Eating meat

Sama Hoole

@SamaHoole

·

18h

Medieval nobility controlled meat access through Forest Laws backed by violence. Poach a deer, get hanged. The threat was explicit, brutal, visible. Modern elites achieve the same outcome without a single law restricting meat consumption. They don't need force. They have something better: Virtue. The playbook: Step 1: Reframe meat consumption as moral failing. Not illegal. Not forbidden. Just... wrong. Selfish. Environmentally destructive. Unethical toward animals. Socially irresponsible. The beauty of this approach is it makes people restrict themselves more effectively than any law could. Laws create resistance. Moral frameworks create guilt. Step 2: Use institutional authority to validate the framing. Get WHO to classify processed meat as carcinogenic (ignoring that the studies are fundamentally flawed). Get climate organizations to blame cattle for emissions (ignoring biogenic carbon cycles). Get documentaries made showing the worst factory farms (ignoring regenerative agriculture). Step 3: Manipulate pricing through policy. Don't ban meat. Just make it expensive through: - Removing agricultural subsidies from animal agriculture - Adding carbon taxes - Implementing environmental regulations that favour plant agriculture - Subsidising plant-based alternatives Step 4: Social pressure. Make meat consumption socially costly. Not through law, through judgment. The person ordering steak at a business dinner now has to justify it. The parent packing meat in school lunch faces questions. The athlete eating beef gets lectures about health. Step 5: Offer alternatives framed as "progress." Plant-based isn't deprivation - it's innovation! Lab-grown isn't restriction: it's technology! Insects aren't poverty food: they're sustainable protein! The result is identical to medieval Forest Laws: Meat access becomes stratified by class. The wealthy continue eating traditional animal products. The middle class reduces consumption due to price and social pressure. The working class shifts toward cheaper processed alternatives. But there's no violence. No explicit law. No visible oppression. Just markets, morality, and institutional messaging. The genius is that victims enforce it on themselves. The medieval peasant wanted to hunt but couldn't because he'd be killed. The modern citizen can hunt (metaphorically - can buy meat) but chooses not to because: - They've been told it's destroying the planet - They feel guilty about animal welfare - They believe it's unhealthy - Their peer group judges them - The alternatives are marketed as superior The restriction appears voluntary. People believe they're making ethical choices. They don't realize they're being systematically directed away from the nutrition that makes humans strong and toward the nutrition that makes them manageable. No laws broken. No rights violated. No violence required. Just institutional messaging, price manipulation, and moral framing that makes people restrict themselves more effectively than force ever could. The medieval approach was crude but honest. The modern approach is sophisticated and deceptive. But the result is the same: Those in power eat meat. Those without power are convinced not to.

18 And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, 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.

20 But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin.

(Doctrine and Covenants 49:18–20)

_____

Grok:

What does this mean? 18 And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, 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. 20 But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin. (Doctrine and Covenants 49:18–20)

The verses you’ve quoted are from Doctrine and Covenants 49:18–20, a text from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). This passage addresses specific theological and practical teachings, particularly in the context of early 19th-century religious debates. Let’s break it down verse by verse to explain its meaning clearly and concisely:

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

• This verse is addressing teachings or practices that prohibit eating meat, likely referencing certain religious or sectarian groups at the time (such as the Shakers, who practiced vegetarianism). The verse asserts that such prohibitions are not divinely inspired. In other words, God does not command people to abstain from eating meat, and any doctrine enforcing such a restriction is not from God.
• The phrasing is somewhat complex due to the older English style, but it essentially means: If someone teaches that people must abstain from eating meat, that teaching is not authorized by God.

Verse 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."

• This verse explains that God has provided animals ("beasts of the field" and "fowls of the air") and other natural resources ("that which cometh of the earth") for human use. These resources are intended for food (e.g., meat, crops) and clothing (e.g., leather, wool) so that humanity can live in abundance.
• The term "ordained" emphasizes that this is part of God’s divine plan—nature is purposefully designed to sustain human life and needs.

Verse 20: "But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin."

• This verse shifts to a principle of equality and stewardship. It teaches that while God provides resources abundantly, it is not His will for one person to hoard or possess more than another. Inequality in wealth or resources, where some have excess while others lack, is contrary to God’s intent.
• The phrase "wherefore the world lieth in sin" suggests that much of the world’s sinfulness stems from this imbalance—selfishness, greed, or failure to share resources equitably leads to spiritual and social problems.

