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

[Snigmorder]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

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.

I say that because, in my opinion, it's clear that the passage as written has nothing to do with preservation, refrigeration, or anything else like that. What Hinckley could be doing is bringing in a historical context and not necessarily interpreting the passage per se. That's all I could say about it, I tried to find something about it but was unable.

@NeuroTypical @person0 

But what I did find was an article from the Interpreter Foundation titled "Questioning the Comma in Verse 13 of the Word of Wisdom." 

Here's the article: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/questioning-the-comma-in-verse-13-of-the-word-of-wisdom/

Here's the abstract: "The 1921 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants included an additional comma, which was inserted after the word “used” in D&C 89:13: “And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.” Later authors have speculated that the addition of the comma was a mistake that fundamentally changed the meaning of the verse. This article examines this “errant comma theory” and demonstrates why this particular interpretation of D&C 89:13 is without merit."

 

[person0]

34 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

But what I did find was an article from the Interpreter Foundation titled "Questioning the Comma in Verse 13 of the Word of Wisdom." 

That was a very compelling article.  I both agree and disagree with aspects of it.  Just for fun, here are a few parts I really, really liked:

Quote

“In actuality most Latter-day Saints’ lifestyle is lived as though the comma were not there.” . . .

. . . what does D&C 89:13 mean? To date, there is no consensus of opinion. In fact, during the last eight decades the number of interpretations has multiplied. . .

In fact, Latter-day Saints who have addressed the Word of Wisdom during the last few decades have been more likely to emphasize the fact that meat is “ordained of God” and “not forbidden” than to suggest that Latter-day Saints should curtail their consumption. . .

. . .it is clear that the meaning of D&C 89:13 is not critical to keeping the Word of Wisdom in terms of the worthiness standard of the Church . . .

I can appreciate both sides of the argument, but in a world where way too many people are advocating for complete vegetarianism, veganism, animal rights above human rights, etc, I would much rather err on the side of encouraging people to eat meat too frequently than to err on the side of teaching them to avoid meat too much.  I think most people who make the argument as you have done (not necessarily you) tend to err on the side of advocating too little meat consumption.  If the Lord feels enough of the Saints are over-consuming meat, I'm confident his apostles and prophets will clarify.

[The Folk Prophet]

38 minutes ago, person0 said:

That was a very compelling article.  I both agree and disagree with aspects of it.  Just for fun, here are a few parts I really, really liked:

I can appreciate both sides of the argument, but in a world where way too many people are advocating for complete vegetarianism, veganism, animal rights above human rights, etc, I would much rather err on the side of encouraging people to eat meat too frequently than to err on the side of teaching them to avoid meat too much.  I think most people who make the argument as you have done (not necessarily you) tend to err on the side of advocating too little meat consumption.  If the Lord feels enough of the Saints are over-consuming meat, I'm confident his apostles and prophets will clarify.

Hmm. How about we don't err at all...and just eat healthy.

Is anyone really under the impression that glutting themselves on meat is good for them?

[NeuroTypical]

35 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Is anyone really under the impression that glutting themselves on meat is good for them?

No.  I'm just teenagerishly entrenched in the notion that I should be able to do so if I wished, without condemnation, and any negative consequence suffered would be WoW's fault and not mine.  

Edited July 11, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[person0]

23 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Hmm. How about we don't err at all...and just eat healthy.

Are you really that confident that you could present the absolute perfect daily diet?  Even if you could, the diet would be different for everyone at every age, it would depend on medical conditions, etc.  I don't even think eating healthy is the real question here.  It seems to me the point being discussed would be more along the lines of eating 'perfectly'.  If you are not eating perfectly then you are technically erring, even if not spiritually or sinfully, you are missing out on the added benefit of eating perfectly.  I'm not sure the Word of Wisdom expects or is specific enough for all of us to eat perfectly, just healthy, as you suggested.  Some would disagree with that.

