Meat and Mormonism Part I: Insulated Consciences, Cultured Behavior

This is the first of three parts of a discussion that looks at Mormon doctrine concerning the consumption of meat, vegetarian practices, and the current observed response of American Mormons to this doctrine.

This past weekend, on my way up to the bay area for a job interview, I was caught off guard at 85 miles an hour by a stench that I had forgotten to protect myself against by hitting that handy recirculation button on my car's A/C controls. See, I knew that somewhere along this stretch I would pass the cow farm that induces near-nausea every time I travel the 5.

It got me thinking about everything that stench signifies, from the raising and slaughtering of animals for consumption, to our relationship with the land, to pondering God's view on it all, leading me, of course, to the Word of Wisdom. The stench forcefully reminded – no, it pushed me to the decision that it's time Denzil, Dean, and I wrote something definitive on this subject. So I called Denzil. He didn't answer. So then I called Dean, who happened to be in the middle of a film shoot, and quickly asked his opinion on laying out our plan of attack.

We've decided to approach the topic in three parts. I will write the first. Dean and Denzil will write parts 2 and 3, adding their own experiences, perspectives, and filling in some of the gaps I will no doubt leave.

In my part, I would like to do three simple things. First, I will establish some of the doctrine that will be the foundation of this entire discussion. Second, I will talk about the gap between this doctrine and our practice of it. Third, I will provide some of my thoughts regarding all this information, hopefully painting a clear picture of why this discussion is important, what I intend to do (and am doing) with this information, and what we as followers of Christ and members of His Church may consider doing.

But first, any honest examination must begin with an explanation of its context.


Background
I grew up, with Denzil and Dean, in a somewhat normal Mormon family. There were six of us kids - 2 girls and 4 boys. My first exposure to the idea that my food choices mattered beyond satisfying appetite and simple "eat-your-vegetables" nutrition came when my older sisters decided to be vegetarian. I don't remember which one of them made the switch first, or when, exactly, it was - as with most changes, it probably didn't happen all at once. But it happened while they were still at home, where I was able to observe some difficulties and blessings of this change in their lives.

In honesty, I forcefully resisted the thought that this was the right thing for them to do, and by implication, the right thing for me to do. There were a lot of reasons for this reaction, many of which have to do with the way role models within my family and community reacted (I'm sure teenage, younger brother pride also had something to do with it). Several years later, my sisters left for college in other states, and eventually so did I. I remember consciously trying to eat meat sparingly my freshman year, often opting for vegetarian meals in the dorm cafeteria. But by no means was I vegetarian, nor had I any real plans to become so. I was still in the process of mulling over the implications, the motivations, the direction my conscience was taking me, and the will of God as I understood it with regard to eating habits and the treatment of animals.

These thoughts were put on hold for two years while I served as a missionary, a time during which meal choices are often out of a missionary's control for logistical, cultural, and pragmatic reasons. Yet serving in Japan offered me a very different view on how and what I eat. When I returned from my mission the contrast between the Japanese diet I had been used to and the American diet to which I was being forced to adapt started me thinking in a serious way about what I eat.

Over the next 4 years, I poked and prodded and researched and made battle with serious issues regarding what I and we as a church, a community, and a nation, consume. The first thing I can say is that the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints seems to be quite clear.


From The Bible
Perhaps the first instance of God's instruction in our stewardship over animals and consuming them comes in Genesis 9. The Joseph Smith translation is quoted (the corresponding verses in the King James version are 3-5):

10 But, the blood of all flesh which I have given you for meat, shall be shed upon the ground, which taketh life thereof, and the blood ye shall not eat.
11 And surely, blood shall not be shed, only for meat, to save your lives; and the blood of every beast will I require at your hands.

We gain two things here: first, the use of beasts for consumption of their flesh is acceptable and indeed provided for by God; second, there are rules to go along with that use. The rule introduced here is that killing beasts for meat shall only occur to save lives. Furthermore, God will ask for an accounting of all blood that we spill. This reverence for the lives of beasts sets the tone for what seems to be a consistent picture painted of God's love and care for His animals – even those we eat.

