D&c 49

[daz2]

What do the JSP Notes say exactly?

×

 

Unlike the proscription against marriage and sexual relations, the principle of vegetarianism was not in general practice among the Shakers. Still, as early as 1820 there was an attempt on the part of the Ministry, located in New Lebanon, New York, to persuade Shaker communities to adopt vegetarianism, and leaders spoke against the use of meat, particularly pork. This revelation’s statement that it was “not ordained of God” to teach that believers should “abstain from meats that man should not eat the same” is evidence of the principle of vegetarianism being a belief held among the North Union Shakers in 1831. Teachings against the consumption of pork, apparently connected to the biblical prohibition observed by the Israelites, were reportedly not uncommon among Mormons living in the Kirtland area. Levi Hancock recorded that around May 1831, “the Preaching in Kirtland once was against the use of Pork— Once Joseph asked me to help him feed his hogs. I did so I osserved [observed] that the Jews never ate Pork He answered If I eat pork I will know what my hogs eat! And I left to this conclusion there are sometimes extremes in Preaching.” Hancock went on to explain that JS described the Israelite law against pork as a proscription God established for a specific time and place but that “Israel was so bound up with law that they still kept up the old established practice of not eating hog meat Finaly they got so much law they could not keep it themselves.” (Stein, Shaker Experience, 156–158; Puskar-Pasewicz, “Debates over Meatless Diets in Nineteenth-Century Shaker Communities,” 109–120; Hancock, Autobiography, ca. 1896, 22.)
Comprehensive Works Cited

Hide Works Cited

Stein, Stephen J. The Shaker Experience in America: A History of the United Society of Believers. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992.

Puskar-Pasewicz, Margaret. “Kitchen Sisters and Disagreeable Boys: Debates over Meatless Diets in Nineteeth-Century Shaker Communities.” In Eating in Eden: Food and American Utopias, edited by Etta M. Madden and Martha L. Finch, 109–124. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2006.

Hancock, Levi Ward. Autobiography, ca. 1854. CHL.

 

 

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/revelation-7-may-1831-dc-49?dm=image-and-text&zm=zoom-inner&tm=expanded&p=2&s=undefined&sm=none

[Ahab]

Eating meat "sparingly" means, to me, making most of my meals about 75-100% vegetables and fruits and grains with only about 0-25% meat while trying to have as much fresh vegetables and fruits as I can while they are in season.   Not much vegetation grows in  my area in the winter time, so that's why I usually eat more meat in the winter, although I still try to have vegetables and fruits in the winter time too.

 

In Joseph's day they didn't have grocery stores like we do with so many vegetables and fruits shipped in from other parts of the world where they were still growing, and I think what the Lord revealed to him was in consideration of his living conditions back then.

[Calm]

I'll give it a shot.

I would like to point out that FairMormon identifies the "critics" they are talking about not just as people who are asking questions about what the verses mean and how LDS should live by  them, but who are saying "that Mormons do not keep the Word of Wisdom by eating meat "sparingly.""  By saying that LDS do not keep the WoW as a statement of fact, don't you think that is a judgment and not a question?

 

I am not saying that the response shouldn't be written in a more neutral tone, just wondering if you have possibly interpreted who they are talking about in a broader sense than intended.

 

http://www.es.fairmormon.org/Word_of_Wisdom/Eat_meat_sparingly

[thatjimguy]

Eating meat "sparingly" means, to me, making most of my meals about 75-100% vegetables and fruits and grains with only about 0-25% meat while trying to have as much fresh vegetables and fruits as I can while they are in season.   Not much vegetation grows in  my area in the winter time, so that's why I usually eat more meat in the winter, although I still try to have vegetables and fruits in the winter time too.

 

In Joseph's day they didn't have grocery stores like we do with so many vegetables and fruits shipped in from other parts of the world where they were still growing, and I think what the Lord revealed to him was in consideration of his living conditions back then.

 

I also consider cattle ranchers to be a major influence on this. I would not blame them since that was the easiest thing for them to eat. And they got to survive financialy so they got to sell the stuff. I can see how people turn a blind eye to it and it just spread like mormon folklore. Within time, no one even questions the meat question.

