Eating of Blood

[estradling75]

7 minutes ago, iamlds said:

 

I can read this post different from your other posts More kinder and more clearer

Yes I said I understand and I Believe, and it doesn't mean that my understanding is correct that's why I'm asking questions. And if you wonder why I keep on asking? coz I need answers to keep coming I don't need insulting or miss interpreted comment, but this comment of yours is much better than the others

 

The funny thing is my opinion and attitude has not changed...  I am acting with the same amount of kindness and attempt at clarity in my last post as I have been with all my post interacting with you.

[iamlds]

13 hours ago, Anddenex said:

I have never heard of draining blood from an animal (in totality) ever taken a couple minutes.  The majority of the blood draining, yes, all of it, no.  I have seen too many deer hanging from a tree to drain blood (for days) to know it takes more than a matter of minutes.  Also, in the stake I live in I am able to serve at the local meat packing facility.  The meat is from animals which have had their blood drained and yet every package of meat has blood, and without the clothing they provide for protection I would be covered in blood by the end of the shift.  When we purchase red meat from the store and in the package their still is blood in the meat.  If we were to eat this raw we would be eating blood, and a medium rare cooked steak still has blood.  So then a person must really seek, through spirit and discernment, what is meant. I have already shared what has made sense (to me) according to the era and timeline provided. Until a prophet declares to the Church further information I will continue according to what I have come to understand and let others live according to their knowledge -- in this thing.  Some doctrine is pretty plain and specific, while others may still need line-upon-line knowledge to fully comprehend it.

we can drain blood better than days, if we will drain them for days it will be rotten Once we punch whole on their neck the blood will come out rushing like water faucet, of-course it will not totally drain but not "filled" either.  I'm just thinking of what you said is filled with blood compared to a meat with blood drained and washed    But you are correct there still a blood on it.

[Guest]

iamlds,

Are you familiar with the concentric circles model that describes belief and doctrine?

Just because it is opinion does not make it false doctrine.  It is simply on a different level.

Other models separate further: Core, Dogma, Doctrine, Belief, Interpretation, & Opinion.  You can see that the further you go from the center, the less applicable it is to the general population.

Core is The Atonement and possibly the Godhead.  Dogma is things like the story of Joseph Smith, the truthfulness of the BoM.  Doctrines and beliefs are the types of things we get into discussions on in this forum.  What many are saying here is that this topic is in the realm of opinion and interpretation rather than doctrine or belief.  Of course, we have a healthy dose of discussions on opinions and interpretations as well.

We must adhere to the core and dogma levels.  We discuss and try to understand doctrines.  We even try to have common beliefs.  But when we get into the Interpretation or Opinion levels, we tend to be ok with not having a unity of positions on such.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Guest

[iamlds]

I will tell you a story, this story is one of the reason I asked this questions:

It all starts at the Sunday school where we discussing on the part and reading on Acts. then we came through this.

Acts 15:20

• New Testament

But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. 

Acts 15:29

• New Testament

That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. 

(some says its for gentiles only )

My question is :

This was approximately 45 AD after Christ thought people that the mosaic law was fulfilled and should be done away. 45 years after the death of Jesus then here comes Paul teaching these doctrine?

Then after several years till know It just dis-appear just like that? (but if its just for gentiles its none of our business)

Then the class has its divided opinions, some says yes we should not eat blood then the other says its ok to eat blood.

And there is no explanation on the teachers and student manual

Question:

There's a doctrine that disappear like a bubble through time the we are here waiting for an official doctrine? But the other doctrine on the Bible we still believe without waiting an official doctrine to be released? Still this is a Question, not a thing that I insist.

 

[iamlds]

24 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

iamlds,

Are you familiar with the concentric circles model that describes belief and doctrine?

Just because it is opinion does not make it false doctrine.  It is simply on a different level.

Other models separate further: Core, Dogma, Doctrine, Belief, Interpretation, & Opinion.  You can see that the further you go from the center, the less applicable it is to the general population.

Core is The Atonement and possibly the Godhead.  Dogma is things like the story of Joseph Smith, the truthfulness of the BoM.  Doctrines and beliefs are the types of things we get into discussions on in this forum.  What many are saying here is that this topic is in the realm of opinion and interpretation rather than doctrine or belief.  Of course, we have a healthy dose of discussions on opinions and interpretations as well.

We must adhere to the core and dogma levels.  We discuss and try to understand doctrines.  We even try to have common beliefs.  But when we get into the Interpretation or Opinion levels, we tend to be ok with not having a unity of positions on such.

Interesting, laud and clear ,thanks for that

[iamlds]

24 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

iamlds,

Are you familiar with the concentric circles model that describes belief and doctrine?

Just because it is opinion does not make it false doctrine.  It is simply on a different level.

