Eating of Blood

[iamlds]

It is about Eating of Blood, Gen 9:4 But flesh with the... blood thereof, shall ye not eat

Ever since when I was a I already know about this doctrine and I believe that eating of blood is prohibited by God, recorded in the Old Testament, New Testament  and also thought by Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith.

"Joseph Fielding Smith

Question: "Is the eating of blood and food therefrom, such as blood sausage and blood pudding, forbidden by the law of the Lord today? In "Gen. 9:4Genesis 9:4, and from Paul's enjoinder against partaking of blood I deduce that this teaching is part of the everlasting covenant, and not a principle that passed with the fulfilment of the Mosaic law. Is this conclusion correct?"

Answer: Definitely your conclusion is correct. The blood plays a far more important part in this mortal world, whether it is the blood of human beings or the blood of other creatures, than is generally understood. It is the life-giving fluid of the mortal body; but it has in it the seeds of death as well as the sustaining power of mortal life. Its duties are many and varied, but it is not the purpose here to recount them. Notwithstanding its great importance to the physical body, it is, above all else, a mortal element.

When Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden, there was no blood in their bodies. Their lives were quickened by spirit; therefore they were in a state where they could have lived forever, and so likewise could every other mortal creature. (2 Nephi 2:2-25.) When Adam fell, the change came upon all other living things and even the earth itself became mortal, and all things including the earth were redeemed from death through the atonement of Jesus Christ. (Quotes JST Gen 9:10-14, Lev. 17:10-14, and Heb. 9:19-22)

(Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957-1966], 3: 100.)”

This was recorded in Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols, How come they say that there is no written doctrine regarding to this?

I do not eat blood because the prophet say so, If I will obey the counsel of our local leaders not to preach about this because there is no written doctrine about this then I disobey the law which the prophet taught us.

Please help us about this doctrine, why we contradict the teaching of Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith regarding the prohibition of eating of blood.

[zil]

10 hours ago, iamlds said:

How come they say that there is no written doctrine regarding to this?

I do not eat blood because the prophet say so, If I will obey the counsel of our local leaders not to preach about this because there is no written doctrine about this then I disobey the law which the prophet taught us.

Please help us about this doctrine, why we contradict the teaching of Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith regarding the prohibition of eating of blood.

Who are "they"?  Are you saying that your local leaders have stated that there's no written doctrine regarding eating blood and that therefore you personally should not teach others not to?

Or...?

FWIW, it was certainly written in the old testament, and many old testament teachings were not "cancelled" (for lack of a better word).  On the other hand, I could see some people making valid arguments that no food is banned (not saying I agree, just saying I could see a source for the argument).  Anywho, please clarify who "they" are.

[The Folk Prophet]

Are we discussing eating food with some blood in it...or just straight up drinking blood? 

[estradling75]

12 hours ago, iamlds said:

This was recorded in Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols, How come they say that there is no written doctrine regarding to this?

I do not eat blood because the prophet say so, If I will obey the counsel of our local leaders not to preach about this because there is no written doctrine about this then I disobey the law which the prophet taught us.

Please help us about this doctrine, why we contradict the teaching of Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith regarding the prohibition of eating of blood.

Because you need to understand what it takes to make something official.  The first Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 meet regularly to prayerfully seek the will of God and discuss what needs to be done.   When they all reach an agreement on what needs to be done(what the Lord would have them do) then it becomes binding.  This unity or oneness is essential.

One person no matter how important they are or will become can circumvent the they way the Lord has it set up, no matter how many books they publish or how authoritative they sound.

The modern day Law of Health that has gone through this process in this dispensation is the Word of Wisdom.  The Word of Wisdom does not contain a restriction on consuming blood. (Beyond the General admonishment to be wise). This is the only Law of Health that is Binding on the Church as a whole.

 

 

 

 

[estradling75]

12 hours ago, iamlds said:

This was recorded in Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols, How come they say that there is no written doctrine regarding to this?

