Words of Wisdom?

[etaks10]

I don't think you understand my point. How I interpret the scriptures is for me. How Hugh Nibly interprets the scriptures is for him. That doesn't mean I can't gain some understanding from others interpretations, but we certainly can't expect to hold others accountable for our own perspectives and revelation.

I appreciate your ideas on accountability and personal revelation and i agree. As with any teaching one must seek to understand it and live it and it will bless their lives. At the same instance truth is truth, and i simply aim to show the truth of this teaching. if you disagree with this principle of abstaining from meat i simply want to know why.

[Hyena]

I wouldn't call a quote from a disaffected Mormon out of a Des Moines newspaper a very reliable source.

I would ask Hyena, is Heavenly Father more likely or less likely to answer a question that hasn't been asked? I think a lot of revelations have come because someone asked a question, and I think they don't come to those questions on accident. Everything comes line upon line and at the right time.

I never considered that... it's a good point. Sometimes a question has to be asked for an answer since nobody asked the question before. Thanks Eowyn. That clears most of it up.

But I still wonder why the difference based on what the Bible says in regards to some of these eating and health habits when there's an obvious contradiction.

[Vort]

A.) Isn't this contradictory to the Bible wherein Jesus declared all foods clean in Mark 7:19. Didn't God also explain this to Peter that all formerly unclean animals and plants could be ingested in Acts 10:15 where it says specifically, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." So did God change his mind? Or is that something mistranslated in the king james bible and not subject to LDS teachings?

This is a misunderstanding of scripture. Peter's vision was not about food; it was about Gentile converts. Gentiles were considered unclean, and Peter's vision taught him not to consider them so. But even if you believe (as I do) that the vision indicated a lifting of the dietary restrictions of the law of Moses, you will notice that the record of Peter's vision has no hint that Peter was looking at Azureus frogs or belladonna. The Lord did not outlaw everything under the law of Moses, only certain edible things. If it's poisonous, do you really need to have it outlawed?

In any case, the Lord has asked us in our time to avoid alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and tea. I don't see much relevance in demanding to know why previous dispensations and peoples may not have had exactly the same requirements. I would guess they had their challenges and we have ours.

B.) Not intending to be glib, but isn't it a tad bit convenient that Joseph Smith solved what could arguably be a personal issue (he and his wife's dislike of all the smoke filled rooms with tobacco all over the floor) by miraculously returning after a conversation with God suddenly prohibiting these activities?

Sure, it's convenient. It's also likely that had Joseph Smith never asked, the revelation might never have been given, or maybe given in a completely different way. We receive when we ask. Joseph asked and received.

I'd also point out that the Church did not suddenly stop drinking alcohol and coffee or using tobacco. On the contrary, I seem to remember that tobacco was one of the items on the list to be taken by those crossing the prairies. (I may be wrong, but I thought I remembered seeing that.) The revelation may have stopped the use of tobacco in the School of the Prophets, but it apparently had no such widespread effect among the general membership of the time. In fact, it seems that Joseph Smith himself kept drinking wine for the rest of his life. (Again, I may be wrong about that, but that's what I recall.)

That's like me finding the task of mowing the lawn every Saturday tedious and off-putting as well as weekly flaring up of my allergies from the fresh cut plants and then telling my parents that I was told through prayer that the Lord no longer wished us to mow down the grass that he makes grow in front of our house every week.

I suppose it might be kind of like that if the Lord actually did tell you not to cut the grass. But Joseph himself was apparently not much bothered by the tobacco usage, so it would have been more for Emma's benefit. And frankly, there are any other number of easier ways to resolve the problem than to pretend to have a spurious "revelation" -- like instruct the members of the school to clean up after themselves, make a rule of no tobacco usage during the school, or something of that sort.

[estradling75]

Thank you for the information. But I have to ask for some clarification as well...

I don't mean to be offensive, and please understand this question comes from someone who will in all likelihood be a new member within a matter of months. But as someone from the outside looking in, it does beg the question, just if only to educate myself out of my ignorance:

If this is how the Prophet Joseph Smith came to pass on that God urges the prohibition of coffee, tea, and tobacco... then my question is two fold:

Honest questions are always acceptable

A.) Isn't this contradictory to the Bible wherein Jesus declared all foods clean in Mark 7:19. Didn't God also explain this to Peter that all formerly unclean animals and plants could be ingested in Acts 10:15 where it says specifically, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." So did God change his mind? Or is that something mistranslated in the king james bible and not subject to LDS teachings?

