Joe Smith was right about not eating meat!

D&C 89:12-13
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.

This is a very thought provoking documentary!

www.gamechangersmovie.com

I have always had a problem with verse 13. Because Joseph Smith (excuse me, I meant the Lord) goes out of his way to say things as fancily as possible, I think the verse actually means the opposite of what it is interpreted to mean.If god wanted to say "only eat meat in times of winter, or cold [which is somehow different from winter] or famine," he could have said so. Instead, god said we should NOT eat them only in times of winter, etc. To me, that means meat should be eaten ALL the time, albeit sparingly. For some reason people think the word "only" should be read as "except." That doesn't make any sense at all. Nobody says "only" when they mean "except." The words are practically opposites. "Should not be used only" means "use all the time." "Should not be used except" would mean "should be used only."

Also, don't try to tell me that the comma after the word "used" somehow changes the meaning. I'm pretty sure god did not dictate the punctuation. Even if he did, I can't think of a single instance where randomly inserting a comma in a sentence indicates that the reader should ignore the word "not." That's just silly.

Although mormons misread this verse in their theoretical doctrine, in practice they seem to understand it the same way I do. All the mormons I know eat meat year round.

Joseph was a slightly educated country bumpkin con man who always tried to make himself sound as well educated as possible. He was, however, known for his lack of literary and grammatical skills.

There is a comma before the phrase "only in winter...".

Your interpretation of the verse only makes sense if that sentence is a single clause. The comma breaks it into two clauses, which is what gives the "only in winter" phrase the "except in the winter" meaning.

ETA: just read your second paragraph. Your interpretation of the rules of grammar is, um, creative,



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/25/2019 08:22PM by Brother Of Jerry.

Frankly, I find giving JS credit for these statements to be offensive, and actually misrepresents what JS claimed, which is that it should be "eaten sparingly."

(Insert big Cabbie speech about dichotomous, i.e. black-and-white thinking)

Moreover, this is a violation of the board rule: Defenses of the faith are not allowed.

And after an offering to the Google God...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2019/10/02/red-meat-study-known-health-risks-unfounded-doctors-decry-guidelines/3838947002/

>>Should you keep eating red meat? Controversial study says well-known health risks are just bad science

>>A new report suggests longstanding guidelines that red meat is bad for your health may not be true.

>>"Based on these reviews, we cannot say with any certainty that reducing red meat or processed meat will prevent cancer, diabetes or heart disease," Johnston said.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/heart-health/there-s-no-need-eat-less-red-or-processed-meat-n1060511

>>After years of warnings about the potential harms of red meat and processed meat, including links to cancer and heart disease, a panel of experts from seven countries on Monday said people don’t need to cut down on their current consumption of products like ham, sausage, luncheon meat and bacon.

>>The recommendations, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, were made by nutriRECS, a consortium of experts that describes its mission as producing trustworthy nutritional guidelines “based on the values, attitudes and preferences of patients.”

Yeah... SL Cabbie - I think you ought to watch the documentary.

Perhaps.

The general view among sports nutritionists is that people eat too much meat and too few vegetables. Fixing that imbalance significantly reduces all sorts of risk factors. But since that is the consensus, the question is whether this documentary proves that people should move all the way to the vegan extreme: otherwise, it is simply reiterating what everyone already knows.

But the presentation does not make a compelling case for veganism. Consider, for example,

1) The documentary notes that early humans didn't eat much meat. Well, that is obvious. Hunter-gatherers lived mainly on nuts, berries, and other things they could scavenge. Then came the agricultural revolution, which dramatically increased the volume of carbs and hence populations. But was that good? Not in terms of health. In fact, the agricultural revolution caused human nutrition to deteriorate as evidenced by skeletal size, calcium density, and various diseases because proteins and other nutrients were supplanted by carbohydrates. The converse occurred over the last couple of centuries, as wealth increased in many countries and people started consuming more meat and milk. The effect was a big increase in stature and in health. It is true that modern people have gone too far in that direction, but all that means is that the balance should move back towards the original human diet--which virtually all nutritionists and physicians already know and advocate.

2) The subjects of the documentary are cherry-picked. You can't make generalizations based on a group of people that you have selected because they are already successes. For example, Kendrick Farris is indeed a great athlete, but he won a couple of world championships over several years--when there were literally 20 champions in the sport (due to the weight classes) every single year. There are several lifters who performed better than he did over his active period. So Farris's experience does not provide enough evidence to reach any conclusions.