I do not eat blood because the prophet say so, If I will obey the counsel of our local leaders not to preach about this because there is no written doctrine about this then I disobey the law which the prophet taught us.

Please help us about this doctrine, why we contradict the teaching of Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith regarding the prohibition of eating of blood.

Because you need to understand what it takes to make something official.  The first Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 meet regularly to prayerfully seek the will of God and discuss what needs to be done.   When they all reach an agreement on what needs to be done(what the Lord would have them do) then it becomes binding.  This unity or oneness is essential.

One person no matter how important they are or will become can circumvent the they way the Lord has it set up, no matter how many books they publish or how authoritative they sound.

The modern day Law of Health that has gone through this process in this dispensation is the Word of Wisdom.  The Word of Wisdom does not contain a restriction on consuming blood. (Beyond the General admonishment to be wise). This is the only Law of Health that is Binding on the Church as a whole.

 

 

 

 

[NeedleinA]

My grandma has the best recipe for JELL-O blood pudding, suspended fruit and whip cream on top at family reunions.  Oddly enough she is going on 125 years old now for some reason.

Edited February 15, 2016 by NeedleinA

[iamlds]

6 hours ago, zil said:

Who are "they"?  Are you saying that your local leaders have stated that there's no written doctrine regarding eating blood and that therefore you personally should not teach others not to?

Or...?

FWIW, it was certainly written in the old testament, and many old testament teachings were not "cancelled" (for lack of a better word).  On the other hand, I could see some people making valid arguments that no food is banned (not saying I agree, just saying I could see a source for the argument).  Anywho, please clarify who "they" are.

They - Our local leaders, the stake presidency( I will not mention names because the forum rules says don't mention names ), they all love to eat blood, maybe that is why they disregard the Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith's teaching about this eating of blood . Only few of our leaders here are believing that blood should not be eaten. We are also told by our stake leaders not to tell about this doctrine taught by Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith. It's just weird why they do not follow the prophets counsel? 

I served a full time mission and my mission president also taught  us not to eat blood because it is forbidden by the Lord recorded in Old and New Testament and also elaborated by Prophet Smith in these latter days, This is according to my Mission President ( I will not mention names because the forum rules says don't mention names )  which doctrine I already knew ever since I was a kid, This doctrine also taught to my parents by a couple missionaries.

[iamlds]

5 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Are we discussing eating food with some blood in it...or just straight up drinking blood? 

If its cooked (eat) if its raw (drink)

[iamlds]

4 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Because you need to understand what it takes to make something official.  The first Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 meet regularly to prayerfully seek the will of God and discuss what needs to be done.   When they all reach an agreement on what needs to be done(what the Lord would have them do) then it becomes binding.  This unity or oneness is essential.

One person no matter how important they are or will become can circumvent the they way the Lord has it set up, no matter how many books they publish or how authoritative they sound.

The modern day Law of Health that has gone through this process in this dispensation is the Word of Wisdom.  The Word of Wisdom does not contain a restriction on consuming blood. (Beyond the General admonishment to be wise). This is the only Law of Health that is Binding on the Church as a whole.

 

 

 

 

Yes I know that prophets are provided by the Lord for us to have a unity of faith, its just weird that this book was published since 1957 and until now they don't release any official statement about this? whether they would say that the Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith was just joking when he says blood is not to be eaten, or its a false or true doctrine. So they let decades pass with these saints live without harmony in faith with this doctrine. Or they didn't talk about it anymore because the doctrine is true and was elaborated already by prophet Smith. We are admonished to read good books, and how can we say its true or false doctrine? Who are we to say that the content of the book published by Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith (Answers To Gospel Doctrine) are only myth and should be double checked by other prophets, so why then they published the book. 

