Should Mormons Eat Meat "sparingly", As Taught In Doctrine & Covenants 89?

[thatjimguy]

As for verse 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,” I am sure the Lord had a reason for telling the saints at Kirtland, Ohio to eat animals sparingly in 1833. It could be that they did not have a lot to go around, or it could be that they had an abundance and some of the saints were gorging themselves on meat while neglecting fruits and grains. Hence, He told His children that fruits and grains are good for them.

 

 

 

 

If it means something different now and only applied then, they would have updated the revelation I would think.

Edited October 29, 2015 by thatjimguy

[Calm]

 

Sparingly means "less than everything else".

Don't think so:

 

 

sparingly

SPA'RINGLY, adv.

 

1. Not abundantly.

 

2. Frugally; parsimoniously; not lavishly. High titles of honor were in the king's minority sparingly granted, because dignity then waited on desert. Commend but sparingly whom thou dost love.

 

3. Abstinently; moderately. Christians are obliged to taste even the innocent pleasures of life but sparingly.

 

4. Seldom; not frequently. The morality of a grave sentence, affected by Lucan, is more sparingly used by Virgil.

 

5. Cautiously; tenderly.

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,sparingly

[thatjimguy]

Don't think so:

 

 

sparingly

SPA'RINGLY, adv.

 

1. Not abundantly.

 

2. Frugally; parsimoniously; not lavishly. High titles of honor were in the king's minority sparingly granted, because dignity then waited on desert. Commend but sparingly whom thou dost love.

 

3. Abstinently; moderately. Christians are obliged to taste even the innocent pleasures of life but sparingly.

 

4. Seldom; not frequently. The morality of a grave sentence, affected by Lucan, is more sparingly used by Virgil.

 

5. Cautiously; tenderly.

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,sparingly

 

These certainly sound like "less than anything else" easy enough.

 

 

Edited October 29, 2015 by thatjimguy

[PeterPear]

If you can only afford "pink slime," yes.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/06/17/322911060/pink-slime-is-making-a-comeback-do-you-have-a-beef-with-that

[Five Solas]

I voted 'yes' - so there will be more for me...

;0)

[Duncan]

I usually eat meat ah, maybe 6 times a weeky, but I usually don't get the king sized so it's sparingly

[Calm]

These certainly sound like "less than anything else" easy enough.

So if you ate 100 lbs of anything else per month and 50 lbs of meat, would that be sparingly eating meat in your view (assuming that is possible)?

[MiserereNobis]

Abstaining from meat is a long Christian tradition.  Catholics have it (though sadly, it has been made lax since Vatican II), and oh-boy do the Orthodox have it: during Lent, no meat, no eggs, no dairy products.

[Scott Lloyd]

It sounds good to put everything in the same category, but it lessens the doctrine.

 

Sparingly means "less than everything else".

You can't put everything at the same level and say sparingly. If that was God's intent to eat all foods sparingly, he would not have singled out one item on the menu.

Sort of like if everything's a priority, nothing's a priority.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

 

 

 

If it means something different now and only applied then, they would have updated the revelation I would think.

 

Why would you think that?

[thatjimguy]

So if you ate 100 lbs of anything else per month and 50 lbs of meat, would that be sparingly eating meat in your view (assuming that is possible)?

 

That's cute! Well, lets assume that someone could eat that much. Actually, even better, lets make it a math problem and use your example to a more universal standard.

 

If someone can healthily eat 100 units of everything else, and 50 units of meat, that would be 150 units in total. So meat is 1/3 of the meal in your example. So it seems to work. I can see a plate of food easily meeting these requirements.

 

Now the problem is getting the word "sparingly" to match now. Because even though it is "less than everything else", this example certainly does not conform to the other words in the definition of sparingly you posted. It certainly is not frugal (meager, scantly), seldom or not frequently, and certainly not abstinency (to resist at all).

 

Now the word moderate does come up there (once of out the ten words), and this plate of food would meet that. So is it then possible that out of all the other words that describe sparingly scream "eat even less than in this example", that the word moderate is the one is meant to be used out of those ten?

