Input on Eating Meat "Sparingly"

[smac97]

I'd like to have a discussion about the two verses in the Word of Wisdom pertaining to meat:

Quote

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;
13 And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.

"Sparingly" seems to be very much akin to the "hot drinks" referenced in verse 9.  That is, we are obliged to interpret/construe terms.  The meaning of "hot drinks" is not immediately self-evident to us, but it apparently was to the early Saints:

Quote

D&C 89:9. What Does the Phrase “Hot Drinks” Mean?

Some of the early Brethren explained what was meant by this phrase. Hyrum Smith, brother of the Prophet, wrote: “And again, ‘hot drinks are not for the body, or belly;’ there are many who wonder what this can mean; whether it refers to tea, or coffee, or not. I say it does refer to tea, and coffee.” (“The Word of Wisdom,” Times and Seasons, 1 June 1842, p. 800.)

The Prophet Joseph Smith said: “I understand that some of the people are excusing themselves in using tea and coffee, because the Lord only said ‘hot drinks’ in the revelation of the Word of Wisdom. …

“Tea and coffee … are what the Lord meant when He said ‘hot drinks.’” (In Joel H. Johnson, Voice from the Mountains [Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1881], p. 12.)

The Church has, for quite a while now, publicly construed "hot drinks" in this way.

"Sparingly" has also been kinda sorta construed, but it doesn't seem to get nearly as much attention.  From the same link:

Quote

D&C 89:12. Flesh Is to Be Used Sparingly

“The Word of Wisdom is not a system of vegetarianism. Clearly, meat is permitted [see D&C 42:18]. Naturally, that includes animal products, less subject than meat to putrefactive and other disturbances, such as eggs, milk, and cheese. These products cannot be excluded simply because they are not mentioned specifically. By that token most of our foodstuffs could not be eaten.” (Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, 3:156–57.)

D&C 89:13. “Only in Times of Winter, or of Cold, or Famine”

This verse has caused some to ask if meat should be eaten in the summer. Meat has more calories than fruits and vegetables, which some individuals may need fewer of in summer than winter. Also, before fruits and vegetables could be preserved, people often did not have enough other food to eat in winter. Spoiled meat can be fatal if eaten, and in former times meat spoiled more readily in summer than winter. Modern methods of refrigeration now make it possible to preserve meat in any season. The key word with respect to the use of meat is sparingly (D&C 89:12).

"The key word with respect to the use of meat is sparingly."  That doesn't really help clarify much.

In my family eat meat mostly every day, but not in large quanties.  Breakfast rarely involves any (sometimes sausage/bacon).  Lunch will have little or none (lunch meats, for example).  Our dinners, though, usually include a meat component.  

One of my daughters, in her teens, has for a while now been a wishy-washy "vegetarian."  She was okay with fish and animal products (eggs, dairy, etc.), but avoided the Big Three (chicken, pork, beef).  We have accommodated her for quite a while.  I encouraged her to keep up her protein intake via alternative sources like tofu (I served my mission in Taiwan, so I became a fan), rice and beans (long known to form a complete protein), etc.  However, this year she is both on the high school dance team and the swim team.  And she's 15 years old.  So she's growing, and has recently returned to eating meat.  Not only that, whereas she was previously telling us that she found the consumption of mean "gross" (particularly beef), recently she has been craving it and finding it delicious (I took her to In N Out last week for her first burger in about 2 years, and she really enjoyed it).  Her falling off the wagon (which she was never really fully on in the first place) was not surprising, as the vast majority of those who try a vegan or vegetarian diet revert back to consuming meat.

The Word of Wisdom has categorical prohibitions (alcohol, coffee/tea, tobacco (consumption)) and broad endorsements (wholesome herbs, grains, fruit of the vine).  Meat, though, seems to be in a separate "yes, but 'sparingly'" category.  So here are my questions:

1. What, in your view, does "sparingly" mean in the context of eating meat?

2. Has the instruction regarding eating meat "only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine" been lessened by, as the above quote from the church manual notes, "{m}odern methods of refrigeration" and other considerations (other preservation methods such as canning/jarring, freeze drying, etc.)?

