D&C 89 Conspiring Men In The Latter Days

[Alan]

How about the pretty, inapropriately named, yellow flowers being grown in every second field in UK for 'bio-fuel'? Soon the words of Jerusalem will have to change to "...in England's yellow and pleasant land."

A reasonable point, though not all rape seed goes for biofuels.

However, many of the barley fields you see (and they far out number the rape seed fields) are used to produce beer, or animal feed (which is ludicrous from the stewardship point of view), when they could be used for food for human consumption. When you look into it, ot's an absolute scandal.

Things are even worse in the US. I recommend the film Food Inc. to anyone who really wants to know the true picture regarding meat production in the US, and the Monsanto agenda.

I am personally appalled that the church farms beef for profit using these dreadful industrial methods. It's an absolute scandal and a disgrace of the highest order. It should be stopped...... now!

[Danzo]

Whats wrong with genetically modified food?

Man has been genetically modifying food for the last few thousand years at least.

[Stone holm]

Was there a major election where the electorate overwhelmingly voted to keep previous standards regarding Monsanto or GMO's in place that was overturned by lobbyists and judges?

Is there a push by GMO company leaders to force the Church to plant immoral seeds in her fields?

If not, I don't think it's fair to compare this lawsuit with Prop 8.

Hm? Prop 8 forced the Church to plant immoral seeds? Interesting argument, so we ignore the environment as the air in Salt Lake City slowly becomes unbreathable and pediatricians warn pregnant mothers not to breathe it? At what point does something like that become a moral issue? Say when failure to use even a modicum of municipal control of property results in all of us through our donations to the Church to have to chip in a buy a swathe of land around Temple Square so it doesn't become a complete slum? At what point, if ever do such things become moral issues? Perhaps when pollen carrying patented genes has infected all of the food supply so everyone has to go to the patent holders to get their seeds in order to survive? Or when the overuse of antibiotics in animal feed creates such tough bugs that we can't treat ourselves? Or when drenching land in herbicides results in weeds so resistant to everything that we are all back to hoeing? Or when high fructose corn syrup has infiltrated all foods so that the people are so obese they can barely walk? At point, if ever do these become moral issues as important as whether some Jack can marry a Steve?

[Stone holm]

A reasonable point, though not all rape seed goes for biofuels.

However, many of the barley fields you see (and they far out number the rape seed fields) are used to produce beer, or animal feed (which is ludicrous from the stewardship point of view), when they could be used for food for human consumption. When you look into it, ot's an absolute scandal.

Things are even worse in the US. I recommend the film Food Inc. to anyone who really wants to know the true picture regarding meat production in the US, and the Monsanto agenda.

I am personally appalled that the church farms beef for profit using these dreadful industrial methods. It's an absolute scandal and a disgrace of the highest order. It should be stopped...... now!

Yeah well GMOs and rape seed are presenting a problem down here in Yankee land already, since the brilliant corporate masters of the universe genetically engineered them to be resistant to their products and the birds brought them down from Canada so we are now having to pull the plants out of the ground by hand in the soybean and cornfields.

[CV75]

I think the point is that we have clear doctrine that there will be "conspiring men" in the latter days who will affect the food supply. Yet, we hear about conspiracies such as the "gay agenda", or the "secular church", etc. But do we hear much questioning about conspiracies regarding the food supply whether direct due to genetic alteration of food, monopoly of seedstock, food additives, or indirect impact on food because of environmental issues? If we are, I am not hearing it. In the days of Brigham Young there were constantly comments about farming practices, etc. As to the specifics of the Word of Wisdom, we tend to see more rationalizations regarding meat consumption -- exactly when was the last famine in the lower 48 States or periods of extreme cold? True it would be false doctrine to forbid the consumption of meat, so does that mean we don't talk about it all when Prophets have been very clear about the limited periods during which it should be consumed. Is it not the case that "morality" is more and more being limited to "sexual morality"? And I am not just speaking in terms of the Church, but in American Christianity in general -- with the possible exception of the Catholics?

I think the seriousness of a sin and its acceptance in a society plays into how much time and emphasis it gets from its spiritual leaders.