28 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Is anyone really under the impression that glutting themselves on meat is good for them?

That's highly unlikely, but there are many people who are under the impression that a correct interpretation of the Word of Wisdom means to almost never eat meat.  That, in my view, is inaccurate, and probably less healthy than unintentionally eating too much meat (not the same as glutting).

[person0]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Is anyone really under the impression that glutting themselves on meat is good for them?

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

No.  I'm just teenagerishly entrenched in the notion that I should be able to do so if I wished, without condemnation, and any negative consequence suffered would be WoW's fault and not mine.  

I have a confession to make.    This restaurant provides an exquisite and delicious all you can eat meat buffet (they also have a salad bar).  It is one of my favorite places to eat.  Does the fact that I shove my face full of various different delicious meats only once or twice a year count as sparingly?  

Even more important, (ignoring location) if I'm buying and you're all invited, are you not coming?  I couldn't say for sure, but I think NeuroTypical seems like he's up for it!

[Jojo Bags]

I think verse 4 probably is the single most overlooked verse.  I've lived in three other countries in my life and without question,  the U.S. has the wost, most adulterated,  processed food I've ever had.   The USDA allows some ingredients in our food that are banned in every other country in the world. Things like the GMO milk production hormone, "rBST," and other GMO products.  Then there are the various preservatives,  conditioners, etc.  Did you know that much of the bread conditioners used in commercial bread products comes from hair gathered from the floors of barbershops in China?   The hair is processed in acid and the nonessential amino acid L-cysteine is removed, shipped to the U.S. where you eat it in your pizza dough, donuts, bread sticks, etc.  Yummy!   Bread was never meant to be softer than a cotton ball. This goes back to the "conspiring men."  Some people and some companies will do anything for money. 

[Guest MormonGator]

12 minutes ago, Jojo Bags said:

I think verse 4 probably is the single most overlooked verse.  I've lived in three other countries in my life and without question,  the U.S. has the wost, most adulterated,  processed food I've ever had.   The USDA allows some ingredients in our food that are banned in every other country in the world. Things like the GMO milk production hormone, "rBST," and other GMO products.  Then there are the various preservatives,  conditioners, etc.  Did you know that much of the bread conditioners used in commercial bread products comes from hair gathered from the floors of barbershops in China?   The hair is processed in acid and the nonessential amino acid L-cysteine is removed, shipped to the U.S. where you eat it in your pizza dough, donuts, bread sticks, etc.  Yummy!   Bread was never meant to be softer than a cotton ball. This goes back to the "conspiring men."  Some people and some companies will do anything for money. 

Unless you personally are starving to death, you need to be very, very careful about condemning "GMO" food. In reality, it could save countless lives and end famines. To talk about how "evil" they are is the height of scientific ignorance and reeks of first world snobbishness and privilege.

Edited July 11, 2017 by MormonGator

[person0]

3 minutes ago, Jojo Bags said:

This goes back to the "conspiring men."  Some people and some companies will do anything for money.

I highly doubt the 'conspiring men' statement has anything to do with bread preservatives and more to do with glorification and mass production of alcohol, tobacco products, etc.

Quote

The hair is dissolved in acid and L-cysteine is isolated through a chemical process, then packaged and shipped off to commercial bread producers.

(True fact: A common ingredient in commercial breads is derived from human hair harvested in China)

So, why is this a problem?  If the ingredient is 100% isolated, why does it matter where it came from?  Did you know that the water plant filters your poop and pee and feeds it right back to you?  How is this any different?  That is more scientific genius than conspiring men.  I mean, they are recycling hair and gathering functional and usable elements from it to aid mankind.