Do you believe that Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith was a prophet of God? and bytheway, he is published a book called "ANSWERS TO GOSPEL DOCTRINE" and he will write on it a false or myth doctrine? Take note this is not a book like self improvement, tips, or self experience book, its was an ANSWERS TO GOSPEL DOCTRINE book which will probably will answer gospel questions. But then again, it will be will be questioned over and over again. weird

Base on the article, eating of blood is not a part of the Word of Wisdom,but instead a part of the everlasting covenant, quote "Question: "Is the eating of blood and food therefrom, such as blood sausage and blood pudding, forbidden by the law of the Lord today? In "Gen. 9:4Genesis 9:4, and from Paul's enjoinder against partaking of blood I deduce that this teaching is part of the everlasting covenant, and not a principle that passed with the fulfilment of the Mosaic law. Is this conclusion correct?"

Answer: Definitely your conclusion is correct. The blood plays a far more important part in this mortal world, whether it is the blood of human beings or the blood of other creatures, than is generally understood. It is the life-giving fluid of the mortal body; but it has in it the seeds of death as well as the sustaining power of mortal life. Its duties are many and varied, but it is not the purpose here to recount them. Notwithstanding its great importance to the physical body, it is, above all else, a mortal element."

 

[iamlds]

6 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

My grandma has the best recipe for JELL-O blood pudding, suspended fruit and whip cream on top at family reunions.  Oddly enough she is going on 125 years old now for some reason.

Base on the article, eating of blood is not a part of the Word of Wisdom,but instead a part of the everlasting covenant, quote "Question: "Is the eating of blood and food therefrom, such as blood sausage and blood pudding, forbidden by the law of the Lord today? In "Gen. 9:4Genesis 9:4, and from Paul's enjoinder against partaking of blood I deduce that this teaching is part of the everlasting covenant, and not a principle that passed with the fulfilment of the Mosaic law. Is this conclusion correct?"

Answer: Definitely your conclusion is correct. The blood plays a far more important part in this mortal world, whether it is the blood of human beings or the blood of other creatures, than is generally understood. It is the life-giving fluid of the mortal body; but it has in it the seeds of death as well as the sustaining power of mortal life. Its duties are many and varied, but it is not the purpose here to recount them. Notwithstanding its great importance to the physical body, it is, above all else, a mortal element."

[zil]

If your Stake President won't send it up to the next-highest authority, I don't know what you do, except follow the teachings of the Gospel as best you can (certainly, no one could (should) fault you for personally erring on the side of safety and abstaining from foods made with blood).  I couldn't find anything definitive in the scriptures themselves (the closest were some things in Acts).  https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/blood-eating-of?lang=eng

But I'll point out a technique my mom once used: a seminary student asked about wearing double earrings (remember when that counsel came out?).  My mom answered her by suggesting they read all the scriptures which relate to the wearing of jewelry.  The scripture examples were sufficient answer.

Personally, I think they are in this case too, but I don't live in a culture where eating food made with blood is normal (the mere idea makes my skin crawl - which no doubt is influencing my answer here).  I also think you could take a similar approach if the question ever came up - rather than saying "we shouldn't eat food with blood in it", say, "let's see what the scriptures and prophets have said" - then you can read scriptures, quote Pres. Smith, and let people draw their own conclusions.

I wouldn't fight your local leaders. If you've respectfully brought up the issue and made your case, I think that's the most you can do, and to do more is beyond your stewardship and could cause more problems than good.  If they're in the wrong, it will be on their heads, not yours.  (All that is my personal opinion. Prayer would help you make the right choice for you.)

FWIW

[Guest]

iamlds, please check your messages.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, iamlds said:

If its cooked (eat) if its raw (drink)

I was waiting for this.  Based on your comments, I'd say this is the problem.  The devil's in the details.

I see nothing wrong with eating meat.  And it is very difficult to eat any meat with NO blood in it.  It is more difficult to eat red meat with no blood it.  If you're using this doctrine to justify being a vegetarian or something along those lines, then I'd support your local leaders in telling you not to preach it.  Tell me if I'm not reading you correctly.

