition in a later version. The original intent, it seems to me, is far more logical. The Quakers had a belief that man should not eat meat at all, but they did allow it in times when food was scarce, such as in winter and famine. In section 49, men were sent on a mission to the Quakers, and one of the things they were told to preach to them was:

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.

Verse 13 of section 89, without the comma, I believe, is a refutation of the Quaker doctrine which was becoming more common at the time. The counsel given in verses 14 and 15 are consistent with verse 21 of section 49. In other words, verse 15 is referring to wild animals (see the immediate antecedent in verse 15). Consistent with section 49, the Lord expects us to hunt wild animals only in times of need or lack of other available food.

Hope that helps.

T-Shirt

The question now is was the comma placed there intentionally in subsequent editions to change the meaning as you say or should it never have been put in there?

[T-Shirt]

The question now is was the comma placed there intentionally in subsequent editions to change the meaning as you say or should it never have been put in there?

That same question was brought up at a Doctrine & Covenants symposium that I attended. It appears that no one knows who put the comma in there, only that it was inserted by an editor who was preparing the text for a new printing. Researchers are unaware of any direction from Church authorities, to the editor, to make the change.

When one takes section 49 and 59, as well as their background, into consideration, as well as other statements made by Joseph Smith, it becomes evident that the original version, without the comma, makes much more sense, and is consistent with everything else. Bruce R. McConkie was once asked about the comma, and he responded that no one need worry about it and that it was perfectly fine for members to eat meat any time of the year.

Regards,

T-Shirt

[Doctor Steuss]

That same question was brought up at a Doctrine & Covenants symposium that I attended. It appears that no one knows who put the comma in there, only that it was inserted by an editor who was preparing the text for a new printing. Researchers are unaware of any direction from Church authorities, to the editor, to make the change.

When one takes section 49 and 59, as well as their background, into consideration, as well as other statements made by Joseph Smith, it becomes evident that the original version, without the comma, makes much more sense, and is consistent with everything else. Bruce R. McConkie was once asked about the comma, and he responded that no one need worry about it and that it was perfectly fine for members to eat meat any time of the year.

Regards,

T-Shirt

T-Shirt,

Were the proceedings of this symposium published (was this the Sperry Symposium on the D&C)?

[JAHS]

That same question was brought up at a Doctrine & Covenants symposium that I attended. It appears that no one knows who put the comma in there, only that it was inserted by an editor who was preparing the text for a new printing. Researchers are unaware of any direction from Church authorities, to the editor, to make the change.

When one takes section 49 and 59, as well as their background, into consideration, as well as other statements made by Joseph Smith, it becomes evident that the original version, without the comma, makes much more sense, and is consistent with everything else. Bruce R. McConkie was once asked about the comma, and he responded that no one need worry about it and that it was perfectly fine for members to eat meat any time of the year.

Regards,

T-Shirt

I guess it really is a non issue. Most members ignore that part of the Word of Wisdom anyway and just stick with our current leaders' interpretation on what's most important about it.

[The Nehor]

Russ, you must understand we're caught between two passages but we CAN'T forbid anyone to eat meat.

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

So even if meats are totally banned by the Word of Wisdom we can't teach it. That God is a tricky fellow.

[MorningStar]

The Doctrine and Covenants is our scripture and the church is entitled to interpret it. Don't expect us to follow your interpretation of the Word of Wisdom, Russ. If it were wrong to eat meat in the Summer, the church would say something.

Also, I agree about the ribeye being the better steak. I got my brother a nice Spencer ribeye recently and he said it was the best steak he's ever had. I have had great luck with ribeyes turning out good. I find I need to marinate New York steaks.

Who's excited for Thanksgiving? I am! I prefer dark meat. What about you all?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The Doctrine and Covenants is our scripture and the church is entitled to interpret it. Don't expect us to follow your interpretation of the Word of Wisdom, Russ. If it were wrong to eat meat in the Summer, the church would say something.

Also, I agree about the ribeye being the better steak. I got my brother a nice Spencer ribeye recently and he said it was the best steak he's ever had. I have had great luck with ribeyes turning out good. I find I need to marinate New York steaks.

