posted
txazcowboy - it was supposed to be a joke played off the way you said it. "In Arizona, when we get thirsty, we are already fifty percent dehydrated" (emphasis added). Because I know that tone of voice etc. doesn't carry across the internet I used the big grin to show that, but I admit I did it poorly.
The way you said it reminded me when there were heat waves rolling through AZ and UT and other dry places and a joke that Jay Leno told about not worrying about all the suffering because it is a "dry heat".
Posts: 4943 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yungmom. I got the joke. I apologize for not laughing in type. I have a sense of humor, but used your comments as a springboard to drive my point home. I am no fan of the "Instant Graemlins". If we didn't have them, maybe we might work harder at communicating our intent with words.
When I read Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and others, I am amazed at the command these men had of the English language. I strive to emmulate their style, knowing I will never come close.
Here is the first and last time you will ever see a "Graemlin" in one of my posts:
Thanks for your comments. I enjoy the banter.
Posts: 388 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, you're no fun. Congratulations on your mastery of the language, though. I often think, "Those poor people in years past who had to guess intent and tone of voice from written words and had no emoticons". And then I admire them and think I had better get my own writing into better shape.
quote:Second - There is no doctrine that forbids meat and anyone of this faith who says you must repent for eating it is making stuff up.
Third - It was very common in "the old days" for there to be multiple types of meat at one meal. I think only having one could be considered "sparingly."
This.
Also, the rumor that "all" GA's are vegetarians probably has a grain of truth in that somepast presidents of the church and some past GA's were vegetarian or nearly so and spoke about it at times in various local (but never in General, so far as I know) conferences.
As most advocates seem to do, they then took the few statements, compiled them, used the fallacy of argument of authority, and thus had wonderful "support" from the prophets for their own personal advocacy of vegetarianism.
I know this becuz a woman I dated in the past was very concerned about eating healthy and obtained a number of LDS-authored "Here's how to eat healthy" books. the vast majority advocated vegetarianism and had entire chapters devoted to statements of former prophets and GA's talking about their own personal eating habits.
I did notice though, none of those GA quotes ever said anything to the effect of "I think you should do this too." They only said "this is what I do, and it works for me" thus leaving it up to those listening to decide if they wanted to follow that example or not.
Posts: 1331 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I'm glad you think that way. I've run across countless people that tell me in my face that I'm a sick, sick barbarian for eating meat and it's bad for my karma to eat something that was once alive."
Followed by 2 pages having a pop at vegetarians.
Whilst all of the time we get larger, and larger and larger. The average American male is 191 Lbs, the average French male is 170 Lbs - and they think they have a problem. Reminds me of the wheelbarrow people in Wall-e (a film the entire family agreed was a bit rubbish - how can you make a film with the end result is a bunch of people discover they have legs?).
From wonderful wikipedia:
The Word of Wisdom states that meat should not be eaten, except "in times of winter, or of cold, or famine".[18] From 1898 to 1901, church president Lorenzo Snow repeatedly emphasized the importance of eating meat sparingly, teaching that church members should refrain from eating meat except in case of dire necessity, and should be seen in light of Joseph Smith's teaching that animals have spirits.[39] Apostle George Teasdale taught the same thing, and held that eating pork was a more serious breach of the Word of Wisdom than drinking tea or coffee.[39] Compliance with this injunction has never been made mandatory. When Joseph F. Smith succeeded Snow as president of the church in 1901, the emphasis on refraining from meat was dropped.[39] An official church publication suggests that because "[m]odern methods of refrigeration now make it possible to preserve meat in any season", the Word of Wisdom's limitations on the time of eating meat is not as important as observing the counsel to use it "sparingly".[40]
Which is kind of confusing, as Lorenzo Snow's argument involved animals having spirits and therefore an implied special status, plus health benifits (how fat can you get?) whilst the D&C student manual says its now ok because we can now, urm, freeze them.
I'll go with the Prophet who according to some scripture should'nt have been encouraging people not to eat meat. Which brings me nicely onto my next point - who has ever sat through a WOW lesson and been astounded that the meaty bit is completely and utterly avoided - and if anyone does mention it, they get zapped.
