Woooo... I'm so bad...

[_Doctor Steuss]

EWWWW! NOT a good visual!

Coors, asbestos, or urinal cakes? (I'm not sure they're all that different).

?!!

I am NOT urinal cake man.

;P

Pie?

[_silentkid]

"...But we cannot change the biological law that he who uses narcotics must pay the penalty somehow, somewhere, sometime...."

Oh poop. No more vicodin for me. ;)

[_truth dancer]

Hi Steuss....

I'm laughing right now... your response is tickling my funny bone.

As I said, any scriptures can be interpreted to mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. You found a way to ignore/dismiss the eat meat sparingly... others find ways to drink beer. Whatever one wants to do is fine so long as you believe. :-)

I wrote...

I think you have a point...

The WoW says to eat meat sparingly, in times of famine and in winter months... which now means, "ignore this part."

You responded....

Verse 13 originally didn't have a comma.

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

Changes things a bit, eh?

So, are you saying that the original was better than the change? It was not a correction, but a mistake? Or should we go with all first accounts and forget that the monogamy scriptures were replaced by the polygamy ones? Are you suggesting that the modern day prophets are wrong when they change or interpret scripture? Or did Joseph Smith just forget to add the comma?

There have been plenty of circumstances where church leaders have taught to eat meat sparingly... are they wrong? Why would they add a comma if it was not inspired? Did Joseph Smith really mean we should all eat mean all the time which of course is what most folks do. Based on other documents of the day, (who I believe Joseph Smith used to form the WoW), it seems clear the meaning was to eat little meat when necessary during winter months.

All the nonsense about Joseph Smith really telling people to eat meat is just rationalizing their eating habits!

Ya know? ;-)

But to the point... anyone can come up with their own interpretation, belief, rationalization, justification for anything at all... no problem.

Of course the biggest rationalization of all is that the WoW was not a revelation, therefore it is basically meaningless.

No problem! ;-)

Also, the meaning of "sparingly" has changed a bit over the last handful of decades (Webster's 1828 dictionary had the most common definition as "not abundantly/exclusively" Not exactly the same as how we now tend to define it as "rarely."

Ohhhh yeah, the old, "it doesn't mean what you think it means" excuse! (smile) And since we do not know what abundantly or exclusively meant to the people of the day, well, it can all mean whatever anyone wants it to mean.

No problem!

Quote:
The WoW says no hot drinks... which now means something like, "drink whatever hot drinks you want except coffee, tea is now fine if it is caffeine free, but decaf coffee is still not acceptable, cold drinks with caffiene are fine."

The coffee/tea definition for "hot drinks" was established shortly after the revelation was given by both Joseph and Hyrum.

Oh wait... I thought the WoW was not a revelation. Hmmmm....

But evidently tea is fine (even green and white tea from my understanding of some TBMs), but decaf coffee is a no no?

Coke is fine, caffeine is fine... coffee isn't.

It doesn't make sense to me but anyone can find a way to make it fit their particular desire for food.

No problem... LOL!

~dancer~

[Reflexzero]

Hi Steuss....

I'm laughing right now... your response is tickling my funny bone.

I like doing that sort of thing. I specifically requested a “Tickle Me Elmo” for Christmas to satisfy my latent urge to do just that.

As I said, any scriptures can be interpreted to mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. You found a way to ignore/dismiss the eat meat sparingly... others find ways to drink beer. Whatever one wants to do is fine so long as you believe. :-)

Evidently disbelief is ok also when ignoring/dismissing.

So, are you saying that the original was better than the change? It was not a correction, but a mistake? Or should we go with all first accounts and forget that the monogamy scriptures were replaced by the polygamy ones? Are you suggesting that the modern day prophets are wrong when they change or interpret scripture? Or did Joseph Smith just forget to add the comma?

I’m saying that a simple quip of “ignore this part” doesn’t do justice to the historical aspects regarding the scripture.

There have been plenty of circumstances where church leaders have taught to eat meat sparingly... are they wrong?

Depends on the meaning of “sparingly.” The English language isn’t a stagnant monolith that has universal definitions amongst all economical, social, and ethnic structures.

Why would they add a comma if it was not inspired?