If I'm reading you correctly, I disagree with your interpretation.

[estradling75]

2 hours ago, iamlds said:

 

Do you believe that Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith was a prophet of God? and bytheway, he is published a book called "ANSWERS TO GOSPEL DOCTRINE" and he will write on it a false or myth doctrine? Take note this is not a book like self improvement, tips, or self experience book, its was an ANSWERS TO GOSPEL DOCTRINE book which will probably will answer gospel questions. But then again, it will be will be questioned over and over again. weird

 

Was he a prophet when he wrote the book? (No) Did the church publish the book? (No).  Did he claim "thus sayth the Lord" for the book? (No).

 

People have agency even General Authorities... They are allowed to have personal opinion and understanding.  The Saints are instructed so they can know when something is of God and when it is not.  Then we are instructed to learn more and dig deeper for personal revelation.  But personal revelation is just that "personal"  it is not our place to try to enforce (or otherwise preach) a personal revelation on to the rest of the church.

Or to put it more bluntly... If God wanted the stop the consuming of blood by members of his church he has a very simple and straight forward means of doing so.  God has not done so, and unless you think you are wiser the God you need to stop preaching what is not your place to preach and rendering judgement against the Lord's anointed that it is not your place to render.

 

 

 

[NeedleinA]

11 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Because you need to understand what it takes to make something official. 

5 hours ago, iamlds said:

We are admonished to read good books, and how can we say its true or false doctrine?

 

Estradling75 has already explained this.

It isn't that Pres. Smith is giving true or false doctrine necessarily, it is that he is giving his "opinion". The book, Answers to Gospel Questions is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is a personal book giving the thoughts and ideas of JFS. This is similar to "Mormon Doctrine" by Bruce R. McConnkie. The title even says "Mormon Doctrine", HOWEVER, the book contains the opinions of Elder McConnkie. While it is true that his opinions may also be spot on in agreement with official doctrine of the church, that does not mean all of his personal opinions are. 

From the publisher of book (Answers to Gospel Questions) Deseret Book: link  (see the RED part below)

"Answers to Gospel Questions, vol. 4 

JOSEPH FIELDING SMITH

© 1963 Deseret Book Company
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher, Deseret Book Company, P.O. Box 30178, Salt Lake City, Utah 84130. This work is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The views expressed herein are the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the position of the Church or of Deseret Book Company."

 

Edited February 16, 2016 by NeedleinA

[NeedleinA]

If you need help distinguishing between books that are "official" or "not-official", for starters you can see if it is published under the church's name or not.

 

[iamlds]

1 hour ago, zil said:

If your Stake President won't send it up to the next-highest authority, I don't know what you do, except follow the teachings of the Gospel as best you can (certainly, no one could (should) fault you for personally erring on the side of safety and abstaining from foods made with blood).  I couldn't find anything definitive in the scriptures themselves (the closest were some things in Acts).  https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/blood-eating-of?lang=eng

But I'll point out a technique my mom once used: a seminary student asked about wearing double earrings (remember when that counsel came out?).  My mom answered her by suggesting they read all the scriptures which relate to the wearing of jewelry.  The scripture examples were sufficient answer.

Personally, I think they are in this case too, but I don't live in a culture where eating food made with blood is normal (the mere idea makes my skin crawl - which no doubt is influencing my answer here).  I also think you could take a similar approach if the question ever came up - rather than saying "we shouldn't eat food with blood in it", say, "let's see what the scriptures and prophets have said" - then you can read scriptures, quote Pres. Smith, and let people draw their own conclusions.

I wouldn't fight your local leaders. If you've respectfully brought up the issue and made your case, I think that's the most you can do, and to do more is beyond your stewardship and could cause more problems than good.  If they're in the wrong, it will be on their heads, not yours.  (All that is my personal opinion. Prayer would help you make the right choice for you.)