Other models separate further: Core, Dogma, Doctrine, Belief, Interpretation, & Opinion.  You can see that the further you go from the center, the less applicable it is to the general population.

Core is The Atonement and possibly the Godhead.  Dogma is things like the story of Joseph Smith, the truthfulness of the BoM.  Doctrines and beliefs are the types of things we get into discussions on in this forum.  What many are saying here is that this topic is in the realm of opinion and interpretation rather than doctrine or belief.  Of course, we have a healthy dose of discussions on opinions and interpretations as well.

We must adhere to the core and dogma levels.  We discuss and try to understand doctrines.  We even try to have common beliefs.  But when we get into the Interpretation or Opinion levels, we tend to be ok with not having a unity of positions on such.

Interesting, laud and clear ,thanks for that

[iamlds]

24 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

iamlds,

Are you familiar with the concentric circles model that describes belief and doctrine?

Just because it is opinion does not make it false doctrine.  It is simply on a different level.

Other models separate further: Core, Dogma, Doctrine, Belief, Interpretation, & Opinion.  You can see that the further you go from the center, the less applicable it is to the general population.

Core is The Atonement and possibly the Godhead.  Dogma is things like the story of Joseph Smith, the truthfulness of the BoM.  Doctrines and beliefs are the types of things we get into discussions on in this forum.  What many are saying here is that this topic is in the realm of opinion and interpretation rather than doctrine or belief.  Of course, we have a healthy dose of discussions on opinions and interpretations as well.

We must adhere to the core and dogma levels.  We discuss and try to understand doctrines.  We even try to have common beliefs.  But when we get into the Interpretation or Opinion levels, we tend to be ok with not having a unity of positions on such.

Interesting, laud and clear ,thanks for that

[iamlds]

24 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

iamlds,

Are you familiar with the concentric circles model that describes belief and doctrine?

Just because it is opinion does not make it false doctrine.  It is simply on a different level.

Other models separate further: Core, Dogma, Doctrine, Belief, Interpretation, & Opinion.  You can see that the further you go from the center, the less applicable it is to the general population.

Core is The Atonement and possibly the Godhead.  Dogma is things like the story of Joseph Smith, the truthfulness of the BoM.  Doctrines and beliefs are the types of things we get into discussions on in this forum.  What many are saying here is that this topic is in the realm of opinion and interpretation rather than doctrine or belief.  Of course, we have a healthy dose of discussions on opinions and interpretations as well.

We must adhere to the core and dogma levels.  We discuss and try to understand doctrines.  We even try to have common beliefs.  But when we get into the Interpretation or Opinion levels, we tend to be ok with not having a unity of positions on such.

Interesting, laud and clear ,thanks for that

[iamlds]

24 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

iamlds,

Are you familiar with the concentric circles model that describes belief and doctrine?

Just because it is opinion does not make it false doctrine.  It is simply on a different level.

Other models separate further: Core, Dogma, Doctrine, Belief, Interpretation, & Opinion.  You can see that the further you go from the center, the less applicable it is to the general population.

Core is The Atonement and possibly the Godhead.  Dogma is things like the story of Joseph Smith, the truthfulness of the BoM.  Doctrines and beliefs are the types of things we get into discussions on in this forum.  What many are saying here is that this topic is in the realm of opinion and interpretation rather than doctrine or belief.  Of course, we have a healthy dose of discussions on opinions and interpretations as well.

We must adhere to the core and dogma levels.  We discuss and try to understand doctrines.  We even try to have common beliefs.  But when we get into the Interpretation or Opinion levels, we tend to be ok with not having a unity of positions on such.

Interesting, laud and clear ,thanks for that

[estradling75]

10 minutes ago, iamlds said:

I will tell you a story, this story is one of the reason I asked this questions:

It all starts at the Sunday school where we discussing on the part and reading on Acts. then we came through this.

Acts 15:20

• New Testament

But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. 

Acts 15:29

• New Testament

That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. 

(some says its for gentiles only )

My question is :

This was approximately 45 AD after Christ thought people that the mosaic law was fulfilled and should be done away. 45 years after the death of Jesus then here comes Paul teaching these doctrine?

Then after several years till know It just dis-appear just like that? (but if its just for gentiles its none of our business)

Then the class has its divided opinions, some says yes we should not eat blood then the other says its ok to eat blood.

And there is no explanation on the teachers and student manual

Question:

There's a doctrine that disappear like a bubble through time the we are here waiting for an official doctrine? But the other doctrine on the Bible we still believe without waiting an official doctrine to be released? Still this is a Question, not a thing that I insist.

 

To repeat...  the doctrines we follow today... modern revelation has been given telling us that we should.  Thou Shall not Kill... Modern revelation. Thou shall not commit adultery... Modern... Not lie cheat steal etc...  Modern.   Everything we follow has a modern genesis even if it is as old as the bible stories...