Quote

All cows already have bovine somatotropin in their bodies.  After decades of scientific research, scientists recognized that cows supplemented with additional somatotropin produce on average 10-15% more milk every day.  This reduces the number of cows and the amount of land, water, and resources needed to produce the same amount of milk.  From a farmer’s (and consumer’s) perspective this is a positive in terms of business and environmental impact. . . The use of rbST is safe, because it does not change the composition of milk in a biologically relevant manner.  In fact, there is no laboratory test that can tell whether milk came from a cow treated with rbST or not.  This is the reason that the “hormone free” labels say “our farmers pledge” rather than “guaranteed.”. . .  Use of rbST on farms does not lead to increased incidences of health problems in dairy cattle. . . milk and dairy products from cows treated with rbST are safe for my children and me to consume.

(Is Milk from Cows Receiving rbST Safe for my Family?)

Once again, not a problem, and inspired scientific genius rather than conspiring men.

Some might cringe to know that I directly add MSG into almost everything that I cook and eat.    I buy it in big bags like this:

Proven via actual scientific studies to be safe.  It makes my food taste better than everyone else's food!  

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, person0 said:

Are you really that confident that you could present the absolute perfect daily diet?

Your implication that a perfect daily diet is required is.....well, frankly weird. I mean maybe you're not implying it but just rhetorically asking. Still a weird idea to me.

2 hours ago, person0 said:

I don't even think eating healthy is the real question here.

Sure it is. As long as one takes a reasonable position that doing one's best is the best one can do.

2 hours ago, person0 said:

It seems to me the point being discussed would be more along the lines of eating 'perfectly'.  If you are not eating perfectly then you are technically erring, even if not spiritually or sinfully, you are missing out on the added benefit of eating perfectly.  

Once again...kind of a weird idea.

Was it not clear that when I said we don't err at all that I meant spiritually by looking beyond the mark? Should have been.

2 hours ago, person0 said:

but there are many people who are under the impression that a correct interpretation of the Word of Wisdom means to almost never eat meat.  That, in my view, is inaccurate, and probably less healthy than unintentionally eating too much meat (not the same as glutting).

Shrug. Same diff to me. Looking beyond the mark is looking beyond the mark. That being said, I'm not going to fault someone who makes a sincere effort to obey something they believe God is asking them to do -- unless it leads them to a state that is beyond reason and harms them somehow. But I tend to agree with you.

[Fether]

I think the food they offer at the MTC and at the temple cafeteria says a lot about what the word of wisdom entails.

Edited July 12, 2017 by Fether

[The Folk Prophet]

9 minutes ago, Fether said:

I think the food they offer at the MTC and at the temple cafeteria says a lot about what the word of wisdom intails.

That's a bit of a stretch.

[person0]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

...kind of a weird idea.

I was thinking the same thing as I was writing it!   I just was having trouble coming up with a good way of saying it (coincidentally, probably because I was very hungry at the time).  I was definitely being rhetorical about the perfect diet.  In regard to healthy eating not being the real question, I was referring to my interpretation of Snigmorder's original point about only eating meat when there was basically no other choice, which is how the whole conversation between He, I and NeuroTypical got started.  I was not referring to healthy eating not being the real point of the WoW.  I did not interpret your meaning of looking beyond the mark, probably my bad, but my use of the word err was also meant to mean 'err unintentionally while trying to sincerely keep the WoW', rather than actually overdoing it.  I think that sums it up.  Anyway, I'm gonna go eat my chocolate ice cream perfectly now.   (except I probably won't because I'm currently limiting my sweets for fitness purposes) 

[SpiritDragon]

4 hours ago, Snigmorder said:

I say that because, in my opinion, it's clear that the passage as written has nothing to do with preservation, refrigeration, or anything else like that. What Hinckley could be doing is bringing in a historical context and not necessarily interpreting the passage per se. That's all I could say about it, I tried to find something about it but was unable.

@NeuroTypical @person0 

But what I did find was an article from the Interpreter Foundation titled "Questioning the Comma in Verse 13 of the Word of Wisdom." 

