BlueDreams Posted May 24, 2012 Posted May 24, 2012 So I always read the verses as cinepro mentioned seeing it in the initial post. Heck, I've had that scripture quoted to me to convert me to eating meat again (doesn't work thanks to the major clause in 20-21). But to be honest after reading it again and again I see Log's point. When you take the verse in and of itself, it doesn't make sense to read it as mentioned.As you mentioned though, there is the problem of context on 2 counts. 1.) it is supposed to condemn a number of false shaker teachings (one being restraining certain if not all meats) and 2.) no one in the church started becoming vegetarian. I think there's reason for both and can still fit without changing the obvious phrase's meaning:1) It still could be a condemnation of shaker teachings, which was more strict on insisting no meat. In layman's reading, what I get from the verse is basically a culmination of everything else I've ever read from verses of scripture on eating meat: Don't insist that a person must eat this or that, know that that I have made these things to be used for consumption and clothes, but that you better do it very wisely and be rightful stewards....its wrong to constantly insist that meat wasn't for the use of man, cuz it was, but it's also not right to insist that people should eat it all the time. There's a time and a place 2) the scripture insists on rightful consumption. Considering the time period, the dietary restrictions, etc I'd assume most would have ample reason to chow down on some ham. Since in any reading it does not overtly say you must give up meat, most wouldn't. How much meat one deems neccesary and not in excesss has continually been left in the hands of the individual to decide.Vegetarianism, therefore, is contrary to the doctrine of the Church.That's ridiculous.With luv,BD
thesometimesaint Posted May 24, 2012 Posted May 24, 2012 BCSpace:I don't have a problem with anyone being a vegetarian, but I do believe it is against Church policy to claim that it is Church policy. 2
KevinG Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 (edited) In my considered experience with the Word of Wisdom and my own health it is not ordained of God to interpret the specifics of the Word of Wisdom for someone else.If God prompts you to avoid meat then it is within the guidelines of the Word of Wisdom to abstain. It is not within the bounds or your authority to preach over the pulpit everyone should do the same as you. In our area the General Authorities politely corrected some sisters who were preaching vegetarianism as a "higher order" of the Word of Wisdom.I learned by my own experience with a wonky heart valve and feeling strongly about avoiding caffeine, while my righteous wife never felt such a prompting and enjoys her Coke-a-Cola while retaining a temple recommend. When I strayed from my personal revelation and drank Dr. Pepper I found out quickly why God had prompted me to avoid caffeine. The general guidelines in the WoW are just that and applicable to the weakest of those who can be called Saints. Avoid coffee, tea, alcohol, tobacco and other more obvious drugs and harmful substances. Be reasonable with ingesting other substances even ones that are healthy in moderation.Mind your business when assuming what specific guidelines apply to others. Edited May 25, 2012 by KevinG
inquiringmind Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 If you just look at the sentence structure, and the rules of English, wouldn't you almost have to take it the way Log does?
blooit Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) hey - you guys are just ignoring my comma comment... isn't this the simplest explanation? Edited May 31, 2012 by blooit
inquiringmind Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) hey - you guys are just ignoring my comma comment... isn't this the simplest explanation?Here is the sentence without any punctuation.And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats that man should not eat the same is not of God.No matter where you place the commas, or how many you use, I don't see how you can make it say that the Shaker teaching of abstaining from meats isn't of God.That may be what's meant, but I don't see how you can get the text to say that without adding a word here or there.So I again ask, if you take D&C 49:18 as written, don't you have to take it the way Log does? Edited May 31, 2012 by inquiringmind
blooit Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 The comma placed before "to abstain from meats" makes that phrase an explanation of "forbiddeth" and "that man should not eat the same" would be the same situation. In fact, but phrases could be put in parentheses. Both phrases clarify - "And whoso forbiddeth is not of God" - it may be a stretch, but it makes sense for me.
BCSpace Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 Vegetarianism, therefore, is contrary to the doctrine of the Church.That's ridiculous.Does vegetarianism bid man to abstain from meat?
JDave Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 Does vegetarianism bid man to abstain from meat?No. Vegetarianism is simply choosing to abstain from meat. The Church has no doctrine against people who choose to abstain from meat. The Church does frown on people using their interpretation of scripture to declare Church doctrine where none exists. 2
BlueDreams Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 The comma placed before "to abstain from meats" makes that phrase an explanation of "forbiddeth" and "that man should not eat the same" would be the same situation. In fact, but phrases could be put in parentheses. Both phrases clarify - "And whoso forbiddeth is not of God" - it may be a stretch, but it makes sense for me.It seems like too much of a stretch to me. It seems too broken up and choppy when you do so. Besides it doesn't change the meaning even if you put it in parentheses. As inquiringmind stated, you have to add in or substitute words to make it mean what you stated.With luv,BD
KevinG Posted June 2, 2012 Posted June 2, 2012 Well, I tried to get to the meat of the issue. I guess I'll abstain now.
Recommended Posts