Vegetarianism and the church
I would like to contrast two opposing views of vegetarianism. One takes Gen 9:3, “Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you,” and 1 tim 4:3 about evil people that will come “commanding to abstain from meats,” and says, as a friend once did, “That’s why vegetarians don’t make good mormons.”
The other view takes section 89, verses 12 and 13, “Nevertheless, they [meats] 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 of famine,” and, combined with Pres Kimball’s talk on hunting and some writings of Parley P. Pratt, they assert that the only way to truly live the gospel is to be a vegetarian unless you would otherwise starve.
Is there not middle ground? Can those of us who eat meat, and enjoy it, not recognize the dietary and ecological reasons for eating it sparingly–and perhaps even respect those who choose to live a vegetarian lifestyle without feeling threatened? Can those who do practice this lifestyle not cooperate with us to find ways of living a more healthy lifestyle wihtout asserting that it is the way to re-establish the garden of Eden? [Not the best argument, as I see it, as the point was never to stay in the garden, and we are certainly ot there now.]
What place does vegetarianism have in the church? Can we make room for it without making it central?
Can people of differing opinions on dietary lifestyle co-exist peacefully? Wow, stated like that, I have to admit that I just don’t know. I hope so, but that has not yet progressed to belief, let alone a sure knowledge 😉
Your post actually focuses on life the same questions that we discussed about art (I think.) Namely, a question as to whether some people can feel the spirit about certain lifestyles (dietary, that is) while others do not.
From a genetic perspective, it would make sense that we would have a diversity in inspiration. 20% of the population is sodium sensitive, while 80% can enjoy a salt lick and be no worse for it. In this case, it would seem likely that Lord might inspire someone sensitive to lay of the Fritos.
But let us take two individuals with comparable genetic propensity. Could they receive different inspiration about diet? Could one feel inspired to be a vegan and the other to be a beefan? I don’t know.
Culturally at least (with a large portion of the early saints being agrarian), it seems that being an avid meet eater is more acceptable.
Comment by J. Stapley — 2/28/2005 @ 7:40 pm
J.
I’m sure that there is wisdom in the injunction to “eat meat sparingly.” Our meat-obsessed culture gave birth to factory farming, which is not only cruel and un-Christian, but has also given rise to such horrors as BSE/CJD.
Comment by Ronan — 2/28/2005 @ 7:57 pm
Ronan, I agree in part. When you look at the energy and resources required for large scale meet consumption, it is simply not sustainable. When china gets on board the meat eating band wagon…well…it will be a good time to be in the beef market.
Un-Christian is an appellation that I’m not sure is appropriate for “factory farming”. And this is not simply because I have spent some time employed in the food industry. There is definitely a cost-benefit balance. But are you suggesting that my salvation is in danger because I buy food at a big box grocer?
Comment by J. Stapley — 2/28/2005 @ 8:06 pm
This is an interesting topic. I am a vegetarian and I know at least 10 other people in the church who are either vegetarian or vegan, but I think for each of us it is an extremely personal decision.
I like your plea for a middle ground because that is exactly how I feel. I certainly don’t want to get up in anyone’s face, claiming “meat is murder” and trying to “convert” them to a vegetarian lifestyle. I respect others’ decisions. I hope that people can also respect my decision not to eat meat.
In Doctrine and Covenants 49 there is another scripture on the topic. A little background: a Quaker had joined the church, but held onto previous customs. It says in verse 18: “whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats . . . is not ordained of God.” This comes after verse where “whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God.” So it seems to be saying, “Don’t preach against marrying” (in fact, “marriage is ordained of God”) and “don’t preach against vegetarianism.” However, the footnote of v.15 adds that “forbiddeth” should be “biddeth.” Read this way, the verse implies, “Don’t preach vegetarianism.” Even so, I think it’s okay either way: to eat meat or not to eat meat. We can all work together to take care of our stewardships, namely our bodies and the earth, receiving all things “with prudence and thanksgiving.”
Comment by Heather P. — 2/28/2005 @ 8:22 pm
Oops. It looks like one of my tags isn’t right (there is supposed to be a “15” between “where” and “verse” that’s hyperlinked) and the footnote is v.18, not 15.