Who's excited for Thanksgiving? I am! I prefer dark meat. What about you all?

This is absolute hersey. I laugh at your ribeye. Ill take the new york anyday or the filet mignon. Now those are real steaks.

[MorningStar]

This is absolute hersey. I laugh at your ribeye. Ill take the new york anyday or the filet mignon. Now those are real steaks.

HOW DARE YOU!!!!!

Mods!!!! MODS!!!!!!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

HOW DARE YOU!!!!!

Mods!!!! MODS!!!!!!

HA. That is great. Really I like just about all types and cuts of meat. I sure now how to get to women though. Now that is another story.

My favorit cut and type is pork and the mighty center cut pork chop about 1" thick. MMMMMMMM!

[MorningStar]

HA. That is great. Really I like just about all types and cuts of meat. I sure now how to get to women though. Now that is another story.

My favorit cut and type is pork and the mighty center cut pork chop about 1" thick. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!

Ooh! Pork is yummy. I make this thing called Citrus Mustard Pork Roast. You rub a combination of dijon mustard, lemon zest, orange zest, pepper, and salt on the outside of a boneless double pork loin, roast it, and then I make a sauce with orange juice, lemon juice, honey, cornstarch, dijon mustard, and orange sections. It is really, really good. I serve it with roasted garlic mashed potatoes (I roast the garlic myself in the oven), and serve a yummy salad on the side - maybe the spring mix salad with tomatoes, salad shrimp, crushed croutons, sliced avocado, gorgonzola cheese, red onion, my homemade garlic vinaigrette, and then I squeeze a little lemon over it.

Then I make my husband do the dishes.

BWAH HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!

I forgot my point. Oh yeah. Pork is good and uhhhh ... shame on you for mocking my steak cut of choice. I look forward to seeing the dreaded red font in your posts.

Edited to shorten my "Bwah hahahahaaaaa" so it wouldn't run off the page. Might want to shorten your "MMMMMMMMMMM", Mola.

[buraianto]

Is it a sin to be stupid?

I don't think so. Moses thought that man was nothing, but didn't seem to think that was a sin. I think it's healthy to recognize our stupidity.

[Sargon]

I wonder if Russ will actually address any of the rebuttals given in this thread, or just keep saying something like "The point is, the D&C is wrong."

That tends to be his pattern.

Sargon

[MorningStar]

I wonder if Russ will actually address any of the rebuttals given in this thread, or just keep saying something like "The point is, the D&C is wrong."

That tends to be his pattern.

Sargon

This seems to be the pattern. Russ makes inaccurate statement. Someone gives a thoughtful explanation. Russ puts his fingers in his ears and yells, "LALALALALALALALALALA!!!!!" Russ repeats inaccurate statement.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ooh! Pork is yummy. I make this thing called Citrus Mustard Pork Roast. You rub a combination of dijon mustard, lemon zest, orange zest, pepper, and salt on the outside of a boneless double pork loin, roast it, and then I make a sauce with orange juice, lemon juice, honey, cornstarch, dijon mustard, and orange sections. It is really, really good. I serve it with roasted garlic mashed potatoes (I roast the garlic myself in the oven), and serve a yummy salad on the side - maybe the spring mix salad with tomatoes, salad shrimp, crushed croutons, sliced avocado, gorgonzola cheese, red onion, my homemade garlic vinaigrette, and then I squeeze a little lemon over it.

Then I make my husband do the dishes.

BWAH HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!

I forgot my point. Oh yeah. Pork is good and uhhhh ... shame on you for mocking my steak cut of choice. I look forward to seeing the dreaded red font in your posts.

Edited to shorten my "Bwah hahahahaaaaa" so it wouldn't run off the page. Might want to shorten your "MMMMMMMMMMM", Mola.

I deffinatly derailed this thread. Can you PM for more detailed instructions of that Pork Roast. Im really trying to get a good recipe for it. I can make a great pot roast but my pork roasts are always substandard.