Aelswyth

I agree; as the Word of Wisdom says, these herbs should be used with prudence, not indiscriminately, because certainly some of them do contain powerful medicinal compounds. And certainly there are modern medicines which are very valuable, if not indispensable in many cases. I am of the view, however, that pharmaceutical drugs should be used as a last resort, if they are found necessary after one has applied the natural remedies. No "hard drugs" should be taken lightly. Many people do find that natural substances are extremely beneficial to mood imbalances, but there are also many whose problems are too severe and who are better served by medications such as your Lamotrigine. If that works for you, more power to you! :)

Tubaloth, your avatar is mesmerizing! I get stuck staring at it! I agree with your conclusions for the most part, but in terms of what we are discussing I think they have limited applicability, because Adam and Eve in the garden were not just spirits, they were clothed with imperishable bodies. They were physical beings, and as such they must have required nourishment. Spirits/souls, yes, I believe they take their nourishment from more intangible sources, but I believe those sources are within the same physical substances we consume to nourish our bodies. Plants have spirits, they have life-force; while the vitamins, minerals, proteins and fiber of the plant nourish the body, perhaps the intangible life-force of the plant feeds the soul. That is why it is not currently practical for humans to live entirely on "dead" foods and bottled supplements, because without that intangible life-force, the mere physical compounds are unable to sustain vibrant health and well-being. I agree that our spirits will be/are nourished by the Spirit; but I believe that Spirit permeates all things and is therefore "taken in" through everything we consume, be it air, food, sunlight, or direct communication with the Divine. What will nourish us after resurrection, I know not; but since D&C (?which section?) tells us that after death we will discover spirit to be just a finer form of matter, I'm inclined to speculate that things will be much the same, with "finer matter" pears, plums, spinach and carrots; and of course, the beauty of no death or decay. But only God knows for sure.

First off, "tea" is only correctly applied to drinks made from the actual tea-leaf, Camellia sinensis. All other herbal infusions are correctly termed "tisanes", not "tea". Secondly, almost all herbs, and other edible substances, have "medicinal" value to some extent or other. They are not medicines; they are foods with medicinal value, meaning they are substances which nourish in times of health and help heal in times of sickness. As the father of medicine, Hippocrates, famously said, "Let your food be your medicine and your medicine be food." Throughout human history, herbs have been studied and used by humans. There was a time when all people knew the uses, both medicinal and non-medicinal, of the God-given herbs of the earth. Later, this knowledge was maintained by a class of people, herbalists/witches/wizards/cunning folk, who shared their knowledge with those who asked and acted as the doctors of their people. Now, very few people lay claim to the knowledge of natural medicines, preferring to hand over the care of their health to "professionals" and the FDA. I think that's really too bad. We should all have a basic knowledge of these things, just as the WoW states we should use the herbs of the earth with prudence. How can we exercise prudence in what we put into our bodies if we no longer even seek that knowledge but leave it up to "others" and consume substances we have no understanding of except that it's FDA approved??? The medicines in herbs may not be standardized, but they are packaged together in the most beneficial way, as compounds that are supposed to go together for our benefit, and which can only be dangerous when consumed in unlikely amounts, rather than one ingredient extracted, processed, concentrated, put in a little bottle completely isolated from the other substances that enhance its medicinal properties, and made so powerful that a small overdose can be dangerous or even fatal. Right now I am 7 weeks pregnant and experiencing some bleeding, known as a "threatened miscarriage". I also experienced this with my first daughter, and thanks to my knowledge of natural remedies, I was able to drink red raspberry leaf tea and help stave off the possible loss of my pregnancy. I am drinking a cup or two daily now, and the bleeding is gradually tapering off. In a couple of days I will hopefully find that my pregnancy is continuing just fine (although there's always the chance it is doomed due to some chromosomal abnormality). Now, a mainstream doctor would not be able to offer any advice on this except to rest and take it easy. Because of my knowledge of this herbal lore thousands and thousands of years old in the traditions of our ancestors, I can be proactive in my own care rather than just a passive patient who feels at a loss. There is a passage I like from the Deuterocanonical book of Sirach, chapter 38, verses 4 to 9, which praises natural medicine: 4 The Lord hath created medicines out of the earth; and he that is wise will not abhor them. 5 Was not the water made sweet with wood, that the virtue thereof might be known? 6 And he hath given men skill, that he might be honoured in his marvellous works. 7 With such doth he heal [men,] and taketh away their pains. 8 Of such doth the herbalist make a confection; and of his works there is no end; and from him is peace over all the earth, 9 My son, in thy sickness be not negligent: but pray unto the Lord, and he will make thee whole.

