person0

Makes sense.
I have no problem with someone "erring" according to my interpretation while I'm "erring" according to theirs. There's a reason these things haven't been defined. As long as we're not erring according to the prophet's and apostles official interpretation of the Word of Wisdom and we're doing our best to generally live healthy to our best understanding of things I'd say we're keeping it. I have a pretty big problem with others trying to express their personal opinions about how to keep the word of wisdom beyond these ideas: Don't use alcohol, tobacco, coffee, tea, or illegal drugs, and do your best to generally take care of yourself. Done and done.

Honestly, I take the entire subject of how to correctly interpret the WoW, as an exercise in loving my fellow man and not judging.  We get so passionate about it (myself included).  There are so many vagueries to be interpreted in so many different, but rational ways.  No definitive discussion-ending clarifications from the brethren, just general council to be healthy and don't ingest harmful substances.  
Plus, the reason the whole thing is here for us in the first place:
- A Word of Wisdom, for the benefit of the...saints in Zion
- not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation
- Given for a principle with promise
- adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints
- In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days
Doesn't sound like the whole thing is a "thou shalt or be damned" type of thing.  More like a "you have enemies, so here is wisdom - follow it and be blessed - I know some of you are weak" sort of thing. 
Anyway, yo mamma so Mormon she bottles her own Pepsi!  Peace.

That's not quite how it works.  We did not yet need redemption when we lived in God's presence.  It's more along the lines of God saying - You guys need progression, you need a body.  I am going to send you to earth so you can get a body and learn to be more like me. -  God did it because he wanted us to have the opportunity to learn and grow.
Also, some did sin in His presence.  Lucifer and those who followed after him were cast out, they never came to earth.  They died spiritually, forever, and can never return to God's presence.
Side Note:  Technically 'pre-existence' is incorrect terminology; the correct term is pre-mortal existence.

Your implication that a perfect daily diet is required is.....well, frankly weird. I mean maybe you're not implying it but just rhetorically asking. Still a weird idea to me.
Sure it is. As long as one takes a reasonable position that doing one's best is the best one can do.
Once again...kind of a weird idea.
Was it not clear that when I said we don't err at all that I meant spiritually by looking beyond the mark? Should have been.
Shrug. Same diff to me. Looking beyond the mark is looking beyond the mark. That being said, I'm not going to fault someone who makes a sincere effort to obey something they believe God is asking them to do -- unless it leads them to a state that is beyond reason and harms them somehow. But I tend to agree with you.

Here you go.  Just print him, cut him out, and stick him with your temple recommend and I'm sure he'll make it to the millennium.

Okay. Well, I guess I'm going to go with there will be basilisks living on earth during the Millennium.

You have a good one too. When you find some real proof, you let me know.

Prove it.

No.  I'm just teenagerishly entrenched in the notion that I should be able to do so if I wished, without condemnation, and any negative consequence suffered would be WoW's fault and not mine.  

I think it will make it easier to answer your questions/concerns if we understand your belief about God's purpose.  In your belief, why did God create mankind?
I want to elaborate by relating certain mainstream Christian views from my LDS paradigm to help you understand why that is an important question.
If there is no pre-mortal life, then Adam and Eve's existence began only at the moment God breathed into them the breath of life.  God placed Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden and gave them a commandment to not partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  In the moment God created them, was their body sinful?  Or was it only sinful after after they ate the fruit?  If it was already sinful, then God just forced the creatures he loves into that position and then blamed them for being sinners.  If the body was only sinful after they ate the fruit, why did God create the fruit in the first place?
Going beyond that, most Christians for some reason tend to believe that if Adam and Eve had not eaten the fruit we would all be born in the garden of Eden, in a perfect and sinless world.  If you also come from that view, just because Adam and Eve didn't eat the fruit, what makes you think you would also not eat the fruit?  Is it not reasonable to conclude that eventually, of the billions of people born to earth, one of us would have eaten it?
If God is a loving God who would not force his creatures into such a position and then blame them, do you believe that people who don't accept Christ because they are not aware of Him are going to hell, or will somehow get another chance?  If they don't get another chance, how did God not force that upon them without the appropriate opportunity?
When considering the concept of original sin:  If God is a loving God, how come just because Adam and Eve at the fruit, I had to be born with the stain of sin even before making a single choice?  Why didn't God make each of us separately and put us in the garden 1 at a time to choose for ourselves to eat or not eat the fruit?
I am not trying to argue, but instead to give you some food for thought which could help open your mind to another way of thinking.  As you can see, the answers to these questions (and others not asked) depend heavily on your perception of why God created us in the first place.  Depending on your perspective, you might already believe in a God who would force his creatures into situations and still blame them; even worse would be not having an answer to reconcile the 'why'.