Context and Broader Meaning:

• Doctrine and Covenants 49 was revealed in 1831 to Joseph Smith, directed in part to counter specific beliefs of the Shaker community, which included vegetarianism and communal living practices. The passage refutes the idea of mandatory abstinence from meat while affirming that God’s creation is meant for human use.
• However, the LDS Church also teaches moderation and gratitude in using these resources. For example, Doctrine and Covenants 89 (the Word of Wisdom) later advises that meat should be eaten sparingly, suggesting a balanced approach.
• Verse 20 reflects a recurring theme in LDS theology: the law of consecration, where resources are to be shared to eliminate poverty and promote equality. The "sin" mentioned here is tied to societal structures or individual actions that perpetuate inequality.

Application:

• For members of the LDS Church, this passage underscores that eating meat is permissible (contrary to certain restrictive doctrines) and that God’s creations are for human benefit. However, it also calls for responsible stewardship and fairness in distributing resources.
• In a modern context, it might encourage reflection on sustainable use of natural resources, gratitude for God’s provisions, and addressing economic disparities.

If you’d like further analysis, such as how this fits into broader LDS teachings or its historical context, let me know!

why does it say "forbiddeth to abstain"?

The phrase "forbiddeth to abstain" in *Doctrine and Covenants* 49:18 is confusing due to its archaic language and double negatives, which can obscure the meaning. Let’s break it down to clarify why it’s phrased this way and what it means.

### Text and Context

The full verse is:  

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

- **"Forbiddeth"**: An old English term meaning "forbids" or "prohibits."

- **"To abstain"**: To refrain from or avoid something, in this case, eating meats.

- **Combined**: "Forbiddeth to abstain" essentially means "prohibits people from abstaining" or, more clearly, "commands people to eat meat by forbidding them from abstaining."

The phrase is addressing a situation where a person or group teaches that abstaining from meat is wrong or forbidden—that is, they insist everyone *must* eat meat. The verse counters this by saying such a teaching (forbidding abstinence from meat) is not from God.

### Why This Phrasing?

1. **Archaic Language**:  

   The *Doctrine and Covenants* was revealed in 1831, and its language reflects the formal, King James Bible-style English common in religious texts of the time. Words like "forbiddeth" and complex sentence structures were standard in such contexts. The phrase "forbiddeth to abstain" mirrors the verbose style of 17th-century English, which often used layered negatives or indirect phrasing.

2. **Double Negatives and Clarity**:  

   The construction "forbiddeth to abstain" involves a kind of double negative: forbidding someone from abstaining implies mandating the opposite action (eating meat). In modern English, this is less clear because we avoid such convoluted phrasing. A simpler rendering would be: "Whoever commands people to eat meat by prohibiting abstinence is not ordained of God."

3. **Historical Context**:  

   The verse likely responds to specific religious debates of the early 19th century. While the passage is often interpreted as addressing groups like the Shakers (who practiced vegetarianism and taught abstinence from meat), the phrasing here suggests it may also counter any group or individual who went to the opposite extreme—insisting that eating meat was a divine requirement. The verse rejects both extremes, affirming that God neither mandates vegetarianism nor requires meat consumption.

4. **Theological Precision**:  

   The phrasing aims to clarify God’s stance: dietary choices like eating or abstaining from meat are not divinely mandated either way. By saying "forbiddeth to abstain… is not ordained of God," the text emphasizes that imposing rigid rules on meat consumption (whether to eat it or avoid it) lacks divine authority. This aligns with the broader message of *Doctrine and Covenants* 49, which corrects misconceptions about God’s will.

### Modern Translation

To make it clearer, the verse could be paraphrased:  

"Anyone who forbids others from abstaining from meat, insisting that people must eat it, is not acting with God’s authority."

This interpretation fits the subsequent verses (19–20), which affirm that animals and plants are provided for human use (food and clothing) but don’t mandate their consumption. It also aligns with later LDS teachings, like the Word of Wisdom (*Doctrine and Covenants* 89), which advises moderation in eating meat.

### Why It’s Confusing

- **Linguistic Evolution**: Modern English prefers straightforward phrasing, so "forbiddeth to abstain" feels awkward or contradictory to today’s readers.