Another instance comes in the first chapter of Daniel. Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, and Daniel were among the protege children that King Nebuchadnezzar had brought from Israel to train in his court. I encourage you to look up all the verses and references I quote in order to gain a better understanding of their context. For brevity's sake, however, I will generally only reference key verses and points:

5 And the king appointed them a daily provision of the king’s meat, and of the wine which he drank: so nourishing them three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king....

8 But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king’s meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself....

12 Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give us pulse to eat, and water to drink.
13 Then let our countenances be looked upon before thee, and the countenance of the children that eat of the portion of the king’s meat: and as thou seest, deal with thy servants.
14 So he consented to them in this matter, and proved them ten days.
15 And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king’s meat.

Daniel and his three friends were blessed greatly for rejecting rich foods and adopting a diet of pulse and water. In the 1979 (the current) version of the King James Bible with LDS footnotes, pulse is defined as “foods made of seeds, grains, etc.” It would seem that they were vegetarian, at least principally. It would also seem that God blessed them for this conscious dietary decision. One that, I might add, probably didn't win them too many friends; at least not at first.
There are other references in the old testament, including this poetic and very powerful verse in Ecclesiastes:

18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.
19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.

This spirit of respect and mutual kinship with the beasts of the earth definitely makes me think twice about killing one of them just for the sake of eating their flesh, and even more so about the slaughterhouses and “farms” that produce them. Although not canonized doctrine, I can't help but remember a different way of saying what the author of Ecclesiastes may have been trying to express:

There is a destiny that makes us brothers: none goes his way alone,
All that we send into the lives of others comes back into our own.
Edwin Markham, “Creed”

Certainly that which befalleth the beasts will eventually befall man; if not in action, in spirit. If a sparrow is not forgotten before God (Luke 12:6), then I would submit that a cow or a pig or a chicken or a horse or a dog or any other animal is not, either. Our Father in Heaven seems to be aware of all that befalls the beasts. Are we?

Isaiah's prophetic vision of the millennium cannot be forgotten amidst a discussion on the taking of life for consumption (Isaiah 11):

6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’ den.
9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.

No hurt or destruction in the millenium would seem to suggest that we will all be vegetarian. For a period equated with peace and proximity to all that is good, Godly, and just, this begs the question, “should we strive to be so now?” If filling ourselves with the knowledge of the Lord has these effects, then what are we lacking now? Another significant reference comes via Paul. In the fourth chapter of his first epistle to Timothy he states,

1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

We can understand from these verses that commanding one to abstain from meats is not ordained of God. This seems congruent with that which we have already read – meat is to be used to save our lives. Times have certainly come in the history of man in which the consumption of meat has been necessary for survival.

Both the Old and New Testaments offer other references that, more or less, reiterate what has already been noted. I encourage you to seek these scriptures out, pondering their meaning and application. Before we dive into the repository of modern-day revelation, let us review what we have found thus far.

1. The use of beasts for food and raiment is acceptable before God under certain conditions (Genesis 9).


2. One condition is that we only kill them for meat in order to save our lives (Genesis 9).


3. We may greatly benefit by adopting a mainly vegetarian diet and abstaining from rich foods and meat (Daniel 1).


4. We are to reverence and respect the beasts of the field, for we have no preeminence over them (Ecclesiastes 3).


5. We shall be a kind of vegetarian in the millennium (Isaiah 11).


6. Commanding to abstain from meat is not ordained of God (1 Timothy 4).

I'm going to make a jump here from the Bible to the Doctrine and Covenants. I don't mean to imply that there aren't any references to diet or consumption of meat in the Book of Mormon. However, the Lord seems to lay the foundation of His doctrine in a much more direct and clear manner via revelation to the prophet Joseph Smith.


