It\u2019s a well-known grammar joke that punctuation can save lives, since there is a difference between saying: \u201cLet\u2019s eat, Grandma!\u201d and: \u201cLet\u2019s eat Grandma!\u201d\u00a0 Punctuation and grammar do make a difference, as Oakhurst Dairy found out the hard way a few years ago.\u00a0 In a legal case about overtime for drivers and a state law in Maine, the debate centered on the grammar of the law, which required time-and-a-half pay for each hour worked after 40 hours, with exemptions for:<\/p>\n
The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of:<\/p>\n
(1) Agricultural produce;<\/p>\n
(2) Meat and fish products; and<\/p>\n
(3) Perishable foods.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The lack of a comma after “shipment” allowed the truck drivers to argue that the law only made an exemption for packing for distribution (along with packing for shipment) rather than distribution of the products being part of the exemption, which meant the company hadn\u2019t been paying them appropriately for overtime.\u00a0 They won the case, costing the dairy company $5,000,000.\u00a0 Perhaps it shouldn\u2019t be surprising that the law was changed soon afterwards to read that the exemptions included \u201cstoring; packing for shipment; or distributing of\u201d the products.[1]<\/a><\/p>\n
Discussion of whether the Doctrine and Covenants endorses eating or not eating meat can come down to grammar and punctuation choices.\u00a0 The two main sections that come into the debate are Section 49 (a 7 May 1831 revelation) and Section 89 (a 27 February 1833 revelation).\u00a0 In the present edition of Doctrine and Covenants 49, we read that:<\/p>\n
And whoso\u00a0forbiddeth\u00a0to\u00a0abstain\u00a0from\u00a0meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God; for, behold, the\u00a0beasts\u00a0of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which cometh of the earth, is\u00a0ordained\u00a0for the use of man for food and for\u00a0raiment, and that he might have in abundance. But it is not given that one man should\u00a0possess\u00a0that which is above another, wherefore the\u00a0world\u00a0lieth in\u00a0sin. \u00a0<\/strong>And wo be unto man that\u00a0sheddeth\u00a0blood or that\u00a0wasteth\u00a0flesh\u00a0and hath no need.[2]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In Section 89, we read that:<\/p>\n
Yea,\u00a0flesh\u00a0also of\u00a0beasts\u00a0and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used\u00a0sparingly; and it is pleasing unto me that they should not be\u00a0used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or\u00a0famine.[3]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Both of these texts have points of grammatical tension that can lead to different conclusions on when or if we should be eating meat.<\/p>\n
In the first, the wording is odd.\u00a0 The sentence in question is: \u201cWhoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God.\u201d\u00a0 In effect, it isn\u2019t clear whether it\u2019s not of God to forbid abstinence from eating meats (i.e., God endorses<\/em> teaching people to not<\/em> eat meat) or whether it\u2019s not of God to teach abstinence from eating meat (i.e., God opposes<\/em> teaching people to not eat meat).\u00a0 Taken alone, the sentence seems to indicate the former, but in the setting of the full text of the revelation (with its statement that \u201cthe\u00a0beasts\u00a0of the field and the fowls of the air \u2026 is\u00a0ordained\u00a0for the use of man for food and for\u00a0raiment\u201d), the latter seems to be the case.<\/p>\n
The latter reading is also supported in the context of the revelation being written in opposition to Shaker beliefs and practices.\u00a0 While vegetarianism wasn\u2019t universally supported among the United Society of Believers in Christ\u2019s Second Appearing, there had been some discussion among the Shakers about opposing eating meat, especially pork (based on the biblical prohibition observed by the Israelites).\u00a0 It seems possible that vegetarianism may have been embraced by the North Union Shakers that the revelation was delivered to in 1831.\u00a0 Similar beliefs seem to have also been discussed among the Latter-day Saints around the time of the 1831 revelation, with Levi Hancock later recalling that \u201cthe Preaching in Kirtland once was against the use of Pork,\u201d though Joseph Smith apparently raised and ate pigs (and thus did not support the prohibition on pork).[4]<\/a>\u00a0 Given the historical context of the revelation, the idea that it is saying that God opposes teaching people to not eat meat seems accurate.<\/p>\n