For the record I can still see my feet, satistically weigh less than you (even the women) and would not dream of telling anyone not to chew on anything they like.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
A vegetarian pointed out that this passage, read literally, does not mean what it is often said to mean: "And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God;"
The passage does not say that a person is not ordained of God if he "forbiddeth to eat meats"; rather it says that person is not ordained of God if he "forbiddeth to abstain from meats."
In other words, if someone forbids another person from being a vegetarian (abstaining from meet), the person who forbids vegetarianism is not ordained of God.
Not the way the passage is traditionally understood, but certainly consistent with its literal language.
Posts: 319 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, (I forbid you to be a vegetarian)
that man should not eat the same, (The person who is doing the forbidding i.e. he eats meat - not the vegetarian)
is not ordained of God; (The person who is doing the forbidding 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. (We can eat meat)
Word of Wisdom 12 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; 13 And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine. (when? Sparingly in times of winter, or of cold, or famine - it pleases the lord if we do not use them)
However, in the footnote to 49:18 it states “forbiddeth - IE biddeth to abstain...”(added by man incidently and not part of the scripture) makes the word forbiddeth into biddeth - the exact opposite.
In historical context, the chapter header - again not part of the scripture - states "Some of the beliefs of the Shakers were that…the eating of pork was specifically forbidden, and many did not eat any meat;…The revelation refuted some of the basic concepts of the Shaker group.” Was some of the 'basic concepts' the concept of not eating Pork or meat? Probably in the authors view as he then writes - “17-21, Eating of meat is approved;“
At best you can say faulty logic has been applied to the words of man who have interperated the words of God.
However much I love Donner Kababs Divine revalation councils against eating meat, Prophets and GA's have counciled against eating meat but man's interpretation justifies it for one very good reason - It tastes nice.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
And the only bashing that has been done, is the bashing of those that would forbid others from eating meat.
Posts: 10846 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The footnotes say what they say; that may be the understanding. But the footnotes and the traditional understanding reverse the literal language. However, I think there is another way to interpret this consistent with both the literal language and with the traditional language: 1. we should not forbid people from being vegetarian, for if we did so, we would not be speaking for God, and 2. we should not forbid people from eating all meat either. I think though that the rest of the Doctrine and Covenants makes pretty clear that, if eaten, meat should only be eaten sparingly.
Posts: 319 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The real debate has always centered on the word sparingly and just what is sparingly. I believe the scriptures are vague on this because we are individuals and our circumstances are each different. We don't have perfect bodies and our bodies are each different from each other.
And while some generalities can be made there is no one answer that fits us all.
The only real answer for any person can be sought between themselves and the Lord.
Posts: 10846 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Apostle George Teasdale taught the same thing, and held that eating pork was a more serious breach of the Word of Wisdom than drinking tea or coffee.
And he was so right about this (assuming he actually said it-you know how wikipedia is), that he's been quoted and re-quoted by GAs in general conference ever since. Why, just this last conference...wait a sec, maybe I'm misremembering. Anyway.
If this kind of thing were true, you'd get more direction from the Brethren. Does anyone truly believe that there is a "double plus secret" version of the WoW, that is never mentioned in Conference, or any official publication, that contradicts the plain language of the scriptures and the observed (and implied) behavior of at least some of the Twelve, yet is somehow the "true" version? Is that how the Brethren have treated other issues and commandments? Does the Lord govern by innuendo and supposition?
If you don't want to eat meat, fine. Some people don't like tomatoes or sauteed onions, you don't see me condemning them (although I privately think they are missing out). If you can get your B-12 or proteion some other, more roundabout way, great. Abstaining is not a commandment, neither is there a commandment to partake.
Two other quick thoughts: 1, this conversation always makes me think of the line "everything not forbidden is compulsory" from the Once and Future King. Let's not move in that direction.
2, although I think the argument for vegetarianism using the idea that animals have souls is fine, using it to support the argument for only eating a little bit of meat is weird. Like, people have souls, so a little bit of murder, in the winter, that's fine. I don't know, maybe it's just me.