The thing with this is, there are people who can drink an occasional beer and be fine. There are people who can't. The "demon" is therefore not in the drink, but in the person. Some people just have what is called an "addictive personality". Heber J. Grant was obviously one of them. He became easily addicted to coffee, and then to beer. Knowing this about him, it's also probable that he experienced addictive behavior regarding other things as well. People can become addicted to almost anything if they get some kind of pay-off from it. With coffee it's the kick. With alcohol it's the fuzzying of the sharp edges. With sex, gambling and extreme sports it's the rush. I know I have an addictive personality. I experienced it in my teens with both alcohol and sex. I drank heavily two or three nights a week between the ages of 16 and 19, and was unfaithful to both the boyfriends I had during that period (in a way that felt compulsive, like I "couldn't help it"). But I've also managed to break myself of both those addictions (years prior to discovering the Church) and for several years now have been perfectly capable of both marital fidelity and stopping at one beer. I have a strong will, and I diligently exercise it in these things. Now that I'm in the Church I don't drink, because of the temple requirements; I don't agree that beer is included in the intention of the WoW, but I abide by it anyway. At any rate, I fully accept that the demon was not in the drink, but in me; and somehow, through sheer willpower and the promptings of the Holy Spirit, I was able to drive it out and reclaim my personal sovereignty. I believe we all have that ability, but most would rather succumb to their weakness than experience the pain of flexing the under-used muscle of their will. It may not be politically correct, but I have no doubt that ongoing addiction is a personal failing, not a victimizing "disease".

Hehe, you haven't seen me drink a Mountain Dew! I have to avoid that stuff like the plague, Pepsi and Coke, too. Ugh. Talk about a bad reaction! :)

Middle Earth (or actually, Midgard) is the ancient Norse/Germanic/Anglo-Saxon name for the ordinary world of men. It's called Middle Earth because it's in between the realm of Heavenly Father and the gods (Asgard/Heofon) and the underworld of the spirits where the ancestors reside after death (Hell). As most people know, Tolkien used the traditional mythology and cosmology of the ancient Germanic tribes in constructing the world of "The Hobbit" and "Lord of the RIngs". Some of our religious terminology comes from here too, including "God", "Heaven" and "Hell" (though that one was/is misapplied to mean a place of suffering, which was actually called Niflhell). The ancient Germanic world-view was remarkably similar to ancient Hebrew and LDS views. Heaven; the Spirit World; Heavenly Father (Tiwaz Fader) and his council of gods; aelfs (meaning "white ones", elves/angels); the immortality of the soul; spirits of animals and plants; Satan (Loki/Fenrir the Wolf); the creation of the first man and woman, Asc and Embla, from earthly elements (trees, in this case); and even prophecies of the Great Sacrifice, told on three different levels: one of Woden, who hung on a tree for nine nights, wounded with a spear in his side, journeyed to the Spirit World and conquered death to gain true knowledge; one of his son, Balder ("the good and beloved god"), who was killed by his blind brother, Hoder (the blind Jews and Romans, "forgive them, Lord, they know not what they do") due to the treachery of Loki (Satan), but who would someday be resurrected to Heaven to rule over the renewed creation; and one of Heavenly Father Himself, Tiwaz Fader, who gave his right hand to the jaws of the Wolf Fenrir (Satan/Death) in order to bind him and prevent the destruction of the world. Sounds pretty familiar, huh? Echoes of the truth, but the significance forgotten.

I believe there were real unicorns, but they looked pretty different than what the image eventually evolved into. Check out the elasmotherium. Especially note the "Possible Historical Witnesses" part; it should raise serious questions about the reliability of "scientific" extinction dates!