 

So the question you are really asking is why did God not include "no blood" in the modern revelation?  And the answer is simply we don't know.  We can safely presume a "Wise Purpose."  But beyond that we are speculating, however your leaders were and are correct that it should not be taught as something the Lord currently requires of us as a church.

 

 

 

[estradling75]

10 minutes ago, iamlds said:

I will tell you a story, this story is one of the reason I asked this questions:

It all starts at the Sunday school where we discussing on the part and reading on Acts. then we came through this.

Acts 15:20

• New Testament

But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. 

Acts 15:29

• New Testament

That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. 

(some says its for gentiles only )

My question is :

This was approximately 45 AD after Christ thought people that the mosaic law was fulfilled and should be done away. 45 years after the death of Jesus then here comes Paul teaching these doctrine?

Then after several years till know It just dis-appear just like that? (but if its just for gentiles its none of our business)

Then the class has its divided opinions, some says yes we should not eat blood then the other says its ok to eat blood.

And there is no explanation on the teachers and student manual

Question:

There's a doctrine that disappear like a bubble through time the we are here waiting for an official doctrine? But the other doctrine on the Bible we still believe without waiting an official doctrine to be released? Still this is a Question, not a thing that I insist.

 

To repeat...  the doctrines we follow today... modern revelation has been given telling us that we should.  Thou Shall not Kill... Modern revelation. Thou shall not commit adultery... Modern... Not lie cheat steal etc...  Modern.   Everything we follow has a modern genesis even if it is as old as the bible stories...

 

So the question you are really asking is why did God not include "no blood" in the modern revelation?  And the answer is simply we don't know.  We can safely presume a "Wise Purpose."  But beyond that we are speculating, however your leaders were and are correct that it should not be taught as something the Lord currently requires of us as a church.

 

 

 

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, iamlds said:

 

 

 I understand and I Believe, and it doesn't mean that my understanding is correct that's why I'm asking questions.\

Never stop asking questions. It's the best way to learn. If I didn't ask questions, I never would have joined the church. I keep asking questions. The only good personality quality I have is that I'm not afraid to ask questions. We both share that. It's a good thing, believe me, 

[spamlds]

For what it's worth, when I was a young missionary in France in the 1980s, we were instructed to include blood products in the Word of Wisdom when we taught it.  The French had several traditional dishes that were made using animal blood as the main ingredient.  The basis of that instruction was the New Testament's admonitions against consuming blood.

Interestingly, that New Testament prohibition was mentioned alongside a probition against eating things that were sacrificed to idols.  This was a practice of idolatrous feasts in Roman times and Christians were admonished to avoid even the trappings of idolatry.  In the end, the Church went into apostasy and idolatry took over the ancient Church in the form of the mass.  It's not often that it would happen, but if you have friends with some "New Age" beliefs, that's something tht you might encounter.  For example, people who practice Transcendental Meditation undergo a ceremony where a "sacrificial offering" is made to an image of Guru Dev.  In Asian cultures and in Africa, it is common to offer meals, plates of foods, etc, to dead ancestors as part of a meal. 

Modern revelation doesn't address those situations specifically, but latter-day saints are bound to keep the commandments and counsel of the early apostles as well as the living ones.  We just dont run into those situations very often in our culture, but in other culture, additional guidance is often given by local leaders under the supervision of the General Authorities.

[LeSellers]

On 2/29/2016 at 9:00 PM, spamlds said:

For what it's worth, when I was a young missionary in France in the 1980s, we were instructed to include blood products in the Word of Wisdom when we taught it.  The French had several traditional dishes that were made using animal blood as the main ingredient.

It was the same in the late 60s. Blood sausage (boudin noir) was the primary version, but there were others.

Lehi

[Aish HaTorah]

Consuming blood = definitely not kosher.

[Edspringer]

On 29/02/2016 at 1:00 AM, spamlds said:

For what it's worth, when I was a young missionary in France in the 1980s, we were instructed to include blood products in the Word of Wisdom when we taught it.  The French had several traditional dishes that were made using animal blood as the main ingredient.  The basis of that instruction was the New Testament's admonitions against consuming blood.

 

In Brazil, especially in my state, Minas Gerais, there is this tradition of cooking chicken with its own blood (we call it frango ao molho pardo). Some people also use chicken’s blood to cook it separately, 'til it gets hard enough to eat it using a fork. 

So, in our case, there's no formal prohibition on consuming animal blood. My family and I don't consume it, for believing in the Old Testament teachings. But we don't preach about it or our family’s decision.

I've never heard of any Church leader, local or General Authority, in our country, saying anything against eating blood. Personally I think that if it was of great concern, we would certainly have some admonition or advice on the subject from our Church leaders.