Where both are relatively well-accepted, is fornication more serious than eating too much meat? Probably, so that gets more emphasis. Where murder is most serious but is not much accepted, and fornication is less serious than murder but more accepted, which would get more attention from the pulpit? Gay marriage is more serious than cohabitation, but nearly as acceptable, so it gets more attention (depending on the audience). And so on.

D&C 89 makes mention of conspiring men; D&C 104 addresses the poor in context of stewarding the abundance of the earth. It isn’t helpful to conflate the two teachings into a general doctrine that conspiring men shall manipulate the food supply. Of course it can happen, but it isn’t the problem that the Word of Wisdom or the United Order key in on.

We do not “have clear doctrine that there will be "conspiring men" in the latter days who will affect the food supply.” So we don’t hear about it. Nor should we hear about 19^th century farming practices. But we do hear about modern farming practices at BYU and places where they are introduced through humanitarian and service missions.

[Stone holm]

Whats wrong with genetically modified food?

Man has been genetically modifying food for the last few thousand years at least.

Man has not been doing genetic engineering for the last few thousand years, its only been for a little less than half a century. We are engineering food that blows up the internal organs of insects, but hey it must be safe for human consumption. They are being banned in many countries, and in some countries the government has had to resort to burning fields to try and eradicate them. Vermont is trying to get a bill passed to at least require labels indicating that the food contains genetically modified contents -- last session they back down because of threats of lawsuits by Monsanto and the cost of a small state fighting a corporate behemoth through the court systems just so their citizens can actually make an informed choice.

[MormonMason]

I think the point is that we have clear doctrine that there will be "conspiring men" in the latter days who will affect the food supply. Yet, we hear about conspiracies such as the "gay agenda", or the "secular church", etc. But do we hear much questioning about conspiracies regarding the food supply whether direct due to genetic alteration of food, monopoly of seedstock, food additives, or indirect impact on food because of environmental issues? If we are, I am not hearing it. In the days of Brigham Young there were constantly comments about farming practices, etc. As to the specifics of the Word of Wisdom, we tend to see more rationalizations regarding meat consumption -- exactly when was the last famine in the lower 48 States or periods of extreme cold? True it would be false doctrine to forbid the consumption of meat, so does that mean we don't talk about it all when Prophets have been very clear about the limited periods during which it should be consumed. Is it not the case that "morality" is more and more being limited to "sexual morality"? And I am not just speaking in terms of the Church, but in American Christianity in general -- with the possible exception of the Catholics?

We have been using low-tech methods of genetic manipulation, such as selective breeding, for thousands of years. In fact, as has been pointed out, a number of foods we eat today are a direct result of such methods over hundreds to thousands of years. Tomatoes and Maize come to mind, as do certain varieties of wheat and other grains.

The higher tech variant of the same thing pretty much only accelerates the process that would have taken hundreds to thousands of years to develop. For the Roundup resistant plants, it is not too difficult to make them because such genes as resistance to herbicides occur in nature. You do have to pick the right ones so this takes a lot of research dollars, which includes all the sequencing required to figure out which genes would be swapped out and which ones added. But, unless they coded the genes themselves (which can be done since we have such technology nowadays, also costing millions of dollars) they just took naturally existing genes and placed them in plants that produce foodstuffs. There is nothing inherently dangerous in such.

I might, however, question those who do things like put human survivability genes in potatoes so they can grow potatoes in the Arctic--as actually has been done--or possibly those who produce plants that produce their own pesticides. But, I would have to look over the studies and research to make a determination for myself that such would be dangerous to the general populace. I just don't see this aspect as conspiracy-worthy.

I don't rationalize meat consumption. I try to eat it sparingly for as long as possible, but I will admit to a good hamburger once in a while. I prefer not to eat steak at all, if I can help it. But, eating more meat than sparingly will not cost you a temple recommend because only portions of the revelation--tobacco, alcoholic drinks, coffee, tea, and related--have become commandment as a result of later revelation and policy. The rest still is "not by commandment nor by constraint."

