Stargazer Posted September 15, 2012 Posted September 15, 2012 There have been lots of discussion here on this board about whether or not caffeine is what makes the consumption of coffee and black tea contrary to the Word of Wisdom, and I don't want to chase down that particular rabbit trail at this time.But there's more to the Word of Wisdom (Section 89 of the Doctrine and Covenants). In particular for the purposes of this thread, examine these verses from that section: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 aused, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine....15 And these hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger.When you as a Latter-day Saint are asked in a worthiness interview if you "keep the Word of Wisdom", do you consider these verses covering the consumption of animal flesh when answering "Yes" or "No"? And if you do consider these verses when so answering, how much consumption would you call "sparingly"?If you're not LDS, nevertheless please feel free to weigh in on your understanding of this. I'm talking Part 1 because there's an additional aspect I wanted to reserve for a separate topic.
KevinG Posted September 15, 2012 Posted September 15, 2012 Here in the South sparingly means we don't eat pork BBQ more than twice a day.(My funny way of pointing out its culturally bound).However I have had the discussion with my Bishop that I feel I would be better off watching my diet in the spirit of the Word of Wisdom and he agreed. Eating too much meat is not however something that I have felt should restrict my ability to go to the temple in the way drinking alcohol or smoking would. Those commandments are pretty clear and have some hard lines drawn around them since the early 20th century.
blackstrap Posted September 15, 2012 Posted September 15, 2012 The use and abuse of meat is a particular bugaboo of mine. I am familiar with the factory farming of chickens and pigs and cattle,chickens being the most distressful. To feed the population in an efficient manner,it is claimed that these methods are required. I personally think that people would eat a lot less meat if they did the slaughtering themselves. 1
KevinG Posted September 15, 2012 Posted September 15, 2012 The use and abuse of meat is a particular bugaboo of mine. I am familiar with the factory farming of chickens and pigs and cattle,chickens being the most distressful. To feed the population in an efficient manner,it is claimed that these methods are required. I personally think that people would eat a lot less meat if they did the slaughtering themselves.Then I probably shouldn't admit that my wife and I split a delicious slow smoked southern BBQ plate of pork, chicken, pork ribs and a side of smoked beef brisket for our date tonight.
BCSpace Posted September 15, 2012 Posted September 15, 2012 Having had success on the Atkins diet a few years ago, I have come to realize that grain (carbs) is the staff of life. The more active your life, the bigger the staff. Less active needs a smaller staff.I view the WoW as a model and that everything else in it that is not a commandment, being part of the model, is subject to personal modification depending on one's physical condition and one's understanding of the science behind healthy eating and exercise. In other words, as per D&C 58, it's our own responsibility and buyer beware. 2
cursor Posted September 15, 2012 Posted September 15, 2012 Yet, if all is "our own responsibility," why have commandments at all, like the very cursory Word of Wisdom?
Stargazer Posted September 15, 2012 Author Posted September 15, 2012 Having had success on the Atkins diet a few years ago, I have come to realize that grain (carbs) is the staff of life. The more active your life, the bigger the staff. Less active needs a smaller staff.I view the WoW as a model and that everything else in it that is not a commandment, being part of the model, is subject to personal modification depending on one's physical condition and one's understanding of the science behind healthy eating and exercise. In other words, as per D&C 58, it's our own responsibility and buyer beware.This is kind of where I see it. I've done a few two or three day "dry runs" as it were, with Atkins. Each time I found that I actually ate less overall, and started dropping weight immediately. Of course, as I understand it, one can "do Atkins" as a vegetarian, so I guess one could have one's cake and eat it too, as it were.
blackstrap Posted September 15, 2012 Posted September 15, 2012 Kevin G , when you are done softening up that dead horse,you can roast it too.! 1
Stargazer Posted September 15, 2012 Author Posted September 15, 2012 (edited) Yet, if all is "our own responsibility," why have commandments at all, like the very cursory Word of Wisdom?Yes, we really should have a set of 600 specific commandments to follow, like Orthodox Jews do. Then there's no doubt at all, and you know exactly if you've crossed any lines.DC 58:26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a bslothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.If the doctor prescribes a medication to you which is to be taken by mouth, and alcohol is the carrier for the drug in question, do you refuse on the basis of strict obedience to the WoW? If you're going to die early because you carry too much weight, and your body refuses to cooperate in shedding any weight through conventional dieting (a common enough problem), do you prefer to risk death rather than violate your strict adherance to the WoW?And by the way, have you eaten any meat or fish at all during this very hot summer? If so, you are in violation of the WoW, if you choose to interpret it this way.I am wondering if there is any GA advice as to whether the sparing consumption of flesh is to be considered part of the mandatory observance of the WoW, or is it covered under the original "To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint" observance. Edited September 15, 2012 by Stargazer
cursor Posted September 15, 2012 Posted September 15, 2012 cursor, on 14 September 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:Yet, if all is "our own responsibility," why have commandments at all, like the very cursory Word of Wisdom?_____Yes, we really should have a set of 600 specific commandments to follow, like Orthodox Jews do. Then there's no doubt at all, and you know exactly if you've crossed any lines.You clearly misunderstood me. (Or, perhaps I was not adequately clear.)