Likewise, Arnold Schwarzenegger may advocate veganism now but he did not during his peak bodybuilding years. And Nate Diaz, the MMA fighter, may have become great because he switched to a vegetarian diet--or because he shared the genetics that had previously rendered his meat-eating brother a champion. Such anecdotes aren't very useful in determining general human patterns.

3) Since the documentary is based primarily on individual cases, it makes no effort to correct for other factors that may well skew the results. For example, Patrick Baboumian, Kendrick Farris, and Schwarzenegger are prominent in sports that are notorious for performance enhancing drugs (PED). Schwarzenegger has in fact admitted to consuming huge volumes of steroids. So was it the vegetables or the PEDs that made these athletes--and the football players or even the track cyclists--great? The movie does not even address that problem let alone attempt to correct for distortions.

4) There are several places in the documentary that are misconstrued to support the vegan hypothesis. A good example is the study of the NFL players' meal habits. Although presented as supporting veganism, that analysis did not address that question at all. It said specifically that the topic under review was what athletes eat before competing. It is no great surprise that heavy meats are a bad idea before a race or a game--which is why carbo loading became a thing. Watch again Darrick Morgan's wife as she says it was the breakfast burrito that took Morgan to the NFL playoffs: she can hardly keep a straight face either because he eats meat and fish as well as vegetables or because the notion that one player's meal can transport an entire team into the athletic stratosphere is incredible.

5) The movie accurately notes that the beef industry, like the nicotine industry, pours huge amounts of money into shaping opinion and policy. But so too do a number of agricultural industries. All this indicates is that there is a compelling need for real research on the role of meat/veganism in human health that is independent of all interested lobbies.

The documentary doesn't really offer that. People in the rich world eat too much meat and dairy and their health suffers as a result. We can argue over the appropriate balance--I would probably come down farther on the side of vegetables than most people--but the debate is over marginal differences. Most of the athletes in that documentary are in fact NOT strict vegans, as is clear if you watch the clips scattered among the credits at the end. The bottom line is that the producers are taking liberties with the facts, stretching limited evidence much too far.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/25/2019 03:22AM by Lot's Wife.

Section 89 (it is not wisdom) says wheat is for man. The best way to avoid obesity is to avoid wheat. A diet which includes meat never hurt anyone and definitely doesn’t make you fat. Avoid grains and processed sugar and eat meat, dairy, vegetables, nuts and other good fats and you are much more likely to avoid type 2 diabetes among other ills. Section 89 as interpreted by the Mormons is only helpful because it tells you to avoid tobacco. Not that Old Joe did.

Vegans are already very cultish and evangelistic in their behavior - why not go the whole way and declare it a religion?

https://www.inquirer.com/dailynews/online_extras/Does_veganism_deserve_freedom-of-religion_protection.html

Judge Shira A. Scheindlin said she did not question the sincerity of the inmates' religious beliefs, and that raises the question: Is veganism a religion? More exactly, does it deserve First Amendment protection similar to other religions under U.S. law?
https://theconversation.com/should-veganism-receive-the-same-legal-protection-as-a-religion-114243

Should veganism receive the same legal protection as a religion?

We have been trying to go vegan for some time now. Eating meat increases the amount of carbon dioxide in the blood, which clouds the thinking and sensitivity. I think that is why so many Mormons are insensitive, because they eat so much meat.

Also some people who eat meat get flashbacks and bad dreams.

The impossible burger is more expensive so I continue to eat meat.

Just eat plenty of Wheat and veggies. But a little chicken isn't bad. I've always eaten bread everyday and at every meal and it didn't make me fat. Infact I still have a six pack, Yay!

Stay away from the atkins fad. And stay away from those chicken lettuce salads with ranch dressing that all the "ladies" order at McDonald's and chick f lay. they think they are going green or something. The romaine lettuce is questionable and the chicken does occasionally sit out too long.

This isn’t suitable for everyone. Lots of people are gluten intolerant plus a diet high in carbs is to be avoided as equally as the Atkins diet. Sometimes it’s not what we eat that determines weight; it’s how much! I’ve been an ideal weight and been unhealthy at times due to eating an unbalanced diet and not enough. I was shocked to discover how much protein I needed based on the amount of exercise I did; since then my fish and poultry intake is up and I’m no longer overdoing the carbs.
Why is balance so hard for so many of us? It should make it simple...

Whatever. Pass the bacon.

Bill Burr on eating beef:

"If ghawd had not wanted us to eat beef, he would have made cattle hard to catch."

haha...Bill Burr is my hero by the way. I would like to see him speak in General Conference - then I would watch.

