quote:18 And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God;
19 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.
20 But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin.
21 And wo be unto man that sheddeth blood or that wasteth flesh and hath no need.
To me, this is the meaning: Whoever forbids men to refrain from eating meat is not doing God's will. Animals are given to men for food and clothing that men may not be in need. But it is not given by God to men that there should be temporal inequality among them, which is how the whole world is in sin - and cursings are pronounced against them who slay animals to cash in on them, or for fun, without being in need of the meat or clothing.
Suppose D&C 49:18-21 read thusly:
quote:18 And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from drugs, that man should not take the same, is not ordained of God; 19 For, behold, that which cometh of the earth is ordained for the use of man for food and for medicine, and that he might not suffer beyond that which is appointed unto him. 20 But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin. 21 And wo be unto man that manufactureth or taketh drugs for non-medical purposes.
Who would claim this was hard to understand, or imprecise?
That the Lord is able to communicate these things is further illustrated in D&C 49:15: And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man.
Not a single soul in the Church would dream this meant "whoso forbiddeth NOT to marry is not ordained of God." Yet that's precisely how verse 18 has been transfigured to read.
Read D&C 49:18-21 in conjunction with the Word of Wisdom:
quote: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.
14 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;
15 And these hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger.
and this (JST Genesis 9:10-11):
quote: 10 But, the blood of all flesh which I have given you for meat, shall be shed upon the ground, which taketh life thereof, and the blood ye shall not eat. 11 And surely, blood shall not be shed, only for meat, to save your lives; and the blood of every beast will I require at your hands.
quote:Checking the footnotes for vs. 18 further clarifies the meaning. The phrase could also be rendered "biddeth to abstain" where "biddeth" means to tell or to command.
The footnote reverses the meaning of the phrase without justification.
From the 1828 Webster's Dictionary:
quote: FORBID', v.t. pret. forbad; pp. forbid, forbidden. Literally, to bid or command against. Hence,
1. To prohibit; to interdict; to command to forbear or not to do. The laws of God forbid us to swear. Good manners also forbid us to use profane language. All servile labor and idle amusements on the sabbath are forbidden. 2. To command not to enter; as, I have forbid him my house or presence. This phrase seems to be elliptical; to forbid from entering or approaching. 3. To oppose; to hinder; to obstruct. An impassable river forbids the approach of the army. A blaze of glory that forbids the sight. 4. To accurse; to blast. Obs.
quote:BID, v.t. pret. bid, or bade; pp. bid, bidden. [L. peto, to drive at, to attack, to ask, to desire, to beseech, anciently beto; impetus. Applied to the voice, it denotes utterance, a driving of sounds, which is applied to asking, prayer, and command. Class Bd.]
1. To ask; to request; to invite. Go ye into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage. Math.22. This sense is antiquated, but we have the same word from the Latin, in invite, [in and bid.]
quote:ABSTA'IN, v.i. [L. abstineo, to keep from; abs and teneo, to hold. See Tenant.]
In a general sense, to forbear, or refrain from, voluntarily; but used chiefly to denote a restraint upon the passions or appetites; to refrain from indulgence. Abstain from meats offered to idols. Acts, xv. To abstain from the use of ardent spirits; to abstain from luxuries.
Abstain means to refrain from partaking or to refrain from participating.
"Whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meat," therefore, means, in just so many words, "whoever opposes not partaking of meat."
Therein lies the problem. The verse has been transfigured - it is almost universally read as though there was a negation in it - and there isn't.
And, since the Lord bids us to abstain from meat, save it be for to preserve our lives, the footnote "reading" appears, on its face, to be not only utterly unjustified with respect to the text itself, but also the spirit of verse 21, JST Genesis 9, and the Word of Wisdom.
Are you espousing a meatless diet then, excepting in famine? Some would agree: that depends on who you talk to.
Additionally, there is the whole "comma debate" which further muddies the water.
I tend to think the Lord is talking about gluttony and greed here, not vegetarian diets.
Surely, the Lord requires moderation in all things; but for myself, unless a Prophet specifically rules on the matter, I do not eschew all meat at Jade House. I am conscious of our intake AND the husbandry of the livestock. I think that is the tone and application that most closely fits with the spirit of the Law.
I do wonder why, as unclear as the original revelation is, why, except for the footnote, which has the imprimatur of the First Presidency, a concise interpretation isn't part of the canon.
*goes off humming "Let The Holy Spirit Guide"to herself.*
Posts: 5468 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
log, Under your interpretation, doesn't verse 19 contradict verse 18? Roper's explanation is the only one that makes the verses harmonious to me.
Posts: 467 | Registered: Sep 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I take the interpretation literally. I don't forbid anyone to abstain from meat. How's that for a triple negative?
Several of my children have decided they are vegetarians. According to the literal interpretation of this scripture, if I were to tell them that is not OK, (i.e. to forbid them to abstain from meat) I would be labeled "not of God". I wouldn't want to be not of God, so I discuss with them that as long as they understand the vitamin B12 issue, that is OK with me.
However, just to be sure, I also avoid bidding them to abstain from meat. I have several children who like meat. I discuss with them that as long as they understand the famine/cold issue in the Word of Wisdom, that is also OK with me.
My wife takes a viewpoint that is a cross between technically literal and permissively practical. With the exception of Thanksgiving and fish, she doesn't cook meat at home. However, if they serve meat at a ward barbecue or school awards banquet, she doesn't make a huge fuss if some of the kids decide to be carnivorous.
Posts: 460 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the introduction to the section should be read. This section was in response to what a group in the area know as the "Shakers" or the "Shaking Quakers" were teaching. (See the rather odd, or "random" verse number 22.) In particular this revelation was for Leman Copley who had joined the church, but still believe some of the Shakers teachings (such as abstaining from eating meat and leading a celibate life was higher than marriage.) Sidney Rigdon and Parley Pratt (along with Leman Copley) took the revelation and read it to the Shakers, but they rejected it.
As for the particulars, I agree with Half A Brain. To me verses 18 and 19 taken together say that it is "not of God" to preach abstinence from eating meat just as it is "not of God" to preach that we must eat meat. Guidelines are given for each individual to work out on their own.
It should also be noted that section 89 came two years after this revelation. Perhaps to clear up some of the confusion?
quote:Perhaps, for clarity, you could provide answers to these questions:
Is a person sinning when they choose to eat meat?
Is a person sinning when they choose to not eat meat?
Does the interpretation of verse 18 change depending on my beliefs?
quote:To me verses 18 and 19 taken together say that it is "not of God" to preach abstinence from eating meat just as it is "not of God" to preach that we must eat meat. Guidelines are given for each individual to work out on their own.
I agree. I do find it interesting that the Lord places a particular emphasis on verse 18 that is not present in verse 19.
The reason I bring it up is because when vegetarians show, correctly, from the Word of Wisdom and from JST Genesis 9:10-11, that God is pleased when we eat meat only if it's our lives or health versus the animals' lives, the rejoinder is almost* universally to cite D&C 49:18 as though forbid meant bid, and deriding the vegetarian as being not ordained of God.
That response never sat well with me - I always felt it was off. Recently, an interesting individual on another board hinted that the traditional reading of D&C 49:18 was erroneous. I looked carefully and... lo and behold... it does say "forbid," doesn't it? And the footnote "reading" seems to contradict D&C 89, doesn't it?
I am not passing judgement on anyone; I am merely pointing out that D&C 49:18 means the exact opposite of how it is used in the modern Church culture.
Someone told me to post some stuff, and this was on my mind.
*Full disclosure: In my experience, it has been the universal response, but maybe there's a counterexample somewhere.
Posts: 246 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:whoso forbideth to abstain from meats that man should not eat the same is not ordained of God for behold the beasts of the field & the fowls of the air & that which cometh of the Earth is ordained for the use of man for food & for raiment & that he might have in abundance but it is not given that one man should possess that which is above an other wherefore the world lieth in sin & wo be unto man that shedeth blood or that wasteth flesh & hath no need
I wonder. Let's try the punctuation game!
quote:whoso forbideth to abstain from meats that man should not eat, the same is not ordained of God, for behold the beasts of the field & the fowls of the air & that which cometh of the Earth is ordained for the use of man for food & for raiment & that he might have in abundance, but it is not given that one man should possess that which is above an other wherefore the world lieth in sin, & wo be unto man that shedeth blood or that wasteth flesh & hath no need
That works too. In fact, that looks likely to me. It makes sense, and seems to be an injunction against commercialized gluttony - where people get others to eat meat without need.
quote:whoso forbideth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat, the same is not ordained of God, for behold the beasts of the field & the fowls of the air & that which cometh of the Earth is ordained for the use of man for food & for raiment & that he might have in abundance, but it is not given that one man should possess that which is above an other wherefore the world lieth in sin, & wo be unto man that shedeth blood or that wasteth flesh & hath no need
That one doesn't seem to make sense, again, as "forbiddeth to abstain" means "commands to partake."
Can someone come up with a punctuation which turns "forbiddeth to abstain" into "biddeth to abstain?"
I seem to perceive an oblique criticism in your post.
The interesting thing is, the Lord apparently did not condemn the Shaker practice (not commandment) of abstaining from meat - I guess they weren't entirely in error. The fact that they forbade pork is not even referenced in the revelation.
As for D&C 89, there is one comma in the pertinent words. Here, I wish to point out that as it stands, JST Genesis 9:10-11 and D&C 49:18-21 are consistent with each other and it may therefore be inferred that D&C 89, as it currently stands, is consistent with the intent of the Lord. The comma in the manuscript of D&C 89 appears to simply set off the section on meat from that on grains.
posted
Log, unintentional. Merely reflecting that I wasn't following my own rule of thumb.
In the quotes below one sees that Joseph did not put a comma after winter, but later editors to the D and C did. It can change the reading of the text. It is a point of debate.
Personally, I subscribe to the notion that humans need animal protein for optimum health. I observe that in my daughters who are not happy meat eaters. Thus my daughter at home is expected to eat animal protein. What form that protein comes in, is a personal choice. Our D and C teaches us to use it sparingly. Even our little ones sing a Primary song about eating "a little bit of meat." This indicates to me that preaching total abstinence is not exactly Gospel.
Texts which give rise to the "comma debate": JS Papers (original text):
quote: and it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used only in times of winter or of famine, all grain is ordained for the use of man and of beasts to be the staff of life not only for man
Present day Scripture:
quote: 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.
14 All grain is ordained for the use of man and of beasts, to be the staff of life, not only for man
quote:I think there is far more spiritual danger in getting polarized and militant over issues like this.
Oh, please don't misunderstand. I'm simply pointing out something that has bugged me for a while - D&C 49:18 is actually straightforward.
As for me and my house, we will serve the steak rather rare: it's Golden Corral night!
... to be honest, I am kinda uncomfortable now eating meat without being in true need myself, but my kids are most certainly in need, being ultra-picky, and I hope it's acceptable enough to the Lord that I entirely clean my plate, whereby no flesh is wasted.
quote: Does the interpretation of verse 18 change depending on my beliefs?
If you're going to play mind games and be disingenuous, what's my motivation for participating in what is apparently a game?
Are you, are you not espousing a certain point of view? And since I believe you are I want to understand your point of view. I will proceed when I understand.
Edit to Add:
OK, So, later posts did answer the questions, however, I find it irritating and counter productive to get a non-answer to a question. A non-answer tells me the person is hiding something, or in other words the conversation is not fully honest.
posted
There is no "mind game." If you think I am being less than straightforward - dishonest, even, as implied by "disingenuous" - then please feel free to illustrate my depravity from what I have written. I will address it then.
This thread is not about me, but it is about the interpretation of a single verse of scripture, the interpretation of which changes no doctrine of the Gospel, but which does change how we respond to certain questions.
Attempting to make it be about my personal beliefs is something I view as a personal attack. I was hoping I was wrong in interpreting your question as a prelude to a personal attack. However, since my personal beliefs do not alter the text of D&C 49:18, my personal beliefs seem to be quite irrelevant to reading the text of D&C 49:18.
I ask again: why are my personal beliefs relevant to the interpretation of the text of D&C 49:18?
posted
Sorry got called to a meeting while I was creating my edit, so I could not know that you posted in the meanwhile.
Posts: 10845 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I wanted to know your personal beliefs, I would have phrased the question in a personal way, (e.g. Do you believe a person is a sinner).
Posts: 10845 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have been and continue to be surprised by what others classify as either literal or figurative. For me the selections make no sense.
Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that all statements about scripture are personal opinions. And just because on other boards personal attacks were soup du jour, you can rest easy that such things are not accepted here. Not saying they don't happen, and sometimes even, a mistake is made and something is interpreted as personal. But, for the most part, such things don't happen.
IMO, there is no avoiding being "personal" when it comes to talking about the scriptures. What you will find here is a fairly high tolerance for differing opinions. But, that is not to say that you will not be put to task to explain how and why you believe a certain way.
quote:If I wanted to know your personal beliefs, I would have phrased the question in a personal way, (e.g. Do you believe a person is a sinner).
I'm trying very hard to square this with what you asked.
quote:Perhaps, for clarity, you could provide answers to these questions:
Is a person sinning when they choose to eat meat?
Is a person sinning when they choose to not eat meat?
To which I responded: "Does the interpretation of verse 18 change depending on my beliefs?"
I cannot know whether any particular person sins by performing any particular action. I thought that such lack of ability was behind the Savior's words when he said "Judge not according to appearances, but judge righteous judgement."
You asked me for a universal judgement about a hypothetical based on appearances. If you weren't asking for my personal opinion, for such any answer of mine would be, then what were you asking for?
Posts: 246 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do you think declaring your answer to those questions would constitute unrighteous judgement?
Posts: 10845 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why do you think declaring your answer to those questions would constitute unrighteous judgement?
I think it would constitute a judgment according to appearances, at the least, which the Savior said not to do.
If you wish to engage in topics other than the interpretation of D&C 49:18, I invite you to make a thread for that purpose.
Posts: 246 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
To summarize and verify what I think you're saying:
When someone starts talking about the benefits of becoming a vegetarian. They are told to stop talking about it because they're being "not of God." And you're saying that people should be able to talk about it.
Do I understand you correctly?
Posts: 10845 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you wish to engage in topics other than the interpretation of D&C 49:18, I invite you to make a thread for that purpose.
I found this to be amusing, but a "LoL" or a giggling graemlin ( ) might come off as condescending or rude.
One of the cardinal "unwritten rules" at Nauvoo is that thread drift WILL happen. It used to bug me a lot, but then I kinda got used to it. (edit: okay, it still bugs me, especially if it's my thread, but I'm trying to learn to accept things beyond my power to change, and this is one of them.) Feel free to redirect the conversation to the original topic, but also be aware that your efforts to redirect may be in vain. Occasionally someone does start a new topic based on a previous thread, but don't count on it.
That being said, people on Nauvoo are very polite, and as FBN said
quote: What you will find here is a fairly high tolerance for differing opinions
No matter what you've seen on other boards, we try to be good neighbors here, and avoid personal insults. That's why I keep coming back here, even if only to lurk. I hope you enjoy it here; it really is a wonderful community.
[ May 25, 2012, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: Brian J: Hill ]
Posts: 126 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:When someone starts talking about the benefits of becoming a vegetarian. They are told to stop talking about it because they're being "not of God." And you're saying that people should be able to talk about it.
quote: They are told to stop talking about it because they're being "not of God."
I think that you get the Taliban Tendency in every organisation. In the NT, they called them Pharisees. The correct response IMO in such circumstances is a polite enquiry as to why it is any of their business.
However, if the person being told to shut up about vegetables is another fanatic pushing a 'meat is murder' agenda (Morrisey, this means YOU!), then it is perfectly acceptable to ask them to stop.
Telling them that they are 'not of God' is probably unwise given that it is judgemental (oops: judge not lest ye be judged) and likely to be counterproductive. Better just to make them a bacon sandwich.
Posts: 1460 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still don't know this Christmas Shoes song or why it's such a big deal. Haven't heard it. But then, I tend to avoid most of the trappings of Christmas that doesn't directly deal with the meaning of it...
And meat... Yum! I make pretty good goat and deer and chicken curries. Ain't no way I'm giving up meat. And I have a ham (turkey ham, Halal), pepperoni, and cheese frittata in the oven right now...
Posts: 4279 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
On another note, with regards to the curious lack of condemnation by the Lord towards the Shaker prohibition against pork, I found the following by Brigham Young.
quote:"If the people were willing to receive the true knowledge from heaven in regard to their diet they would cease eating swine's flesh. I know this as well as Moses knew it, and without putting it in a code of commandments. The beef fed upon our mountain grasses is as healthy food as we need at present….Fish is as healthy a food as we can eat, if we except vegetables and fruit, and with them will become a very wholesome diet."
And I say this as someone who ate a load of BBQ pork last night. Luckily, I can be assured it was all cooked very thoroughly.
This kind of goes along with the following potential punctuation of D&C 49.
quote:whoso forbideth to abstain from meats that man should not eat, the same is not ordained of God, for behold the beasts of the field & the fowls of the air & that which cometh of the Earth is ordained for the use of man for food & for raiment & that he might have in abundance, but it is not given that one man should possess that which is above an other wherefore the world lieth in sin, & wo be unto man that shedeth blood or that wasteth flesh & hath no need
posted
I dunno 'bout all that stuff, but as long as beef, pork, chicken, cocoa and white flour are avaiable at the Bishop's storehouse, I will continue to use them, in moderation. (Not that I use the storehouse on a regular basis, just that if those things are there, something is being said: one cannot get tea coffee or beer there. Just sayin') Seems like the scripture is saying, choose what you wish, but don't fuss at those that choose differently.
Posts: 339 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
) might come off as condescending or rude.![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