Lets read what the Lord gives as his reasons for giving the Word of Wisdom. Verse 4 reads

4 Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation—

The bold part is interesting... At its still because the Lord said so but not because it is 'unclean.' And please note even in acts its not like all plants became consumable... There were still poisonous plants after the Lord declared to Peter that things were clean. Therefore there are still things not wise to consume.

All things are for the use and benefit of man, but its only man's arrogance to assume that all things are meant to be drunk, smoked, inhaled, eaten or otherwise consumed.

So it seems likely that the Lord was forewarning us of the attempst by man to twist and distort things that weren't intended by God to be used that way.

and

B.) Not intending to be glib, but isn't it a tad bit convenient that Joseph Smith solved what could arguably be a personal issue (he and his wife's dislike of all the smoke filled rooms with tobacco all over the floor) by miraculously returning after a conversation with God suddenly prohibiting these activities? That's like me finding the task of mowing the lawn every Saturday tedious and off-putting as well as weekly flaring up of my allergies from the fresh cut plants and then telling my parents that I was told through prayer that the Lord no longer wished us to mow down the grass that he makes grow in front of our house every week. I'm just trying to understand why there'd be this contradiction and then the decision based around these writings from Brigham Young himself? Again, not trying to insult anyone or start a fight... I'm just trying to understand on the same level as those of you with 100% faith. I want to be where you are.

Others have answered this so I will simply say.... Ask and you shall receive, knock and it shall be opened, seek and you shall find.

[Hyena]

This is a misunderstanding of scripture. Peter's vision was not about food; it was about Gentile converts....

Thank you SO much Vort. ANd Estradling. That really helped, this explanation. I appreciate you taking the time to put it to me logically and rationally without taking much offense from my initial inquiry. That's what I was looking for really is just some thoughts about how this came about. But yeah, it makes good sense when you put it in this way. I'm a scientist by trade (microbiological sciences) and so I respond well to history and logical hypothesis when laid out properly. Thank you for taking the time to educate me and help me put this issue to rest.

Basically, coffee and tea are off limits. Can't say I won't miss Green tea... but que cera cera...

[Maureen]

I wouldn't call a quote from a disaffected Mormon out of a Des Moines newspaper a very reliable source....

Just because David Whitmer was not part of the group anymore doesn’t make the story he relates false. Hyena, if you were to become LDS, would that mean that anything you recalled from your life as a Catholic/Baptist false?

M.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Maureen

[beefche]

I appreciate your ideas on accountability and personal revelation and i agree. As with any teaching one must seek to understand it and live it and it will bless their lives. At the same instance truth is truth, and i simply aim to show the truth of this teaching. if you disagree with this principle of abstaining from meat i simply want to know why.

Here, I'm going to rely on someone who writes better than I do. Here is the blog where I pulled this from.

• I wonder if we might be surprised one day to find out God's reasons for something we assume we know the answer to. Take, for example, the edict to eat meat "sparingly." Imagine this dialogue, while there is a lull in conversation at the Final Interview:

You: So if we weren't supposed to eat a lot of meat, why did you make it so yummy? Is it really that unhealthy?

God: Oh that! It had nothing to do with health. It was about migration and economy.

You: What do you mean?

God: Well, when the restored Church was getting started, I knew that they would be on the move a lot. A livestock-based economy would have made that nearly impossible, and producing meat is much more expensive and difficult that growing produce. They needed to be agriculturally focused to survive, so I told them "easy on the meat."

(Disclaimer: I am not claiming that this is what happened - it is just an example of how our thinking might not have anything to do with God's thinking - so relax.)

• I tire of people telling me what the Word of Wisdom "means" to say. I have learned that when someone begins talking about the "Spirit of the Law" beyond the "Letter of the Law," they have usually just crossed that line between doctrine, and personal opinion. It is just fine with me if you hate white bread, but don't try and tell me that the Word of Wisdom means that we are supposed to only eat whole wheat.