I never eat red meat. I always ask the grill master at Texas Roadhouse for a well done 16 KC Strip - it just tastes so much better than if it's red or pink in the middle.

From an evolutionary stand point, if we hadn't eaten meat we would have never have developed the brains to ponder this option.

I get that as a species, 'brain power' is what makes us the Big Dog on this planet.

But how come USING our brains isn't even close to being a universal species constant?

And is it 'morals' that have us bending over backward to protect those who can't (I get it...) or won't (why do always have to bail them out)?

Hey, it's not me...I'm asking for a friend.

Without fur, fangs, or claws. Our survival, as a herd, is dependent upon the whole herd, not the individual. Civilization, social mores, religion, etc., are just the formalization of this evolutionary adaptation.

Huh! So my friend apparently just happened to miss the documentaries where the distinctions between the smart wildebeests and the 'herd' wildebeests were featured? The ones where it's explained how the herd benefits from succor extended to the 'weak'?

Personally, I get the 'there but for the grace of evolution go I' part of the message, and I'm certainly grateful that the court jester gets tossed the occasional meaty bone!

"Herd" was, perhaps, not the best word to use.

If I were a wildebeest you can be damn sure I'd have a handful of herd animals. How else can I make sure that I don't get eaten.

Meh. We evolved as omnivores.

The teeth of carnivores are different than those of herbivores. Humans have both types.

Which is one reason why the millennium and resurrection never made much sense to me. The lion will eat straw like the ox? Does that mean that lions will lose their sharp tearing teeth and have teeth like cattle and horses? (Imagine a lion with cow's teeth. Creepy AF.) And when lions get that bovine intervention, will they also have multiple stomachs like other ruminants? Then they're not lions any more, so what's the point?

Ask the Sunday School teacher, get deer in the headlights look… "God will work it out." Thanks a lot.

Cult.

> Which is one reason why the millennium and
> resurrection never made much sense to me. The lion
> will eat straw like the ox? Does that mean that
> lions will lose their sharp tearing teeth and have
> teeth like cattle and horses? (Imagine a lion with
> cow's teeth. Creepy AF.)

What is creepy about that? The prophets have told us that in the hereafter the vast majority of humans will have their genitalia removed. That prospect disturbs me far more than the fate of lions' teeth.

Whoa whoa whoa!!? How is it that we don’t have a mass exodus of TBM men if they know that they’re gonna lose ‘it’? Where /when did the profit say this? How will the Mormon gods procreste without their genitalia??

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/27/2019 02:25AM by LJ12.

Here you go!

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,101320,101395

"Fish are friends not food."

Thanks "Bruce"

Man should eat pink meat. Like salmon.

I don't trust anyone that doesn't eat meat.....or like Led Zeppelin!

A diet heavy in Led will result in brain damage.

Yeah, but you always feel full.

And even if it kills you, there's a "Stairway to Heaven" "Over the Hills and Far Away" you can take "In the Evening", and don't let the "Black Dog" at the bottom of the staircase worry you, he's just s bit "Dazed and Confused" feeling like a "Fool in the Rain" after "Going to California". Sure, there will be "Good Times Bad Times" but "In my Time of Dying" I'll look back the "Whole Lotta Love" I had in this life and be ready for "What is and What should never Be"....but now I'm starting to "Ramble On" so I better initiate a "Communication Breakdown" and take my leave before I'm "Trampled under Foot".

"All My Love" and "Thank You" very much.

Haha...clever!

...OK...then, quit watching porn.....

in b 4 ~ it is always winter somewhere OPie ~


brb ~ eating meat ~

Haha!

I tried not eating meat for many years and never felt very good. I feel much better eating meat. JS was right about nothing. None of his ideas were original.

But it's already against the rules to beat it.

Should woman eat meat ?

Woman doth not live by bread alone.

I was a vegetarian as a teenager. It made me ill. That’s not to say it has to, but finding all the protein and iron I missed from meat and poultry would have been very time consuming. I’ve tried it since and it required eating a LOT of beans which wasn’t fun.

Besides I love meat. It tastes great and so makes me feel happy. Plus it stops me getting anaemic once a month.

I think it’s best to eat it sparingly as part of a low fat diet. I read that the healthiest people on earth (this was studied)are those communities now named the ‘bluezones’. They have in common a diet high in veg, olive oil, some fish and occasional red meat and a glass of red wine a day.

NB
Mormons did not make the list.
I think the word of wisdom is just a load of rubbish.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/27/2019 02:27AM by LJ12.