Okay, dear Shadow, I'm done with this. I honestly don't think this can be a fruitful discussion, since you are adamant in your position and aren't interested in learning anything else; your sole reason for being here seems to be to "prove" that you're right and we're wrong, and your method of doing so is simply by regurgitating the usual Nicene-Christian interpretation of the Bible, all the while maintaining that it is NOT an interpretation but rather the ONLY RIGHT WAY to read the scriptures. You ignore mountains of extra-Biblical evidence that explains and expounds on various Biblical passages, because it does so in ways you don't like and don't agree with. You see only the parts you want to see, and you read into them only what you want to read there, and you willfully ignore things that support our position or deliberately misinterpret them in the most convoluted way possible. The fact remains that Biblical scholars have discovered many, many things to support LDS doctrines, things that show modern "mainstream" Christian doctrine to be at considerable variance with what the early church actually believed and practiced. So, if one person can only point to the Bible and their own interpretation of it, while another can point to the Bible, their interpretation of it AND mountains of extra-Biblical evidence to support it -- well, I know which side I'd be on. I don't find your tactics here to be a respectful position to take on an LDS forum. I'm currently on semi-bed-rest to stave off a threatened miscarriage, so I think I'll spare myself the aggravation and just say, thank you, I'm done. P.S. As for what I've been taught from birth, I was raised in mainstream Nicene Christianity, as an active Anglican, and it never made even the slightest bit of sense. From a very early age I noticed many discrepancies between the beliefs and practices and what the Bible actually says. Since leaving home and church at 15, I've studied and/or practiced the following religious traditions: Reform Judaism, Karaite Judaism, Messianic Judaism, mainstream Islam, progressive Islam, Saivite Hinduism, Wicca, Ebionite Christianity, Sikhism, the Baha'i Faith, Swedenborgian Christianity, Catholicism, traditional Maori religion, Zoroastrianism, classical Greek paganism (Hellenismos), classical Roman paganism(Religio Romana), Stoicism, Taoism, Shinto, Norse Heathenry (Asatru), and finally, just before discovering the LDS Church, Anglo-Celtic Heathenry. Upon discovering the LDS Church, I had three dominating feelings: 1, this finally makes sense of the Bible; 2, this is in harmony with my deepest convictions; and 3, this gospel contains the best of every religion I've ever explored and puts them all together to make one beautiful tapestry of truth, showing that the world's religions are the confused but discernible remnants of what was once a universally-known truth. The LDS faith embraces the whole world in its arms, showing the original richness of God's plan and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, in stark contrast to the oppositional stance of traditional Christianity. So, that is what I know.

Interesting perspective. If that's true for SSI, then wouldn't it also be true for the subsistence income of everyone? Meaning, the tithe would be on what one earns over and above one's subsistence needs (food, rent/mortgage, power). Which seems to me like what is actually meant by "increase". Stuff you need to survive isn't exactly increase, nor is stuff you already own. In Biblical times, and in fact for much of human history until relatively recent times, people owned their land and home outright, not paying rent or mortgage on it. A flock of sheep would only be tithed on new arrivals (1 out of every 10 lambs), not on the whole flock every year. Tithing was payed on what one earned, not on what one already owned. So home and land, and other existing assets, could not be tithed. In modern times, since inheriting homes has become rare and our economic system has made it almost impossible for people to buy land and home outright, the equivalent of the home is the money that pays for it. To create a true equivalency to the ancient law of tithing, it seems one would have to exclude that basic subsistence money and pay tithing on what one receives above and beyond one's needs.

Although current Church doctrine is that all alcoholic beverages are forbidden, in the past the Word of Wisdom was interpreted differently. Some have noted that it is "strong drinks" which are forbidden and that "mild drinks" made from barley are permissible; in the old days "strong drink" referred to hard liquor and distilled spirits, while "mild drink" referred to lower-alcohol fermented beverages like beer (which was often barely considered alcohol). Several General Authorities in the past (the Apostles Brigham Young Jr. and John Henry Smith as recently as 1901) have asserted that beer is thus allowed, and this was also apparently the view taken by Joseph Smith himself. Around the turn of the century the view generally became that all alcoholic beverages were to be avoided, but strict adherence was still not enforced, and many leaders in the church did not keep the Word of Wisdom perfectly. Only in 1921 was strict adherence to the Word of Wisdom made a requirement for temple attendance, as the Church was influenced by Prohibitionist propaganda and allied itself with the movement.

Jesus was composed of a pre-existing divine spirit and a mortal body. The distinctive thing in LDS doctrine is that so is everyone. Jesus was just like us, but because of his nature as the One prepared to be the Savior of the world, he was able to live a perfect, sinless life and conquer death to become the "first fruits" of resurrection and theosis (meaning deification or becoming a god). We all have this same potential, to follow in his footsteps and achieve exaltation.