The Doctrine and Covenants
There is no better modern revelation on Mormons and meat than the 89th section of the Doctrine and Covenants – the dietary code of the Latter-Day Saints. Latter-Day Saints believe the 89th section of the Doctrine and Covenants to be the words of God delivered through the Prophet Joseph Smith. Throughout the 21 verses that comprise the Word of Wisdom, only three things are separately repeated. One of them is that drinking “strong drinks” is not good (verses 5 and 7). Another is that “all grain is good for the food of man” (verses 14 and 16). The other repeated principle is first seen below (emphasis added):

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.

In times of winter, or of cold, or famine? The average Mormon has heard the “eat meat sparingly” bit and at least acknowledges having heard it. Yet to the same average Mormon the follow-up verse often seems foreign. This is a shame, for it expounds upon the “sparingly” principle, aiding us in our interpretation of the frequency that the word suggests.

When verse 13 is discussed, it is often accompanied by an explanation of its irrelevance. Some (not I) dismiss the Lord's references to winter and cold with the fact that refrigerators as we know them had not yet been invented in the mid 19th century. Therefore, some say, meat was not easily stored, making it a health hazard to eat when cold weather wasn't available to aid in preservation. Today, they continue, we have refrigerators and thus it is not so essential to the Lord that we eat meat only in times of winter or of cold. I have never been comfortable with this explanation. Who are we to be explaining the Lord? Has a prophet of God, acting as a prophet of God, made that statement for the Lord to His church? Of course not. Furthermore, this argument seems more than a little convoluted, and besides, even a child familiar with beef jerky knows that ice and cold are certainly not the only means of safely preserving meat for consumption. Why twist and spin the simple statements of the Lord?

As if the Lord knew that some might miss the clarity of this principle, He expounds further in verse fifteen (emphasis added):

15 And these [beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, and all wild animals that run or creep on the earth] hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger.

Here neither cold nor winter are mentioned, muting the refrigerator argument and forcing an acknowledgment of the apparent fact that, according to Mormon doctrine extending from the Old and New Testaments to modern revelation, it is pleasing unto the Lord that the flesh of beasts should not be consumed, except in times where the lives of His children would otherwise be at stake. Yet I have not observed the Latter-day Saints to own this principle. Instead, they ignore it or worse, explain it away via bad apologetics or misguided references to other scriptures, one of which is worthy of addressing. (much of the following discussion was influenced by an article by Jim Catano – The Word of Wisdom: the forgotten verses. I do not wish to plagiarize his ideas, so I refer you to his article, making no claim for originality in the following few paragraphs).

I would guess that roughly half the time that the “eat meat sparingly” discussion is born someone brings up a verse in the 49th section of the Doctrine and Covenants as a rebuttal to the mere thought of vegetarianism as an acceptable practice:

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

At first glance this verse does not seem to be a rebuttal at all – it seems to support those that choose to be vegetarian, stating that those who would forbid would-be vegetarians from abstaining from meat are not ordained of God. This initial interpretation seems to make sense. Everyone has a choice in life, and it is hard to imagine that God would deny anybody the right to abstain from meat, especially since He has commanded this in all but the most dire of situations! This verse makes even further sense when taken in its historical context.

This section of the Doctrine and Covenants was written as a statement to be read to the Shakers, a religious group that forbade the eating of pork. Many of the Shakers had additionally chosen to be vegetarian. If the aim of this statement was to convert the Shakers, it makes sense that Joseph Smith would make it clear to them that in joining the Mormon faith no one was going to force them to denounce vegetarianism as a personal practice – something that they no doubt felt very strongly about (and perhaps divinely so). With this perspective we may more clearly understand the subsequent verses:

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.
21 And wo be unto man that sheddeth blood or that wasteth flesh and hath no need.

The warning in that last verse echoes that which we have already discussed – the Lord will ask for an accounting of the blood that we spill in preserving our lives. When that accounting comes, I sure hope I can say to the Lord in full humility and confidence that I did not waste flesh when I had no need.