3. Can/ought we consider reducing or moderating meat consumption so as to mitigate A) the environmental costs of large-scale livestock farming / animal husbandry, and B) the number of animals killed for our consumption?

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'd like to have a discussion about the two verses in the Word of Wisdom pertaining to meat:

"Sparingly" seems to be very much akin to the "hot drinks" referenced in verse 9.  That is, we are obliged to interpret/construe terms.  The meaning of "hot drinks" is not immediately self-evident to us, but it apparently was to the early Saints:

The Church has, for quite a while now, publicly construed "hot drinks" in this way.

"Sparingly" has also been kinda sorta construed, but it doesn't seem to get nearly as much attention.  From the same link:

"The key word with respect to the use of meat is sparingly."  That doesn't really help clarify much.

In my family eat meat mostly every day, but not in large quanties.  Breakfast rarely involves any (sometimes sausage/bacon).  Lunch will have little or none (lunch meats, for example).  Our dinners, though, usually include a meat component.  

One of my daughters, in her teens, has for a while now been a wishy-washy "vegetarian."  She was okay with fish and animal products (eggs, dairy, etc.), but avoided the Big Three (chicken, pork, beef).  We have accommodated her for quite a while.  I encouraged her to keep up her protein intake via alternative sources like tofu (I served my mission in Taiwan, so I became a fan), rice and beans (long known to form a complete protein), etc.  However, this year she is both on the high school dance team and the swim team.  And she's 15 years old.  So she's growing, and has recently returned to eating meat.  Not only that, whereas she was previously telling us that she found the consumption of mean "gross" (particularly beef), recently she has been craving it and finding it delicious (I took her to In N Out last week for her first burger in about 2 years, and she really enjoyed it).  Her falling off the wagon (which she was never really fully on in the first place) was not surprising, as the vast majority of those who try a vegan or vegetarian diet revert back to consuming meat.

The Word of Wisdom has categorical prohibitions (alcohol, coffee/tea, tobacco (consumption)) and broad endorsements (wholesome herbs, grains, fruit of the vine).  Meat, though, seems to be in a separate "yes, but 'sparingly'" category.  So here are my questions:

1. What, in your view, does "sparingly" mean in the context of eating meat?

2. Has the instruction regarding eating meat "only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine" been lessened by, as the above quote from the church manual notes, "{m}odern methods of refrigeration" and other considerations (other preservation methods such as canning/jarring, freeze drying, etc.)?

3. Can/ought we consider reducing or moderating meat consumption so as to mitigate A) the environmental costs of large-scale livestock farming / animal husbandry, and B) the number of animals killed for our consumption?

Thanks,

-Smac

Don’t have a lot to say, but in one hundred years I think our descendants are going to look on us with horror for our treatment of animals in mass farms. 

[InCognitus]

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine

I have had some conversations with people from the RLDS community in the past, and coincidentally, related to recent Come Follow Me studies, I was looking up some of the differences between the LDS and RLDS Doctrine and Covenants (particularly as it pertains to baptism for the dead), and I came across this article on the Word of Wisdom:  Difference between the RLDS and LDS Doctrine and Covenants in the Word of Wisdom.  

The main difference between the two published revelations has to do with a single comma after the word "used", as bolded in red in the quote above.  According to the RLDS commentator, the placement of the comma in the LDS edition limits the eating of meat to certain times of the year, but without the comma (and coupled with the word "not"), it is "evident that eating meat should not be limited to certain times of the year".

The original revelation manuscript doesn't have much punctuation at all (Joseph Smith Papers: Revelation, 27 February 1833 [D&C 89]), and neither does the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants edition, or the 1942 publication of the revelation in the Times and Seasons, or the 1844 Doctrine and Covenants edition.   So the RLDS commentator may have a point related to how this could be interpreted.  Personally I'm still thinking through what makes the most sense.

Great question, by the way.

Edited November 16, 2021 by InCognitus

[ksfisher]

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

1. What, in your view, does "sparingly" mean in the context of eating meat?

Seems entirely subjective.