Dunno. But I didn’t know that punctuation could only be divinely sanctioned.

Did Joseph Smith really mean we should all eat mean all the time which of course is what most folks do. Based on other documents of the day, (who I believe Joseph Smith used to form the WoW), it seems clear the meaning was to eat little meat when necessary during winter months.

I think there’s a happy medium. You can eat meat “sparingly” all of the time.

All the nonsense about Joseph Smith really telling people to eat meat is just rationalizing their eating habits!

Ya know? ;-)

Perhaps.

But to the point... anyone can come up with their own interpretation, belief, rationalization, justification for anything at all... no problem.

Of course the biggest rationalization of all is that the WoW was not a revelation, therefore it is basically meaningless.

No problem! ;-)

Again, perhaps. I think the key to WoW is contained in the first verses and not in the later verses.

Ohhhh yeah, the old, "it doesn't mean what you think it means" excuse! (smile) And since we do not know what abundantly or exclusively meant to the people of the day, well, it can all mean whatever anyone wants it to mean.

No problem!

Actually, it’s the “use a definition that most likely applied to Joseph and his contemporaries” excuse. You know, the “excuse” that everyone who tries to squirrel 19th century America out of the Book of Mormon uses? And, I’m pretty sure we can ascertain what “abundantly and exclusively” meant as well (would you like me to find the common 19th century usages of that as well?).

Oh wait... I thought the WoW was not a revelation. Hmmmm....

Whether it was revelation or not, don’t you think that the very person who penned it has the right to define what it means (or is this another instance of me using the old “it doesn’t mean what you think it means” excuse?).

But evidently tea is fine (even green and white tea from my understanding of some TBMs), but decaf coffee is a no no?

They’re free to interpret it how they want. I was simply stating that the coffee/tea definition wasn’t an invention of later generations (like you implied it was). But, this is probably me using that “old excuse” again.

Coke is fine, caffeine is fine... coffee isn't.

Well, I don’t know if Coke was around when the WoW was written, but Joseph (and Hyrum) seemed to leave it simply as “coffee and tea.”

It doesn't make sense to me but anyone can find a way to make it fit their particular desire for food.

No problem... LOL!

I apologize for trying to give some historical/cultural insights into what the WoW meant to those who were there when it was written. It appears that you mostly just want to apply your own definitions, understanding and standards.

Carry on.

[_Doctor Steuss]

"...But we cannot change the biological law that he who uses narcotics must pay the penalty somehow, somewhere, sometime...."

Oh poop. No more vicodin for me. ;)

I pay for it right away... it makes me itch.

[_asbestosman]

EWWWW! NOT a good visual!

Coors, asbestos, or urinal cakes? (I'm not sure they're all that different).

?!!

I am NOT urinal cake man.

;P

Pie?

Maybe Pi man--an irrational number much like . . . ah, forget it.

Wait, make that I man. Notice there is no P on it. Let's keep it that way.

And I am definately not a urinal anything anyhow. Not enough females use them to make it worhwhile. There's always that one Urinal in the Women's bathroom of the BYU Engineering building though or so I've heard.

[_Doctor Steuss]

Maybe Pi man--an irrational number much like . . . ah, forget it.

Wait, make that I man. Notice there is no P on it. Let's keep it that way.

And I am definately not a urinal anything anyhow. Not enough females use them to make it worhwhile. There's always that one Urinal in the Women's bathroom of the BYU Engineering building though or so I've heard.

I want a gal that I can leave the seat up for.

[_silentkid]

"...But we cannot change the biological law that he who uses narcotics must pay the penalty somehow, somewhere, sometime...."

Oh poop. No more vicodin for me. ;)

I pay for it right away... it makes me itch.

I'm convinced that a vicodin allergy is a curse from the pre-existence. My heart weeps for you, brother.

[_Runtu]

I've become partial to Guinness, for some reason. The first beer I ever had was a Corona. Very disappointing.

[_The Nehor]

"...But we cannot change the biological law that he who uses narcotics must pay the penalty somehow, somewhere, sometime...."

Oh poop. No more vicodin for me. ;)

I'll pay any price for drugs when I have a kidney stone.