Comment by Heather P. — 2/28/2005 @ 8:25 pm
But are you suggesting that my salvation is in danger because I buy food at a big box grocer?
J,
Probably not, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t problems, in terms of cruelty and perhaps wastefulness associated with the meat industry as it operates now, and if you don’t care abou those problems, it’s like any other problem you choose to look the other way about. I hesitate to call all factory farming unchristian, but only because I’m not convinced that it’s all cruel. I do think that cruelty to animals is unchristian, if what we mean by that is un-christ-like. Of course, this hits the heart of one sector of the vegetarian/vegan debate–what constitutes cruelty to animals. There must be some degree to which we do not simply consider the confort of the animal. We kill them, of course. I do believe, that we should be concerned about unnecessarily causing them to suffer on the way from pasture to plate. What unnecessary is is a big grey area.
Heather,
It seems you are trying to direct us to some important insight, but the original comment to which you refer seems not to have appeared.
Comment by S. Hancock — 2/28/2005 @ 8:34 pm
Heather,
Great verses, and I like the ones that follow,
20 But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin.
21 And wo be unto man that sheddeth blood or that wasteth flesh and hath no need.
It seems to link certain practices associated with eating meat directly with wastefullness and class division/inequalities. I think that we sometimes look to the scriptures without thinking that they could show an understanding of modes of production and their effects on world prosperity and proper use of the world’s resources. We are looking for black-and-white answers, maxims about meat, but perhaps this might address the issues Ronan and J are talking about. Should we be surprized if the Lord’s counsel shows a complex understanding of economic and social forces? To me it suggests that I should try to acquire more such knowledge.
Comment by S. Hancock — 2/28/2005 @ 9:05 pm
I’m sorry that my comment above (#4) is hard to follow. I think I tried to address too many things in one comment.
The second paragraph of my comment is addressed to the third paragraph of the original post, where S. Hancock wrote:
In my last paragraph I guess I’m just thinking “out loud.” I probably should have thought through it some more before trying to articulate those thoughts.
I think that my main points are (1) it is possible to be a vegetarian and a Mormon (but vegetarianism is certainly completely optional and separate from the decision to be LDS) and (2) the issue of vegetarianism doesn’t have to be divisive among members of the church. So my answer to the last question “Can we make room for [vegetarianism] without making it central?” is “Yes,” at least for me.
Comment by Heather P. — 2/28/2005 @ 9:14 pm
1 Tim. 4:3 does not state that abstaining from meat is a sign of apostasy, but rather the commanding to abstain from meats is.
D&C 89 does not state all meat is to be used sparingly. Rather it only states flesh of the beats and flying fowl.
There is nothing in the scriptures that explicitly prohibits vegetarianism, nor that explicitly prohibits meat consumption.
Comment by Kim Siever — 3/1/2005 @ 12:50 am
Steve and Heather, thanks for the insightful dialogue. I really like the analysis of class division. I’m not sure that my first comment was at all cogent.
It seems like the conflict boils down to why we choose the lifestyles we do. May I be so indiscreet to ask Heather why she is a vegetarian? She seems to be able to coexist with non-vegetarians. What is it about some meat eaters that makes coexistence with vegetarians difficult?
Comment by J. Stapley — 3/1/2005 @ 12:57 am
A good friend of mine my first year of college was a convert and a vegetarian. He never asked others to be vegetarians nor implied that they should be. Interestingly, he actually ate meat now and then as ‘practice’ so that when he got called on a mission he did not offend anyone because he could not eat meat if offered. He went to Colombia where earnest members and investigators offered meat to him. Like Paul, he could be all things to all people for Christ’s sake (1 Corinthians 9).
I think there is room for vegetarians and those who aren’t. One simply can’t tell another either that they ought to be vegetarians or that they can’t be vegetarians without going beyond the teaching of the Church. To do so is to set oneself up as a light–priestcraft.
Comment by Keith — 3/1/2005 @ 1:41 am
Some Jewish people might argue that the “middle ground” you are talking about is kashrut or the practice of eating only kosher foods.