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

2. Has the instruction regarding eating meat "only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine" been lessened by, as the above quote from the church manual notes, "{m}odern methods of refrigeration" and other considerations (other preservation methods such as canning/jarring, freeze drying, etc.)?

Prophetic counsel is best understood within the context in which it is given.  The verse also says that it pleases the Lord if we only use meat at those times.  This seems then to be less of a commandment (thou shalt not...) and more of something we should work towards.

 

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

3. Can/ought we consider reducing or moderating meat consumption so as to mitigate A) the environmental costs of large-scale livestock farming / animal husbandry, and B) the number of animals killed for our consumption?

We should consider how our dietary choices effect the environment.  Personally, I'm trying to cut down on the amount of beef I eat.

 

Edited November 16, 2021 by ksfisher

[rongo]

We try to "eat meat sparingly," with a focus on more "in times of winter." It is hard to do. We find as a family that meatless meals are unsatisfying. We are on the better end of the healthy spectrum (including BMI, exercise, etc.), but are conscious that our culture leads to us planning the meals around the meat rather than the other way around. 

[strappinglad]

Killing animals for the sake of killing is wrong. I think of the passenger pigeon that had flocks of a billion destroyed in a few years, also the bison that were estimated at 80 million at one time that were killed for the hides and the flesh left to rot. 

I am not a fan of the treatment of animals in factory farms either but feeding our current population would be a serious challenge otherwise. Plant based burgers have not caught on yet but I have eaten a few "veggyburgers " and they are not bad. 

People might eat less meat if they had to kill and prepare their own animals. It's a messy business. 

[rongo]

Who's up for beta-testing this? Perfect solution, and a bridge between vegan and carnivor.  

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nadiaarumugam/2011/07/08/meat-made-from-human-feces-hoax-or-japans-best-new-invention/?sh=2e776ec6d9e2

[InCognitus]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

Who's up for beta-testing this? Perfect solution, and a bridge between vegan and carnivor.  

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nadiaarumugam/2011/07/08/meat-made-from-human-feces-hoax-or-japans-best-new-invention/?sh=2e776ec6d9e2

I'm pretty sure that would fall into the "evils and designs which do, and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days" category.  

[ksfisher]

11 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

I am not a fan of the treatment of animals in factory farms either but feeding our current population would be a serious challenge otherwise.

I don't know.  Animals raised for human consumption is actually one of the least efficient uses of land.

http://www.waldeneffect.org/blog/Calories_per_acre_for_various_foods/

Food	Million calories per acre	Assumptions
Wheat	6.4	Irrigated
Corn	12.3	Irrigated
Potatoes	17.8	Irrigated
Soybeans	2.1	Irrigated
Beef	1.1	Cows fed solely on corn, feed to meat conversion ratio of 8, 1000 calories per pound of beef
Pork	3.5	Pigs fed solely on corn, feed to meat conversion ratio of 3.5, 1385 calories per pound of pork
Chicken	1.4	Chickens fed solely on corn and soybeans, feed to meat conversion ratio of 3, 591 calories per pound of meat

[ksfisher]

15 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Plant based burgers have not caught on yet but I have eaten a few "veggyburgers " and they are not bad.

I don't think they're bad either, but they're not really healthy.

The bad news: Meatless burgers are heavily processed and high in saturated fat

The bottom line: Meatless burgers are good for the planet, but not always good for our health

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/impossible-and-beyond-how-healthy-are-these-meatless-burgers-2019081517448

	Calories	Fat (g)	Sat fat (g)	Chol (mg)	Sodium (mg)	Carb (g)	Fiber (g)	Protein (g)
Impossible Burger (4 oz)	240	14	8	0	370	9	3	19
Beyond Burger (4 oz)	250	18	6	0	390	3	2	20
85% lean ground beef (4 oz)	240	17	6	80	80	0	0	21
Ground turkey (4 oz)	170	9	2	80	70	0	0	22
Black bean burger (Sunshine brand) (2.7 oz)	260	16	1.5	0	190	19	8	10

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Don’t have a lot to say, but in one hundred years I think our descendants are going to look on us with horror for our treatment of animals in mass farms.