Taken in the proper context, these verses seem clear, do they not? And they would remain clear if it weren't for a footnote that attempts to alter the meaning of verse 18 altogether. The current footnote to the word “forbiddeth” reads, “IE biddeth to abstain,” so that the verse may be read as, “whoso biddeth to abstain from meats... is not ordained of God.” This completely changes the meaning of the verse, and introduces problems of its own. First, all those who choose to label themselves vegetarian are suddenly identified as “not ordained of God.” Any thoughts sympathetic to vegetarianism simultaneously come under divine scrutiny if this footnote is indeed God's intended interpretation (which He subtly made known only via the 1979 footnotes).

Second, if indeed mid-19th century American English used by Joseph Smith took the word “forbiddeth” to mean “biddeth,” then how does one explain the almost identical use of the word in verse 15, except in reference to marriage?

15 And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man.

If we replace the word “forbiddeth” with “biddeth,” then it would seem that in 1979 God also changed His mind on marriage. This certainly can't be. Thus what are we to think of this footnote? Having been personally acquainted with one individual who participated in the formulation of these footnotes, I know that they are not without their mistakes. Let me be clear: I am not saying that those who approved these footnotes or directed their adoption were not ordained and inspired of God. I am simply making a case that perhaps we should not dismiss dozens of scriptures with a quick reference to a footnote.

It is worthy to note that bringing up this verse and its connected footnote in the attitude of rebuttal is in itself cause for critical examination. As a rebuttal, referencing this verse is a poor attempt at convincing one that vegetarianism is not ordained of God, as if the Word of Wisdom verses from which this rebuttal is usually sprung were advocating vegetarianism in the first place. They are not. The Lord in Doctrine and Covenants 89:13,15 is advocating for the use of meat only in times of famine and excess of hunger. In principle this is different from vegetarianism. It is almost as if the rebuttal is an attempt to insulate the conscience. It brings to mind the words of Heber J. Grant:

No man or woman who is keeping the Word of Wisdom finds fault with it. Why? Because they know of the health they enjoy, they know of the peace, the joy, the comfort, the satisfaction that come to their hearts when they do what the Lord wants them to do. (October 1937 General Conference, then President of the Church)

So what is the motivation behind the attempt at insulation using the Doctrine and Covenants 49:18 footnote? Is abstaining from meat except in times of famine and excess of hunger such a threatening idea? Why? If this comes from God should not our course of action be to fully embrace this doctrine? Several modern church leaders would respond in the affirmative.


Words of Church Leaders
Heber J. Grant was known throughout his life for many things – he was the 7th President of the Church, a champion of finance and industry who led the Church through the Great Depression, the first mission president in Japan, and one who emphasized the importance of adhering to the Word of Wisdom:

There is a law irrevocably decreed in heaven—so we are told by the Prophet Joseph—before the foundations of the world, upon which all blessings are predicated, and when we receive any blessing, it is by obedience to the law upon which it is predicated [see Doctrine and Covenants 130:20–21]. If you and I desire the blessings of life, of health, of vigor of body and mind; if we desire the destroying angel to pass us by, as he did in the days of the children of Israel, we must obey the Word of Wisdom; then God is bound, and the blessing shall come to us. (April 1909 General Conference, then Apostle in the Quorum of the Twelve)

There is absolutely no benefit to any human being derived from breaking the Word of Wisdom, but there is everything for his benefit, morally, intellectually, physically and spiritually in obeying it. (October 1944 General Conference, then President of the Church)

When the Lord shows forth his order and his will, do not try to sing lullabies to your conscience, any one of you who is breaking the Word of Wisdom (Oct. 1937 General Conference).