Monopoly of seed stock is a method of regaining the millions of dollars spent on developing the product. If you don't defend your patent you lost the ability to recover costs and even allow heavy financial losses. Of course, you can incur heavy losses from defending patents, too. However, patents only last for several years and then they pass, allowing other companies to develop similar product and compete with the original company. This sort of thing is part and parcel of capitalist society and not a conspiracy.

Food additives and other such things I can see as having some sort of conspiracy potential in some cases, but certainly I am not going to be looking under every rock to find one. The tobacco industry, for example, certainly was involved in conspiracy, however.

[Tacenda]

Hm? Prop 8 forced the Church to plant immoral seeds? Interesting argument, so we ignore the environment as the air in Salt Lake City slowly becomes unbreathable and pediatricians warn pregnant mothers not to breathe it? At what point does something like that become a moral issue? Say when failure to use even a modicum of municipal control of property results in all of us through our donations to the Church to have to chip in a buy a swathe of land around Temple Square so it doesn't become a complete slum? At what point, if ever do such things become moral issues? Perhaps when pollen carrying patented genes has infected all of the food supply so everyone has to go to the patent holders to get their seeds in order to survive? Or when the overuse of antibiotics in animal feed creates such tough bugs that we can't treat ourselves? Or when drenching land in herbicides results in weeds so resistant to everything that we are all back to hoeing? Or when high fructose corn syrup has infiltrated all foods so that the people are so obese they can barely walk? At point, if ever do these become moral issues as important as whether some Jack can marry a Steve?

As someone quoted before, it all comes down to money...

[Alan]

Man has not been doing genetic engineering for the last few thousand years, its only been for a little less than half a century. We are engineering food that blows up the internal organs of insects, but hey it must be safe for human consumption. They are being banned in many countries, and in some countries the government has had to resort to burning fields to try and eradicate them. Vermont is trying to get a bill passed to at least require labels indicating that the food contains genetically modified contents -- last session they back down because of threats of lawsuits by Monsanto and the cost of a small state fighting a corporate behemoth through the court systems just so their citizens can actually make an informed choice.

You're right.

GMO is a new kid on the block. We infuse tomatoes with fish genes, we modify soya with scorpion genes; the list goes on. This would not happen naturally, nor would it happen through traditional breeding programmes.

GMO's are banned throughout the EU, but they still get through. It's an absolute scandal.

Stone holm, I am delighted to meet a fellow saint who understands these things.

[BlueDreams]

Stone Holm

First off: I’m a vegetarian of 11 years/health freak who has a goal in life to one day have an extensive garden (I literally fantasize about a classy raised-bed garden of the east coast variety surrounded by flowers and a couple fruit trees), buy organic eggs/have my own chickens (I already by organic milk....can't afford the eggs yet), and continue with my health conscious, environmentally conscious self for a long time to come. I’m just this (----) shy of a hippy.

That said, I can still guess pretty well why the church focuses more on Gay marriage than potentially harmful effects of genetically modified food. WoW doesn’t not hold nearly as much weight as the LoC nor the eternal nature of marriage in general. Whether someone eats a stake or not will never be of the same spiritual weight as whether one indulges in a sexual sin. I assume the church feels more like it has a dog in the fight about what is viewed as a serious redefinition of what marriage is and it’s overall social purpose/implications than the shady business practices of the local wheat agribusiness. I mean just how the WoW was first introduced compared to marriage is a wee different. One was brought in as a recommendation, they other as the caveat to entering the highest degree of the celestial kingdom.

Frankly, I’m not surprised at all that the church would put far more interest into anything dealing with marital and sexual practice/definitions as compared to food consumption and practice. It follows our general hierarchy commands/laws of God

With luv,

Bd

[Stone holm]

We have been using low-tech methods of genetic manipulation, such as selective breeding, for thousands of years. In fact, as has been pointed out, a number of foods we eat today are a direct result of such methods over hundreds to thousands of years. Tomatoes and Maize come to mind, as do certain varieties of wheat and other grains.