Unless BBQ somehow becomes not delicious in the next century, I suspect my grandchildren will find a way to live with it.

 

[JAHS]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'd like to have a discussion about the two verses in the Word of Wisdom pertaining to meat:

"Sparingly" seems to be very much akin to the "hot drinks" referenced in verse 9.  That is, we are obliged to interpret/construe terms.  The meaning of "hot drinks" is not immediately self-evident to us, but it apparently was to the early Saints:

The Church has, for quite a while now, publicly construed "hot drinks" in this way.

"Sparingly" has also been kinda sorta construed, but it doesn't seem to get nearly as much attention.  From the same link:

"The key word with respect to the use of meat is sparingly."  That doesn't really help clarify much.

In my family eat meat mostly every day, but not in large quanties.  Breakfast rarely involves any (sometimes sausage/bacon).  Lunch will have little or none (lunch meats, for example).  Our dinners, though, usually include a meat component.  

One of my daughters, in her teens, has for a while now been a wishy-washy "vegetarian."  She was okay with fish and animal products (eggs, dairy, etc.), but avoided the Big Three (chicken, pork, beef).  We have accommodated her for quite a while.  I encouraged her to keep up her protein intake via alternative sources like tofu (I served my mission in Taiwan, so I became a fan), rice and beans (long known to form a complete protein), etc.  However, this year she is both on the high school dance team and the swim team.  And she's 15 years old.  So she's growing, and has recently returned to eating meat.  Not only that, whereas she was previously telling us that she found the consumption of mean "gross" (particularly beef), recently she has been craving it and finding it delicious (I took her to In N Out last week for her first burger in about 2 years, and she really enjoyed it).  Her falling off the wagon (which she was never really fully on in the first place) was not surprising, as the vast majority of those who try a vegan or vegetarian diet revert back to consuming meat.

The Word of Wisdom has categorical prohibitions (alcohol, coffee/tea, tobacco (consumption)) and broad endorsements (wholesome herbs, grains, fruit of the vine).  Meat, though, seems to be in a separate "yes, but 'sparingly'" category.  So here are my questions:

1. What, in your view, does "sparingly" mean in the context of eating meat?

2. Has the instruction regarding eating meat "only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine" been lessened by, as the above quote from the church manual notes, "{m}odern methods of refrigeration" and other considerations (other preservation methods such as canning/jarring, freeze drying, etc.)?

3. Can/ought we consider reducing or moderating meat consumption so as to mitigate A) the environmental costs of large-scale livestock farming / animal husbandry, and B) the number of animals killed for our consumption?

Thanks,

-Smac

"At the time this revelation was given people relied heavily on meat as a staple in their diet because it was available and plentiful and could be easily stored in the cold weather, while crops might be in limited supply, especially during the winter months. People sometimes followed harmful dietary extremes, eating too much meat, because they had no accurate idea what they should eat. Thus, the Word of Wisdom gave them guidelines in what would be proper nutrition.  (Harold H. Sandstead, James P. Carter, and William J. Darby, How to Diagnose Nutritional Deficiencies, Nutrition Today, Nutrition Today Teaching Aid Number 8, Washington, D.C., 1969, p. 3.)"

Sometimes we have to consider the time, place, and culture when a revelation was given. However we have always been told to exercise moderation in all things. 

 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'd like to have a discussion about the two verses in the Word of Wisdom pertaining to meat:

"Sparingly" seems to be very much akin to the "hot drinks" referenced in verse 9.  That is, we are obliged to interpret/construe terms.  The meaning of "hot drinks" is not immediately self-evident to us, but it apparently was to the early Saints:

The Church has, for quite a while now, publicly construed "hot drinks" in this way.

"Sparingly" has also been kinda sorta construed, but it doesn't seem to get nearly as much attention.  From the same link:

"The key word with respect to the use of meat is sparingly."  That doesn't really help clarify much.

In my family eat meat mostly every day, but not in large quanties.  Breakfast rarely involves any (sometimes sausage/bacon).  Lunch will have little or none (lunch meats, for example).  Our dinners, though, usually include a meat component.  