I think that another reason I have very splendid strength for an old man is that during the years we have had a cafeteria... I have not, with exception of not more than a dozen times, ordered meat of any kind. ...I have endeavored to live the Word of Wisdom and that, in my opinion, is one reason for my good health. (April 1937 General Conference, then President of the Church)

Heber J. Grant does not stand alone in his understanding of the Word of Wisdom:

It was shown in the history of plant science that plants contain all the necessary food substances: proteins, fats, starches and the carbohydrates, minerals...water [and] vitamins. The Great builder of the earth provided well for the physical needs of His children. Countless varieties of edible plants, vegetables, cereals, fruits and nuts are yielded by Mother Nature for man's daily food. If one uses meat it must be used sparingly and in winter or famine only.... They who wish to be well and gain the promised reward stated in the Word of Wisdom must obey all of the law, not just part of it as suits their whim or their appetite, or their notion of its meaning. (Apostle John A. Widstoe, The Word of Wisdom, a Modern Interpretation, 1950)

A very insightful remark by an Apostle who had a reputation for his scholarly and wise insights. Brigham Young also had a few words on the subject:

Mothers, keep the children from eating meat; and let them eat vegetables that are fully matured, not unripe... (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol.19, p.68 - p.69, July 19, 1877)

When men live to the age of a tree, their food will be fruit. Mothers, to produce offspring full of life and days, must cease drinking liquor, tea, and coffee, that their systems may be free from bad effects. If every woman in this Church will now cease drinking tea, coffee, liquor, and all other powerful stimulants, and live upon vegetables, &c., not many generations will pass away before the days of man will again return. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol.8, p.63 - p.64, May 20, 1860)

President Young's quote spurns an interesting question, one to which I alluded earlier. When the millennium comes and the lamb lies with the lion, will it come to pass by some magical change in our bodies and our Spirits? Or are we expected to pursue its prophesied realizations now? I am not equipped to answer that question in full, but President Young perhaps was:

Let the people be holy, and the earth under their feet will be holy. Let the people be holy, and filled with the Spirit of God, and every animal and creeping thing will be filled with peace; the soil of the earth will bring forth in its strength, and the fruits thereof will be meat for man. The more purity that exists, the less is the strife; the more kind we are to our animals, the more will peace increase, and the savage nature of the brute creation vanish away. . . Let the whole people . . . be possessed of that spirit and here is the Millennium, and so will it spread over all the world. (Brigham Young, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, p. 333)

So it seems that the millennium will be ushered in by our pursuit of it as much as anything else. President Ezra Taft Benson, who served as the United States Secretary of Agriculture under Eisenhower from 1953-1961, said the following:

We need a generation of young people who, as Daniel, eat in a more healthy manner than to fare on the “kings meat”—and whose countenances show it... To a great extent we are physically what we eat... What needs additional emphasis are the positive aspects--the need for vegetables, fruits, and grains, particularly wheat. In most cases, the closer these can be, when eaten, to their natural state -- without overrefinement and processing -- the healthier we will be. To a significant degree, we are an overfed and undernourished nation digging an early grave with our teeth, and lacking the energy that could be ours because we overindulge in junk foods….we need a generation of young people who, as Daniel, eat in a more healthy manner than to fare on the "king's meat" - and whose countenances show it. (Ezra Taft Benson, Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p. 476-77)

Hunting
A wealth of insight into the human relationship with animals can be gained from direction by the brethren regarding hunting:

Killing for sport is wrong. In Adam-ondi-Ahman, while gradually recovering from the effects of a malignant fever which had detained me a fortnight in Far West, under the constant and skillful nursing of my sister Eliza, for some time I was unable to either do or read much. One day, to while away the slowly passing hours, I took my gun with the intention of indulging in a little amusement in hunting turkeys, with which that section of the country abounded. From boyhood I had been particularly, and I may say strangely, attached to a gun. Hunting in the forests of Ohio was a pastime that to me possessed the most fascinating attractions. It never occurred to my mind that it was wrong—that indulging in "what was sport to me was death to them;" that in shooting turkeys, squirrels, etc., I was taking life that I could not give; therefore I indulged in the murderous sport without the least compunction of conscience. (Lorenzo Snow, Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, p.188-189)