Stargazer Posted September 15, 2012 Author Posted September 15, 2012 You clearly misunderstood me. (Or, perhaps I was not adequately clear.)For which I apologize.What did you mean, then?
Brother Ray Posted September 15, 2012 Posted September 15, 2012 I know that the WOW is different for different people. For instance. I am diabetic, so eating a candy bar would be against the WOW for me. For others, who are not diabetic, it wouldn't.
spartacus Posted September 15, 2012 Posted September 15, 2012 There's even more of "The Rest":First, verses 12 and 13 are part of the same thought. 13 seems to give a clear statement of what would particularly "please" God, "that they should not be used only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine." I've always read this a stating that meat should not be eaten except in winter, cold, or famine, and if you take 12 as some sort of license, but still want to "please" God then the only other times would be in times of celebration or "thanksgiving".Second, verse 17 speaks of "mild drinks" in the context of grains, and seemingly specifically the "barley" immediately mentioned before. There are not many drinks of any kind (certainly, that I know of) that are made of grains, except beer. So this would seem to allow "mild drinks" of "grain" or "barley", like beer.Third, 18 & 19 states that "all saints who remember to keep and do these sayings... shall receive health...wisdom...great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures...". "These sayings" would seem to include them all. So this would seem this question of the "rest" of the WoW very important indeed.A couple of thoughts:First, I know of no LDS who do these sayings (meat) or allow them (beer). Not that I know a significant percentage of the population, but I have never heard anyone speak of it as a possibility either. Nor have I ever heard or read the LDS Church teach its members "to please God" by eating meat sparingly, let alone only in winter/cold/famine.Second, considering that the WoW is part of worthiness interviews for baptism, mission, and temple ordinances it would seem that these parts - certainly about the meat that is relevant to most people - would be specifically asked. Should not temple LDS, and even more so LDS missionaries, be living lives not just allowed but "pleasing" to God?And one last "kicker":What of verses 5 & 6 about wine's use "only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments...(6) And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make."?Now we could take "should" as a command to use wine. But the context only clearly supports the allowance to drink wine for sacrament. Sure Section 27 speaks of "mattereth not" what you use, but it was from 1830, the WoW is from 1833.We have been speaking about what the WoW prohibits (and allows, as far as beer), but what about how the WoW is used? In the case of wine, despite these many verses that allow it, and specifically for sacrament, those who drank wine so would be found "unworthy"?Also, I could be pushing it, but it almost seems like (given all statements and actions) God prefers that pure wine be used for sacrament unless circumstances do not allow it. If so, then is the LDS Church or the specific stakes that have the ability to use wine fulfilling the WoW?Has anyone here taken wine for sacrament, said so to their Bishop? If so, how did he respond?
Stargazer Posted September 15, 2012 Author Posted September 15, 2012 There's even more of "The Rest":First, verses 12 and 13 are part of the same thought. 13 seems to give a clear statement of what would particularly "please" God, "that they should not be used only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine." I've always read this a stating that meat should not be eaten except in winter, cold, or famine, and if you take 12 as some sort of license, but still want to "please" God then the only other times would be in times of celebration or "thanksgiving".Interesting take. Second, verse 17 speaks of "mild drinks" in the context of grains, and seemingly specifically the "barley" immediately mentioned before. There are not many drinks of any kind (certainly, that I know of) that are made of grains, except beer. So this would seem to allow "mild drinks" of "grain" or "barley", like beer.If you don't mind, I wanted to hold off on discussing "mild drinks" until Part 2. First, I know of no LDS who do these sayings (meat) or allow them (beer). Not that I know a significant percentage of the population, but I have never heard anyone speak of it as a possibility either. Nor have I ever heard or read the LDS Church teach its members "to please God" by eating meat sparingly, let alone only in winter/cold/famine.Well, that's what I thought I had never heard. Is there a created divide between one part of Sec 89 and the rest, with the Traditional Foursome a matter for temple worthiness, and the rest not?What of verses 5 & 6 about wine's use "only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments...(6) And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make."?I am actually of the opinion that this is speaking of unfermented grape juice.
canard78 Posted September 15, 2012 Posted September 15, 2012 Then I probably shouldn't admit that my wife and I split a delicious slow smoked southern BBQ plate of pork, chicken, pork ribs and a side of smoked beef brisket for our date tonight.I find this topic fascinating. The word of wisdom clearly and categorically advises us to eat meat sparingly. Why do we ignore it? As a branch president a few years ago I would ask every person if they kept the word of wisdom. I in turn have been asked the same as the interviewee. We're also asked in the same interview whether we're honest.We can justify it every which way we like (I heard someone say 'well they didn't have fridges back then'). The reality is, very few of us live the word of wisdom as delivered by the prophet of the restoration. There are some 'don'ts' that we stick to like glue. But there are some don'ts and lots of 'dos' that we completely ignore.Why are we comfortable with that? Is it because we think the second part was only applicable to the 19th C mormons but not us? Is it because we're already asked to make too many sacrifices already and can't give up the idea of a good belly busting summer BBQ (that breaks the WoW on both the season and the quantity). If the second half no longer applies, does that mean the 'run and not be weary' blessing is also discounted?It's a very strange anomaly.