Here's the article: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/questioning-the-comma-in-verse-13-of-the-word-of-wisdom/

Here's the abstract: "The 1921 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants included an additional comma, which was inserted after the word “used” in D&C 89:13: “And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.” Later authors have speculated that the addition of the comma was a mistake that fundamentally changed the meaning of the verse. This article examines this “errant comma theory” and demonstrates why this particular interpretation of D&C 89:13 is without merit."

 

That's a nice article you found Snigmorder. I'd add to it that "In Our Lovely Deseret" was written before the comma was added in 1921 and certainly casts light on the understanding of saints prior to that update. Verse 2 reads:

 That the children may live long

And be beautiful and strong,

Tea and coffee and tobacco they despise,

Drink no liquor, and they eat

But a very little meat;

They are seeking to be great and good and wise.

 

Further the biblical account of Daniel eating pulses and water instead of the kings meat and wine also seem to lend credibility to the idea that limiting meat may also have been a part of the Lord's Law of health always, granted meat in this context may simply refer to food and not animal flesh. Of course the main guidelines we have today to look at for what Daniel would likely base his decisions on are found in Leviticus 11 which talks at length about clean and unclean animals, but doesn't offer much to go on as far as how much to eat or when - or anything else to eat for that matter. Perhaps I need to reread the OT and see if anything else is in there regarding the matter.

[The Folk Prophet]

6 minutes ago, person0 said:

I was thinking the same thing as I was writing it!   I just was having trouble coming up with a good way of saying it (coincidentally, probably because I was very hungry at the time).  I was definitely being rhetorical about the perfect diet.  In regard to healthy eating not being the real question, I was referring to my interpretation of Snigmorder's original point about only eating meat when there was basically no other choice, which is how the whole conversation between He, I and NeuroTypical got started.  I was not referring to healthy eating not being the real point of the WoW.  I did not interpret your meaning of looking beyond the mark, probably my bad, but my use of the word err was also meant to mean 'err unintentionally while trying to sincerely keep the WoW', rather than actually overdoing it.  I think that sums it up.  Anyway, I'm gonna go eat my chocolate ice cream perfectly now.   (except I probably won't because I'm currently limiting my sweets for fitness purposes) 

Makes sense.

I have no problem with someone "erring" according to my interpretation while I'm "erring" according to theirs. There's a reason these things haven't been defined. As long as we're not erring according to the prophet's and apostles official interpretation of the Word of Wisdom and we're doing our best to generally live healthy to our best understanding of things I'd say we're keeping it. I have a pretty big problem with others trying to express their personal opinions about how to keep the word of wisdom beyond these ideas: Don't use alcohol, tobacco, coffee, tea, or illegal drugs, and do your best to generally take care of yourself. Done and done.

[Fether]

41 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

That's a bit of a stretch.

Why?

[Snigmorder]

59 minutes ago, person0 said:

I'm gonna go eat my chocolate ice cream perfectly now. 

Funny thing about chocolate. My grandma stopped eating chocolate because she says there's caffeine in it.

 

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Snigmorder said:

Funny thing about chocolate. My grandma stopped eating chocolate because she says there's caffeine in it.

If we ban eating chocolate, retention and conversation rates will fall to 0. 

[Snigmorder]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

If we ban eating chocolate, retention and conversation rates will fall to 0. 

Gotta have an Abrahamic test.

[SpiritDragon]

7 hours ago, person0 said:

That was a very compelling article.  I both agree and disagree with aspects of it.  Just for fun, here are a few parts I really, really liked:

I can appreciate both sides of the argument, but in a world where way too many people are advocating for complete vegetarianism, veganism, animal rights above human rights, etc, I would much rather err on the side of encouraging people to eat meat too frequently than to err on the side of teaching them to avoid meat too much.  I think most people who make the argument as you have done (not necessarily you) tend to err on the side of advocating too little meat consumption.  If the Lord feels enough of the Saints are over-consuming meat, I'm confident his apostles and prophets will clarify.