I do not believe any man should kill animals or birds unless he 'needs' them for food...I think it is wicked for men to thirst in their souls to kill almost everything which possess life. It is wrong, and I have been surprised at prominent men who I have seen whose very souls seemed to be athirst for the shedding of animal blood. They go off hunting deer, antelope, elk, anything they can find, and what for? 'Just for the fun of it!' I am a firm believer... in the simple words of one of the poets: 'Take not away the life you cannot give, for all things have an equal right to live'. (President Joseph Fielding Smith, Juvenile Instructor 48:309)

Hyrum and Joseph Smith, as in most things, were united in their feelings on the matter of taking the lives of animals:

...let them be sparing of the life of animals, it is pleasing saith the Lord that flesh be used only in times of winter, or of famine. (Hyrum Smith, Times & Seasons 3:799-801)

In pitching my tent we found three massasaugas or prairie rattlesnakes, which the brethren were about to kill, but I said, "Let them alone -- don't hurt them! How will the serpent ever lose its venom, while the servants of God possess the same disposition, and continue to make war upon it? Men must become harmless before the brute creation, and when men lose their vicious dispositions and cease to destroy the animal race, the lion and the lamb can dwell together, and the sucking child can play with the serpent in safety." The brethren took the serpents carefully on sticks and carried them across the creek. I exhorted the brethren not to kill a serpent, bird, or an animal of any kind during our journey unless it became necessary in order to preserve ourselves from hunger. (Joseph Smith, May 26, 1834, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 71)

And, to finish this deluge of quotes, I quote a hymn many of us have no doubt heard:

In our lovely Deseret Where the saints of God have met... That the children may live long And be beautiful and strong, Tea and coffee and tobacco they despise, Drink no liquor, and they eat But a very little meat; They are seeking to be great and good and wise. (Hymns of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, #307, 1985)

So in summary let us add that which we have learned from the Doctrine and Covenants and modern church leaders to the list we created summarizing Old and New Testament doctrine on the matter at hand.

7. It is pleasing unto the Lord that we only eat meat in times of famine, winter, cold, or other times in which we experience an excess of hunger (Doctrine and Covenants 89:15).
   
8. We are warned that woe shall be unto the man that sheddeth blood and has no need (Doctrine and Covenants 49:21).
   
9. Eating very little meat will be beneficial to our health (Heber J. Grant).
   
10. In order to gain the fullness of the blessings from the Word of Wisdom, we must obey all of it, not just the parts we like, or the parts we understand (John A. Widstoe).
    
11. Not only will our meat be the fruits of the soil of the earth in the millennium, but in large measure it is up to us to bring about that spirit of peace, thereby ushering in the millennium (Brigham Young).
    
12. Killing for sport is wrong (Snow, Joseph Fielding Smith, Hyrum Smith, Joseph Smith).

The doctrine is extremely clear. And, it would seem, modern-day leaders have spoken on the subject to excess. So how is the church doing in applying this doctrine? By my observation and experience, not well.


The Culture and Canon Disparity

This Word of Wisdom came to us from the God of Heaven, for our blessing. I regret that we as a people do not observe it more faithfully. (Gordon B. Hinckley, October 1990 General Conference)

Although Utah is not necessarily representative of Mormon culture with regard to meat consumption or the popularity of hunting for sport, much could be learned from a glance at the state's statistics surrounding these subjects, given the fact that the population is 72% LDS. Unfortunately, statistics on meat consumption and hunting licenses per capita for each of the United States are extremely difficult to find (take that as a challenge, if you wish).

The lack of available statistics almost forces an anecdotal discussion of the culture and canon disparity. While anecdotal discussions aren't wholly useless, I suppose it is important to say that they are not evidence of causal relationships, general trends, or anything definitive, really. Yet unless someone proffers some evidence to the contrary (including your own experiences), I feel confident in my deduction that my experiences are not wholly unique to the locations in which I have lived. Rather, these experiences indicate a church culture that follows popular American custom rather than the doctrine of Zion.

