VeggieBoards banner
1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
215 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
One of the biggest reasons I decided to become vegetarian is because of something in my faith called the Word of Wisdom. I belive I am following it more closely. I know, somebody out there is about to yell MORMON! Anyways, my family is for the most part on the side of supporting me although they still think meat is okay to have once in awhile. But then my father in law today tells me that being a total veg is not following the word of wisdom! I don't see how it could be any more obvious in the verses. It says that we should only eat it in times of famine or excess of hunger. How come I feel like the only person who can read english, or read at all?!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
215 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Echud123456 View Post

That's True. I Have A Religeous Family Too And I've Showed Them Gen. 1:2931 and the seem to have a momentary lapse of faith.
Hey! That's a good one! Thanks :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Oh my goodness! All I have to say is that you just made my day :-D I've been LDS since I was 16, and just recently switched to vegetarianism. The only difference I've experienced is total support. My parents don't necessarily understand why I've switched, but they support me anyway. We should be veggie buddies. It's always good to have at least one constant supporter. I'm just glad you know what the Word of Wisdom is. I've received conflicting advice from my friends, and I'm just like..."In my church...blah blah blah" They're cool about it but still try to offer me coffee and other things against the WOW. We should totally have a conversation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,902 Posts
From vegan Joe's link:

Quote:
10 And again, verily I say unto you, all wholesome aherbs God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man- 11 Every herb in the season thereof, and every fruit in the season thereof; all these to be used with aprudence and bthanksgiving.

12 Yea, aflesh also of bbeasts 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 csparingly;

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

14 All agrain 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 athese hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger.

16 All grain is good for the afood of man; as also the bfruit of the vine; that which yieldeth fruit, whether in the ground or above the ground-

17 Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain.
Maybe the father-in-law is comparing line 13 with line 15 and sees that they are similar. Are there restrictions on grains?

I am not Mormon, but I find this interesting. It does look as if 12-13 seems to say it's ok to eat meat, but it's even better to not eat it unless it's an emergency.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,014 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thalia View Post

From vegan Joe's link:

Maybe the father-in-law is comparing line 13 with line 15 and sees that they are similar. Are there restrictions on grains?

I am not Mormon, but I find this interesting. It does look as if 12-13 seems to say it's ok to eat meat, but it's even better to not eat it unless it's an emergency.
Can I ask what this is from? Is that the Book of Mormon? I'm not Mormon, but I'm always curious to learn more about other people's beliefs and cultures. Especially if it gives me ammo to throw back at people when they ask me stupid questions about being vegetarian.


--Fromper

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
852 Posts
I lived in Zion NP for a year. The two things that I always found so remarkable about Mormons is how robust, healthy and physically attractive they appear, and how damned long they live. They must be doing something right. Most Americans are eating their way into an early grave, and theres no question that red meat tops the list as one of the biggest contributors to this process. Listen to common sense, not your father-in-law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,902 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fromper View Post

Can I ask what this is from? Is that the Book of Mormon? I'm not Mormon, but I'm always curious to learn more about other people's beliefs and cultures. Especially if it gives me ammo to throw back at people when they ask me stupid questions about being vegetarian.


--Fromper

It's from JoeV's link above (I'm not sure why they text got garbled.) but it's from "THE DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS SECTION 89" which is part of the book of Mormon I believe. Looks like they have the whole thing online. Or you could call that number in the commercials for a free copy, but I think they will come to your house.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
215 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Okay, the WoW is taken out of the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C). The D&C is a compilation of revelations given to the earlier Latter Day prophets about how to run the church and in it, it clarifys several things about the gospel. The WoW is one of the clarifications. You can find this book online along with the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Bible (all online versions) at www.lds.org.

My father in law was actually pointing to another chapter in the D&C.

D&C 49

18 And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God;

(And whoso tells someone they can't not eat meat, 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.