- **Ambiguity in Intent**: Without historical context, it’s unclear whether the verse targets a specific group or a hypothetical error. The mention of "meats" and abstinence suggests a response to vegetarian teachings, but the phrasing opens the door to addressing any dogmatic dietary rule.

- **Translation Style**: The *Doctrine and Covenants* mimics the King James Bible’s style to convey divine authority, but this can sacrifice clarity for modern audiences.

### Conclusion

The phrase "forbiddeth to abstain" means prohibiting people from choosing to avoid meat, or mandating meat consumption. It’s worded this way due to the archaic, formal style of the text and the need to address specific theological errors of the time. The verse teaches that God doesn’t endorse rigid dietary rules—whether forbidding meat or requiring it—leaving such choices to personal discretion within the bounds of moderation.

If you’d like, I can dig deeper into the historical groups (like the Shakers) this might address or compare it to other LDS scriptures on diet!

_____

your latest answer seems to contradict your previous answer: "The phrasing is somewhat complex due to the older English style, but it essentially means: If someone teaches that people must abstain from eating meat, that teaching is not authorized by God."

_____

You're right—my latest explanation did introduce a contradiction by overly literalizing the archaic phrasing without fully accounting for its idiomatic use in 19th-century English. I appreciate you calling that out; let's correct and clarify it based on a deeper look at the text, historical context, and scholarly analysis.

### Corrected Interpretation of Verse 18

The verse reads: "And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God."

- **The key phrase "forbiddeth to abstain"**: This is an old English idiomatic expression that functions as a double negative. While a strict modern literal reading might suggest "prohibits abstaining" (implying a mandate to eat meat), that's not how it was used or understood at the time. Instead, it idiomatically means "commands to abstain" or "bids to abstain." In other words, it's condemning teachings that *require* people to abstain from eating meat (i.e., forbidding the consumption of meat altogether).

  

  This idiomatic usage appears in religious texts of the era and draws from biblical language, such as 1 Timothy 4:3 in the King James Bible ("commanding to abstain from meats"). Scholarly analyses, like Loren Spendlove's article in the *Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship*, explain that "forbid to abstain" was an accepted way to express "command to abstain" in English from the 1600s through the mid-1800s, but it has since fallen out of use, leading to modern confusion.

- **Full meaning of the verse**: It's saying that anyone who teaches or enforces a doctrine requiring abstinence from meat—insisting that people should not eat it—is not acting under God's authority. This aligns directly with the subsequent verses (19–21), which affirm that God has provided animals and plants for human use (food, clothing, etc.) in abundance, while also cautioning against waste, excess, or inequality.

### Why the Confusion and Contradiction?

- The phrasing is convoluted due to the formal, Bible-like style of the *Doctrine and Covenants* (revealed in 1831). The official LDS edition includes a footnote for verse 18 clarifying it as "IE biddeth to abstain" (where "IE" means "that is," and "biddeth" means "commands"). This supports the idiomatic reading.

- In my first response, I correctly captured the intended meaning: God doesn't mandate vegetarianism or prohibit eating meat.

- In the second, I leaned too heavily on a modern literal breakdown ("forbids abstaining"), which flipped it to the opposite (condemning mandates to eat meat). That was an error— the historical and contextual evidence shows the idiom reverses the literal sense through its double-negative structure.

### Historical Context Reinforcing This

This revelation (*Doctrine and Covenants* 49) was given to address specific errors in the beliefs of the Shaker community, which Joseph Smith and others encountered in 1831. The Shakers (or United Society of Believers in Christ's Second Appearing) practiced strict vegetarianism in some groups, viewing meat-eating as sinful or unnecessary for spiritual purity. They essentially "commanded abstinence" from meats. The verse directly refutes that, stating such a requirement isn't from God. Instead, it promotes a balanced view: meat is permissible and part of God's provisions, but later teachings (like the Word of Wisdom in *Doctrine and Covenants* 89) advise eating it "sparingly" with gratitude and moderation.

### Consistent Takeaway

Overall, the passage rejects rigid dietary dogmas (like mandatory vegetarianism) while affirming that nature's resources are for human benefit, to be used responsibly and equitably. God doesn't prohibit meat-eating, nor does He require it—it's a matter of personal stewardship within broader principles of health and equality.

If this still doesn't fully resolve it or you'd like sources for further reading (e.g., the full scholarly article), just let me know!