Exactly. I'd forgotten that little tidbit, thanks Moksha. :)

Who said anything about a stupor? You obviously have your own preconceived biases against the idea of sacred herb use and are giving a knee-jerk reaction without really thinking about the possibility at all. But, I expected that would be the most common reaction, coming from the background most of us do. As for labeling such ideas "anti-supernaturalism", well, that depends entirely on where one draws the line, if any, between natural and supernatural. In the LDS Church, we don't define that line as hard and fast as some other denominations. Personally, I think the use of a sacred herb to open up the lines of direct communication with God certainly qualifies as one of those things that falls into both camps. Any time God communicates with man He has to use some kind of "natural" conduit to do so. A bush, fire, smoke... simply appearing to someone requires His Presence in the natural world. Everything we perceive is through our mind. God made everything, both the "physical" and the "spiritual". LDS scriptures teach that there is no discontinuity between matter and spirit, it's an illusion of our limited mortal perspective. So, clearly, rejecting an idea on the basis that it utilizes natural means to a spiritual end is not so safe as it might first appear. LDS scriptures also teach that all living thing have spirits and were created for a purpose, even plants. Does God creating little spirit plants to provide man with a means of directly experiencing and encountering the Divine count as "supernatural"? Seems like it to me. I'm not saying it's true. I reserve judgment. But I don't think dismissing it out of hand based on our own enculturation biases as 21st century Americans is really the humble and seeking response of the wise man, either.

A mild ginger tea is okay, and can help settle nausea; but it's probably a good idea not to make it really strong. The main herbs to avoid during pregnancy are the ones that promote menstruation or are uterine stimulants. These include both Blue and Black Cohosh, Angelica, Borage, Motherwort, Mugwort, Pennyroyal, Rue and Yarrow. Also, nutmeg can cause miscarriage in large doses and should be used sparingly. Pennyroyal in particular is very, very powerful, and should not even be handled by pregnant women. Women have been known to begin menstruating from sitting on a Pennyroyal plant. AVOID IT! GOOD HERBS for pregnancy are Burdock Root, Chamomile (good combined with a little ginger), Dandelion, Nettle and Red Raspberry Leaf.

He must have been using the term very loosely, because as I stated it is NOT part of our doctrine. How is this racist? It's simply stating that God turned their skin a different color so that they would be set apart from the others and not intermingle with them. It would work the other way, too. Imagine the whole world is only black African tribal people. No one has ever seen a white man before. Then, someone does something wrong and to keep them separated, God turns them white and gives them Caucasian features and habits. (Actually, this does happen in the book of Exodus in the Bible, where God turns Miriam's skin pure white as a punishment for her speaking badly about Moses' Ethiopian wife). Naturally, the rest of the "normal" people would view this person as strange and ugly (since every ethnicity has its own beauty standards) and would treat him as an outcast. In fact, we have numerous historical records of how one kind of human perceived another kind they'd never seen before. First contact between people of different ethnicities has almost always resulted in opinions like "they're ugly", "they're not really people", "they're weird", etc. Nothing new there. Same thing, how is this racist? It's simply describing the way things were for most of human history. Very few cultures in the world have been "multi-cultural" until modern times. The ones that were multi-cultural were only that way because they were empires that used foreigners as slaves (Greece, Rome, Egypt, imperial Britain, early America). Even among the Norsemen, one of the most democratic and freedom-loving societies in the ancient world, "dark" people were considered slaves, because the only dark people there were the slaves (and that meant not only people with dark skin, but people with dark hair and brown eyes, too!). Very rarely in those great empires a few of those slaves might become free men and live among the citizens. But mostly, even though people of different ethnicities may have visited, in terms of marriage and family, they kept to themselves. Sorry, no, it's not. Where did you get that information?

I maintain that the "point" is still reliant on conjecture and guesswork. It also depends on when one believes Adam appeared on the earth. So, the conclusion is highly debatable and certainly can't be nailed down and based on any 100% verifiable evidence. My personal opinion is that the early chapters of Genesis were written long after the events occurred and that much time was lost in between. After all, if the authors had actually known Adam and his offspring personally, they'd also have known if there were other people around beforehand who were no relation. Logically, then, the narrative was written by someone many generations removed; and sure enough, tradition holds that it was Moses. And Moses didn't show up until after a lot of extremely disruptive events occurred to not only the Hebrews but to all the humans descended from Adam and Eve. First nearly everyone was wiped out by the Flood. Then humanity was scattered all over the earth speaking different languages. Then there was repeated, long-term involvement with the Egyptians, whose own records go back farther than the supposed time of Adam. No wonder records got scrambled. Clearly the timeline is not accurate. It simply tells what is known and stitches together events far apart in time, in an attempt to create a continuous narrative. It is a bare-bones historical record combined with a sacred mythology, intended to create a sense of identity and a specific world-view and to promote an appreciation of God and His works. It focuses on the events and people of importance to the narrative and omits superfluous details and large chunks of uneventful time. Whether there were humans before Adam, or whether dates and generations accurately reflected the physical record, were obviously not major concerns of the authors, and neither has God seen fit to bother with it.