FWIW

Me and the stake leaders are friends and this discussion is not raise in any violent interaction . We just want to clarify things about this, for me there's no problem with this, after all its not my duty to debate with this topic with the leaders. But it's their duty to lead the members to follow correct doctrines .  And I don't preach about this either, I just explain my stand with this principle and base on what I've learned and base on what my previous leaders taught me. 

[iamlds]

48 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I was waiting for this.  Based on your comments, I'd say this is the problem.  The devil's in the details.

I see nothing wrong with eating meat.  And it is very difficult to eat any meat with NO blood in it.  It is more difficult to eat red meat with no blood it.  If you're using this doctrine to justify being a vegetarian or something along those lines, then I'd support your local leaders in telling you not to preach it.  Tell me if I'm not reading you correctly.

If I'm reading you correctly, I disagree with your interpretation.

So what can you say about Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith's article?

[iamlds]

2 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Was he a prophet when he wrote the book? (No) Did the church publish the book? (No).  Did he claim "thus sayth the Lord" for the book? (No).

 

People have agency even General Authorities... They are allowed to have personal opinion and understanding.  The Saints are instructed so they can know when something is of God and when it is not.  Then we are instructed to learn more and dig deeper for personal revelation.  But personal revelation is just that "personal"  it is not our place to try to enforce (or otherwise preach) a personal revelation on to the rest of the church.

Or to put it more bluntly... If God wanted the stop the consuming of blood by members of his church he has a very simple and straight forward means of doing so.  God has not done so, and unless you think you are wiser the God you need to stop preaching what is not your place to preach and rendering judgement against the Lord's anointed that it is not your place to render.

 

 

 

So to make the story short, the Book entitled ANSWERS TO GOSPEL QUESTIONS is a false Doctrine and not to be shared to others because its a personal revelation of the Prophet

I believe that Prophets are foreordained. And even their early days on this earth, their example and lifestyles are in-harmony with the gospel, that is why you can read books, "FROM THE LIFE OF PROPHET............" 

Edited February 16, 2016 by iamlds
add words

[iamlds]

1 hour ago, NeedleinA said:

If you need help distinguishing between books that are "official" or "not-official", for starters you can see if it is published under the church's name or not.

 

Ah ok it was distributed by deseretbook. Doesn't make any sense, Deserethbook is publishing false doctrine, even-though its not official, deseretbook will not publish false doctrine either? Do you know a book published by deseretbook that contains false doctrine? If no, will you think again if this doctrine is true or false?

Edited February 16, 2016 by iamlds
add words

[iamlds]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I was waiting for this.  Based on your comments, I'd say this is the problem.  The devil's in the details.

I see nothing wrong with eating meat.  And it is very difficult to eat any meat with NO blood in it.  It is more difficult to eat red meat with no blood it.  If you're using this doctrine to justify being a vegetarian or something along those lines, then I'd support your local leaders in telling you not to preach it.  Tell me if I'm not reading you correctly.

If I'm reading you correctly, I disagree with your interpretation.

So what can you say about Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith's article? 

It's like going out to the crowd and not inhaling smoke from cigars you can walk along but don't smoke:) Its recorded in D&C Eat but a VERY LITTLE meat and its clear.  The problem is our local leaders are trying their best not to understand this doctrine because they were addicted to it.  And did even said that "I will leave  the church or go inactive if eating blood is prohibited"   Eating blood is more important to them than their covenant with the Lord. Funny.  So all their answers are motivated by their addiction. I will be more convinced if someone who is not addicted of eating blood says something about this principle

[Vort]

20 minutes ago, iamlds said:

The problem is our local leaders are trying their best not to understand this doctrine because they were addicted to it.

You really want to put yourself in the position of passing judgment over our local leaders?

20 minutes ago, iamlds said:

I will be more convinced if someone who is not addicted of eating blood says something about this principle

Fair enough.