So is this supposed to cancel out chapter 89 and we can eat meat whenever we want? Or is it possible that since the revelation in chapter 89 came later that perhaps it is the more correct of the two?

And perhaps because it tells me in chapter 89 that I should only (sparingly being defined for us here) eat meat in famine or excess of hunger, I shouldn't eat meat since I'm not in a famine! My health and life is not at risk because I choose not to eat meat and it is certainly not at risk because there is no famine which requires me to eat it!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
933 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macylee36 View Post

D&C 49

18 And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God;

(And whoso tells someone they can't not eat meat, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God.)
Um...

If I am reading this correctly, it's your father-in-law who is going against the rules here. It's saying "If you tell someone that they can't choose not to eat meat, you're not ordained by God." So, essentially your father-in-law, by telling you that you can't be vegetarian, is breaking this rule.

You might want to point that out to him.


~Julie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,014 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by vegbunny83 View Post

Um...

If I am reading this correctly, it's your father-in-law who is going against the rules here. It's saying "If you tell someone that they can't choose not to eat meat, you're not ordained by God." So, essentially your father-in-law, by telling you that you can't be vegetarian, is breaking this rule.

You might want to point that out to him.


~Julie
Yeah, the whole double negative thing makes it hard to understand. I'm with Julie, though. A strictly literal reading seems to support vegetarianism, not prevent it.

In other words, if forbidding from abstaining from meats is wrong, then abstaining from meats must be right. This type of confusion is why double negatives are a bad idea.

So stupid question, but what language was this originally written in? Is it like the Bible that was originally in other languages, so it's possible that something could be getting lost in the translation, or was the Book of Mormon always in English?

--Fromper

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
933 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fromper View Post

Yeah, the whole double negative thing makes it hard to understand. I'm with Julie, though. A strictly literal reading seems to support vegetarianism, not prevent it.

In other words, if forbidding from abstaining from meats is wrong, then abstaining from meats must be right. This type of confusion is why double negatives are a bad idea.

So stupid question, but what language was this originally written in? Is it like the Bible that was originally in other languages, so it's possible that something could be getting lost in the translation, or was the Book of Mormon always in English?

--Fromper

I Googled it, and it looks like it was originally in English, but the guy who transcribed it just had really funky grammar.

The Original Language of the Book of Mormon: Upstate New York Dialect, King James English, or Hebrew?



~Julie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
215 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by vegbunny83 View Post

I Googled it, and it looks like it was originally in English, but the guy who transcribed it just had really funky grammar.

The Original Language of the Book of Mormon: Upstate New York Dialect, King James English, or Hebrew?



~Julie
I haven't clicked on your link to read more yet but I was struck because the original language of the Book of Mormon is actually that of the old Americas like way way back (if I remember correctly up to four hundred years after christ). The original TRANSLATED language of the Book of Mormon is probably closer to King James English. If you really wanted to follow this more you should look for information on just how the BOM was translated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,014 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macylee36 View Post

I haven't clicked on your link to read more yet but I was struck because the original language of the Book of Mormon is actually that of the old Americas like way way back (if I remember correctly up to four hundred years after christ). The original TRANSLATED language of the Book of Mormon is probably closer to King James English. If you really wanted to follow this more you should look for information on just how the BOM was translated.
I'm still confused. American language 400 years AD? Since that's 1000 years before Europeans came to the Americas, I'm assuming you're talking about one of the native American tribal languages, but there were many of those.

Sorry to ask such silly questions, but I really don't know much about Mormon beliefs.

--Fromper

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,090 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by vegbunny83 View Post

Um...

If I am reading this correctly, it's your father-in-law who is going against the rules here. It's saying "If you tell someone that they can't choose not to eat meat, you're not ordained by God." So, essentially your father-in-law, by telling you that you can't be vegetarian, is breaking this rule.

You might want to point that out to him.


~Julie
That double negative is very confusing. But the very next verse basically says "So in other words animals and birds are put on the earth for you to eat."
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top