Sorry, but the phrase "Beni-ha-Elohim", Sons of God, is a well-established term in the Semitic religions, known to refer to the lesser gods of Heavenly Father's court (sometimes also referred to as angels, though not all angels are gods). The story in Genesis 6 has parallels in other religious mythologies and refers to gods sleeping with human women, whose offspring are the great heroes and demigods of history (such as Heracles etc.). It's nothing to do with pre-Adamic humans, in this case (although I hold it to be a distinct possibility that there were pre-Adamic humans).

Mmm, I love asparagus. And yeah, pizza's one of our favorite "bad things", but we generally get the bake-at-home ones and make them as good as possible. As for your juice, it's not bad, but depending on how much spinach you add and how frequently you drink it could cause a problem with calcium deficiency. The oxalic acid in raw spinach binds up calcium and prevents it from being absorbed. It can also tie up iron, magnesium and potassium. If your diet is rich in calcium and you don't drink the spinach juice too frequently, then it's probably not an issue. But if you're not sure about your calcium intake you might want to be careful. Also, if you have a family history of kidney or bladder stones, oxalic acid is a big contributor to those, so once again, be very careful of your intake. :)

All this is simply your own theorizing. None of it is in the Scriptures. You may personally find it compatible with your interpretation of Scripture, but it's still just conjecture. You're going way beyond anything the Bible says, and so it seems this discussion is a bit pointless. I can't dispute your personal theories unless they're mainly rooted in actual scriptural texts. My views are derived from explicit statements in both the Bible and LDS Scriptures, taken largely at plain meaning and extrapolated as little as possible. You've taken a few vague statements in the Bible and spun a hugely theoretical eschatology that appears to be mainly the product of imagination. I don't disagree that it's a possibility, but so are many other things; and we're not talking possibilities, you're trying to convince me your eschatology is the only correct one, that it's the absolute truth. I simply don't see any solid basis for it whatsoever.

What question? I know exactly what it's saying. It's saying don't criticize someone else for their short-sightedness when you could be just as blind yourself, if not more. It must take some mighty mental gymnastics to wring that interpretation from this scripture. Have you even glanced at the surrounding passages which provide the context? I guess I need to post the whole thing: "A good tree is unable to yield wicked fruit, and a rotten tree to yield good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, by their fruits you shall know them." Matt. 7:18-20 The tree is the person, the fruits are the works. This states that if a tree (person) is not producing good fruit (good works) it will be cut down (separated from God's covenant people) and thrown into the fire (sent to Gehenna for destruction). Let's move on: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Master, Master', shall enter into the reign of the heavens, but he who is doing the desire of my Father in the heavens." Matt. 7:21 Only those actually living a Christ-like life and following the commandments will see Heaven, not just anyone who says "I believe in Jesus!" Very clear. Next: "Many shall say to me in that day, 'Master, Master, have we not prophesied in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and done many mighty works in your name?' And then I shall declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you who work lawlessness!'" Matt. 7:22,23 Here we have Christ himself again saying that it's not enough just to throw his name around all the time and perform these kind of empty "miracles" like prophecy, exorcism, speaking in tongues, snake-handling etc; one must follow the commandments or it is all in vain. The import of the last sentence may be obscured in some translations of the Bible, but the Greek word in the original is anti-nomos meaning antinomianism or "lawlessness", which is the doctrine that one need not actually do anything or obey the commandments to receive grace. Here, in black and white, are the words of Christ condemning those who profess the doctrine of antinomianism (grace not works). And just to establish it a bit further: "Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine, and does them, shall be like a wise man who built his house on the rock, and the rain came down, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine, and does not do them, shall be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand, and the rain came down, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat on that house, and it fell, and great was its fall." This states once again the necessity of doing, not just believing or professing. See also the story of the rich young man in Matt. 19, wherein Jesus informs the man that in order to have eternal life, he must follow the commandments and additionally sell all his possessions, distribute the proceeds to the poor, and join the disciples in following Christ. Not exactly, "Just accept me as your Savior and you're good to go, buddy!" Look, you seem stuck in one interpretation of the Bible, and who knows, maybe you've only been taught that one way from birth and honestly can't perceive it any other way, but truly, there are many, many other ways of seeing things, as amply demonstrated by the numerous denominations of Christianity upon the earth today. Clearly many people differ in their views. Although you find the text to support your idea of the Trinity, there are many others who find support for other views, and all can be understood to some degree. And although you interpret the text to support your view that there is only one Entity belonging to the class of being called "gods", I must point out that there are numerous passages demonstrating that accepting the existence of other gods is a Biblical view, and in fact most Bible scholars and historians agree that an understanding of the heavenly council of gods ruled by our Heavenly Father is present throughout the Old Testament and also throughout much of the New Testament pseudepigraphia. "God of gods" is not just a meaningless title.