One of my daughters, in her teens, has for a while now been a wishy-washy "vegetarian."  She was okay with fish and animal products (eggs, dairy, etc.), but avoided the Big Three (chicken, pork, beef).  We have accommodated her for quite a while.  I encouraged her to keep up her protein intake via alternative sources like tofu (I served my mission in Taiwan, so I became a fan), rice and beans (long known to form a complete protein), etc.  However, this year she is both on the high school dance team and the swim team.  And she's 15 years old.  So she's growing, and has recently returned to eating meat.  Not only that, whereas she was previously telling us that she found the consumption of mean "gross" (particularly beef), recently she has been craving it and finding it delicious (I took her to In N Out last week for her first burger in about 2 years, and she really enjoyed it).  Her falling off the wagon (which she was never really fully on in the first place) was not surprising, as the vast majority of those who try a vegan or vegetarian diet revert back to consuming meat.

The Word of Wisdom has categorical prohibitions (alcohol, coffee/tea, tobacco (consumption)) and broad endorsements (wholesome herbs, grains, fruit of the vine).  Meat, though, seems to be in a separate "yes, but 'sparingly'" category.  So here are my questions:

1. What, in your view, does "sparingly" mean in the context of eating meat?

2. Has the instruction regarding eating meat "only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine" been lessened by, as the above quote from the church manual notes, "{m}odern methods of refrigeration" and other considerations (other preservation methods such as canning/jarring, freeze drying, etc.)?

3. Can/ought we consider reducing or moderating meat consumption so as to mitigate A) the environmental costs of large-scale livestock farming / animal husbandry, and B) the number of animals killed for our consumption?

Thanks,

-Smac

I think the meaning of "sparingly" means that we should avoid eating it whenever possible.  The exception for the early saints was in times when crops were out of season or in famine.   Indeed it is pleasing unto the Lord 'that they should not be used" at all, except within the specific exceptions mentioned.

 

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I'd like to have a discussion about the two verses in the Word of Wisdom pertaining to meat:

"Sparingly" seems to be very much akin to the "hot drinks" referenced in verse 9.  That is, we are obliged to interpret/construe terms.  The meaning of "hot drinks" is not immediately self-evident to us, but it apparently was to the early Saints:

The Church has, for quite a while now, publicly construed "hot drinks" in this way.

"Sparingly" has also been kinda sorta construed, but it doesn't seem to get nearly as much attention.  From the same link:

"The key word with respect to the use of meat is sparingly."  That doesn't really help clarify much.

In my family eat meat mostly every day, but not in large quanties.  Breakfast rarely involves any (sometimes sausage/bacon).  Lunch will have little or none (lunch meats, for example).  Our dinners, though, usually include a meat component.  

One of my daughters, in her teens, has for a while now been a wishy-washy "vegetarian."  She was okay with fish and animal products (eggs, dairy, etc.), but avoided the Big Three (chicken, pork, beef).  We have accommodated her for quite a while.  I encouraged her to keep up her protein intake via alternative sources like tofu (I served my mission in Taiwan, so I became a fan), rice and beans (long known to form a complete protein), etc.  However, this year she is both on the high school dance team and the swim team.  And she's 15 years old.  So she's growing, and has recently returned to eating meat.  Not only that, whereas she was previously telling us that she found the consumption of mean "gross" (particularly beef), recently she has been craving it and finding it delicious (I took her to In N Out last week for her first burger in about 2 years, and she really enjoyed it).  Her falling off the wagon (which she was never really fully on in the first place) was not surprising, as the vast majority of those who try a vegan or vegetarian diet revert back to consuming meat.

The Word of Wisdom has categorical prohibitions (alcohol, coffee/tea, tobacco (consumption)) and broad endorsements (wholesome herbs, grains, fruit of the vine).  Meat, though, seems to be in a separate "yes, but 'sparingly'" category.  So here are my questions:

1. What, in your view, does "sparingly" mean in the context of eating meat?

2. Has the instruction regarding eating meat "only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine" been lessened by, as the above quote from the church manual notes, "{m}odern methods of refrigeration" and other considerations (other preservation methods such as canning/jarring, freeze drying, etc.)?