[cinepro]

Just so I'm clear, here's what the section heading for D&C 49 says:

 

 

 

They [the Shakers] rejected marriage and believed in a life of total celibacy. Some Shakers also forbade the eating of meat.

 

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/49?lang=eng

 

So Section 49 is a revelation given to clarify God's feelings about some of the teachings of the Shakers, specifically:

 

 

 

The revelation refutes some of the basic concepts of the Shaker group. The aforementioned brethren took a copy of the revelation to the Shaker community (near Cleveland, Ohio) and read it to them in its entirety, but it was rejected.

 

So, for those who think Section 49 is supporting vegetarianism, how does such a statement fit into the overall purpose of the revelation, and its specific placement right after the clarification about people who forbid to marry?  It makes absolutely no sense.

Edited December 26, 2013 by cinepro

[thatjimguy]

I would like to point out that FairMormon identifies the "critics" they are talking about not just as people who are asking questions about what the verses mean and how LDS should live by  them, but who are saying "that Mormons do not keep the Word of Wisdom by eating meat "sparingly.""  By saying that LDS do not keep the WoW as a statement of fact, don't you think that is a judgment and not a question?

 

I am not saying that the response shouldn't be written in a more neutral tone, just wondering if you have possibly interpreted who they are talking about in a broader sense than intended.

 

http://www.es.fairmormon.org/Word_of_Wisdom/Eat_meat_sparingly

 

Yeah, I can see that. It just doesn't come out like that at first glance to me for sure.

[Calm]

Yeah, I can see that. It just doesn't come out like that at first glance to me for sure.

Then we definitely need to rewrite it.

[Palerider]

Just so I'm clear, here's what the section heading for D&C 49 says:

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/49?lang=eng

 

So Section 49 is a revelation given to clarify God's feelings about some of the teachings of the Shakers, specifically:

 

 

 

 

So, for those who think Section 49 is supporting vegetarianism, how does such a statement fit into the overall purpose of the revelation, and its specific placement right after the clarification about people who forbid to marry?  It makes absolutely no sense.

 

I agree cinepro. I think we have a little bit of herd mentality going on here that was brought on by people not reading for content very well.......

[thatjimguy]

How would this sound? Do I have all my bases covered about the term "sparingly"? Anything missing?

 

********

 

This Word of Wisdom can come into confusion for some when some observe Latter-Day Saint behavior. They can see many abstaining from tobacco, coffee, tea, and alcohol quite readily. They become confused, however, when they see some of the same members eating meat and wonder if they are following the Word of Wisdom because of what is stated in Doctrine and Covenants 89:12-13;

 

 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;

 

If a member were to smoke tobacco or drink alcohol, it is an obvious violation of the law. However, although we are to eat meat sparingly, we are still allowed to consume it. Whether or not someone eats meat sparingly in a consistent manner is not as easy to determine. It is left up to that person’s righteousness to proclaim that they follow the Word of Wisdom in this matter.

[cacheman]

Just so I'm clear, here's what the section heading for D&C 49 says:

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/49?lang=eng

 

So Section 49 is a revelation given to clarify God's feelings about some of the teachings of the Shakers, specifically:

 

 

 

 

So, for those who think Section 49 is supporting vegetarianism, how does such a statement fit into the overall purpose of the revelation, and its specific placement right after the clarification about people who forbid to marry?  It makes absolutely no sense.

I believe that it actually does make sense.  After stating that it is wrong to forbid people to eat meat, he then states:

 

"And wo be unto man that ^asheddeth blood or that ^bwasteth^cflesh and hath no need.".

 

This seems to imply that meat should only be eaten when needed.  For example, I don't need to eat meat to live healthily, but I shouldn't forbid others to eat meat.  People in circumstances different than mine might need to eat meat.  Just because it's possible, and even easy for me (living in this particular time period, in a developed country with plenty of affordable nutritious plant foods), that's not necessarily true for others.  I believe that he's preaching that we should each be personally responsible for what we eat.

 

Just my thoughts.  I'm sure others interpret this differently though....