Jimbob, Jimbob, Jimbob... you are mistaking personal remarks of a flawed human being for official doctrine given by God. Our official doctrine is not and has never been that black skin was either the curse or the mark of Cain, or that black people are in any way lower human beings than people with any other skin pigmentation. Brigham Young was a product of the times, and had a low personal opinion of black people. But when he said these things, he was not speaking as a prophet of God, but giving his personal opinion. The things you state as representative of the beliefs of our Church are not official doctrine, or even views shared by the majority of members. They are folklore that was somewhat accepted many years ago and which still, unfortunately, lingers around in the fringes of the Church, mostly due to people learning it from their parents or from reading these older books (like you obviously did) and not understanding the context of place and time or the difference between opinion and official doctrine. All of this is exactly what we are trying to explain to the questioner, who has also unfortunately been subjected to a member or two who have tried to pass off outdated folklore as official doctrine. We are not lying or being less than truthful, we are correcting inaccurate information.

No, Cain's mark was not to set him apart from other humans and prevent intermarriage. Scripture says God marked him as a form of protection, to prevent him from being killed. Why would black skin stop someone from killing you? Skin color is not a "mark", anyway. Throughout the Scriptures there is a clear difference between receiving a "mark" and having your skin color changed. As for the article I read, I can't find it anywhere (figures!). But I do know that the forehead view is the traditional Jewish interpretation (they believe it was a letter of God's name), and many Christian denominations also teach that it was a mark on the forehead (they believe it was a letter Tau). The article I read linked the Cain account with other Scriptural references and made a very convincing case for the forehead mark, including the fact that some modern tribes believed to be descended from the Qenites still tattoo a mark on the forehead as part of their tribal customs.

I thought Cain married his brother's daughter (his niece), not his sister...?

I eat flesh foods sparingly, and mostly in winter when there aren't as many fresh veggies available locally. (I try to eat locally grown because it's better for the local economy and the environment.) In summer, we eat almost vegetarian because of the abundance of fresh produce available. I certainly hope that I use the herbs, fruits and other plant foods I consume with prudence. I have a basic knowledge of herbology, including which herbs to avoid during pregnancy because they can act as abortifacients if consumed too often or by a susceptible woman. I have a basic understanding of which plant foods are best consumed raw and which are best cooked, including which greens can rob your body of essential minerals if eaten uncooked (spinach) and which plants contain toxins that need to be neutralized before consumption. I try to eat a good variety of fruits and veggies, to make sure I am getting the whole range of nutrients my body needs, and I always buy organic so that I am getting the most out of the produce and supporting sustainable agriculture. I also consume almost exclusively whole grains, except for the occasional meal with white rice (such as when we have sushi or eat at a Thai restaurant). I hope this constitutes "prudence" in God's eyes. :)

Grain, and presumably products derived from it, was already given in the Garden, along with fruit: "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat." Gen. 1:29 Moses 4:24 is simply stating that it will now require hard labor to cultivate and harvest the grain, whereas before the Fall it grew abundantly and required little effort to harvest and prepare. I disagree with your conclusions here. Flesh was not allowed to be consumed before the Flood. The designations "clean" and "unclean" at that time referred only to which animals were an acceptable sacrifice to the Lord, not to animals that could be eaten. However, men and animals "corrupted his way upon the earth" (Gen. 6:7,11,12). The earth was "filled with violence", including the unlawful consuming of flesh by both men and beasts. It was only after the Flood, when God made his covenant with every living thing, that he made the concession for flesh-eating to be allowed, but only because "the imagination of man's heart is evil from its youth". He stated that the fear and dread of us would be upon all living things. This was not God's first choice, but a concession to our wickedness, much like the allowance for divorce in the Mosaic Law. I agree here. The Millennium will clearly be a time when both men and beasts will return to our state of physiological "innocence" and no longer consume flesh. "The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD." Isa. 65:25