I do not think it is. Unless the idea of the word sparingly was meant to actually mean moderation back in the day, I think it means exactly what most people think it means when they hear it.

You place a salt shaker on a table. Ask someone to make a pile of salt on the table. Then ask them to do the same thing, but sparingly. I doubt the new pile will be close in size to the other.

 

Bonus stuff that also skews the direction to mean less, much less;

 

Everything else like grains and herbs, God says have at them. But he changes the tone next verse when talking about meat. Why is that? Because it isn't to be used just as the others.

 

D&C 89:13 is pretty clear that God would rather us not use them at all. Out of all the other changes to the Book of Mormon about punctuation and this comma has never been changed? Not a coincidence to me that the comma wasn't rubbed out.

[thatjimguy]

Why would you think that?

 

Well, they updated tithing and alcohol from the original idea. If meat and the WoW still stands as originally written, then it still stands.

[halconero]

Under current 1st-world country conditions I personally believe that a Vegetarian/Vegan diet is the most ethical. It is the most climate and non-human animal friendly diets. I'm a Vegetarian who's beginning to transition over to a Vegan diet...somewhat difficult considering that I'm also heavily involved with weight-lifting.

I do believe that God will hold us accountable for the animals which we use and kill without need. My current reality is that I do not require the death of any animal to live comfortably and to get the nutrition that I need. Who knows, maybe circumstances could drastically change in which case I'll need to reevaluate. What I can say is that I personally came to the point where I realized that my consumption of meat was primarily based on pleasure, rather than actual necessity. D&C 89's ruling on meat-eating seems to imply that necessity should be the excusing factor and that Saints should strive to refrain from the slaughter of animals as much as possible.

Edited October 29, 2015 by halconero

[cacheman]

Common sense should say to not make meat the central part of your diet. But it should be a part of a well balanced one.

Your last sentence is contrary to our current scientific understanding. Many people live fit and healthy lives eating a well balanced plant based diet that excludes all animal products.

[Flyonthewall]

What would be considered "Sparingly" or "in moderation"?

Is "sparingly" compared to something else or some other time? Perhaps when meat was eaten exclusively, or nearly so, at meal times?

If I have a plate and divide it into thirds, one third is meat, the other 2/3 is vegetables and potatoes, is that sparingly?

If I have a quarter pound hamburger, french fries and corn on the cob(not from a fast food place) - that is only 4 ounces of meat(pre-cook weight) - is that sparingly?

The way I understand it, veganism is not what the Lord intended, but some meat should be included. If we eat meat to the exclusion of vegetables and fruits, that is not good.

If we eat vegetables and fruit to the exclusion of meat - it can be done but is more difficult than it needs to be or has been set forth by God.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Flyonthewall

[Meadowchik]

Under current 1st-world country conditions I personally believe that a Vegetarian/Vegan diet is the most ethical. It is the most climate and non-human animal friendly diets. I'm a Vegetarian who's beginning to transition over to a Vegan diet...somewhat difficult considering that I'm also heavily involved with weight-lifting.

I do believe that God will hold us accountable for the animals which we use and kill without need. My current reality is that I do not require the death of any animal to live comfortably and to get the nutrition that I need. Who knows, maybe circumstances could drastically change in which case I'll need to reevaluate. What I can say is that I personally came to the point where I realized that my consumption of meat was primarily based on pleasure, rather than actual necessity. D&C 89's ruling on meat-eating seems to imply that necessity should be the excusing factor and that Saints should strive to refrain from the slaughter of animals as much as possible.

That was the view I was gravitating toward, until it came to my attention that the sheer decimation of animal habitats for crops also presents an ethical dilemma.

So, from an ethical point of view, nothing is quite problem-free. Obtaining meat from a free-range farmer or on a hunt may contribute less to de-speciation and/or suffering of animals than eating bananas or pasta instead.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Meadowchik

[Zakuska]

Under current 1st-world country conditions I personally believe that a Vegetarian/Vegan diet is the most ethical. It is the most climate and non-human animal friendly diets. I'm a Vegetarian who's beginning to transition over to a Vegan diet...somewhat difficult considering that I'm also heavily involved with weight-lifting.