Posts: 2968 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, ... is not ordained of God.
Forbiddeth is the action word. It has a very clear meaning and I an certain that God did not mean biddeth, as in the footnote. “Whoso” is the person who is performing the action and it is this action that is being condemned, the action of forbidding. Grammatically there are two people in this argument, the forbidder, who is condemned, and one who receives the action. The receiver of the action is abstaining from eating meat. The receiver of the action is passive, and has neither forbidden anyone from eating meat, nor has been condemned for it.
A modern interpretation using the same grammatical rules would be:
Alfred forbids Sharon from being a vegetarian.
And whoso (Alfred) forbiddeth (Sharon) to abstain from meats, ... is not ordained of God.
Alfred is not ordained of God.
The footnote changes the word forbiddeth to biddeth.
Alfred bids Sharon to abstain from meats ... is not ordained of God.
In this context, Alfred is encouraging Sharon to be a Veggie and is condemned for it, thus the Mormon myth that you are condemned for encouraging others to be a vegetarian.
You therefore have the word of God, or the footnote of a man.
In fact, if you are adamant that forbiddeth means biddeth, there is all sorts of things we can get away with. Have fun!
The word of wisdom is equally clear.
‘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…And these hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger.’ (D&C 89: 12-13, 15)
Regarding Timothy, this is a much more powerful argument:
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. (1 Tim. 4: 1-3)
It is the commanding to abstain from meats that is condemned, not the act of abstaining from meats. i.e. I command you to fast would be condemned.
Interestingly, the word ‘meat’ in the Bible is often wrongly translated from broma – Greek for that which is eaten, or food, but Timothy is probably talking about animals in this case.
We are lucky to have modern day revelation like the Word of Wisdom and D&C 49: 18-19 to clarify these points.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, ... is not ordained of God.
Forbiddeth is the action word. It has a very clear meaning and I an certain that God did not mean biddeth, as in the footnote. “Whoso” is the person who is performing the action and it is this action that is being condemned, the action of forbidding. Grammatically there are two people in this argument, the forbidder, who is condemned, and one who receives the action. The receiver of the action is abstaining from eating meat. The receiver of the action is passive, and has neither forbidden anyone from eating meat, nor has been condemned for it.
"is not ordained of God" does not equal "condemned." The Shakers claimed to receive revelation to abstain from meat. The sentence merely points out that this belief is not from God.
posted
'"is not ordained of God" does not equal "condemned."
Point taken.
The Shakers claimed to receive revelation to abstain from meat. The sentence merely points out that this belief is not from God.'
No it does not. In the context of the verse you are saying that the Shaker leaders are not of God if they encourage their followers to abstain from meat. This only works if you substitute 'forbid' with 'bid', which is the exact opposite of what God actually said. We are conditioned to your viewpoint because the header implies the verses which deal with the eating of animal flesh will contain a refutation of abstaining from meats, which if you look at the grammar, or just read it it does'nt at all.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes it does, if you take it in context with verse 19.
There is no direction from God to abstain from eating meat as there is no direction from God that you must eat meat ("forbid from abstaining".) The animals are there for "the use of man." Whether or not he (man) wishes to use that animal to eat, or to look at or to raise as pets, is left up to man, not at the direction of God. He commands us to be wise in the use of animals. (see verse 21) That it all.
These verses are one of the reasons the Shakers dismissed this revelation outright and kicked out the missionaries who performed the "shake the dust off my feet" ordinance on their town.
posted
And whoso (Shaker leaders) forbiddeth (the Shakers) to abstain from meats, ... is not ordained of God.
So the Shaker leaders forbid their congrigation to abstain fron meat and are not ordained of God?