telnetd Posted September 15, 2012 Posted September 15, 2012 I find this topic fascinating. The word of wisdom clearly and categorically advises us to eat meat sparingly. Why do we ignore it?If you can first define how the church defines "sparingly" then we know who fallsunder the judgement of the destroying angel.Gail
thesometimesaint Posted September 15, 2012 Posted September 15, 2012 While the typical American diet is too meat centric, take a little pork for stomach sake.
blackstrap Posted September 15, 2012 Posted September 15, 2012 sparingly is a minimal concept. There is no need to get specific. Some people salt their food sparingly with a couple of taps of a shaker.To open the lid and pour the salt on until the shaker is empty is not sparingly.I feel that the reason that meat is not talked about in the recommend interview is because of what has been indicated,it is hard to draw a firm line on compliance. With alcohol and tobacco it is reasonably cut and dried( yes I know there are fudge factors)
Tacenda Posted September 15, 2012 Posted September 15, 2012 (edited) The use and abuse of meat is a particular bugaboo of mine. I am familiar with the factory farming of chickens and pigs and cattle,chickens being the most distressful. To feed the population in an efficient manner,it is claimed that these methods are required. I personally think that people would eat a lot less meat if they did the slaughtering themselves.Your quote made me think of the time in a RS class a gal told us how her family raised a pig or turkey or other animals so that her children would see the process of killing what they ate and how they should be part of it and see that an animal was sacrificed in order for them to enjoy the meal. Not just pulling it out of the freezer at the grocery store and taking it home to prepare it. Made me think, and later on, on occasions I'd make sure and mention to my children how that meat they were eating actually got on their plates. They of course weren't too young, and none of them are vegetarians because of it. But I think the Lord would want his children to see that sacrifice. Edited September 15, 2012 by Tacenda 1
Calm Posted September 15, 2012 Posted September 15, 2012 (edited) We can justify it every which way we like (I heard someone say 'well they didn't have fridges back then'). The reality is, very few of us live the word of wisdom as delivered by the prophet of the restoration. There are some 'don'ts' that we stick to like glue. But there are some don'ts and lots of 'dos' that we completely ignore......It's a very strange anomaly.We don't live the Law of Consecration either in its fullest. We are called to live some of the LoC just as we are called to live some of the WoW. As we become stronger in the faith, we will likely commit in personal ways to living closer to the Laws that as a Church we are not yet called to fully live due to our personal weaknesses generally speaking. The Lord is kind and does not demand we run before we can walk, either as individuals or as a Church. Edited September 15, 2012 by calmoriah
theplains Posted September 15, 2012 Posted September 15, 2012 We don't live the Law of Consecration either in its fullest. We are called to live some of the LoC just as we are called to live some of the WoW.You talk of it as if in the present tense, but according to the Doctrine and Covenants Institute Student Manual, the Law of Consecrationhad been revoked decades ago and the Law of Tithing was substituted in its place.Regards,Jim
Calm Posted September 15, 2012 Posted September 15, 2012 (edited) You talk of it as if in the present tense, but according to the Doctrine and Covenants Institute Student Manual, the Law of Consecrationhad been revoked decades ago and the Law of Tithing was substituted in its place.The Law of Tithing is a partial fulfilment of the Law of Consecration as are several others things we commit to as LDS. Edited September 15, 2012 by calmoriah
theplains Posted September 15, 2012 Posted September 15, 2012 The Law of Tithing is a partial fulfilment of the Law of Consecration as are several others things we commit to as LDS.I am uncertain how you view it as a partial fulfilment since there would have been no Law of Tithing if everyone wasfaithful to the Law of Consecration. The people were not committed to obeying the greater law so it was revoked. Thisseems to be the view of the article and the introductory notes to D&C 119.Regards,Jim
Calm Posted September 15, 2012 Posted September 15, 2012 If you can't see how giving up 10% is a partial fulfillment of a Law that requires us to give 100%, I am not sure I can help you.
MiserereNobis Posted September 15, 2012 Posted September 15, 2012 I am actually of the opinion that this is speaking of unfermented grape juice.This seems to be a stretch. If God meant grape juice, I'm sure he would have said grape juice. There is no wine without alcohol.An analogy would be if I offered you a sandwich and called it a "pure hamburger" but actually gave you only a bun, cheese, lettuce, and tomato but no meat. By definition, a requirement for a hamburger sandwhich is the meat, just like by definition a requirement for wine is alcohol.As an aside, I prefer "pure" wine to regular wine -- it's better on the head the next morning if the sulfites are left out
Recommended Posts