I do believe that God will hold us accountable for the animals which we use and kill without need. My current reality is that I do not require the death of any animal to live comfortably and to get the nutrition that I need. Who knows, maybe circumstances could drastically change in which case I'll need to reevaluate. What I can say is that I personally came to the point where I realized that my consumption of meat was primarily based on pleasure, rather than actual necessity. D&C 89's ruling on meat-eating seems to imply that necessity should be the excusing factor and that Saints should strive to refrain from the slaughter of animals as much as possible.

What was one of the first things God did while kicking Adam and Eve out of the garden? Killed animals and made them coats of skins. What was the first thing Adam did upon leaving the garden before he started tilling? Kill an animal and burn it up for the Lord. Whos offering did God accept? Cain (vegtables) or Abels (meat)? What was the 1st thing Noah did upon leaving the ark? Kill animals and burn them up for the Lord. We are told by scripture that Noahs grand sons name was Nimrod... a great "Hunter". Nephi wasn't hunting carrots and cabbages with that bow he broke.

 

What did Jews including Jesus eat on the night before his crucifixion? Passover that lamb!

 

God instructed Peter in a dream to "kil" and eat animals" he'd never even seen before. (Yes I understand what the symbolism represented but still he was commanded to eat and from that point on it was OK to eat all meat except things strangled).

 

It's not what a man puts into his mouth that defiled him.

We come from a long line of successful hunter gatherers. Own it proudly!

 

"BEEF... it's whats for dinner!"

Edited October 29, 2015 by Zakuska

[BlueDreams]

I said yes and other. I put other because I have a firm policy about not telling how people should or shouldn't eat unless they're directly asking me advice on eating. Even then, I usually don't tell people to go veg of any sort. I usually tell them to cut back on this or that or replace something or simply eat more fruits and veggies. I've only influenced 2 people to go veg and both were inadvertent. 

 

I put yes because I generally think most people would be better off if they ate less meat and I think the world/environment would be better off if we ate a whole lot less meat. That's what I always feel. The rate we consume is not sustainable for our population sizes. For most, it's absolutely excessive in consumption (well beyond what most actually "need" in their diet). Farm factories are disgusting and can exploit farmers, workers, and animals alike. They're basically the opposite in my head of having meat with thanksgiving or respect for life. 

 

In my personal life, the more I eat as the WoW suggests the better I feel in general. But eating meat sparingingly (I'm a ovo-lacto vegetarian....so read this as never unless you count eggs as meat). I try to eat as much in season foods as I can. I had my first garden this year and loved it! I have very very little unnatural sugars (mostly honey and juice as additives and never a lot of either a small bag of sugar will literally last me years). Etc. I didn't do much of this because of the WoW. It was a gradual change that came from listening to my body and seeking good things. But I definitely feel the promises of the WoW for living it.

 

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

That was the view I was gravitating toward, until it came to my attention that the sheer decimation of animal habitats for crops also presents an ethical dilemma.

So, from an ethical point of view, nothing is quite problem-free. Obtaining meat from a free-range farmer or on a hunt may contribute less to de-speciation and/or suffering of animals than eating bananas or pasta instead.

A good chunk of crops are going toward animal feeds. And if we did rely on free-range farming/organic meats/hunting, it would still mean a sharp reduction of meat consumption in order to do so for the amount of people on earth.

 

Couple of sources:

 

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/is-the-livestock-industry-destroying-the-planet-11308007/?no-ist 

http://www.scidev.net/global/food-security/news/non-food-crops-lock-up-enough-calories-to-feed-4-billion.html

[BlueDreams]

  That said, I have known a few vegetarians who spend all winter unable to keep warm enough , likely because they avoid red meat. One does tire of oatmeal and broccoli  three times a day.

 

I'm cold a lot (usually during the fall and spring....I don't like 45-60 degree range in temperatures) but I'm pretty sure that has more to do with my size than my diet. I weigh anywhere between 110 and 117. There's simply not a lot of fat insulating me. On the bright side, I'm never as hot during the summer as my peers...and with global warming that's gotta be a plus . 