This does not work because:
The shaker leaders never forbid their congrigation to abstain from meat, (I forbid you to not eat pork - or you must eat pork) because that would go against their basic beliefs.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also wanted to point out that it shouldn't really matter to us whether the general authorities eat meat or not. The only parts of the Word of Wisdom that are compulsory are to refrain from alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee. Even for the prophets, all the other parts of the Word of Wisdom are an invitation, not a command.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:No it does not. In the context of the verse you are saying that the Shaker leaders are not of God if they encourage their followers to abstain from meat. This only works if you substitute 'forbid' with 'bid', which is the exact opposite of what God actually said. We are conditioned to your viewpoint because the header implies the verses which deal with the eating of animal flesh will contain a refutation of abstaining from meats, which if you look at the grammar, or just read it it does'nt at all.
quote: For example, the Word of Wisdom counsels us to eat meat sparingly (see D&C 89:12). Lest someone become extreme, we are told in another revelation that “whoso forbiddeth to [eat meat] is not ordained of God” (D&C 49:18). 1
footnote 1:
1. The context for verse 18 is verse 19: “For, behold, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air … [are] ordained for the use of man for food.” Section 49 was specifically directed to members of the United Society of Believers in Christ’s Second Appearing (the Shakers) to correct some of their erroneous doctrines. One of their beliefs was not to eat flesh-meat or fish.
posted
I only mention Shakers because of the historical context. For what it is worth the most logical and grammatical fit is “And whoso (Mormons) forbiddeth (the Shakers) to abstain from meats, ... is not ordained of God.” Because Mormons ate meat but Shakers did not. The next verse says we can eat meat then the Word of Wisdom lays down the conditions in which we can.
It then comes down to your own interpretation of cold, famine, and sparingly. I don’t know about some parts of the WOW being commandment and others not and if anyone can find a quote I would be grateful.
However what I find interesting is the way D&C 49:18-19 is presented by some church members, especially in my ward where there happens to be a fair few vegetarians as not only an argument against vegetarianism, but also as a gagging order. If you put aside what you have been told it represents by your fellow church members and just read it logically you get an entirely different interpretation. Moroni 10:4 springs to mind.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree entirely with President Packer's call for us to avoid extremisum. However, the quote given is a prime example of the conditioning I am on about.
Spot the difference:
“whoso forbiddeth to [eat meat] is not ordained of God” (D&C 49:18)
And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, ... is not ordained of God (D&C 49:18)
The text in the square brakets is not quoted from President Packer but has been added by the editor of the Ensign. You cannot just change the Lord's words to suit an argument.
quote:There are no more Shakers. They're a dead religion.
Yeah, that celibacy rule they had plus a reluctance to do what we would call "missionary work" doomed them to extinction.
Posts: 3371 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt that "forbiddeth to abstain from meats" means anything other than "forbids to eat meat."
Parsing the words, I can see how one would come to a different conclusion, but I have never seen any evidence that the writers of the scriptures were lawyers, and wrote like lawyers. Nor anticipated that their words would be diagrammed. The prophets were just common folk trying to get a point across with whatever language skills they happened to have.
It's like when John the Baptist said he was not fit to unloose the shoes of the Savior. I always jokingly say he means he's not fit to tie his shoes, because "unloose" would be the opposite of "loose," right? Unloose = tighten?
Why do we say that someone has a temper if they've lost it? How could they have it if they lost it? The word "temper" originally meant self-control, so it would have made sense to say they lost their temper, but now people think that temper means a person with a short fuse.
And why does the word "cleave" have two meanings that are nearly exact opposites?
Although we frown on the dreaded "double negative" in English due to issues of logic, it's expected and proper in Spanish.
Language is man-made. So it's not perfect. God cannot deliver a perfect message using imperfect tools. It just can't be done. When 999 out of a thousand people read that it means forbidding to eat meat, it might really mean that, regardless of the syntax.
Posts: 3369 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
'I think you need to do some checking before making that accusation.'
Sorry I thought it was common knowledge that square brackets indicate missed words were added later. I am sure President Packer would not have mis quoted the scriptures, but the scriptures are mis quoted. Someone would have edited the speach and put it into a readable format. Missed words are added, and to make sure we know which words were added they are put in square brackets. I am not implying in anyway the mis quote was deliberate, just that it is there, and is typical of what most Mormons believe the scripture to say as opposed to what it actually does say.