The higher tech variant of the same thing pretty much only accelerates the process that would have taken hundreds to thousands of years to develop. For the Roundup resistant plants, it is not too difficult to make them because such genes as resistance to herbicides occur in nature. You do have to pick the right ones so this takes a lot of research dollars, which includes all the sequencing required to figure out which genes would be swapped out and which ones added. But, unless they coded the genes themselves (which can be done since we have such technology nowadays, also costing millions of dollars) they just took naturally existing genes and placed them in plants that produce foodstuffs. There is nothing inherently dangerous in such.

I might, however, question those who do things like put human survivability genes in potatoes so they can grow potatoes in the Arctic--as actually has been done--or possibly those who produce plants that produce their own pesticides. But, I would have to look over the studies and research to make a determination for myself that such would be dangerous to the general populace. I just don't see this aspect as conspiracy-worthy.

I don't rationalize meat consumption. I try to eat it sparingly for as long as possible, but I will admit to a good hamburger once in a while. I prefer not to eat steak at all, if I can help it. But, eating more meat than sparingly will not cost you a temple recommend because only portions of the revelation--tobacco, alcoholic drinks, coffee, tea, and related--have become commandment as a result of later revelation and policy. The rest still is "not by commandment nor by constraint."

Monopoly of seed stock is a method of regaining the millions of dollars spent on developing the product. If you don't defend your patent you lost the ability to recover costs and even allow heavy financial losses. Of course, you can incur heavy losses from defending patents, too. However, patents only last for several years and then they pass, allowing other companies to develop similar product and compete with the original company. This sort of thing is part and parcel of capitalist society and not a conspiracy.

Food additives and other such things I can see as having some sort of conspiracy potential in some cases, but certainly I am not going to be looking under every rock to find one. The tobacco industry, for example, certainly was involved in conspiracy, however.

Selective breeding is not taking genes from one organism and inserting them into another organism, and twiddling with DNA sequences manually. Its not the same at all.

[Stone holm]

Stone Holm

First off: I’m a vegetarian of 11 years/health freak who has a goal in life to one day have an extensive garden (I literally fantasize about a classy raised-bed garden of the east coast variety surrounded by flowers and a couple fruit trees), buy organic eggs/have my own chickens (I already by organic milk....can't afford the eggs yet), and continue with my health conscious, environmentally conscious self for a long time to come. I’m just this (----) shy of a hippy.

That said, I can still guess pretty well why the church focuses more on Gay marriage than potentially harmful effects of genetically modified food. WoW doesn’t not hold nearly as much weight as the LoC nor the eternal nature of marriage in general. Whether someone eats a stake or not will never be of the same spiritual weight as whether one indulges in a sexual sin. I assume the church feels more like it has a dog in the fight about what is viewed as a serious redefinition of what marriage is and it’s overall social purpose/implications than the shady business practices of the local wheat agribusiness. I mean just how the WoW was first introduced compared to marriage is a wee different. One was brought in as a recommendation, they other as the caveat to entering the highest degree of the celestial kingdom.

Frankly, I’m not surprised at all that the church would put far more interest into anything dealing with marital and sexual practice/definitions as compared to food consumption and practice. It follows our general hierarchy commands/laws of God

With luv,

Bd

The actually point is that we have skewed our sense of morality. Morality has to do with other things besides sexual relationships. If you look at the personal ministry of Christ while on the earth. Here was the Son of God on the earth amongst an occupied people who were totally outraged by their puppet king who was introducing all types of Helenistic practices which involved considerable public nudity. We are talking about public athletic games performed in the nude here. So Christ spends a lot of time preaching about sex? No. He spends the bulk of his time preaching about hypocrisy, oppression of the poor, failure to tend to sick and needy, condemning flagrant displays of religiosity to be seen of men, humility, condemnation of fanatical policies concerning the Sabbath that go beyond the mark, etc. etc. So we take from that it is more important to prevent Jack from marrying Steve, than it is to have Joe poisoning the planet and the human race for lucre? Where is the sense of proportion? Or is it that one doesn't hit our wallets, and the other well it might hit the wallets of some of the Saints.

[Nemesis]

What does this have to do with the mission of this board? It is purely political.

Nemesis