3. Can/ought we consider reducing or moderating meat consumption so as to mitigate A) the environmental costs of large-scale livestock farming / animal husbandry, and B) the number of animals killed for our consumption?

Thanks,

-Smac

From Webster's Dictionary 1828:

SPA'RINGLY, adverb

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.

I would say, as part of a well-balanced diet, one serving of meat per day (compared to 5 - 7 of fruits and vegetables, plus another 5 -7 grain, legumes, dairy, etc., can be considered "sparingly." No single food group should be in excess or out of proportion to the others. But in times of winter, cold and famine, it is justifiable to make meat a larger part of the diet. I think preservation helps under both conditions, and it is good to be good stewards both personally and in relation to the larger environment and economy. I think industrial-scale livestock production has some environmental/moral implications to weigh against the demands of a well-balanced diet and famine.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

1. What, in your view, does "sparingly" mean in the context of eating meat?

I don't really think of "sparingly" in this context to mean infrequently. I think of it more along the lines of in a manner which conserves that which is remaining.

 

Quote

2. Has the instruction regarding eating meat "only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine" been lessened by, as the above quote from the church manual notes, "{m}odern methods of refrigeration" and other considerations (other preservation methods such as canning/jarring, freeze drying, etc.)?

I believe so.

 

Quote

3. Can/ought we consider reducing or moderating meat consumption so as to mitigate A) the environmental costs of large-scale livestock farming / animal husbandry, and B) the number of animals killed for our consumption?

I believe that God delights in all kinds of life. We have been given the right to use these creations for our own purposes with thanksgiving, and I think that's something we sometimes (often?) forget. It's easy to become casual about it, especially when you aren't the one making the sausage, so to speak.

 

[LoudmouthMormon]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'd like to have a discussion about the two verses in the Word of Wisdom pertaining to meat:

Quote

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;
13 And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.

 

Commas make life harder.  
 

 

v13.   "they should not be used, only in times of winter..."   Note the comma after used.   Said another way, "Don't use them.  Unless it's winter/cold/famine."

Look at the original manuscript.

 

Look closer: 

 

Closer:

 

 

The original said "they should not be used only in times of winter..."    Said another way, "Don't just use these in winter."

 

 

 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

 

Commas make life harder.  
 

 

v13.   "they should not be used, only in times of winter..."   Note the comma after used.   Said another way, "Don't use them.  Unless it's winter/cold/famine."

Look at the original manuscript.

 

Look closer: 

 

Closer:

 

 

The original said "they should not be used only in times of winter..."    Said another way, "Don't just use these in winter."

 

 

 

I've heard this argument before, that the comma has messed up the interpretation.  It's an interesting idea. 

Do we know why the comma was added or who added it?  It could easily be that the comma was added so that the wording matched the intent as JS understood it.  Or, the comma might have been added by someone long after the fact who interpreted the the verse in a specific way and added the comma to match their beliefs in what the intent was supposed to be.

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

The original said "they should not be used only in times of winter..."    Said another way, "Don't just use these in winter."

Why would the Lord need to tell that to the church?  Were there problems at the time with people only eating meat during the winter?

It makes more sense to me that Joseph Smith and his scribes just didn't know how to use punctuation correctly. 

I don't even know how to use punctuation correctly and I think I have more education than all of them combined.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

 

Commas make life harder.  
 

 

v13.   "they should not be used, only in times of winter..."   Note the comma after used.   Said another way, "Don't use them.  Unless it's winter/cold/famine."

Yep.  "Don't use them unless" doesn't quite jibe with v. 12, or with D&C 49:18-19.

5 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Look at the original manuscript.

Look closer: 

Closer:

The original said "they should not be used only in times of winter..."    Said another way, "Don't just use these in winter."

Huh.  The absence of a comma rather reverses the interpretation, doesn't it?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

We have ways these days to measure the actual nutritional needs of the body as well as healthy ways to get them. Some individual experimentation is needed, imo, to suit difference metabolism needs, so not a one size fits all situation.  I would therefore in these days define sparingly as not eating meat in too much excess of our own nutritional need for it.