• We are told to eat meat and poultry sparingly - but there is no restriction of fish or shellfish. That means I can have as many lobster rolls as I want when I go to Maine. Thank heavens I'm not Kosher. Lobster rolls are another in a long line of evidences that God loves me.

I don't care if you eat meat only on the last Monday of the year or every hour of the day. I do have a problem with anyone stating that their interpretation of scripture is right or correct and that it applies to every person. So, unless your name is Thomas S Monson and you are declaring it to the church and world (hint, posting it on lds.net is not declaring it to the world, Pres Monson), then your interpretation is for you, not me.

[etaks10]

Here, I'm going to rely on someone who writes better than I do. Here is the blog where I pulled this from.

I don't care if you eat meat only on the last Monday of the year or every hour of the day. I do have a problem with anyone stating that their interpretation of scripture is right or correct and that it applies to every person. So, unless your name is Thomas S Monson and you are declaring it to the church and world (hint, posting it on lds.net is not declaring it to the world, Pres Monson), then your interpretation is for you, not me.

"So, unless your name is Thomas S Monson" what about if their names were Joseph smith, Lorenzo Snow, or George Q. Cannon to name a few who all taught what i have presented to you. How many prophets and apostles will have to say it before people will believe it? And i am not claiming that it is right for everyone, obviously there may be exceptions, just like many commandments, but it is the general rule. No we may not always know why we are given commandments, as pointed out in the blog you quoted, but that is no reason not to follow them. We should follow the commandments as currently presented unless otherwise advised by church leaders. If you have such a statement about the discontinuing of the word of wisdom regarding meat I would love to see it.

[beefche]

"So, unless your name is Thomas S Monson" what about if their names were Joseph smith, Lorenzo Snow, or George Q. Cannon to name a few who all taught what i have presented to you. How many prophets and apostles will have to say it before people will believe it? And i am not claiming that it is right for everyone, obviously there may be exceptions, just like many commandments, but it is the general rule. No we may not always know why we are given commandments, as pointed out in the blog you quoted, but that is no reason not to follow them. We should follow the commandments as currently presented unless otherwise advised by church leaders. If you have such a statement about the discontinuing of the word of wisdom regarding meat I would love to see it.

Let's see, Joseph Smith, Lorenzo Snow or George Q Cannon....when was the last time they were prophets over us? Who is our living prophet? I've been a member for about 20+ years, and I never, ever heard of anyone teaching the Saints that other than not drinking alcohol, coffee, tea, and not abuse drugs (illegal or prescription) when talking about the WoW. Does that mean the remainder of section 89 is to be discontinued or discounted? Of course not. It means that the Lord has not decided to instruct his prophets, seers and revelators to instruct the general population of the church on exactly what the rest of the section means. And, to me, that means He has decided to allow His children to come to Him in counsel for these things. My counsel is not your counsel and vice versa.

So, sorry, I'm not going to try to find some obscure one sentence from one GA from 20 years ago or so.

My final remark in this thread: I obey the Word of Wisdom to the best of my knowledge and can clearly declare so to my judges on this earth. And I eat meat and drink caffeine.

[mnn727]

Basically, coffee and tea are off limits. Can't say I won't miss Green tea... but que cera cera...

Its ok, I still miss a glass of wine with dinner also after almost 20 years now as a member, but the line from my signature applies I believe: "Worship without sacrifice is just words"

[Vort]

Its ok, I still miss a glass of wine with dinner also after almost 20 years now as a member, but the line from my signature applies I believe: "Worship without sacrifice is just words"

My father-in-law gave up cigarettes, coffee, and beer to join the Church. He didn't miss the first two, but until his death he missed having an Iron City beer with his dinner. I respect such sacrifice.

[Just_A_Guy]

I wouldn't call a quote from a disaffected Mormon out of a Des Moines newspaper a very reliable source.

As a believing Mormon I, for one, don't find Whitmer's recollection, and the analysis Petersen offers (as Maureen quotes), particularly problematic.