OK - so, the reason I posted this topic is to address the specific claims of TSCC regarding the consumption of meat in the WoW. The problem is, most LDS leaders and members totally disregard and are hypocrites in respect to what the WoW says about meat. As a past Gospel Doctrine teacher, this lesson always elicited an onslaught of defensive arguments to justify eating meat.

I recently lost a load of excess weight by following a high protein/low carb diet. Over the course of a year I was able to get down to my high school weight of 130 lbs. Unfortunately, I also lost a lot of muscle and was drained of all stamina. I was eating meat, not protein drinks as most are made of whey and I have a milk protein allergy. After reaching my weight goal, I gradually added larger amounts of whole food complex carbs to my diet which helped tremendously with the stamina, but also significantly *increased* my muscle mass.

I wondered why this was. After some research, I discovered that while meat is a readily available protein source in our modern society, it has not always been so. As mentioned by loggedoffagain, humans did evolve as omnivores, however, meat is actually not digested very well by humans - only a fraction of the amino acids in meat are utilized by humans to produce proteins - most is evacuated as waste.

Humans evolved as omnivores with the emphasis on plant consumption from which they obtained the bulk of their protein. Thus, when I replaced most of the organic, grass fed animal meat with organic, complex, protein rich carbs in my diet - along with strict portion control - I regained muscle mass as well as stamina and felt drastically better while also maintaining my target weight.


The one aspect of the documentary that really caught my attention - and another reason to change to a mostly plant based diet - was the allocation of massive amounts of the earth's resources to maintain the agricultural production to feed and water massive numbers of livestock with the sole purpose of then killing them to feed humans.

We can, and must, do better than that!

https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/evidence-for-meat-eating-by-early-humans-103874273/

>>By at least 2.6 million years ago, a remarkable expansion in this diet started to occur; some hominins began incorporating meat and marrow from small to very large animals into their diet. Let's explore the evidence for this dramatic shift using the 5 "W" questions: When, Where, Who, What, Why (and How).
When and where did hominin carnivory first occur?

>>The strongest evidence for meat and marrow eating are butchery marks found on bones. Slicing meat off a bone with a sharp-edged tool can leave cut marks (Figure 1). Pounding a bone with a large stone to break it open and extract the marrow inside can leave percussion marks. Cut and percussion marks, which together are called butchery marks, may be the result of skinning, disarticulation, and bone breakage for dietary and non-dietary reasons (Blumenschine & Pobiner 2006). Scientists began to recognize these butchery marks on Early Stone Age fossil assemblages in the 1980s (extensively footnoted).

More...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/read-meat-study-experts-question-studies-on-the-impact-of-eating-red-meat-more/

>>The studies published in the Annals of Internal Medicine conclude there's little to no effects from eating meat on illnesses like heart disease, cancer or diabetes. The controversial study also recommends consumers who eat as much as four servings a week can continue to do so.

https://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/the-truth-about-red-meat#3

>>“People don’t need to give up red meat,” says Christine Rosenbloom, PhD, RD, a nutrition professor at Georgia State University. “They need to make better selections in the type of meat they eat and the portions.”

https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-the-real-truth-about-that-confusing-red-meat-study

>>But now, according to headlines from across the world, all of that has changed. A controversial new study has proven that actually there's no evidence that eating red meat is bad for us, and that we can go ahead and gorge on steak and burgers once again.

>>On the other hand, headlines have hit out saying that this new research is nonsense, and that it could be deadly if people start eating more meat. This seems like a contradiction - either red meat is or isn't good for us, surely?

>>The answer, as you might have guessed, is very complicated, but it boils down to a simple fact: nutrition science is far harder than most people assume.

https://nationalpost.com/health/diet-fitness/no-beef-isnt-bad-for-you-scientists-conclude-there-is-no-need-to-eat-less-red-or-processed-meat

>>Any health benefits from staying away from meat are uncertain, and, if they exist at all, are very small

>>"It's a form of patriarchy if we just tell people they should eliminate or reduce their meat consumption," said Bradley Johnston, the lead study author. "We don't believe that there should be broad public health recommendations, almost like scare tactics, for the population as a whole."

Patriarchy? Goodness, isn't that word associated with LDS, Inc?

Was walking through a park the other day when the aroma of someone cooking steak wafting by me. I thought, if I am not supposed to eat that it is one hell of a disguise, about on par (but not quite) with not wanting sex with the cute 18 year old girl in a bikini.

so ~

¿ are exmos supposed to eat meat ? ~

or not ? ~




am confuse

¿ Am Ziller a exmo ? ~

¿ Am Ziller got opnion or just bonar ? ~




~ In b 4 what think Ziller?