Nice web site you seam to have found there by the way!
Re double meaning - I personally recon the Lord has a good enough grasp of the English language to know what forbid means.
quote: I personally recon the Lord has a good enough grasp of the English language to know what forbid means.
But maybe Joseph didn't. The Lord didn't come down and personally inscribe the revelations. Nor did He do so with the Book of Mormon, which, as I'm sure you know, contained spelling and grammar errors. Joseph was doing his best. I wasn't aware that we believed in the infallibility of scripture, or prophets. In fact, I'm pretty sure we don't. Maybe I just have a different conception and experience of how revelation works.
It does make me a little itchy when someone claims that the true meaning of a scripture has somehow made its way past the living prophets, and saved itself for their daring embrace.
Posts: 2968 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think this horse has been beaten to death already. Continue to beat it, walk away, or carve it up and roast it, at your will.
P.S. I can only speak for the GAs I've known personally, and none of them have had a problem with eating meat.
Posts: 3862 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Sorry I thought it was common knowledge that square brackets indicate missed words were added later. I am sure President Packer would not have mis quoted the scriptures, but the scriptures are mis quoted. Someone would have edited the speach and put it into a readable format. Missed words are added, and to make sure we know which words were added they are put in square brackets. I am not implying in anyway the mis quote was deliberate, just that it is there, and is typical of what most Mormons believe the scripture to say as opposed to what it actually does say.
A response from the "Ensign Editors" to my question:
quote:Dear [my name edited out by me], Generally in the writing world, and especially in Chicago style (which the Church uses), whenever you quote material, any changes made by the person quoting are indicated in brackets. This tells the reader exactly what has been changed.
In this case, President Packer changed “forbiddeth to abstain” to “forbiddeth to eat.” In doing so, he was clarifying the meaning of the scripture. But in order to be clear that he had changed a word, he put “eat” in brackets.
The footnote referred to a clarification of the scripture that President Packer wanted in the talk. I have pasted it below.
“1. The context for verse 18 is verse 19: “For, behold, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air … [are] ordained for the use of man for food.” Section 49 was specifically directed to members of the United Society of Believers in Christ’s Second Appearing (the Shakers) to correct some of their erroneous doctrines. One of their beliefs was not to eat flesh-meat or fish.”
Thanks for reading the Ensign.
Sincerely, Ensign Editorial Staff
So not only did President Packer read the quote as I posted it and the "Ensign" printed it, he requested the footnote explanation be added. At least according to the editors.
posted
‘It does make me a little itchy when someone claims that the true meaning of a scripture has somehow made its way past the living prophets, and saved itself for their daring embrace.’
Ouch!
I haven’t claimed that at all, in fact all prophets have asked us to eat meat sparingly. I just think it is little off to claim a scripture says the exact opposite to what it does to support a meat eating argument.
All I am asking for is that in light of lots of revelation from Genesis to now that we should be thoughtful when we eat meat, that we shouldn’t play the ‘vegetarians should not preach’ card because as far as I am aware no prophet ever has, and the scripture does not say that anyway.
I don’t think there is a great deal of difference between our viewpoints: I think we all agree that we are not commanded to abstain from meat as that part of the WOW is a guideline, although it pleases God if we don’t; that famine cold and sparingly means different things to different people, from ‘I’m famished, throw me another piglet’ to ‘meat is murder’; and that we shouldn’t criticise each other’s eating habits. I just don’t think it is right to use this scripture to stop vegetarians having a viewpoint, as has happened to most vegetarians at some point in their church life. Just read the initial posts again and you can see the attitude towards vegetarians.
For the record, I don’t consider myself to be a vegetarian but I also don’t consider this to be a time of famine or cold.
Thank you all for a very enlightening discussion, Love, piece and hugs and all that. Posts: 83 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
I often think, "Those poor people in years past who had to guess intent and tone of voice from written words and had no emoticons". ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
And then I admire them and think I had better get my own writing into better shape. ![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Big laugh]](graemlins/biglaugh.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
