D&c 49

[inquiringmind]

What does "forbiddeth to abstain from meats" in verse 18 mean (and why does the footnote say "biddeth")?

 

Right now it's winter, so maybe we don't have to worry about it, but I find this very confusing.

 

Should we (generally, except in winter or famine) be vegetarians?

[thesometimesaint]

It's summer below the Equator.

 

While it is true that the American Saints would be better of physically if we ate less meat(also less sugar, fat, and salt). No I don't believe we are commanded by God to become vegetarians in summer or any other time.

[Five Solas]

speculating here.  perhaps "forbiddeth" constitutes the doctrine while "biddeth" constitutes the policy aspect of the passage.  it's always struck me how the latter-day interpretation/implementation of the WOW flies in the face of the actual text in the D&C.  

 

--Erik

[inquiringmind]

It's summer below the Equator.

 

While it is true that the American Saints would be better of physically if we ate less meat(also less sugar, fat, and salt). No I don't believe we are commanded by God to become vegetarians in summer or any other time.

So then we should be vegetarians (most of the time)?

[thesometimesaint]

So then we should be vegetarians (most of the time)?

 

Only if you want to. Take a little (meat) for the stomachs sake.

[Duncan]

speculating here.  perhaps "forbiddeth" constitutes the doctrine while "biddeth" constitutes the policy aspect of the passage.  it's always struck me how the latter-day interpretation/implementation of the WOW flies in the face of the actual text in the D&C.  

 

--Erik

 

can you elaborate on that?

[Palerider]

What does "forbiddeth to abstain from meats" in verse 18 mean (and why does the footnote say "biddeth")?

 

Right now it's winter, so maybe we don't have to worry about it, but I find this very confusing.

 

Should we (generally, except in winter or famine) be vegetarians?

 

As the foreword explains, this "revelation" is directed towards the Shakers, who had forbidden their people from eating meats. 

 

Verse 18 is supposed to be a refutation of that doctrine but unfortunately when Joseph wrote the revelation he used the word "forbidden" (which means to prohibit) incorrectly. It is simply a grammatical faux pas. A better rendering would have been, "whoso forbiddeth the the consumption of meats, or that man should not eat the same........"

 

In order to make the staement read correctly you would have to insert the word "bidden", which is why the church has attempted to alleviate the situation in the footnote.  

[JLHPROF]

So then we should be vegetarians (most of the time)?

 

D&C 89 vs 12-13  - You know, the stuff that is actually in the Word of Wisdom that we choose to ignore and spend 50 years banning CocaCola instead.

 

12 Yea, ^aflesh also of ^bbeasts 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 ^csparingly;

13 And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be ^aused, only in times of winter, or of cold, or ^bfamine.

 

[inquiringmind]

?

 

 

Hyrum Smith, brother of the prophet Joseph and Patriarch to the Church, wrote in 1842 in the Times and Seasons, which was then an official Church publication… "God...knows what course to pursue to restore mankind to...pristine excellency and primitive vigour, and health; and He has appointed the Word of Wisdom as one of the engines to bring about this thing, to remove the beastly appetites, the murderous disposition and the vitiated taste of man, to restore his body and vigour, promote peace between him and the brute creation, and as one of the little wheels in God's design, to help to regulate the great machinery, which shall eventually," and I call your attention to the word 'eventually,' "revolutionize the earth, and bring about the restoration of all things." (Times and Seasons 3:799-801)

He went on to say, "let them be sparing of the life of animals" it sounds like for Hyrum it went beyond just a matter of just human physical health, doesn't it? "let them be sparing of the life of animals, it is pleasing saith the Lord that flesh be used only in times of winter, or of famine."

...

 

Does D&C Section 49 Cancel Section 89?

If you choose to tread a similar path, be aware that you will encounter some Latter-day Saints who will ignorantly criticize you because they do not understand Section 49 of the Doctrine and Covenants and try to make it justify their own flesh-eating habits. They forget that this section was given two years before the Word of Wisdom (Section 89) and can't see that 49:18 is actually a warning to those who would prohibit others from abstaining from eating flesh rather than a condemnation of those who do abstain.

There is understandable reason for honest confusion on this point. First, there is an error in a footnote in the present edition of the LDS scriptures which suggests that "biddeth" means "forbiddeth." However, just as "left" surely does not mean "right," nor does "good" mean "bad," to "bid" someone does not mean the same as to "forbid" someone. "I bid you to come to my house" is the exact opposite of "I forbid you to come to my house." The inaccurate footnote prompts us to incorrectly believe that the person who asks another to abstain from meats is not ordained of God. However, the original scripture (which was published for 148 years without that footnote) teaches that he who forbids others to abstain from meats is the one who is not ordained of God. Furthermore, if forbid really meant bid it would alter 49:15 to also condemn "whoso 'biddeth' to marry."