In the later revelation (the Word of Wisdom revelation), the debate centers on punctuation added later on that possibly affects what the revelation states about when we can eat meat.\u00a0 In the current edition, it reads that: \u201cIt is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.\u201d\u00a0 The comma after \u201cused\u201d splits the sentence in a way that indicates that God only wishes people to eat meat in cold seasons or times of famine. Earlier versions of the text, however, omit the comma, which could be read to mean that God wants us to eat meat all the time, rather than only during cold seasons or times of famine.\u00a0 For example, in the Sidney Gilbert copy of the original revelation (the earliest extant edition), it reads that: \u201cIt is pleasing unto me that they should not be used only in times of winter or of famine,\u201d[5]<\/a> and the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants reads that: \u201cIt is pleasing unto\u00a0me, that they should not be used only in times of winter or of\u00a0cold, or famine.\u201d[6]<\/a>\u00a0 The comma was added for the first time in the 1921 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, which has led to some debate about whether the original intent was to say that God wants us to eat meat all year round (which would align better with what most members of the Church actually practice) or whether we should only eat meat in specific circumstances.[7]<\/a><\/p>\n
Taking into account the broader context of the 1833 revelation and how it has been used by Church leaders since the early days of the Church, it seems likely that the original intent of the text was to say that God wants us to only eat meat in specific circumstances.\u00a0 The revelation itself states that flesh is \u201cto be used sparingly\u201d and that \u201cthese hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger,\u201d[8]<\/a> which is an indication that the text is focused on restricting meat consumption rather than enabling it (a reading supported by Eliza R. Snow\u2019s \u201cIn Our Lovely Deseret,\u201d with its statement that Latter-day Saint children \u201ceat but a very little meat\u201d).[9]<\/a>\u00a0 Early Church leaders support the interpretation that meat should be used only in times of famine and cold.\u00a0 For example, President Hyrum Smith taught that: \u201cLet men attend to these instructions, let them use the things ordained of God; let them be sparing of the life of animals; \u2018it is to be used only in times of winter, or of famine\u2019 and why to be used in famine? because all domesticated animals would naturally die, and may as well be made use of by man, as not.\u201d[10]<\/a>\u00a0 Likewise, Lorenzo Snow taught that: \u201cUnless famine or extreme cold is upon us we should refrain from the use of meat.\u201d[11]<\/a>\u00a0 Other examples could be cited, but it seems likely that what happened was that Church leaders consistently understood the verse to be restricting meat consumption to cold seasons and famine and the comma was added in 1921 to preserve that interpretation.<\/p>\n
Putting the two revelations together, however, we are posed with an interesting situation.\u00a0 The 1831 revelation seems to be coming out against putting prohibitions on eating meat while the 1833 revelation seems to be putting in place restrictions on eating meat.\u00a0 The former is frequently used as a proof text for wholesale acceptance of a carnivorous diet while the latter is sometimes used to advocate for a plant-based diet.\u00a0 In reality, however, a closer reading of what the texts say can be put together to create a somewhat more nuanced understanding of the messages being presented.<\/p>\n
The 1831 text technically only prohibits people from teaching<\/em> abstinence from meat and also notes that animals were created for use by humankind.\u00a0 It states that: \u201cWhoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God.\u201d\u00a0 After taking into account the discussion about the odd grammar, this seems to indicate that what is being forbidden is forbidding people from eat meats.\u00a0 To me, this still leaves open the option as a member of the Church to choose to practice vegetarianism so long as I am not actively encouraging other people to do the same.[12]<\/a>\u00a0 The reason Section 49 gives for this is that animals were \u201cordained for the use of man for food and for raiment.\u201d\u00a0 Section 89 revelation agrees on this point, noting that meats are \u201cordained for the use of man with thanksgiving,\u201d but then adds a point of clarification to this idea when it follows that statement with: \u201cNevertheless they are to be used sparingly; and it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.\u201d\u00a0 That clarification doesn\u2019t state that we should completely abstain from meat, only that we should limit the amount and timing of meat consumption.\u00a0 Thus, the two aren\u2019t contradictory\u2014while they take a stance against actively promoting vegetarianism, they also shouldn\u2019t be understood as endorsing frequent consumption of meat (except in limited circumstances) either.<\/p>\n
