Is there a verse in the Word of Wisdom we all seem to ignore?

[pam]

A little while ago I taught a gospel doctrine class on Section 89 of the Doctrine and Covenants, the Word of Wisdom. We used the excellent essay on the influence of the temperance movement to establish context for Joseph’s seeking of guidance from the Lord.

We talked about the nasty, smoky environment in the room where the School of the Prophets met, and Emma Smith’s frustrations at having to clean tobacco spit from the floor.

Then we discussed Section 89 itself. Nearly at the end of the lesson, I asked the class, “Who is keeping the Word of Wisdom?” Not a single hand went up. That was a big surprise for me.

https://mormonhub.com/blog/faith/scripture/women-in-the-scriptures/doctrine-and-covenants/verse-ignore-word-wisdom/

 

I thought it was an interesting article and certainly a lot of room for thought on it.

[Guest]

I've heard this before.  And while I do see the nutritional benefits of having in-season fruit, I don't see that verse as necessarily requiring it.  "every fruit in the season thereof" is easily interpreted to mean "fresh fruit" as opposed to canned.

There are benefits to fresh vs canned.  There are benefits of in-season vs out of season.  Does this really mean that we can't each citrus fruits except in winter?  We can't eat nectarines except in summer?  We can't eat blueberries except in spring and early summer?

I just don't buy that.  So, if I were in her Sunday school class, I'd have raised my hand to say,"Yes, I do."

Edited July 10, 2017 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

Getting ahead of the prophets is always useful. 

[NeuroTypical]

"Every herb in the season thereof, and every fruit in the season thereof;"

Yeah, count me as someone who thinks of that as merely common-sense guidance about when to harvest, not when to consume.  I'd like to make a $5 bet.  Someone figure out a way to bring a Mormon from agricultural frontier America here to the future.  Let's voice the notion that this scripture advocates we only eat wheat during the period it's harvestable, or fruit only during when you can pick it.  I bet $5 they'd laugh in your face.   Preserving food is preserving life.  It's what lets humans survive from harvest to harvest.  

Either that, or it's a commandment to only live in areas with year-round growing seasons, or maybe a meat-only diet except for a few short weeks scattered across 4-5 months of the year.  Either way, Utah is hosed.

Edited July 10, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[The Folk Prophet]

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

[Vort]

1 hour ago, pam said:

I thought it was an interesting article and certainly a lot of room for thought on it.

I agree, it's a thought-provoking article. I think the author may be guilty of doing what pretty much everyone tends to do: See two points and draw a line between them. But there is an immense number of unknowns in modern life, a few of which are new to our time (such as continuous exposure to petrochemicals and the heightened concentration of environmental lead due to fifty years of leaded gasoline). How these all interact is unknown. Why do girls start menstruating and a much younger age? We do not understand such things. Heck, we don't understand why women who live together sync up on their periods, and that's been known forever.

Like others, I don't buy into "only eat wheat in August" or other such extreme inferences. But I think the topic is worth exploring. As far as the Word of Wisdom goes, I think we should be careful about reading too much into that. But again, these things are worth thinking about.

[zil]

Complicating factors in interpreting this part of the WoW:

• Back in the day, the average person wasn't terribly mobile, thus, one could argue they were genetically adapted to the region and to the in-season food of that region.  Today, people are a lot more mobile.  The region in which you now live may provide a very different combination of foods than the region(s) you grew up in.
• Given modern technology, I'm not sure there's such a thing as a growing season anymore.  If it won't grow outside where you are, it may grow in a greenhouse, or half way round the world from you (and be in your store's fresh produce aisle within 48 hours of when they pulled it out of the ground).
• Also given modern technology, our ability to preserve (and corrupt) may be enhanced from back in the day.
• And then there's the fact that more and more of us (myself included) are pretty dumb when it comes to growing food - I could not tell you what will grow here or when - but if you give me a plant, I can guarantee it's not going to survive long, even if I follow all the instructions to the letter (apparently plants can't stand to live with me - and I don't blame them).

There are probably other factors which complicate matters.  It may well be that you're healthier eating fresh local food in an area where your ancestry has existed for multiple generations.  Or it might just be that fresher is better.  Or maybe that One-A-Day makes up the difference.  I have no idea, but I'm not entirely convinced most of us have much more of an idea, especially as it applies to other people (as in, this might be one of those vague, general guidelines we're meant to work through personally, with the Lord's help, rather than a cut and dried, "if only you'd understand what I'm telling you" thing).