That was a very compelling article.  I both agree and disagree with aspects of it.  Just for fun, here are a few parts I really, really liked:
I can appreciate both sides of the argument, but in a world where way too many people are advocating for complete vegetarianism, veganism, animal rights above human rights, etc, I would much rather err on the side of encouraging people to eat meat too frequently than to err on the side of teaching them to avoid meat too much.  I think most people who make the argument as you have done (not necessarily you) tend to err on the side of advocating too little meat consumption.  If the Lord feels enough of the Saints are over-consuming meat, I'm confident his apostles and prophets will clarify.

And it gets even weirder in section 49.  18-19:
Meat, ordained for man, for food and raiment, in abundance.  Use it sparingly, but have it in abundance.  It's enough to make even the most opinionated of message-board arguers like me, wonder what position I'm actually supposed to be entrenching myself in.
 
 

Your interpretation is entirely reasonable, however, Ezra Taft Benson interpreted 'these' from verse 15 to refer to the wild animals, not farm animals (livestock), and the Church published it in the Ensign.
This same statement was reprinted in the Ensign in 1994 and in 2000.  There is currently no other prophetic/apostolic interpretation published by the Church of this verse, so I will personally accept this one.  To me this is also the most logical conclusion as to not create a contradiction with previous verses in section 89 as well as the verses in section 49 shown in my post above.

Here's a screen shot from the scriptures at lds.org today:

Indeed - there's a comma between "used" and "only".  It surely indicates it's pleasing unto God that meat should not be used, except for this or that thing.  Important comma. 
But take a look at the original manuscript:



The comma didn't used to be there.  I forget which version of D&C printing it happened, but it happened.  And the D&C was originally printed, and went through several re-printings without the comma:

 
So as God originally revealed it, it's pleasing unto him that meat not be used only in those times.  Meaning it's pleasing unto him that meat is used at times in addition to winter/cold/famine.  
Meaning, I get to eat meat tonight.  It's 85 degrees outside, and I'm eating meat, and not violating the WoW in letter or spirit.
(Of course, all the other points made about this set of verses, prudence/thanksgiving/sparingly, are totally valid.  It's really easy to eat meat in quantities no reasonable person could possibly call "sparingly", much less "prudent".  

That's not quite how it works.  We did not yet need redemption when we lived in God's presence.  It's more along the lines of God saying - You guys need progression, you need a body.  I am going to send you to earth so you can get a body and learn to be more like me. -  God did it because he wanted us to have the opportunity to learn and grow.
Also, some did sin in His presence.  Lucifer and those who followed after him were cast out, they never came to earth.  They died spiritually, forever, and can never return to God's presence.
Side Note:  Technically 'pre-existence' is incorrect terminology; the correct term is pre-mortal existence.