However, I would ask Maureen if she would give the same credence to an 1886 recollection of - say - an angelic visit at the Kirtland temple dedication in 1835, or a transfiguration of Brigham Young so that he looked and spoke exactly like Joseph Smith in 1844; as she gives to Whitmer's 1886 recollection of the origin of the Word of Wisdom in 1833.

And if you don't believe the LDS story of the Book of Mormon's origin, then it follows that you believe Whitmer's assertions of having seen the plates - which he maintained to the end of his life - are false. Making Whitmer a dishonest man, and his recollections about any aspect of Mormon history highly suspect.

[etaks10]

Let's see, Joseph Smith, Lorenzo Snow or George Q Cannon....when was the last time they were prophets over us? Who is our living prophet? I've been a member for about 20+ years, and I never, ever heard of anyone teaching the Saints that other than not drinking alcohol, coffee, tea, and not abuse drugs (illegal or prescription) when talking about the WoW. Does that mean the remainder of section 89 is to be discontinued or discounted? Of course not. It means that the Lord has not decided to instruct his prophets, seers and revelators to instruct the general population of the church on exactly what the rest of the section means. And, to me, that means He has decided to allow His children to come to Him in counsel for these things. My counsel is not your counsel and vice versa.

So, sorry, I'm not going to try to find some obscure one sentence from one GA from 20 years ago or so.

My final remark in this thread: I obey the Word of Wisdom to the best of my knowledge and can clearly declare so to my judges on this earth. And I eat meat and drink caffeine.

"For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

"Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;

"For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.

"But he that doeth not anything until he is commanded, and receiveth a commandment with doubtful heart, and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is damned" (D&C 58:26-29).

simply put, we must seek to do what is right without always being told what to do. Also there have been many talks regarding the eating of meat and the word of wisdom in the last 20 years saying that we should eat meat sparingly. Sparingly as describe in D&C and the Bible is to be used only when necessary to save life as discussed. In the same line of reasoning as you put it one may say that baptism is not necessary because it is not explicitly described in method when spoken about. the lack of complete explanation does not negate the rest of the revelations.

With that said I do appreciate talking with you and always appreciate a good discussion. I wish you well and God bless.

[beefche]

Its ok, I still miss a glass of wine with dinner also after almost 20 years now as a member, but the line from my signature applies I believe: "Worship without sacrifice is just words"

Sweet tea is my sacrifice. I just can't find anything that refreshes me in the summer as sweet tea once did.

[dahlia]

Since y'all are talking about 'sparingly' regarding meat...

I was vegan when baptized. Part of the reason was health, but little by little, I got into animal activism (I like to stop short of 'animal rights.') Last spring, I started eating meat again because I thought I needed to control my carbs better than I could as a vegan. I felt very guilty. I contribute to animal activists to blow the whistle on animal cruelty in the food industry, etc. I'm lucky to live near Amish farms and can purchase free range eggs and local, non-factory farm, meat. That was better, but I still felt guilty. I decided to go back to being mostly vegan, occasionally eating eggs and yogurt. This still causes me angst, but I'm working through it. I may give them up because I don't want to support the dairy or egg industries. Life is so political! : )

So, the question is, if we are to eat meat sparingly, do we have any duties toward the animals? Should LDS avoid factory farmed foods, knowing the cruelty (much less the dirt and disease), that these animals face? Should we be at all concerned, as a matter of our religion, about how the animal gets to our table? Also, how about how meat industry workers are treated?

We had a huge scandal here at Postville, with a supposedly kosher facility. Not only were the animals not killed kosher, but the facility hired underage illegal immigrants, mistreated workers, and provided housing and check cashing for them (and not as a charitable service either, if you get my drift).

I consider veg*nism part of being charitable and life affirming. If I cannot be charitable and life affirming to God's animals, how can I be toward my fellow (wo)man?

Just so y'all know, I don't have a problem with people killing an animal to feed the family. I also don't have a problem with animals raised on family farms, though I would probably still choose not to eat them, well, maybe the eggs....

[Vort]

I have no answers for your questions, dahlia, but I think they're worthwhile questions all the same.

It is my opinion that all who eat meat should be required to kill and dress at least one animal per year. Whether this would contribute to a more humane animal husbandry industry is open to speculation.