Edited July 11, 2017 by zil

[Snigmorder]

The one verse that everyone pretends does not exist is verse 13.  I hear it all the time "eat meat sparingly", that's not what the Revelation says. 

Verse 12 and 13 should be read together, there is a semicolon after verse 12. Taken together they read:

"Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly; and it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine."

The revelation defines "sparingly" as "animals are a back up when you can't eat anything else."

And notice how the Lord says "it is pleasing unto me." The way I read the passage, it seems he doesn't want animals arbitrarily used or exploited, perhaps for the benefit of the creatures or the character of the saints. I think this might go beyond health in this instance.

And the seasons thing. I get the impression that it might be talking about genetically altered foods (or something like unto it) that can grow anywhere at anytime. But this is pure speculation on my part because I have no idea about genetically altered food and whether or not it can grow anywhere at anytime.

[person0]

6 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

The revelation defines "sparingly" as "animals are a back up when you can't eat anything else."

The revelation does not directly define the word sparingly at all.

7 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

And notice how the Lord says "it is pleasing unto me." The way I read the passage, it seems he doesn't want animals arbitrarily used or exploited, perhaps for the benefit of the creatures or the character of the saints. I think this might go beyond health in this instance.

I would recommend reading the Joseph Smith Papers version of the manuscript, perhaps it could alter your interpretation somewhat.  I will show you verse 13 as it is currently printed and as it was in the manuscript:

Quote

Printed:
And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.

Manuscript:
And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.

The addition or removal of the coma can change the entire interpretation.

Many people living at the time the word of wisdom was given suffered from scurvy for a high meat or all meat diet.  I think the point of the word of wisdom regarding meat is moderation.  Sparingly can mean many things depending on the context.  If all you eat is meat, then sparingly could mean now meat is 25% of your diet instead of 100%.

Remember we also have this revelation:

Quote

And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God;

For, behold, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which cometh of the earth, is ordained for the use of man for food and for raiment, and that he might have in abundance.

(D&C 49: 18-19)

[NeuroTypical]

2 hours ago, Snigmorder said:

The revelation defines "sparingly" as "animals are a back up when you can't eat anything else."

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

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

But take a look at the original manuscript:

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

 

So as God originally revealed it, it's pleasing unto him that meat not be used only in those times.  Meaning it's pleasing unto him that meat is used at times in addition to winter/cold/famine.  

Meaning, I get to eat meat tonight.  It's 85 degrees outside, and I'm eating meat, and not violating the WoW in letter or spirit.

(Of course, all the other points made about this set of verses, prudence/thanksgiving/sparingly, are totally valid.  It's really easy to eat meat in quantities no reasonable person could possibly call "sparingly", much less "prudent".  

Edited July 10, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[NeuroTypical]

Shocking update: My wife made her mega-yum waffles for dinner!  No meat for me, but I'm smilin'!

[Snigmorder]

@NeuroTypical @person0 How did the comma manage to get in there?

[NeuroTypical]

It was during a re-printing of the BoM.  It just slipped in.  It was not intentional.  Typesetting and printing is surprisingly complicated, and stuff like this just happens. For example, let's say you wanna have a Book of Mormon.  Here's some things that happen:

- You write down what God tells you to write as His mouthpiece says the words.  
- You hand your manuscripts to the printer, who creates a printer's manuscript - and some changes happen.
- The printer uses his manuscript to set type on his printing press - and some changes happen.
- As you print the first edition run, something happens and you have to re-set some type - and some changes happen.  (Yes, the very first time the BoM was printed, the last copy made had some differences to the first copy printed.)
- Every time you print again, until word processors and mass-printing technology gets invented, you lay type manually - and some changes happen.
- You wanna paginate, add footnotes, make sure chapters start on a new page?  Re-do everything - and some changes happen. 

And this is just for the BoM and D&C.  Can you imagine the Bible?  Translating it across languages and preserving it across centuries as the language changes around it?

So something similar happened to the D&C with that comma.  Nobody noticed for decades.  If memory serves, when someone brought it to the attention of the brethren, they didn't know it had happened, and declined to correct it or issue any particular clarification.

Edited July 11, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[Snigmorder]

@NeuroTypical @person0

I read a couple verses past verse 13. Here's 12–15 of section 89.

"Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;

And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.

All grain is ordained for the use of man and of beasts, to be the staff of life, not only for man but for the beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, and all wild animals that run or creep on the earth;

 And these hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger."

Comma or no comma, that's pretty definitive, and I don't think he's talking about the grain.