I have tried to be vegetarian, using combining of proteins (which doesn’t need to be in the same meal or as rigid as some older diets thought) and I find I just get too weak and shaky even with vitamin supplementation. However, having a variety of meats in a day has its own problems. I find I do best limiting my diet to fish for my meat protein if everything else is well balanced.  Otoh, I have gone low carb one or twice and that really worked well in terms of energy and controlling anxiety eating, but impossible to do if I am not doing the shopping and most of the cooking.  I know some who do fine if they include eggs, others do best with beef and many manage being vegetarian just fine, though may make exception with pregnancy and nursing or for temporary health needs.

 Can’t convince my husband to do the same for either  of my best diets with him as the homemaker and my daughter dislikes fish and loves grains, so probably won’t ever live either way consistently again, at least not unless a lot of things change. 
 

So in this point and time sparingly means I don’t use meat to fill me up, but enough so I am not constantly hungry and I depend on greens as much as possible. 
 

There have been many cultures that use meat more like a condiment than the focus of a meal. I suspect we will likely end up with science finding a way to minimize meat production using it maybe as an additive for taste and texture while satisfying people’s desires, but wouldn’t be surprised if a massive steak or lobster remains a sign of wealth or indulgence.  I have had to switch to low sodium and for years have avoided sweets for the most part and now I am finding many salty products are just too much and sweets taste tasteless as the sugar overwhelms the more interesting subtler flavors. Could eat raspberries and grapes and dried mango by the bucketful though.  So “needs” are often just what we have trained ourselves to prefer, imo, and it wouldn’t harm us to work at using less of many products.
 

Recommendations for salt guidelines for restaurants have dropped, btw, if you weren’t paying attention due to the stress salt can put on kidneys.  Sodium intake builds up quite quickly if using almost any prepared food.

 https://www.everydayhealth.com/diet-nutrition/fda-asks-restaurants-and-food-manufacturers-to-use-less-salt/

[JAHS]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've heard this argument before, that the comma has messed up the interpretation.  It's an interesting idea. 

Do we know why the comma was added or who added it?  It could easily be that the comma was added so that the wording matched the intent as JS understood it.  Or, the comma might have been added by someone long after the fact who interpreted the the verse in a specific way and added the comma to match their beliefs in what the intent was supposed to be.

The original 1835 edition of the Book of Commandments, also leaves out the comma.   No one knows for sure who put the comma in there for subsequent editions , only that it was inserted by an editor (possibly James E. Talmadge in 1921)who was preparing the text for a new printing. Researchers are unaware of any direction from Church authorities to make the change. Regardless of this, the previous verse does say we should eat meat "sparingly".

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

29 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

 

Why would the Lord need to tell that to the church?  Were there problems at the time with people only eating meat during the winter?

Iirc, there were some fad diets that restricted meat intake at the time. Need to do research to refresh my memory. Maybe Kellogg?  Edited:  nope, he was later. 

Edited November 16, 2021 by Calm

[rongo]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

I'm pretty sure that would fall into the "evils and designs which do, and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days" category.  

German members in the mid 1990s were wary of imported Dutch vegetables because they were raised in the winter in greenhouses using hydroponics. They pointed to the wording in the Word of Wisdom "in the season thereof," and argued that these monstrosities were out of season (and grown sometimes in a chemical bath instead of soil). 

But the Japanese fecal burgers are a whole other thing entirely. 

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

I suspect we will likely end up with science finding a way to minimize meat production using it maybe as an additive for taste and texture while satisfying people’s desires

I think we could do this now, but the trick is to get people to change their diets, which I don't see happening quickly.  What's on the grocery store shelves will only change when it becomes profitable for the corporations making the food to change.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Unless BBQ somehow becomes not delicious in the next century, I suspect my grandchildren will find a way to live with it.

 

I don’t think there is anything unethical about eating animals. I think the way we decide to treat animals is pretty horrible. I think this a problem we will solve over the next few decades and when we look back it will be with horror. Not that we ate animals. But that we treated beings that feel so horribly while they were alive. 

Edited November 16, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding