The Word of Wisdom was never Doctrine

[_aznative]

Seven7up, Grindael asked you a beautifully framed question above that is much more eloquently phrased than the response I had lined up for you. Would you respond please.

[_seven7up]

Is it likely that the average American would qualify as eating meat 'sparingly', do you think?

I don't know. The article provided a historical context of the revelation. It seems to indicate that there were pioneers relying very heavily on meat. I think that this context is important to take into consideration.

Do Mormons eat less meat than the average American?

I don't know. The best I can do is judge based on Ward activities. Obviously at a BBQ, there will be more meat consumption (usually hotdogs and hamburgers). During pot-luck type events, I see more variety, like lasana, caseroles, "haystacks", potatoes, etc. Sure there is meat, but I don't see it as going overboard.

-7up
-7up

[_Bazooka]

Is it likely that the average American would qualify as eating meat 'sparingly', do you think?

I don't know. The article provided a historical context of the revelation. It seems to indicate that there were pioneers relying very heavily on meat. I think that this context is important to take into consideration.

Do Mormons eat less meat than the average American?

I don't know. The best I can do is judge based on Ward activities. Obviously at a BBQ, there will be more meat consumption (usually hotdogs and hamburgers). During pot-luck type events, I see more variety, like lasana, caseroles, "haystacks", potatoes, etc. Sure there is meat, but I don't see it as going overboard.

-7up
-7up

Now you're being a bit naughty, avoiding adrressing the questions posed and then trying to shift "sparingly" to mean "not to excess".

Now, do address Chap's first question:
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ ... 2s0217.pdf
175 pounds of red meat and poultry per annum. Is that sparingly?

Here is an upstream problem with the amount of meat being eaten...

Kansas is running out of water and could see its aquifier depleted by 70 percent in just a few decades, according to a new study by researchers from Kansas State University. The state known as the nation’s breadbasket currently draws its water from the High Plains Ogallala Aquifer, which stretches from Texas to South Dakota. But the aquifer has already seen 30 percent of its groundwater pumped out.

All that water is being used to irrigate fields, too many of which, writes Tom Philpott in Mother Jones, are being planted with corn grown to fatten up cattle in the beef industry’s feedlots — which are, indeed, heavily concentrated in the very region where the High Plains Aquifer is located.

In their study, the researchers observe that Kansas’ 1st Congressional District has “the highest total market value of agriculture products” in the United States and generates the most farming income in the country. Those “agriculture products” are beef fed on corn, a notably “thirstier crop” than many others, says a New York Times article from earlier this year about the emptying of the High Plains Aquifer.

By drawing down on the region’s groundwater at more than six times the rate of natural recharge, farmers in western Kansas have vastly increased their crop yields in the past few decades. But if this keeps up, researchers estimate that another 39 percent of the aquifer will be gone within 50 years, even if farmers increase irrigation efficiency.

That doesn’t have to happen, the Kansas State researchers point out. If farmers cut water use by 20 percent now, corn and beef farming could be preserved into the next century. Farmers would face smaller profits: pumping 80 percent less groundwater would mean, say the researchers, that farmers would have to rear some 500,000 fewer cattle, a 12 percent decrease

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/were-eating ... z2vdSUim00

Now to Chap's second question, do Mormon's eat less meat than non Mormon's?
Anecdotally all I can say is that the Mormons I interact with eat more meat than the non Mormons I know. They eat meat every single day, wether that be bacon for breakfast, ham or chicken on a sandwich or a piece of meat for their evening meal. In fact, the members I know eat meat more than once per day.

[_seven7up]

Hold up. Are you saying that Paul would encourage people to use alcohol, tobacco and other habit forming substances?

Let's look at the quotes you provided, and then let's learn a little something about CONTEXT:

"Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ."
"Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations — “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” which all concern things which perish with the using — according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh." (Colossians 2:16-17 , 20-23, emphasis mine)

The New Covenant was all about he spiritual, not the law. Therefore, we are left to judge for ourselves, but we are not to command others.

Clarkes Bible Commentary:

"Let no man - judge you in meat, or in drink - The apostle speaks here in reference to some particulars of the hand-writing of ordinances, which had been taken away, viz., the distinction of meats and drinks, what was clean and what unclean, according to the law; and the necessity of observing certain holydays or festivals, such as the new moons and particular sabbaths, or those which should be observed with more than ordinary solemnity; all these had been taken out of the way and nailed to the cross, and were no longer of moral obligation....What is here termed will-worship, εθελοθρησκεια, signifies simply a mode of worship which a man chooses for himself, independently of the revelation which God has given....The nations which have either not had a revelation, or refused to receive that which God has given, show, by their diversity of worship, superstition, absurdity,... "

Barnes' notes on the Bible
It could really then be of no great importance what was eaten, or what was drunk, provided it was not in itself injurious.

Paul was speaking about the Jewish laws and legalism (and often superstition), which had gone far beyond the actual purpose for which it was originally provided. Furthermore, the Law was fulfilled in Christ.

The LDS teaching is about health, and being prudent about consumption of a variety of foods, and also about whether or not a substance is "injurious" to the body or addictive. That is different then the ceremonial traditions being discussed in the context of this passage. Elsewhere, Paul goes into whether or not it is acceptable to eat meat which was sacrificed to a false idol. The context is entirely different than what we find in the Word of Wisdom.

Remember what Smith himself said,

“For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward. “Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness; “For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward. “But he that doeth not anything until he is commanded, and receiveth a commandment with doubtful heart, and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is damned” (D&C 58:26-29).

I don't see the WOW as commanding "in all things". As I have explained, there is a lot of "gray area" when it comes to the Word of Wisdom. (That is what many of the posters on this thread have been complaining about.) Really, there is the restriction on alcohol, tobacco, coffee and illegal drugs. (and even there we find gray area with "near beer, decaf, Nyquil, etc."

That is why the original WOW was given as advice. The Utah Hierarchy changed that, so they could control the membership. They wanted the members to have more money for tithing to line their own pockets and continue their "prophetic" agenda, that benefited themselves more than anyone else.

Nice conspiracy theory. I'm not buying it. By the way, if someone is truly paying a "tithe", then your theory of "more money" does not make any sense. Unless you think that by living the word of wisdom, people are more productive, and therefore make more money overall.

“2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand...13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. 14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. ” (Romans 14)

Again, context from Barnes:

" who is weak - There is reference here, doubt less, to the Jewish convert. The apostle admits that he was "weak," that is, not fully established in the views of Christian liberty. The question with the Jew doubtless was, whether it was lawful to eat the meat which was offered in sacrifice to idols. In those sacrifices a part only of the animal was offered, and the remainder was eaten by the worshippers, or offered for sale in the market like other meat. It became an inquiry whether it was lawful to eat this meat; and the question in the mind of a Jew would arise from the express command of his Law; ....Eateth herbs - Herbs or "vegetables" only; does not partake of meat at all, for "fear" of eating that, inadvertently, which had been offered to idols. The Romans abounded in sacrifices to idols; and it would not be easy to be certain that meat which was offered in the market, or on the table of a friend, had not been offered in this manner. To avoid the possibility of partaking of it, even "ignorantly," they chose to eat no meat at all. The scruples of the Jews on the subject might have arisen in part from the fact that sins of "ignorance" among them subjected them to certain penalties."

This was about one person judging another person who may or may not have eaten meat which was sacrificed to an idol. Again, the context is entirely different than a discussion on foods which are healthy for your body.

“ Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.”

Again, whatever you believe about "these things" refers to whether or not it is o.k. to eat food which was sacrificed to a false god. Funny you did not put in bold this verse: "It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall."

What would Paul say? Now you know.

I already knew what Paul said about Mosaic Law and about eating foods which may or may not have been sacrificed to idols.

Instead, we were discussing what Paul would say about substances which are actually harmful to the body or injurious to one's health: An entirely different subject altogether. Remember that Paul said that our bodies are the temple of God's spirit. We should treat it as such. If something is harmful to the body, it could even fall under the concept of self mutilation, which is discouraged in Philippians 3:2.

-7up

[_seven7up]

Anecdotally all I can say is that the Mormons I interact with eat more meat than the non Mormons I know. They eat meat every single day, wether that be bacon for breakfast, ham or chicken on a sandwich or a piece of meat for their evening meal. In fact, the members I know eat meat more than once per day.

Almost every person I have ever met (whether Mormon or not), eats meat more than once a day. The only exception would be vegetarians/vegans.

Certainly, your anecdotal 'evidence' is suspect, as you are probably judging a Mormon every time they eat meat, and ignore it when non-Mormons do.

I will say this: Mormons SHOULD eat less meat than we do. On the other hand, I see many devout Mormons who DO limit their meat consumption.

My guess is that, in general, the amount of meat that Mormons eat it similar to their non-Mormon fellows, and this depends more on other factors, what country do they live in, which part of the U.S. , economic factors, culture, etc.

-7up

[_Bazooka]

My guess is that, in general, the amount of meat that Mormons eat it similar to their non-Mormon fellows, and this depends more on other factors, what country do they live in, which part of the U.S. , economic factors, culture, etc.

-7up

I think you are more than likely correct.
But that means the majority of Mormon's aren't compliant with the spirit or letter of the law with regards to being able to say they live the word of wisdom.

[_Chap]

My guess is that, in general, the amount of meat that Mormons eat it similar to their non-Mormon fellows, and this depends more on other factors, what country do they live in, which part of the U.S. , economic factors, culture, etc.

-7up

I think you are more than likely correct.
But that means the majority of Mormon's aren't compliant with the spirit or letter of the law with regards to being able to say they live the word of wisdom.

Yup.

Unless US Mormons eat markedly less than the average meat consumption of other Americans, then, given that the US has a rate of meat consumption that outstrips all other countries in the world, they cannot possibly be obeying the WoW injunction to eat meat 'sparingly'. 'Sparingly' cannot possibly mean 'more than most other people in the world, including developed countries such as France and Japan.'

And, we may note, they receive little or no advice from church leadership on reducing meat consumption - as opposed to avoiding caffeinated drinks, tobacco and so on.

The WoW says one thing. US Mormons do quite another thing.

[_Bazooka]

Yup.

Unless US Mormons eat markedly less than the average meat consumption of other Americans, then, given that the US has a rate of meat consumption that outstrips all other countries in the world, they cannot possibly be obeying the WoW injunction to eat meat 'sparingly'. 'Sparingly' cannot possibly mean 'more than most other people in the world, including developed countries such as France and Japan.'

And, we may note, they receive little or no advice from church leadership on reducing meat consumption - as opposed to avoiding caffeinated drinks, tobacco and so on.

The WoW says one thing. US Mormons do quite another thing.

On lds.org under the heading "Another 'Bumper Year' on Church Farms" was this little snippet.

• An LDS-owned turkey farm in Moroni, Utah, yielded 5 million pounds of turkey.

• The Church-owned vineyard in Madera, Calif., produced several tons of raisins.

• The Church’s peanut farm in Texas supplied the essential ingredient for the Church to produce its own protein-rich peanut butter.

• The Church’s five working cattle ranches—staffed largely by “cowboy” missionaries—yielded hamburger and other fresh beef products that stocked the meat section of bishops’ storehouses.

https://www.lds.org/church/news/another ... s?lang=eng

I suppose it must be easy to make a ranch viable when the staff pay to work there....but how does an expansive and growing meat production operation sit comfortably alongside the official counsel to eat meat sparingly?

The ranch, home of the largest cow/calf herd in the country, is managed by Erik Jacobsen and has been owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the past 60 years. The operation stocks some 44,000 cows, 1,300 bulls and weans about 32,000 calves a year, while additionally utilizing land for uses such as citrus trees, sod production, row crops, fishing and hunting.

Read more: KCSG Television - LDS Church Owned Florida Ranch Honored for Environmental Stewardship

Wait...the Church is offering sport hunting?
What does the doctrine say about unnecessary animal slaughter?

[_ZelphtheGreat]

Anecdotally all I can say is that the Mormons I interact with eat more meat than the non Mormons I know. They eat meat every single day, wether that be bacon for breakfast, ham or chicken on a sandwich or a piece of meat for their evening meal. In fact, the members I know eat meat more than once per day.

Almost every person I have ever met (whether Mormon or not), eats meat more than once a day. The only exception would be vegetarians/vegans.

Certainly, your anecdotal 'evidence' is suspect, as you are probably judging a Mormon every time they eat meat, and ignore it when non-Mormons do.

I will say this: Mormons SHOULD eat less meat than we do. On the other hand, I see many devout Mormons who DO limit their meat consumption.

My guess is that, in general, the amount of meat that Mormons eat it similar to their non-Mormon fellows, and this depends more on other factors, what country do they live in, which part of the U.S. , economic factors, culture, etc.

-7up

Why not? Moromon 'scripture' clearly states one should eat meat sparingly, in winter and times of cold and famine. Watching them ignore the Word of Wisdom is a simple thing to do. After all, their example of living their own scriptures tells us whether they believe and have faith.

[_seven7up]

Wait...the Church is offering sport hunting?
What does the doctrine say about unnecessary animal slaughter?

Do you really want me to go into the reasons behind this?

I can. I think it is fairly obvious. There is plenty of evidence behind the reasons.

Let me know if you are unaware of the arguments behind them.

-7up