Drifting wrote:We didn't cover meat, so I raised my hand and asked the question; "Doesn't the WoW encourage us to have a largely vegetarian diet and to only eat meat sparingly during periods of cold or famine?"
Nope, not at all.... In fact, another section of the D&C as well as several Bible scriptures directly forbid the "forbidding" of eating meat.
The teacher gave the answer that this was only applicable in the early days of the Church because meat was only available seasonally. Now that meat was available all year round, regardless of season, this no longer really applies.
This sounded to me like an answer made up on the spot.
Nope, just a partial and incomplete answer.....
If you actually read the verse CAREFULLY, you would notice the
addition of the word
NOT. The addition of the word "not" is a reversal of meaning in common especially OLD English. In other words, it's stating that it's OKAY to eat meat at OTHER TIMES, not simply during winter and famine.
What the WOW forbids eating other than in winter and famine is "creeping things", wild animals, etc. Which if you think about it makes sense.
Anyway, if the verse was stating "not" to eat
meat other than during those times, the verse would not have needed to use the word "not", because in the next two verse the exact same restriction is given (but to creeping things etc. like I mentioned above), but the word "not"
IS NOT THERE.
In other words, if the sentence was actually banning meat, the word "not" would NOT BE THERE, as it's not there just two verses later.
Further, as the teacher was trying to state, meat was mostly eaten during winter and famine because that's when they most ate it for obvious reasons, thus some wondered if it was okay to eat meat at other times since nature seemed to make eating meat as more naturally occurring during those times.
FIRST QUESTION: Has the principle regarding meat in the WoW been officially changed, in similar fashion to the clarification of hot drinks etc?
1. There never was a "clarification" of hot drinks etc. It always from the beginning referred to Coffee and Tea (from the Tea Leaf), and Alcohol. Wine, especially "New Wine" wasn't generally too alcoholic. But, in order to follow the Word of Wisdom more perfectly, Wine was removed for again obvious reasons.
2. Same for "meat"..... the principle had always remained the same, it is you who have simply never understood it. The Church has always simply said to eat meat sparingly, period. And what that means is within out own judgment. It has NEVER taught that we are to eat meat only in winter and famine. The only verse that refers to that command is the one that refers to Wild Animals and Creeping Things (a.k.a. bugs).
Also when comparing notes, it became clear to me that the general outcomes to the two lessons had been materially different. In Relief Society they had focussed on the general principles of 'moderation' in dietary matters and 'healthy eating/healthy lifestyle' type discussion points. They had also discussed that the WoW was a 'principle' that people should be trying their best to live up to but we should recognise that sometimes things for different people are harder than for others. If an individual is/was a smoker, then as long as that individual was striving to live the WoW as best as they could, even if they were having the odd cigarette, then they could sit in front of the Bishop and say 'Yes' to the question "Are you living the WoW?". Because they were living the principle of trying to live the WoW the best they can. Same applied to those people who had the odd glass of wine etc.
In Priesthood it was black and white; if you smoke you fail.
Which is a significantly different principle to that which the ladies agreed was the purpose of the WoW.
If always fascinates me how anti-mormons make Mormonism so "black and white"......
The belief that we teach ONLY one thing on a subject, when in fact during another year, another ward, another teacher, etc. the focus will be in a different direction.
SECOND QUESTION: Given that the lesson topic was the same; are the lessons tailored by the Church to fit what they feel is the needs of the different sexes? Or do the lessons generate different outcomes because of the contribution of the sex of the people in the lesson?
Nope, neither are true..... It just happened that way this time.
THIRD QUESTION: Is differing outcomes from lessons okay from an official Church point of view?
Yep..... Because BOTH are a part of human experience and the Gospel.
There is the
Letter of the Law and then there is the
Spirit of the Law. Each has a time and place in the Gospel and in human experience.