Obviously keeping kosher would not permit a person to eat “every moving thing that liveth” (what an image that scripture conjures up). Pork is forbidden. The mixture of dairy and meat is also forbidden (no cheeseburgers or pepperoni pizzas).
I have known some Jews who find it easier to keep kosher if they simply move towards vegetarianism. Honestly though, if the Jewish temple ceremonies were in practice, a completely strict vegetarianism would be impossible (eating meat is part of the sacrifice process, if I remember right). But since a Jewish temple is not currently functioning, that isn’t really too much of an issue for Jewish vegetarians.
I read that book by Peter Singer called “Animal Liberation” years ago and tried out vegetarianism as a result. It lasted for a month. This isn’t a lie … I was in the Cougareat, forgot I wasn’t going to eat meat and ate a hot dog. I can’t help but laugh when I think about it. I gave up vegetarianism … not for baby-back ribs or a good juice steak … but a hot dog!
Honestly, I’m not sure I could enjoy all the good ethnic dishes as much if I were a vegetarian. One of the issues that feels problematic to me is trying to regularly explain to people at social functions why I can’t eat the meat that has been prepared. And so I don’t give it up.
Comment by danithew — 3/1/2005 @ 9:02 am
The scriptures seem to suggest that widespread vegetarianism (by man and even animals) is inevitable:
Doctrine and Covenants 101:26
And in that day the enmity of man, and the enmity of beasts, yea, the enmity of all flesh, shall cease from before my face.
Comment by danithew — 3/1/2005 @ 9:06 am
Eating of animals doesn’t necessarily entail enmity.
Comment by Bryce I — 3/1/2005 @ 1:38 pm
Indeed, The resurected Lord ate fish.
Comment by J. Stapley — 3/1/2005 @ 2:20 pm
When I entered the MTC from college, I wondered what they would do if you demanded a vegetarian entree. Probablay a one-way ticket to the President’s office.
Comment by NFlanders — 3/1/2005 @ 2:58 pm
I don’t think your question is indiscreet, Jonathan. I previously thought about posting a few words on why I am a vegetarian, but I didn’t want to offend anyone or make them think that I think everyone should make the same choice.
Right now I don’t have the time to formulate a good response. I would like to put up a post on my own blog to answer the question. I guess the short answer, the main reason I became vegetarian, is that I oppose the cruelties of factory farming. (This has already come up in this thread, and it’s true that we don’t know about every single factory, and I think that some animals rights groups exaggerate or reframe things to fit their argument, but I just decided that I don’t want to contribute to that process by consuming meat.)
By the way, there is a vegetarian club at BYU.
Comment by Heather P. — 3/1/2005 @ 4:29 pm
Heather – be sure to leave the comment here when you do.
Comment by J. Stapley — 3/1/2005 @ 5:18 pm
When Pres. Hinckley was on Larry King (I think it was the 1998 appearance), a caller quoted the Word of Wisdom about eating meat sparingly and asked if the Church wasn’t hypocritical for owning cattle ranches and shouldn’t he counsel the members not to eat so many hamburgers. President Hinckley just kind of laughed it off and didn’t really address the question. I must say, as one who loves to scarf down a 15-ounce filet mignon at a fine restaurant from time to time, I do feel a litltle guilty sometimes. I deal with it by rationalizing that if I haven’t eaten anything in a few hours, it consitutes a time of “personal famine” and so is not subject to the proscription pronounced in section 89.
Comment by Eric Soderlund — 3/1/2005 @ 6:15 pm
Kim,
D&C 89 does not state all meat is to be used sparingly. Rather it only states flesh of the beats and flying fowl.
What does that leave us with? I know we think of chickens as non-flying, but they sleep in trees where I live, so I know they fly a bit. though this might be verging on a discussion of evolution, I had always thought of chickens as having been domesticated into not flying. Anyone know the natural history on this? Penguins don’t sound so apetizing, though I’ve never eaten one. I do like the idea, though of ostrich. They are ecologically more friendly to many parts of the world that are being destroyed by the importation of cattle to places they weren’t meant to be. Fish would certainly be on the menu, and Jonathan’s observation would support this.
