The Rest Of The Word Of Wisdom: Part 1

[thesometimesaint]

Saints Alive:

But we aren't talking about nutritional needs. We are talking about what is sparing use. You can get all your protein and fat needs from non-animal sources so there is no need to use meat at all. My point is that what types of drinks we can have is, for the most part, clearly delineated. The GAs don't get into the residual alcohol content of yeast bread or orange juice but it is clear we are to not drink alcoholic beverages. There is no such definition for using meat sparingly.

We have no theology against being a vegetarian. In my Ward we have a few couples that are. What we can't do is claim it is Church doctrine. I never said we couldn't get all our nutritional needs from non-animal sources. It is just harder to do so, and take more time and skill, than the average cook wants to spend.

I don't believe we can make absolutist statements without running into contradictions, and quantities so low as that it makes absolutist statements seem bizarre and self defeating.

I agree we should avoid the drinking of Beer, Wine, and Spirits.

Edited September 17, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[CV75]

A dieting regime that has at the heart of it the breaking of the Word of Wisdom would appear to me to be very suspect indeed.

Oh no, no, no-- not at the heart of breaking the whole Word of Wisdom. Please pay attention:

My point is that there was a dieting aspect to Christ "breaking" the Sabbath and He taught a lesson about keeping the commandments. The Sabbath was made for man, so was the Word of Wisdom. I see no reason, with regards to the amount of protein to be taken (which was the actual question, and not any other aspect of the Word of Wisdom), a diet can't* be altered for weight loss purposes (under skilled nutritional guidance, of course).

Now one might argue that Christ wasn't dieting, He was fasting. Fair enoguh; who is to say the person asking about the Atkins diet isn't spiritually motivated or following a spiritual prompting to lose weight?

*Sorry for late edit -- that should have been can't

Edited September 18, 2012 by CV75

[Tacenda]

Oh no, no, no-- not at the heart of breaking the whole Word of Wisdom. Please pay attention:

My point is that there was a dieting aspect to Christ "breaking" the Sabbath and He taught a lesson about keeping the commandments. The Sabbath was made for man, so was the Word of Wisdom. I see no reason, with regards to the amount of protein to be taken (which was the actual question, and not any other aspect of the Word of Wisdom), a diet can be altered for weight loss purposes (under skilled nutritional guidance, of course).

Now one might argue that Christ wasn't dieting, He was fasting. Fair enoguh; who is to say the person asking about the Atkins diet isn't spiritually motivated or following a spiritual prompting to lose weight?

Matt 15:11 Not that which goes into the mouth defiles a man; but that which comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.

[CV75]

Matt 15:11 Not that which goes into the mouth defiles a man; but that which comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.

Well. I've heard the Atkins diet can be bad in both directions...

[Calm]

The combined effects don't cancel each other out. Overall there is a net moderate positive effect.

CFR, I don't remember any study addressing all the effects of wine.

[Stargazer]

More excuses still! Amazing!--the lengths to which people go to justify their actions.

It's my thread, so I will now "nanny" you.

When you say that he was making excuses to justify his actions, you are implying that he secretly breaks the WoW by drinking alcohol. Unless you have "insider" knowledge of his daily walk, you have no knowledge and are in fact committing --- what is it called when one falsely accuses someone else of wrongdoing? Hmmm. Oh, yes, "false witness."

And if you DO have such insider knowledge, well, this isn't the place to bring it up, either.

So stop it. And I suggest you apologize.

[zerinus]

It's my thread, so I will now "nanny" you.

When you say that he was making excuses to justify his actions, you are implying that he secretly breaks the WoW by drinking alcohol. Unless you have "insider" knowledge of his daily walk, you have no knowledge and are in fact committing --- what is it called when one falsely accuses someone else of wrongdoing? Hmmm. Oh, yes, "false witness."

And if you DO have such insider knowledge, well, this isn't the place to bring it up, either.

So stop it. And I suggest you apologize.

Okay, I have edited that post to read, "justify their words" rather than "justify their actions". That is what I think I meant to say.

[zerinus]

We have no theology against being a vegetarian. In my Ward we have a few couples that are. What we can't do is claim it is Church doctrine. I never said we couldn't get all our nutritional needs from non-animal sources. It is just harder to do so, and take more time and skill, than the average cook wants to spend.