 

[person0]

4 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

Comma or no comma, that's pretty definitive, and I don't think he's talking about the grain.

Your interpretation is entirely reasonable, however, Ezra Taft Benson interpreted 'these' from verse 15 to refer to the wild animals, not farm animals (livestock), and the Church published it in the Ensign.

Quote

. . . hunting “wild animals” which God made for the use of man only “in times of famine and excess of hunger. . . (Ensign - May 1971: Keeping the Sabbath Day Holy)

This same statement was reprinted in the Ensign in 1994 and in 2000.  There is currently no other prophetic/apostolic interpretation published by the Church of this verse, so I will personally accept this one.  To me this is also the most logical conclusion as to not create a contradiction with previous verses in section 89 as well as the verses in section 49 shown in my post above.

[NeuroTypical]

And it gets even weirder in section 49.  18-19:

Quote

And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God; For, behold, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which cometh of the earth, is ordained for the use of man for food and for raiment, and that he might have in abundance.

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

 

 

[Snigmorder]

So Benson thought this was censure of sport hunting? I didn't even think to consider the adjectives.

[Snigmorder]

53 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

And it gets even weirder in section 49.  18-19:

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

 

 

Yeah, those passages do seem to express God's desire that animals be used in an edifying matter for man. And the language between verses 13 and 15 are different in 89. Verse 15 definitely says "do not eat unless." It seems like it would've been just as easy to write it that way for verse 13. D&C 49 does call them "beasts of the field" The same as verse 14 in 89 but not 13. I'll have to read what Ezra Taft Benson said.

[The Folk Prophet]

13 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

So as God originally revealed it,

You mean as it was originally transcribed.

Note: I'm not arguing for or against. Just pointing out that a missing comma is a transcription thing.

[Guest]

FWIW:

I had a conversation with a military chaplain about this.  He said he asked Pres. Hinckley about it when he visited this chaplain's base once upon a time.

Pres. Hinckley's response

Quote

That really had to do with preservation methods and food processing.

I've thought about this statement a lot since then.  I can't make heads or tails of it.  What on earth does that mean?

[NeuroTypical]

Honestly, I take the entire subject of how to correctly interpret the WoW, as an exercise in loving my fellow man and not judging.  We get so passionate about it (myself included).  There are so many vagueries to be interpreted in so many different, but rational ways.  No definitive discussion-ending clarifications from the brethren, just general council to be healthy and don't ingest harmful substances.  

Plus, the reason the whole thing is here for us in the first place:
- A Word of Wisdom, for the benefit of the...saints in Zion
- not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation
- Given for a principle with promise
- adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints
- In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days

Doesn't sound like the whole thing is a "thou shalt or be damned" type of thing.  More like a "you have enemies, so here is wisdom - follow it and be blessed - I know some of you are weak" sort of thing. 

Anyway, yo mamma so Mormon she bottles her own Pepsi!  Peace.

[Snigmorder]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

FWIW:

I had a conversation with a military chaplain about this.  He said he asked Pres. Hinckley about it when he visited this chaplain's base once upon a time.

Pres. Hinckley's response

I've thought about this statement a lot since then.  I can't make heads or tails of it.  What on earth does that mean?

I have two grandmothers.

The first grandmother thinks it has to do with a lack of refrigeration, similar to Gordon B Hinckley's position. 

The second grandmother thinks the Saints didn't need a divine revelation to figure out that meat spoils. 

I agree with the second.

Edited July 11, 2017 by Snigmorder

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

I have two grandmothers.

The first grandmother thinks it has to do with a lack of refrigeration, similar to Gordon B Hinckley's position. 

The second grandmother thinks the Saints didn't need a divine revelation to figure out that meat spoils. 

I agree with the second.

Still doesn't explain what it means in the first place.  So, how can you disagree with something when you don't even know what it means?

[Snigmorder]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Still doesn't explain what it means in the first place.  So, how can you disagree with something when you don't even know what it means?

Well I can't explain it to you because its not what the Scripture says, I can disagree with it easily.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

Well I can't explain it to you because its not what the Scripture says, I can disagree with it easily.

If you don't know what they mean, how do you know it disagrees with what the scripture says?

If I say,"I believe the verse is saying that the snodiyev is ablast the canofactor, so, we need to trirt the manophyn," then you can't disagree with it (or agree with it) because you have no idea what it means.

So, I'd like some impression of what Pres Hinckley and your grandmother even meant before I'm willing to just blow it off as meaningless.