 

But you're right about oatmeal and broccoli....why would anyone eat that 3 times a day? 

[thesometimesaint]

cacheman:

Your last sentence is contrary to our current scientific understanding. Many people live fit and healthy lives eating a well balanced plant based diet that excludes all animal products.

I have vegetarians in my family. So yes it can be done. But the amount of work it takes to make it truly a good diet is daunting. A family get together becomes a marathon of cooking.

[thesometimesaint]

I have vegetarians in my family. So yes it can be done. But the amount of work it takes to make it truly a good diet is daunting. A family get together becomes a marathon of cooking.

[Tony Frank]

 

 

 

 

If it means something different now and only applied then, they would have updated the revelation I would think.

 

 

As I stated earlier, I have "Teachings of the Latter-day Prophets" from Joseph Smith to Thomas S. Monson, and I have read anything I could find regarding what the prophets have said about meat and the Word of Wisdom. No prophet has ever spoken disparagingly about eating meat. They have never said people should eat less meat or eat it sparingly.

 

If Jesus Christ was directing mankind as a whole to use the flesh of beasts and of the fowls of the air "sparingly," one of His prophets would have expounded on it.

[halconero]

That was the view I was gravitating toward, until it came to my attention that the sheer decimation of animal habitats for crops also presents an ethical dilemma.

So, from an ethical point of view, nothing is quite problem-free. Obtaining meat from a free-range farmer or on a hunt may contribute less to de-speciation and/or suffering of animals than eating bananas or pasta instead.

 

The major problem isn't necessarily crop production, but for what those crops are being produced. Roughly 30% of the world's surface is currently devoted to animal agriculture. It is by far the largest contributor to green house gas emissions in the food production sector, both in methane produced by cattle and the crops devoted to feeding them. Both the [united Nations](http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/Portals/24102/PDFs/PriorityProductsAndMaterials_Report.pdf) and [Cornell University](http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full) have found that a plant-based diet would drastically cut down on pollutants, both with GHG's and others.

As far as free-range farmers go, it's a slightly better option, but you still have to know the farmer personally. Most free-range farmers have as much certification as a crossfit trainer, meaning little-to-none. Free-range chicken farmers are currently required to only have a small access door for chickens, leading to crowding, trampling, and stampedes around the door. Hunting is another good option for small towns, but unsustainable at current population levels.

[halconero]

What was one of the first things God did while kicking Adam and Eve out of the garden? Killed animals and made them coats of skins. What was the first thing Adam did upon leaving the garden before he started tilling? Kill an animal and burn it up for the Lord. Whos offering did God accept? Cain (vegtables) or Abels (meat)? What was the 1st thing Noah did upon leaving the ark? Kill animals and burn them up for the Lord. We are told by scripture that Noahs grand sons name was Nimrod... a great "Hunter". Nephi wasn't hunting carrots and cabbages with that bow he broke. What did Jews including Jesus eat on the night before his crucifixion? Passover that lamb! God instructed Peter in a dream to "kill" and eat animals he'd never even seen before. (Yes I understand what they symbol represented but still he was commanded to eat and from the point on it was OK to eat all meat except things strangled).

It's not what a man puts into his mouth that defiled him.

We come from a long line of successful hunter gatherers. Own it proudly!

 

"BEEF... it's whats for dinner!"

 

Let's look at these in context:

 

1) Adam, Eve, Noah, Abel, Christ's Passover meal, Peter:

 

- I have no problem with these. They were under commandment from God. I am not under the same commandment, as I was reminded yesterday when I did a temple session.

 

- Interestingly enough, Israelites were required to partake of the atonement sacrifices offered. We today are also required to partake of the weekly atonement sacrifice, but not of meat. God has changed this requirement.

 

2) I don't see how naming Nimrod "Great Hunter" speaks in favour of meat consumption. The guy was evil.

 

3) Nephi was in a state of necessity. As mentioned before in my previous post, the Latter-day Saint scriptures speak of necessity as the deciding factor for meat-consumption. I have no problem with Nephi's actions in that situation.