Cydonia

Members
  • Posts

    37
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Cydonia's Achievements

  1. It says flesh of beasts, not meat. That doesn't require a definition. You haven't even re-read the Word of Wisdom, or this thread (since we already discussed that). And yet you're commenting with a spirit of contention and making up arguments. Why?
  2. Why is there an argument? Why is so much of this thread being held in the spirit of contention? Why did D&C 89's statement to eat meat sparingly get ignored when other statements were magnified to cover what they originally didn't?
  3. So you choose not to follow the Word of Wisdom because you love those things of this world and following the word of wisdom "perfectly" is not a priority? I fear that could be a common answer.
  4. Why would I need to have this discussion during a temple recommend interview? I don't drink beer. I'm trying to not ignore the words of the Prophet. The word of God (D&C 89) says beer is OK and meat should be eaten sparingly. But we don't follow that. Later prophets have said varying things about meat and "liquor" or "drink", but none have presented those statements as revelations. And liquor/hard drinks are different than beer. So why do we have meat at every ward meal when meat is to be eaten sparingly? Why is drinking one beer in a two year time period worse than having meat for every meal all 730 days in those two years? That's not what the D&C says. I want to follow what God says. Why don't most others?
  5. Just to follow that up. Just looked up liquor. It says "distilled spirits." As MarginofError pointed out "Beer is not a distilled spirit."
  6. Pam. I was at a Catholic wedding once and went up to the bar (this was before I was LDS). I said, "I need some liquor." The bartender (honest to God) replied "We don't have any liquor." I pointed to the beer and corrected myself, "I'll have a beer." (That is a really, honestly, true story.) I feel like most everyone else is picking and choosing answers instead of what D&C 89 says.
  7. Excellent. You're both ahead of the curve. But what about at every ward meal then, as said later in that post. That is not "sparingly" by any common sense definition. Any more than having ice cream (whether one scoop or two) at every ward is sparingly if the Prophet said "Eat ice cream sparingly."
  8. That's interesting, but doesn't mention beer or that eating meat should be done regularly. I disagree that sparingly needs to be defined because the standard now is to have meat with every meal. That's not sparingly. If I said, "Eat ice cream sparingly" and you had a bowl with every meal, that's not sparingly. So eating meat sparingly, using the common sense rule, would mean the same thing as eating ice cream sparingly. Now if we weren't doing it for every meal, or even 2 meals a day, then sparingly might get a little more open for question. Is eating it once a day sparingly? Maybe. But certainly if the Prophet says "Eat ice cream sparingly" and yet wards never serve a meal without ice cream, then there's a discrepancy there.
  9. Thank you, Vort. Your feeling that I am going to "hell" though I break no church rules or requirements and simply am asking a question is noted.
  10. Pam, read the whole post that I quoted and it should clear up your confusion. Misshalfway, Hinckley said that we should not have caffeine, but we still go with the coffee and tea understanding. This is done because Hinckley's statement was not "revelation" (at least that is the answer I've always heard). So the statement of prophets regarding things is not considered revelation unless given as revelation. No further revelation seems to have been made to supersede the D&C 89 revelation. So why do we not follow it?
  11. What are you talking about? The D&C doesn't say meat. It says flesh of beasts. In regards to "splitting hairs," I feel I'm doing just the opposite. The common mild barley beverage drunk in the midwest at the time of the D&C 89 revelation was beer. So we can discuss Japanese teas made of barley all we want. But Brigham Young knew "hot drinks" meant coffee and tea because that was common sense. That's what they had to drink that was hot. Hot drinks doesn't include hot chocolate because that was not a common commodity amongst the saints at the revelation of "WoW." So to say meat good, bear bad, is to construct a "split hair" argument built around the meaning of "sparingly" and that some cultures far removed from our own use barley to make tea. But if you take the very clear statements at face value, as Brigham Young perscribed, then they say beer's OK and meat should only be used in times of famine and cold. So why do we not take D&C 89 at face value?
  12. Sacrament I'm not as concerned about because the D&C only says that we can use wine, it doesn't say we have to. Nor does the current church say we "can't" necessarily. It's just that we don't. The reason I'm willing to accept hot drinks as coffee and tea is the same as the reason that mild beverage made from barley means beer. (See earlier in the thread.) D&C 89 says it's not a commandment. The church does not say it is a commandment. They only make it a requirement to be baptized, hold a leadership position, enter the temple, etc. When did the church say it was a commandment? Where I'm coming from: It doesn't sit well with me that God said one thing, we do another, and then we say we "Just do it because God said so." No, what God said so, we are not doing. Why?
  13. Me, too. And what God said is beer is OK and meat should be eaten sparingly. I'm following the meat being eaten sparingly part. And I don't drink beer whether it's OK or not. So I'm covered. But a lot of people aren't following D&C 89. Why?
  14. It doesn't seem like I'm trying to justify anything, because I don't drink beer and I do eat meat sparingly. What I am trying to reconcile is that what the D&C says does not follow with what we practice. Nor does there seem to be any other clear cut statement from God saying that we should do something other than what is in D&C 89. PS. We don't believe in hell.