Forbidding To Abstain From Not Eating Meat - D&C 49

[cinepro]

In another thread, Log makes the following statement, and I can't understand what he means:

Look at the scripture which says "whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meat." The scripture has been transfigured, even though the text stays the same. Abstaining from meat is quite literally the opposite of eating meat, yet the verse is still traditionally read as "whoever forbids the eating of meat."

Changing the reading of a scripture from literal to metaphorical is likewise altering the scripture, even leaving the text as it is.

I'm assuming this is referring to Doctrine and Covenants 49, which reads:

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.

I suppose the wording of v.18 is a little imprecise, but the context of the verse seems pretty clear. Especially in light of v.19, which explains that animals are "ordained for the use of man for food". So people who say we shouldn't eat meat are not ordained of God.

This is made even clearer by the context of the revelation, as described in the heading of the section:

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet to Sidney Rigdon, Parley P. Pratt, and Leman Copley, at Kirtland, Ohio, March 1831 (see History of the Church, 1:167–69). (Some historical sources give the date of this revelation as May 1831.) Leman Copley had embraced the gospel but still held to some of the teachings of the Shakers (United Society of Believers in Christ’s Second Appearing), to which he had formerly belonged. Some of the beliefs of the Shakers were that Christ’s second coming had already occurred and that he had appeared in the form of a woman, Ann Lee; baptism by water was not considered essential; the eating of pork was specifically forbidden, and many did not eat any meat; and a celibate life was considered higher than marriage. In prefacing this revelation, the Prophet wrote, “In order to have [a] more perfect understanding on the subject, I inquired of the Lord, and received the following” (History of the Church, 1:167). The revelation refuted some of the basic concepts of the Shaker group.

So, in light of the relation's purpose and the further explanation in v.19, I don't see how it can be argued that v.18 is referring to something other than people who say God wants us to not eat meat, telling us that such teachings are not of God.

Edited May 22, 2012 by cinepro

[Log]

I suppose the wording of v.18 is a little imprecise.

If "a little imprecise" means "the opposite of how it is traditionally read."

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.

Can't have just 18-19 in isolation. The meaning is clear.

Whoever forbids men to stop eating meat is not doing God's will. Animals are given to man for food and clothing that he may not be in need, but it is not given to men by God that there should be inequality in temporal things, wherein the world lies in sin, and cursings are pronounced against those that kill animals without being in need.

Read this in conjunction with the Word of Wisdom:

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.

and this (JST Genesis 9:10-11):

10 But, the blood of all flesh which I have given you for meat, shall be shed upon the ground, which taketh life thereof, and the blood ye shall not eat.

11 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.

Edited May 23, 2012 by Log

[CASteinman]

You are not allowed to command people to eat meat nor are you allowed to command them to not eat meat.

[cacheman]

Verse 18 appears to mirror the sentiments found in 1 Timothy chapter 4. So, despite it's muddled wording, I imagine it's meant to say that people shouldn't forbid others to eat meat.

However, I think that verse 21 is very clear. It sounds like a warning to those who eat meat without need. This agrees with the JST verses that Log posted which states that meat is only to be used to save your lives. For me personally, if I were LDS, I would understand that as a directive to not eat meat, unless I needed to (which I don't). Although I imagine there are exceptions, I would propose that the vast majority of people living in developed countries in this modern age don't need to eat meat.

At the same time, the LDS church's heavy involvement in the modern beef production industry would seem to indicate that they interpret those verses differently than I would.

cacheman

[JAHS]

I think if a comma were to be placed after the word forbiddeth; setting it by itself, might make more sense.

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

meaning "whoso forbiddeth,.......is not ordained of God."

[Log]

I think if a comma were to be placed after the word forbiddeth; setting it by itself, might make more sense.

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

meaning "whoso forbiddeth,.......is not ordained of God."

I concede your point. If things were different, they wouldn't be the same.

I mean, I could settle all scriptural controversies very easily by altering the text to make it say what I want it to say. What fun! What joy!

Edited May 23, 2012 by Log

[Log]

Try this one on: "Whoso forbiddeth to abstain from murdering people, that man should not kill the same, is not ordained of God."

Makes perfect sense on its face. Why then do we get confused when the subject is eating meat?

[Log]

Let's try another subject change: "And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from drugs, that man should not take the same, is not ordained of God."

Again, it's perfectly clear. Why then do we get confused when the subject is eating meat?

Unless Cinepro (or anyone) feels he's got a substantial rebuttal - and his lack of participation beyond the OP is rather telling to me - I'll leave it as is.

Edited May 23, 2012 by Log

[treehugger]

log, You seem to be opposed to people eating meat, yet at the same time you suggest that eating meat is scripturally based. what is the point you are trying to make with post 7 & 8

[Log]

log, You seem to be opposed to people eating meat, yet at the same time you suggest that eating meat is scripturally based. what is the point you are trying to make with post 7 & 8

The point I am making with posts 7 & 8 is that the language of D&C 49:18 is not unclear at all. It is clearly saying "whoever forbids vegetarianism is not doing God's will." Therefore, the traditional reading of D&C 49:18, in which a "not" is inserted into the text, is a transfiguration of the text, and not an interpretation at all.

I am not opposed to anyone eating meat. I agree that eating meat when it's the meat or your life is scripturally based. And, lest some fool try to claim I am judging their faithfulness, or setting myself up to be a judge over them, I take the kids out to the Golden Corral weekly.

Edited May 23, 2012 by Log

[cinepro]

Can't have just 18-19 in isolation. The meaning is clear.

Whoever forbids men to stop eating meat is not doing God's will.

How does someone "forbid men to stop eating meat"? Is that the same as saying that you are forcing them to eat meat?

The revelation was given in response to the Shakers, a group of people who were forbidding meat consumption, and it was clarifying that a meat-free diet is not what God wants (or requires).

And the phrase "that man should not eat the same" serves as an additional clarifier.

"And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat [meat], is not ordained of God;"

It's simply saying that whoever says people should not eat isn't "ordained of God".

I'm with treehugger in my inability to understand what your point is in all this. You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding the scripture, but I'm not sure to what end.

Edited May 23, 2012 by cinepro

[Log]

How does someone "forbid men to stop eating meat"? Is that the same as saying that you are forcing them to eat meat?

Yes. Forbidding to abstain is the same as commanding to do.

The revelation was given in response to the Shakers, a group of people who were forbidding meat consumption, and it was clarifying that a meat-free diet is not what God wants (or requires).

That, unfortunately for your position, is not what the revelation itself says on that particular topic - with regards to "requires."

And the phrase "that man should not eat the same" serves as an additional clarifier.

"And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat [meat], is not ordained of God;"

It's simply saying that whoever says people should not eat isn't "ordained of God".

That's, again, not what the revelation is saying. See posts 7 and 8 for details.

I'm with treehugger in my inability to understand what your point is in all this. You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding the scripture, but I'm not sure to what end.

The inability is part of a deeper confusion on both your parts, then. Abstaining from meat is, literally, the exact opposite of eating meat. I don't know how much more clearly I can say this: "whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meat" means "whoever forbids someone to not eat meat," or, alternatively, "whoever commands men to eat meat."

Unless you have something else, beyond the OP, then I'm pretty done with it.

Edited May 23, 2012 by Log

[cinepro]

The inability is part of a deeper confusion on both your parts, then. Abstaining from meat is, literally, the exact opposite of eating meat. I don't know how much more clearly I can say this: "whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meat" means "whoever forbids someone to not eat meat," or, alternatively, "whoever commands men to eat meat."

Just so I'm clear, do you believe that we shouldn't eat meat? Do you advocate abstaining from meat?

And do you believe that Section 49 is a revelation supporting the Shaker teachings about not eating meat?

Edited May 23, 2012 by cinepro

[Log]

Why am I reminded of Alma chapter 11 by your questioning?

Asked and answered.

Unless anyone has a substantial rebuttal, I see no reason to participate further: my point has been made.

You are out of the thread and the next time you will be suspended.

[volgadon]

And do you believe that Section 49 is a revelation supporting the Shaker teachings about not eating meat?

He'll never answer you. Still, it would interesting to watch as there is no way to make such an argument stick.

[volgadon]

That, unfortunately for your position, is not what the revelation itself says on that particular topic - with regards to "requires."

V. 1 shows that the revelation is directed at the Shakers, calling them to repent and accept the gospel. It proceeds to denounce many of their beliefs and practices. Log would have us believe that in the middle of those denunciations there is a verse encouraging a Shaker practice.

[cinepro]

V. 1 shows that the revelation is directed at the Shakers, calling them to repent and accept the gospel. It proceeds to denounce many of their beliefs and practices. Log would have us believe that in the middle of those denunciations there is a verse encouraging a Shaker practice.

Truly God does work in mysterious ways...

Especially odd that Joseph Smith and the other early Church members missed this, and it is only Log who has picked up on this.

Edited May 23, 2012 by cinepro

[volgadon]

Truly God does work in mysterious ways...

Especially odd that Joseph Smith and the other early Church members missed this, and it is only Log who has picked up on this.

The Shakers missed it too. http://books.google.com/books?id=yM5XY5KimksC&pg=PA50&dq=shakers+mormons+meat&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WGq9T9_KNIabiAKCjIXVDQ&ved=0CG0Q6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q&f=false

[cacheman]

How does someone "forbid men to stop eating meat"? Is that the same as saying that you are forcing them to eat meat?

..... it was clarifying that a meat-free diet is not what God wants (or requires)....

Interesting interpretation. How do you square that with verse 21 and JST Genesis 9:10-11?

[treehugger]

what is there to square? the scriptures do not condemn eating of meats. the verses you present do not forbid eating of meats.

[blooit]

Verse 18 is just missing a comma - "And whoso forbiddeth, to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God;"

Then I think it makes perfect sense. A simple punctuation error - not muddled wording IMHO.

Personally - I think to "need" meat is a little more flexible than just to save your own life, but to each his own. I can tell you that when I limit meat to a reasonable amount, I feel much better and I'm sure I avoid a lot of the diseases that plague our society today.

[BCSpace]

I suppose the wording of v.18 is a little imprecise, but the context of the verse seems pretty clear. Especially in light of v.19, which explains that animals are "ordained for the use of man for food". So people who say we shouldn't eat meat are not ordained of God.

I don't find it imprecise, but LDS doctrine restates what you said:

For example, the Word of Wisdom counsels us to eat meat sparingly (see D&C 89:12). Lest someone become extreme, we are told in another revelation that “whoso forbiddeth to [eat meat] is not ordained of God” (D&C 49:18). 1

1. The context for verse 18 is verse 19: “For, behold, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air … [are] ordained for the use of man for food.” Section 49 was specifically directed to members of the United Society of Believers in Christ’s Second Appearing (the Shakers) to correct some of their erroneous doctrines. One of their beliefs was not to eat flesh-meat or fish.

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1996/04/the-word-of-wisdom-the-principle-and-the-promises?lang=eng&query=%22d%26c+49%3a18%22#1-

Vegetarianism, therefore, is contrary to the doctrine of the Church.

Edited May 24, 2012 by BCSpace

[Sine Saw Square]

Let's try another subject change: "And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from drugs, that man should not take the same, is not ordained of God."

Again, it's perfectly clear. Why then do we get confused when the subject is eating meat?

I don't see how this is any clearer then the original quote. In effect the double negative of "forbiddeth" and "abstain" cancel each other out in the reading you propose but the next phrase makes the opposite assertion which seems totally confusing. Removing the double negative it would read:

"And whoso biddeth to eat meat, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God."

How could some one bid people to eat something but they shouldn't eat the same? Makes no sense. Unless its saying that if you tell people to eat meat but then you, the teller, do not eat meat, you aren't ordained of God.

I'm going to have to go with the missing comma theory as its the only one that makes the admittedly clunky wording work, especially given its historical context.

Didn't Joseph dictate these revelations? Seems like a reasonable scribe's error to miss a comma.

Edited May 24, 2012 by Sine Saw Square

[cacheman]

what is there to square? the scriptures do not condemn eating of meats. the verses you present do not forbid eating of meats.

Those verses don't seem to say that "a meat free diet is not what God wants". Rather, it sounds like the eating of meat should not be forbidden because there are times when people might need meat. If you don't need it, then don't eat it. I think that's a reasonable interpretation...

[Senator]

Vegetarianism, therefore, is contrary to the doctrine of the Church.

Mule Muffins!!