Danithew and J,
I can hardly imagine any reason to eat meat in the world to come, and I’ve often thoguht that perhaps this is part of the reason not to get to liking it so much, though, of course, I have no support for this opinion at all. I can’t imagine that if animals are resurrected we would eat them so that they could keep going through the cycle. If we do, I hope the fish isn’t too fishy, because I really hate that. I also can’t stand lobster or crab or shrimp or any of that sort of thing, so if we have to eat hereafter, or if we do it for fun, then I think I’ll probably be close to vegetarian if Chicken doesn’t make the cut anyway.
Jonathan,
Given the whole history of pork, I think that really great tenderloin sandwhich with homemade hroseradish sauce you do is going to be right out.
Comment by S. Hancock — 3/1/2005 @ 8:45 pm
Yikes, 20 comments? What is this, T&S? Sorry, D&C 89 does nothing for me in terms of moving me toward vegetarianism. But reading Fast Food Nation did give me a mental jolt. Fruit and vegetables don’t conjure up distubing images of slaughterhouses, etc.
Comment by Dave — 3/1/2005 @ 9:54 pm
Why I am a vegetarian
A sincere answer to this question and a continuation of this discussion about the compatibility/conflicts of vegetarianism and Mormonism.
Trackback by explorations — 3/3/2005 @ 1:06 am
Why I am a vegetarian (slight revision)
updated, new permalink
Trackback by explorations — 3/3/2005 @ 5:53 pm
Heather,
Thanks for the backtracks and for putting aside your aprehensions. I think more people need to hear from those who have very reasonable views on all aspects of the issue. It’s one of those issues that has become so polarized that one too often we only hear from those who feel indignant one way or the other. A sincere answer from someone who is simply stating their reasons for a belief without trying to doggedly convert where there is little hope or reason can help bring us back to a constructive ground that allows everyone to rethink their stance, whether or not that implies a change of whatever degree. I and my wife are currently thinking in terms of what meals we eat that unnecessarily include meat and other meatless options, especially since it might also mean more variety in our diet and a healthier bill of fare. Partly that is the result of these discussions, which I started without any such thought.
Comment by S. Hancock — 3/3/2005 @ 10:10 pm
Hmmmm … if killing and eating something doesn’t constitute enmity, I don’t know what does. Maybe you’d have to torture the animal first, before killing and eating it.
Good point though about the fact that Jesus ate fish. I’m not sure what to do with that.
I’m not pro-vegetarianism. I’m just trying to understand what the scriptures say about the future. But for now, pass the animal flesh, please.
Comment by danithew — 3/4/2005 @ 1:04 pm
Kim,
It was interesting to read your comments on D&C 89 not restricting all meat. Like some of the others’ comments I am just trying to make sense of what is in the scriptures on this topic. I was reading the JST of Gen 9:10-15. It refers to the blood of all flesh not just the beast of the field and the fowl of the air. What is your understanding of verse 11? Only if we need it to save our lives.
Comment by Brian — 7/13/2005 @ 1:30 pm
i am vegan and a member and i feel great! i am strong in the church and feel the Lord has no problem with how i am dieting. my being vegan is nothing more than something i feel is right and a habit i have in my eating patterns, no different than a habit someone has in thier sleeping or dressing patterns. veganism is a peaceful way of living and anyone who attacks our ways should take a step back and think about what exactly they are attacking. i believe my Heavenly Father understands my reasons and would never think ill of me because of them.
Comment by celine — 10/28/2007 @ 1:51 pm
ia am a vegetarian, because i don’t like the suffering being inflicted on helpless animals. i have put myself into their shoes for a while, and i wouldnt like to be treated as they are. i also believe(mormon)if we want to get back to heavenly father, we should make lasting friends…not to talk of qualities that we take on as we eat the meat. most who do, are more than unfair as they would not kill, but so easily apoint someone to do the dirty work for them.its the attitude thats wrong,if i put the word karma into this context,things are clearer, but even less understood.when i look around, there is not much to see, blind, deaf people with crutches, nice lippservice…dont cast your pearls before swine..
Comment by dierg grigoleit — 12/5/2009 @ 4:18 pm