[dahlia]

It is my opinion that all who eat meat should be required to kill and dress at least one animal per year. Whether this would contribute to a more humane animal husbandry industry is open to speculation.

On one 'Hell's Kitchen,' Gordon Ramsay made the contestants wrangle a chicken. While they were holding their chickens, he showed a chicken dish they had to recreate. The chefs were horrified. They had just met these chickens and already didn't want to kill them.

I think he should have made the chefs kill and pluck them. If you can cook dead meat, you ought to know how it got to your plate/store/kitchen. Anyone who didn't want to kill their chicken should stop being a hypocrite and not cook meat anymore.

On another of Ramsay's shows, Ramsay is out hunting deer. In various episodes, he was shown fishing, shooting birds, killing this and that, etc. But as he aimed at the deer, he stopped himself and just couldn't shoot such a magnificent animal. I was surprised, and touched.

Ramsay has raised animals in his back yard, letting his kids feed and play with them. Then he (or a butcher) kills the animals. The kids learn how the food gets to the table. It's a little weird watching kids play with animals that will be dinner in a few months, but I think he is showing them how to respect their food.

[Maureen]

As a believing Mormon I, for one, don't find Whitmer's recollection, and the analysis Petersen offers (as Maureen quotes), particularly problematic.

However, I would ask Maureen if she would give the same credence to an 1886 recollection of - say - an angelic visit at the Kirtland temple dedication in 1835, or a transfiguration of Brigham Young so that he looked and spoke exactly like Joseph Smith in 1844; as she gives to Whitmer's 1886 recollection of the origin of the Word of Wisdom in 1833.

And if you don't believe the LDS story of the Book of Mormon's origin, then it follows that you believe Whitmer's assertions of having seen the plates - which he maintained to the end of his life - are false. Making Whitmer a dishonest man, and his recollections about any aspect of Mormon history highly suspect.

I can quite easily accept that David Whitmer would be loyal to his beliefs and his own experiences. I don't have to believe in the Book of Mormon myself to understand that others will view it differently. I can see though that a spiritual experience that occurred during the Kirtland Temple dedication is very different than a social gathering where people are discussing and joking about every day events. I also have to wonder why people can be very accepting of David Whitmer's experience at a temple dedication but think his recollection can't be trusted in regards to a social gathering.

M.

[NightSG]

Which is the greater sin? Eating meat or being judgmental?

I only eat judgmental animals. If one should ever deign to speak to me politely, I will refrain from eating it.

Edited January 27, 2013 by NightSG

[NightSG]

Sweet tea is my sacrifice. I just can't find anything that refreshes me in the summer as sweet tea once did.

Ginger Sekanjabin Recipe - Allrecipes.com

Strawberry, Ginger and Mint Sekanjabin Recipe - Allrecipes.com

I've been known to carry a liter of the concentrate to flavor up some well-chilled bottled water in the summer.

[Hyena]

Just because David Whitmer was not part of the group anymore doesn’t make the story he relates false. Hyena, if you were to become LDS, would that mean that anything you recalled from your life as a Catholic/Baptist false?

M.

I suppose not. Our experiences and our past define us. They make us who we are.

That said, that doesn't mean that they control who I WILL and CAN be.

We live, we learn.

On the subject of the story, it might be true or it might not be. But I imagine that's just one man's opinion or claim. In the end, we all have to decide what we will or won't believe.

[NightSG]

It is my opinion that all who eat meat should be required to kill and dress at least one animal per year. Whether this would contribute to a more humane animal husbandry industry is open to speculation.

I wouldn't argue with that. I used to stock the freezer with rabbits and feral piglets on occasion, and IMO, the meat tastes better when you know exactly what happened to it from field to table.

[Maureen]

...In the end, we all have to decide what we will or won't believe.

Yes, I agree.

M.

[classylady]

I grew up on a small farm. I learned at a young age that the cute baby chicks, lambs, ducklings, etc. soon would grow big. And, they would eventually become dinner.

Edited January 27, 2013 by classylady

[Guest]

The first time my brother got a calf to raise for meat, he made the mistake of letting his kids name it (Mitch). When Mitch grew up and they had him butchered, the kids wouldn't eat it. I guess it didn't help that DB and SIL called the meat "Mitch burgers".