Another component of the confusion is that some readers believe the clause "that man should not eat the same" is some sort of quotation by an imagined and unidentified vegetarian heretic. I suggest that it is really a modifying clause that clarifies what it means to "abstain from meats." In other words, the passage could be interpreted, "Whoever forbids others to abstain from meats, "others" being those who believe that humans should not eat animal flesh, is not ordained of God to forbid them." This is consistent with the context of the rest of the section that instructed a non-LDS, Shaker community how it might modify its beliefs to be consistent with Mormon theology. On some points Shaker and LDS doctrine were poles apart, but on the this point Joseph Smith seems to have been telling the vegetarian Shakers that they would not be compelled by LDS leaders to eat meat if they were to convert to Mormonism.

http://www.vegsource.com/articles/catano.htm

[cdowis]

  it's always struck me how the latter-day interpretation/implementation of the WOW flies in the face of the actual text in the D&C.  

 

 

I'm still looking for "caffeine" in the text.  I'm sure it's in there somewhere.

[thesometimesaint]

1 Timothy 4:1-5

 

1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron ; 3 Forbidding to marry , and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: 5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

[ERayR]

So then we should be vegetarians (most of the time)?

 

Only if you choose to be.

[cdowis]

We have a sister missionary that is a strict vegetarian.  Makes it interesting when we invite them to dinner. 

 

We had beans and rice, and small bowls of veggies to put on top.

[inquiringmind]

As the foreword explains, this "revelation" is directed towards the Shakers, who had forbidden their people from eating meats. 

 

Verse 18 is supposed to be a refutation of that doctrine but unfortunately when Joseph wrote the revelation he used the word "forbidden" (which means to prohibit) incorrectly. It is simply a grammatical faux pas...

I know Joseph wasn't highly educated, and some would say that he didn't have a very good grasp of English grammar, but don't you think he know the difference between commandeth (or "biddeth") and "fordiddeth"?

 

How could he make a grammatical error like that (and end up saying the exact opposite of what he meant to say)?

 

Is there any other example of his making that kind of an error?

[Palerider]

I know Joseph wasn't highly educated, and some would say that he didn't have a very good grasp of English grammar, but don't you think he know the difference between commandeth (or "biddeth") and "fordiddeth"?

 

How could he make a grammatical error like that (and end up saying the exact opposite of what he meant to say)?

 

Is there any other example of his making that kind of an error?

 

We all do it from time to time.

 

In my family we always said "irregardless" when there is no such word. I had to get married and have my wife tell me that the correct word is "regardless".

 

Joseph's statement is just a mistake of not completely thinking through the sentence structure. There are actually lots of these sorts of mistakes in the original "revelations" as the were written by Joseph but they have been extensively edited by the church, so that they read correctly.

 

It would take me some time and research to find them and give them to you as examples but I'm sure there are others here that are more familiar than I am, who could verify what I am saying.

 

After all, if it wasn't Joseph's mistake, then according to the LDS view it had to have been the Lord's mistake and we know that can't be right.......

Edited December 24, 2013 by Palerider

[cinepro]

What does "forbiddeth to abstain from meats" in verse 18 mean (and why does the footnote say "biddeth")?

 

Right now it's winter, so maybe we don't have to worry about it, but I find this very confusing.

 

Should we (generally, except in winter or famine) be vegetarians?

 

As the introduction (and Palerider) explain, the section is directed towards a group that promoted vegetarianism and was written to refute their teachings.  So the verse is meant to tell us that anyone who forbids meat consumption is not teaching doctrine.

[Palerider]

From the website http://www.gospeldoctrine.com/content/section-49

 

It is interesting to see how the church has quoted this verse from section 49:

 

"DC 49:18-19 whoso biddeth to abstain from meats...is not ordained of God

"Some 10 million Americans today (2005) consider themselves to be practicing vegetarians, according to a Time poll... an additional 20 million have flirted with vegetarianism sometime in their past.

"Vegetarianism resolves a conscientious person's inner turf war by providing an edible complex of good-deed-doing: to go veggie is to be more humane. Give up meat, and save lives!

"...So, how about it? Should we all become vegetarians? Not just teens but also infants, oldsters, athletes-everyone? Will it help us live longer, healthier lives? Does it work for people of every age and level of work activity?"