There are people in India who have lived on a strict vegetarian diet for generations without adverse effects; and they don't spend hours in the kitchen counting calories and protein molecules. Have a look at the following links:

http://en.wikipedia....y_country#India

http://www.indianwee...tarian-friendly

[zerinus]

Oh no, no, no-- not at the heart of breaking the whole Word of Wisdom. Please pay attention:

My point is that there was a dieting aspect to Christ "breaking" the Sabbath and He taught a lesson about keeping the commandments. The Sabbath was made for man, so was the Word of Wisdom. I see no reason, with regards to the amount of protein to be taken (which was the actual question, and not any other aspect of the Word of Wisdom), a diet can't* be altered for weight loss purposes (under skilled nutritional guidance, of course).

Now one might argue that Christ wasn't dieting, He was fasting. Fair enoguh; who is to say the person asking about the Atkins diet isn't spiritually motivated or following a spiritual prompting to lose weight?

*Sorry for late edit -- that should have been can't

I think I know what you are getting at. You are saying that dieting rules (and other kinds of rules) should not be observed pedantically; but that as a general principle one should be flexible about their application when circumstances and/or expedience dictates otherwise. That may be true as a general rule; but I was not talking about general rules. I was referring to a specific instance where some "dieting pundit" recommends a dieting procedure which contradicts revelation---in this case regarding how much meat one should eat. In that particular case (at least) I am suggesting that one should follow the advice of the revelation rather than the dieting pundit.

[CV75]

I think I know what you are getting at. You are saying that dieting rules (and other kinds of rules) should not be observed pedantically; but that as a general principle one should be flexible about their application when circumstances and/or expedience dictates otherwise. That may be true as a general rule; but I was not talking about general rules. I was referring to a specific instance where some "dieting pundit" recommends a dieting procedure which contradicts revelation---in this case regarding how much meat one should eat. In that particular case (at least) I am suggesting that one should follow the advice of the revelation rather than the dieting pundit.

Yes--no one other than one's Bishop can rightfully assess one's worthiness for Church participation with regards to keeping the Word of Wisdom; one may properly interpret and apply the Word of Wisdom according to the dictates of his own conscience and the Holy Spirit and still be right in keeping the spirit and/or the letter of it; evil and conspiring men who advocate breaking the Word of Wisdom or who promote practices contrary to it (in whole or part) as a fundamental principle of general good diet and health are not of the right side of divine revelation. I can't see any exception to strong and hot drinks, tobaccco, etc. But some people are allergic to wholesome grains, some pepole only need 4 hours of sleep, some diabetics need to lay off fruit, etc.

[thesometimesaint]

Zerinus:

Not all Indians are vegetarians(Muslim, and Christian Indians don't follow the strict Hindu practice of vegetarianism). Further not many in the industrialized world would want to spend to amount of time/skill in simple meal preparation that is needed to ensure that a vegetarian diet meets all their nutritional needs.

Anemia is a major, and growing problem, in India Without proper skill and training as to what vegetable sources have enough Iron provided by either parents or teachers it doesn't look good.

http://library.think...ver_existed.htm

Edited September 18, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Traela]

I suspect most Mormons get all the alcohol they need from the vanilla extract in their desserts.

[thesometimesaint]

And the yeast breads they eat.

[spartacus]

The WoW doesn't just say "eat meat sparingly" and leave it so vague.

It says:

1) "[meats], I , the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving" - this can mean in times of thanksgiving (celebrations) or to be used "with thanksgiving" or thankfully (whenever you do use it)

2) "nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;" - this means that whether you go with the less likely celebration interpretation or the more likely "whenever but thankfully" it is to be sparingly. Sparingly at least means not wastefully, and it probably means less than what makes you full, as full seems to be more than the connotation of sparingly. However...

3) "And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in..." - God is pleased if meat is not used except...

4) "only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine" - all of these have the common trait of being times of non-meat food scarcity.

So one can harp on "sparingly" as an excuse from vagueness, or if one believes, as I have heard LDS say so often - that God is not a god of confusion - then we can put these together to say that meat may be used or eaten with thanks and in small amounts when doing so, however if you want to please God then don't eat it except when food gets low - famine, winter, or other times of cold (that interfere with food supply).

Obviously my interpretation can be denied or challenged and one must follow what they believe is best, but, certainly, LDS should not ignore the scriptural details their Heavenly Father has provided with talk of just "sparingly is unclear".

In a slightly related note, perhaps, since the WoW was not originally given as a commandment and there doesn't seem to be an available revelation to see how it specifies its use as initial membership/baptismal and temple requirement, perhaps LDS leadership could have been more precise with their word usage. I suppose "part of the WoW" would not be very smooth. "Have you lived the part of the Word of Wisdom?" "Have you lived the NOCDAT?" (no coffee,drugs,alcohol, tea) Hmmm...