That being said, there was a real possibility that restricting meat consumption could have become a part of the Word of Wisdom that the Church emphasized.\u00a0 The Torah-based idea that Latter-day Saints shouldn\u2019t eat pork didn\u2019t die out in Kirtland but continued to be expressed by Church leaders throughout the nineteenth century.[13]<\/a>\u00a0 When Church leaders began to emphasize the Word of Wisdom more strongly around the turn of the twentieth century, meat consumption was a bigger focus for some Church leaders than the things we associate with the health code today.\u00a0 For example, during a meeting of the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency on 5 May 1898, the thing Brethren agreed on about the Word of Wisdom was that they should teach members to refrain from eating meat.\u00a0 Lorenzo Snow was particularly emphatic about this, while Wilford Woodruff felt that eating pork was a more serious infraction than drinking tea or coffee.[14]<\/a>\u00a0 It presents the possibility of an interesting alternative history where Latter-day Saints might have been known for avoiding meat (or at least pork) rather than tea and coffee.<\/p>\n
In any case, all this hair splitting about grammar and if or when we should eat meat is probably not important in the grand scheme of things.\u00a0 As Paul wrote, \u201cthe kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.\u201d[15]<\/a>\u00a0 Perhaps the more important principles taught in connection with statements about eating flesh are that we are to use the foods we have available \u201cwith thanksgiving,\u201d that we should not shed blood or waste\u00a0flesh\u00a0when we have no need, and that \u201cit is not given that one man should\u00a0possess\u00a0that which is above another.\u201d\u00a0 Those principles seem a bit more closely tied to our exaltation than the specifics of our diet.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Footnotes:<\/strong><\/p>\n
[1]<\/a> See Daniel Victor \u201cOxford Comma Dispute Is Settled as Maine Driver Get $5 Million,\u201d New York Times<\/em>, 9 February 2018, https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2018\/02\/09\/us\/oxford-comma-maine.html<\/a>.<\/p>\n
[2]<\/a> D&C 49:18-21, https:\/\/www.churchofjesuschrist.org\/study\/scriptures\/dc-testament\/dc\/49?lang=eng<\/a>.<\/p>\n
[3]<\/a> D&C 89:12-13, https:\/\/www.churchofjesuschrist.org\/study\/scriptures\/dc-testament\/dc\/89?lang=eng<\/a>.<\/p>\n
[4]<\/a> Hancock, Levi. Autobiography, ca. 1854. Photocopy. CHL.\u00a0MS 8174<\/a>.\u00a0 See also “Revelation, 7 May 1831 [D&C 49],” p. 81, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed May 16, 2021, https:\/\/www.josephsmithpapers.org\/paper-summary\/revelation-7-may-1831-dc-49\/2<\/a>, footnote 12.<\/p>\n
[5]<\/a> “Revelation, 27 February 1833 [D&C 89],” p. [114], The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed May 16, 2021, https:\/\/www.josephsmithpapers.org\/paper-summary\/revelation-27-february-1833-dc-89\/2<\/a><\/p>\n
[6]<\/a> “Doctrine and Covenants, 1835,” p. 208, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed May 16, 2021, https:\/\/www.josephsmithpapers.org\/paper-summary\/doctrine-and-covenants-1835\/216<\/a><\/p>\n
[7]<\/a> For one discussion, see A. Jane Birch, \u201cQuestioning the Comma in Verse 13 of the Word of Wisdom,\u201d Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship <\/em>10 (2014): 133-149, https:\/\/journal.interpreterfoundation.org\/questioning-the-comma-in-verse-13-of-the-word-of-wisdom\/<\/a><\/p>\n
[8]<\/a> D&C 89:12, 15.<\/p>\n
[9]<\/a> See https:\/\/books.google.com\/books?id=6i5OAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA86#v=onepage&q&f=false<\/a>.<\/p>\n
[10]<\/a> Times and Seasons<\/em>, Vol. 3, No. 15, pp. 799-801.<\/p>\n
[11]<\/a> Dennis B. Horne, ed.,\u00a0An Apostle\u2019s Record: The Journals of Abraham H. Cannon<\/em>\u00a0(Clearfield, UT: Gnolaum Books, 2004), 424.<\/p>\n
[12]<\/a> I am going to make the disclaimer here that I am omnivorous and not a vegetarian myself.<\/p>\n
[13]<\/a> See George Q. Cannon, 7 April 1868; Journal of Discourses <\/em>12:221-223, Discourses of Brigham Young<\/em>, 189; Thomas G. Alexander Mormonism in Transition: A History of the Latter-day Saints, 1890-1930<\/em>, 3rd<\/sup> ed. (SLC, Greg Kofford Books, 2012), 275.<\/p>\n
[14]<\/a> Alexander, Mormonism in Transition<\/em>, 273-280.<\/p>\n