[Palerider]

I believe that it actually does make sense.  After stating that it is wrong to forbid people to eat meat, he then states:

 

"And wo be unto man that ^asheddeth blood or that ^bwasteth^cflesh and hath no need.".

 

This seems to imply that meat should only be eaten when needed.  For example, I don't need to eat meat to live healthily, but I shouldn't forbid others to eat meat.  People in circumstances different than mine might need to eat meat.  Just because it's possible, and even easy for me (living in this particular time period, in a developed country with plenty of affordable nutritious plant foods), that's not necessarily true for others.  I believe that he's preaching that we should each be personally responsible for what we eat.

 

Just my thoughts.  I'm sure others interpret this differently though....

 

The real giveaway on this is the fact that the church has altered "forbiddeth" with the word "biddeth", which is the preferred reading, and would change the meaning entirely from the way it was written. Please see the church's footnote "a" on the word "forbiddeth" in verse 18.

Edited December 27, 2013 by Palerider

[inquiringmind]

I'd still like to know what this means?

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 notes suggest that Joseph understood the revelation to mean that vegetarianism is not a teaching of God?

[Palerider]

I'd still like to know what this means?

What notes suggest that Joseph understood the revelation to mean that vegetarianism is not a teaching of God?

 

If you go to the following link at the Joseph Smith Papers website, you will find the revelation, with accompanying footnotes. 

 

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/revelation-7-may-1831-dc-49?dm=image-and-text&zm=zoom-inner&tm=expanded&p=2&s=undefined&sm=none

 

Note 12., found at what would be the 18th verse, states in part: 

 

"This revelation’s statement that it was “not ordained of God” to teach that believers should “abstain from meats that man should not eat the same” is evidence of the principle of vegetarianism being a belief held among the North Union Shakers in 1831."

 

Bold type by me.

Edited December 27, 2013 by Palerider

[mfbukowski]

After a few heart problems, let me tell you we could do worse than to be vegetarians,

 

The typical American diet will kill you.

 

Do we all have to die?  Yes.  So how soon do you want to go?

 

The word of wisdom is just that.  Wisdom.  Nobody has to follow wisdom but it is wise to do so.

 

For some odd reason I think that God knows that it is best to be a vegetarian, considering he probably knows a tad about heart disease.  Do we have to follow that?

 

Nope.  Have another hamburger- this time with bacon and cheese!

Edited December 27, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Avatar4321]

I think the passage is clear. We are not commanded to be vegetarian or vegans. We are allowed to eat of tthe animals of the word, but to do so with prudence.

 

I think it's also very obvious that the Lord is encouraging us to eat plant based diets. Doesn't mean we have to exclusively eat plants, but I can tell you I am much healthier when I eat more vegies.

[inquiringmind]

If you go to the following link at the Joseph Smith Papers website, you will find the revelation, with accompanying footnotes. 

 

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/revelation-7-may-1831-dc-49?dm=image-and-text&zm=zoom-inner&tm=expanded&p=2&s=undefined&sm=none

 

Note 12., found at what would be the 18th verse, states in part: 

 

"This revelation’s statement that it was “not ordained of God” to teach that believers should “abstain from meats that man should not eat the same” is evidence of the principle of vegetarianism being a belief held among the North Union Shakers in 1831."

 

Bold type by me.

That note seems to be written by a modern scholar or scholars, but there doesn't seem to be anything to suggest that Joseph himself understood the revelation to mean that vegetarianism is not a teaching of God?

[Calm]

Did you read his comment about hogs and the Jewish diet restriction?

[Scott Lloyd]

The real giveaway on this is the fact that the church has altered "forbiddeth" with the word "biddeth", which is the preferred reading, and would change the meaning entirely from the way it was written. Please see the church's footnote "a" on the word "forbiddeth" in verse 18.

Interesting observation.

 

I wish the Church would change the word to "biddeth" in the body of the section. It is confusing as it now stands.

 

I did a search to see whether there might be an original or archaic meaning of forbid as bid, but I was unable to find anything like that.

 

This might be a simple case of a usage error made in the original manuscript.

Edited December 27, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[inquiringmind]

Interesting observation.

 

I wish the Church would change the word to "biddeth" in the body of the section. It is confusing as it now stands.