I interpret that in your use of the word organic your intended definition is that of a living soul: 'spirit and element combined'.  The spirit is that which gives life to the body.  There is no official doctrinal reference that would indicate to us if the combination of spirit and element is uncreated; however, from the lyrics presented above, it is clear that one could never find the beginning of Gods.   The term 'man' could also potentially be interpreted to include God since he is also man.  There is no official answer, but it will be a fun question to learn the answer to one of these days when my mind is ready to handle it.
How would you define 'dead matter?'  I think you mean inanimate matter as used before.  Either way, honestly, I don't really care if he did it all at once or over time, or if he used a super high-tech celestial 3D printer.  That said, Moses did use God's power to quickly trans-mutate a stick into a serpent; it kind of happened 'all at once'.  Unless Moses/Aaron actually just pulled a super fast slight of hand trick and swapped the snake out there.  
I'd say this guy is way far out on the speculation train.  The way you have worded this postulation would mean that homo-sapiens did not have spirits, which in my understanding would mean they were not actual living beings, which to me doesn't sound like something rational within the scope of established doctrine.
I believe you are interpreting this correctly.  No death whatsoever before the fall.
I have stated before in this forum that it is not necessarily an illogical position on either side.  Personally, however, I think that it is clear from the extant Church materials that evolution involving death is not within the scope of canonical doctrine.  I will teach my children not to accept the theories of evolution as truth, but to learn and understand them for purposes of knowledge and understanding as needed in the world.  I will also teach them that if one day we learn there is a truthful reconciliation between the accounts of the creation and the process of evolution then that will be wonderful, but until such occurs (if ever), the account of the creation we have through scriptures and modern prophetic revelations is the truth.

The revelation does not directly define the word sparingly at all.
I would recommend reading the Joseph Smith Papers version of the manuscript, perhaps it could alter your interpretation somewhat.  I will show you verse 13 as it is currently printed and as it was in the manuscript:
The addition or removal of the coma can change the entire interpretation.
Many people living at the time the word of wisdom was given suffered from scurvy for a high meat or all meat diet.  I think the point of the word of wisdom regarding meat is moderation.  Sparingly can mean many things depending on the context.  If all you eat is meat, then sparingly could mean now meat is 25% of your diet instead of 100%.
Remember we also have this revelation:

I know we're supposed to be nice to the mormonhub articles...but...seriously? Greenhouse tomatoes are against the Word of Wisdom now?

"Every herb in the season thereof, and every fruit in the season thereof;"
Yeah, count me as someone who thinks of that as merely common-sense guidance about when to harvest, not when to consume.  I'd like to make a $5 bet.  Someone figure out a way to bring a Mormon from agricultural frontier America here to the future.  Let's voice the notion that this scripture advocates we only eat wheat during the period it's harvestable, or fruit only during when you can pick it.  I bet $5 they'd laugh in your face.   Preserving food is preserving life.  It's what lets humans survive from harvest to harvest.  
Either that, or it's a commandment to only live in areas with year-round growing seasons, or maybe a meat-only diet except for a few short weeks scattered across 4-5 months of the year.  Either way, Utah is hosed.

Approaching Zion, Hugh Nibley, Chapter 3 "Zeal without Knowledge", immediately after covering the fact that mortal man can only think about one thing at a time (italics mine):
To me, the reason we do not remember pre-mortality is the same - it would hinder our ability to fully exercise agency.  This is also why I believe we will not remember pre-mortality before the resurrection - if we did, there would be no need to preach the gospel in the post-mortal spirit world - the memory of life with God would be overwhelming.

Wow.  That is pretty much word for word my opinion on the matter.  Which reminds me of this:

I'm going to continue to play 'angels advocate' here.  So then if an artist takes pictures of your [insert relative] in various different nude poses, it's not porn as long as they are alone?  If porn is in the eye of the beholder then wouldn't it be something that should be treated similar to the Word of Wisdom?  Not all people drink alcohol irresponsibly, or even to the detriment of their health, but the law still forbids it to all of us.  Not all naked images will sexually arouse everyone, but I can assure you there must be a few people out there who would be aroused by a renaissance nude painting.
Not all nude imagery is porn; however, most of it is.  I refrained from the conversation up until this point because I really liked and agreed with @Vort's OP and perspective and didn't think there was much to add.  There is reasonable applicable need for nude imagery for medical and similar purposes.  However, those can be obtained during medically appropriate situations.
The Church's definition is:
I don't know what the artists intention was.  Also, I think the other question needs to be addressed: how was it not wrong for the woman to pose nude for the painting in the first place?  If it was wrong for her to pose, does that not translate to it being wrong for me to view?

You are mistaken about Mormon doctrine.

What I was trying to say was:
 

But not in this forum.