Do you believe that you need to eat to eat meat for health reasons? Going vegan or vegetarian is a perfectly healthy way to eat. Of course vegans and vegetarians can just as easily over consume sugar and other over-processed junk food and run into problems as well, but that isn't a problem from not eating meat, it's a problem from eating too much crap.  

[SpiritDragon]

While discussing overlooked verses in section 89 I thought I'd propose the 2nd verse as one that doesn't often come up in conversation.

 To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days—

If my memory serves me correctly it was somewhere between 80 and 100 years after the revelation was given that specific portions of it became a matter of worthiness for temple attendance. Up until that point it is safe to say that it was, as it reads, a greeting with words of wisdom leading to promised blessings. I can't say that any particular new revelation made it a temple requirement to abstain from alcohol, tobacco, coffee and tea - but this part has been clarified to be important for worthiness and temple blessings ride on obedience to this part of the word of wisdom. Thus this part has longer lasting implications than temporal salvation suggests to me, which is not to say that this part of the revelation has no bearing on temporal salvation, simply that due to it now being a requirement to enter into temple covenants this particular part of our understanding of the word of wisdom is of importance for our eternal salvation.

When it comes to eating meat sparingly, eating herbs in the season thereof, eating whole grains and so on, I can't help but wonder if this is purely information to help bless those willing to abide by it in this life, but has no significant impact on the eternities. What does temporal salvation mean to others?

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, Fether said:

Why?

Well, first, what do you even mean? That anything they serve therein is okilly dokilly? And in what quantity? They also serve sodas, chocolate milk, sugary deserts, sugar free deserts, etc.? So what's the interpretation then? Essentially, if what you say is true, then the only things not served are coffee, tea, alcohol, and caffeinated sodas? So is that the end-all of the word of wisdom? Maybe you could expound on what you mean. But it seems like a real stretch tome.

[Fether]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Well, first, what do you even mean? That anything they serve therein is okilly dokilly? And in what quantity? They also serve sodas, chocolate milk, sugary deserts, sugar free deserts, etc.? So what's the interpretation then? Essentially, if what you say is true, then the only things not served are coffee, tea, alcohol, and caffeinated sodas? So is that the end-all of the word of wisdom? Maybe you could expound on what you mean. But it seems like a real stretch tome.

I belief the spirit of the Word of Wisdom is to live a healthy life. Physically, spiritually and emotionally.

I was mostly referencing the few comments I felt were referring to complete abstinence from meat, GMOs, soda, etc.

I personally have soda maybe once every couple months because of how unhealthy it is, but I feel uncomfortable suggesting to complete abstain from anything that prophets have not asked us to. I believe if there was a serious threat from specific foods, the prophets would let us know and remove them from the cafeterias they have control over.

Quantity plays a major role in the WOW.

Of course none of this could have been interpreted in my OG post x)

The main point I want to express is this. that taking such a hard stance as saying "abstinence from a substance that has not been suggested by prophets is the correct  way of living the WOW" is not what we should do. If we choose to live that way and teach our family to live that way, I feel it can bring AMAZING blessings to your family. But suggesting to others or even your family that eating any meat outside of a mass famine, or drinking a glass of soda once a week for dinner is a sinful act is not right.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Snigmorder said:

Funny thing about chocolate. My grandma stopped eating chocolate because she says there's caffeine in it.

Which one?

[Guest]

17 hours ago, Snigmorder said:

I say that because, in my opinion, it's clear that the passage as written has nothing to do with preservation, refrigeration, or anything else like that.

You're really not getting the notion of not getting a notion, are you?  What if the food preservation thing speaks directly to becoming vegetarian after all?  You don't know because you haven't event taken any time to think about it.  It's just plain wrong no matter what it actually means.

Of course, my line of thinking is what makes it really difficult for me to take multiple choice tests.  I can always figure out a way to think that many of the answers are correct.  Maybe I should take your tactic in such things.