 

I did a search to see whether there might be an original or archaic meaning of forbid as bid, but I was unable to find anything like that.

 

This might be a simple case of a usage error made in the original manuscript.

But how could Joseph have made a "usage error" like that in verse 18, when he just used the word properly in verse 15?

 

And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso ^aforbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for ^bmarriage is ordained of God unto man.

Are there any examples of similar usage errors in any of Joseph's other writings?

 

And if the semi vegetarian interpretation of D&C 49 is true, might it explain Alma 8:18-22?

 

Now it came to pass that after Alma had received his message from the angel of the Lord he returned speedily to the land of Ammonihah. And he entered the city by another way, yea, by the way which is on the south of the city of Ammonihah.

 19 And as ^ahe entered the city he was an hungered, and he said to a man: Will ye give to an humble servant of God something to eat?

 20 And the man said unto him: I am a Nephite, and I know that thou art a holy prophet of God, for thou art the man whom an ^aangel said in a vision: Thou shalt receive. Therefore, go with me into my house and I will impart unto thee of my ^bfood; and I know that thou wilt be a blessing unto me and my house.

 21 And it came to pass that the man received him into his house; and the man was called Amulek; and he brought forth bread and meat and set before Alma.

 22 And it came to pass that Alma ate bread and was filled; and he ^ablessed Amulek and his house, and he gave thanks unto God.

Though Amulek put meat and bread on the table, it seems Alma only ate bread.

 

Could that be because it wasn't winter, and Alma knew it wouldn't pleasing to God for him to eat meat at that time of year?

Edited December 27, 2013 by inquiringmind

[Calm]

Language was not as consistent back then as it is today....and even today people use a term the right way and then screw up, it happens...not saying that was the cause here, just that it isn't improbable.

[inquiringmind]

Could you give me any examples (preferably from Joseph Smith himself)?

[Scott Lloyd]

But how could Joseph have made a "usage error" like that in verse 18, when he just used the word properly in verse 15?

I make my living with the written word. I pride myself on being a careful practitioner of it. But even so, I frequently make errors that are caught and corrected in the proofreading stage. Everyone I work with does.

 

You'll notice most of my posts carry an "edited by" stamp. That's because I'm something of a perfectionist in writing, yet I have have a propensity not to write flawless text on first draft.

 

If this happens to me, I can understand it happening to Joseph and can pardon him for it.

 

Are there any examples of similar usage errors in any of Joseph's other writings?

 

One would hope that if they are present at all in his published writings, they would be extremely rare. I perceive that to be the case.

And if the semi vegetarian interpretation of D&C 49 is true, might it explain Alma 8:18-22?

Though Amulek put meat and bread on the table, it seems Alma only ate bread.

 

Are you certain you are not misinterpreting the meaning in the occurrence of the word in verse 22? It could be used to convey the generic definition of bread as anything edible.

[inquiringmind]

 

Are you certain you are not misinterpreting the meaning in the occurrence of the word in verse 22?

No.

 

It could be used to convey the generic definition of bread as anything edible

Was it commonly used in that sense in Joseph's day?

 

One would hope that if they are present at all in his published writings, they would be extremely rare. I perceive that to be the case.

You suggested one was present in D&C 49:18.

 

Is anything like what you suggested we have there present in any of Joseph's published or unpublished writings (journal entries, letters, anything)?

Edited December 27, 2013 by inquiringmind

[Scott Lloyd]

No.

Was it commonly used in that sense in Joseph's day?

The Book of Mormon tends to mirror the phrasing used in the King James Version of the Bible, including, I would surmise, the use of terms that were archaic even in Joseph's day.

[Palerider]

Interesting observation.

 

I wish the Church would change the word to "biddeth" in the body of the section. It is confusing as it now stands.

 

I did a search to see whether there might be an original or archaic meaning of forbid as bid, but I was unable to find anything like that.

 

This might be a simple case of a usage error made in the original manuscript.

 

Regardless of how I view the revelations in general, your suggestion has the most merit. Just go ahead and make the change to read as "biddeth" and then live with whatever the consequences are.

 

Then one avoids the kind of problems "Inquiringmind" is here fixated upon.