I am not addicted to eating blood. I say it is not the dire moral problem you make it out to be.

Hope that helps.

[NeedleinA]

2 hours ago, iamlds said:

Ah ok it was distributed by deseretbook. 1.Doesn't make any sense, 2.Deserethbook is publishing false doctrine, 3. even-though its not official, 4.deseretbook will not publish false doctrine either? Do you know a book published by deseretbook that contains false doctrine? If no, will you think again if this doctrine is true or false?

I honestly am not trying to insult you, however, I really don't know what you are asking. I can't tell if you are making statements or asking questions. You have 4 thoughts in what appears to be one sentence alone. If you could clarify better, I would be happy to try to answer. I honestly can't tell if you are trying to ask us all questions OR try to convince us all it is a commandment to not eat blood?

Are you using some kind of translation software to English? (honest question)

Edited February 16, 2016 by NeedleinA

[NeedleinA]

Here you go, an official statement from the Church regarding your misunderstanding about doctrine. If this doesn't help out, you got me.

Directly from the Church: LINK

LDS Newsroom 2007, "Approaching Mormon Doctrine":

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

[Iggy]

iamlds how long have you been a baptized member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? And where are you living? I live in Oregon.

Longer than 5 years? If so have you read the Ensign from back where there was a Question and Answer section? People would send in questions, and the Ensign would answer them.

Well the book by Joseph Fielding Smith that you are quoting from is a compilation of Questions and Answers from the Improvement Era magazine which was from 1897 to 1970. The Ensign's first issue was in 1971. The New Era's first issue was also in 1971. The New Era is for the Young Men and Women.

quote: In May 1953, Joseph Fielding Smith, later tenth president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, began a series of monthly articles in the Improvement Era

called "Your Questions." In these articles, he provided answers to some of the hundreds of questions he received from members of the Church and nonmembers alike. Starting in 1957, Deseret Book Company began publishing many of these questions and answers in a five-volume series entitled

Answers to Gospel Questions.

<snip> Answers to Gospel Questions provides definitive answers to some of the most important and interesting questions asked by students of the gospel. In this volume, you will find information on topics ranging from sin to sacrament, from forgiveness to Fall, from marriage to miracles. You will also find answers to many intriguing gospel questions, including: Why did God create a world where suffering exists? What is the nature of miracles? How do we know we have a Mother in Heaven? Why do little children partake of the sacrament? Does the devil have power to tempt departed spirits? What is the doctrine of plural gods?

It is hoped that in providing this new edition of the well-loved classic, Deseret Book Company can help members of the Church as well as nonmembers find the answers they need to better understand the gospel of Jesus Christ.~ End Quote

It states clearly that Joseph Fielding Smith is answering questions on a very wide range of church related topics. He is not declaring new doctrine. Deseret Book is not publishing or selling *False Doctrine*.

I have spent nearly two hours on the internet trying to find your quote without having to spend 30$ to get it and read it. I did however find a site that gives another reason for the not eating blood. http://www.gotquestions.org/eating-drinking-blood.html 

quote ~ The Bible’s first prohibition against consuming blood comes in Genesis 9:2-4, where God tells Noah, "Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it." This prohibition was most likely a ban on eating raw blood (i.e., uncooked meat). For the first time, animals were an allowable food source, and God was making sure that Noah did not eat them raw. A Jewish Targum comments on this verse: "But the flesh which is torn from a living beast at the time that its life is in it, or which is torn from a beast while it is slain, before all its breath is gone out, ye shall not eat."

Later, the prohibition of Genesis 9:4 is iterated in the Law of Moses. Leviticus 17:14 gives the reason behind command: “For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life.” ~ end quote

I believe that this is what is meant - do not eat/drink/consume raw blood, nor eat of meat that is raw. No doctrine. Just good common sense health wise.

Edited February 16, 2016 by Iggy
clean it up