 

 

Rather than deal with the issue of the grammatical error, they have simply inserted the correct word and gone on with their discussion of the doctrines at hand. 

[thesometimesaint]

There are good logical reasons to become a vegetarian. There are also good logical reasons not to.

 

Personally I like the taste of a Medium doneness Rib Eye Stake every once in a while, and I am essentially too lazy to do all the work necessary to maintain a well balanced wholly vegetarian diet.

 

I am an adult and can decide for myself. Young children including babies have a much harder time with getting all the calories, proteins, vitamins, and minerals they need just from a vegetarian diet, unless their parents are very conscientious to provide it.

 

I see no Scriptural or Prophetic injunction to be a vegetarian. But If someone wants to it is up to them

[daz2]

As one can see from the Joseph Smith Papers, the original texts of the revelations were edited by Joseph Smith and others before their publication. That is, if this was merely a "scrivener's error", it is surprising that no one else caught it and edited it correctly. The notes to the JSP suggest that Joseph understood the revelation to mean that vegetarianism is not a teaching of God, but bases it on a second hand reminiscence of someone else. It also notes that vegetarianism was not a teaching of the Shakers. I think it can fairly be read to mean exactly what it says: if someone forbids someone to be a vegetarian, that person doing the forbidding is not speaking for God. BTW, my recollection is that part of what took so long for the WofW to become "enforced" was disagreement over its meaning. That some, including Lorenzo Snow, thought that it commanded a quasi-vegetarianism, but others disagreed. I agree with some historians who say that the enforcement of the WofW is tied to Prohibition, which had become the law a little before the WofW became enforced. I am not aware of any evidence from minutes, or the like, but I suppose the argument could be made that, in additional to the WofW commanding abstinence from alcohol (except, perhaps, beer), the law made it illegal to produce or sell alcohol. Thus, the strictness of the command could be seen as tied not just to the WofW, but to the law at the time.

Edited December 26, 2013 by daz2

[deli_llama]

You know, by the same twisted logic one uses to say that "whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats," means "whoso biddeth to abstain from meats," would also require you to change "And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man. (49 v.15)" to "And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso biddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man." It really doesn't work well. Sometimes I feel like we read what we want to, especially when it is inconvenient for us and our appetites.

[inquiringmind]

The notes to the JSP suggest that Joseph understood the revelation to mean that vegetarianism is not a teaching of God, but bases it on a second hand reminiscence of someone else.

What do the notes say exactly?

Edited December 26, 2013 by inquiringmind

[thatjimguy]

I never liked the FAIR response to this whole thing;

 

It is not clear how the critics have made this determination about most members. How do they know? What does "sparingly" consist of? Who authorized them to judge others?

 

I don't like how they place blame on the people aksing the question and talks about them judging others. I think that's low. I don't think just because you ask this question you are judging. If anything, I would want to know to keep from being judged.

 

I think that the word "sparingly" meaning "to be leniant" is pretty common knowledge. Would be surprised if the word had a different meaning back then.

[Calm]

Please write FairMormon your specific issues on this so we can make the entry more accurate or understandable. It would be of great service to us.

[williamsmith]

D&C 89 vs 12-13  - You know, the stuff that is actually in the Word of Wisdom that we choose to ignore and spend 50 years banning CocaCola instead.

 

 

I would actually recommend you read the verse more carefully.

 

The verse is saying it's okay to eat meat at other times other than winter, cold, or famine.

The addition of the word "not" is Old English.  One reason we know this is because in verse 15 it states it's okay to eat something ONLY in a certain time referring to the previous verse, but the word "not" is ommited.  If God was wanting to say we shouldn't eat meat, he wouldn't have included the word "not" in verse 13, but would have wrote it like he wrote verse 15.  And that verse is saying that we shouldn't eat creepy crawly's and wild animals except during famine and excess hunger which is wise advice due to disease wild animals tend to carry.

 

There are also two other reasons we know verses 12-13 are not banning the eating of meat, and that's because the Church from the beginning has always interpreted the verse the way we still interpret it.  The Word of Wisdom is a fundamental teaching of Mormonism.  I think Joseph Smith and the rest of the Church all these years knew exactly what the verse meant.  Further, we have historical context (i.e. with the Shakers etc.), which makes clear that the revelation wasn't intending to "ban meat", but to promote it as being okay.

Edited December 26, 2013 by williamsmith

[thatjimguy]

Please write FairMormon your specific issues on this so we can make the entry more accurate or understandable. It would be of great service to us.

 

I'll give it a shot.