Additionally, anecdotal discussion can be quite useful, for in these experiences are thought processes born that are vital to growth. If you disagree, for my sake and yours, please discuss! I welcome this type of discussion. Also, I feel that honest, examining individuals often find loneliness accompanies new and popularly foreign ideas and convictions. It has taken me some time to understand that I am not alone, and I wish to spread this light to others who may be struggling in the pursuit of their consciences, even if in doing so anecdotes are all I have to offer.

To be short, my experience is that the general church membership gives little more than lip service to the practice of eating meat sparingly as revealed in the Word of Wisdom and other scripture. I cannot recall a church activity in my present ward or any of the other 4 wards which I have attended in the last 3 years wherein a meatless meal was a respected option. In fact, my ward's last elder's quorum activity announcement consisted of the line, “ELDERS QUORUM COME EAT MEAT ON SATURDAY” and included the picture at right. Ironically, the only time I have purchased meat at a grocery store in the last 3 years was when I was tasked with picking up food for another elder's quorum activity. I do not think this unique to the church here on the central coast of California.

I have lived in many places, including 10 years in Utah. During this time in Utah I distinctly remember at least one upstanding Mormon family holding weekly “steak nights” which surprisingly raised no one's brow except my own. I remember scouting trips in other wards that centered on hunting. I remember bishopric members and other example-setters not only going on hunting excursions but relating their stories of triumph over the pulpit and in Sunday school. The list goes on. Again, all of this is anecdotal, and I recognize that – if you have lived somewhere that seems to be doing better than my experience has indicated we are, then by all means share this positive experience! In the meantime, I will continue to view this as one problem of many in the church – perhaps not the most urgent problem, but a problem nonetheless.

This problem would be simple enough to solve if it weren't such an entrenched tradition of our fathers, in this country that ranks 2nd (of 195) in poultry consumption, 3rd in Beef and Veal, and 17th in Pork (US 2000 Census). Unfortunately, entrenched traditions are hard to uproot and sometimes painful to even approach, a fact I have unfortunately experienced first-hand. When I first began contemplating the meaning of the Word of Wisdom several years ago, I did what I often do – I discussed the ideas openly, intently, and with various people I respect, including leaders in the church. One day I made the naïve error of starting such a discussion with my institute director. Immediately his tone was defensive and even a little accusatory. This surprised and confused me (again, I was naïve). He, of course, brought to my attention the Doctrine and Covenants 49 verse, which I attempted to discuss with him. Other people, formerly minding their own businesses, sensed an intense conversation brewing between this authority figure and myself. The audience along with its non-constructive and frustrating input quickly grew. Before long I realized that I was far and away alone and was quickly being forced into a damningly defensive position of my own. I mustered what self-discipline I had left and said, “Maybe we can continue this conversation at another time.” Sensing that he didn't want to, and frustrated at how things had ended, I sent him an email explaining in a very straight-forward and honest way why I was thinking about these things. I even made an attempt at being humble. My first words of that email were:

Lest any chords of disagreement create a rift between us, I wanted to clarify my points about the Word of Wisdom. My intention was NOT to advocate vegetarianism or veganism. Nor was it my intention to make anyone feel guilty about their diets...

My last words of that rather lengthy email were:

I discuss vegetarianism on occasion because it is one of those gates through which greater truths can be potentially conveyed and received. Part of the reason that I don’t feel this latter end was reached between you and I is because we haven’t been able to sit down and discuss it in a respectful and intimate setting, safe from interruption and intrusion. I’m not sure we’ll ever get that, so I thought I’d email you. Besides, writing is easier than discussion a lot of the time. I know that I myself need to make more of an effort to love and understand. I apologize if I have come off antagonistic or stubborn. We're brothers, right? Yeah.

I never received a response, and have not forced the topic since. I wish his response was alone in its negativity. I have had many other experiences in which people react with almost violent defense or condemnation of veganism and vegetarianism (I have learned to never use either “V word” with church members, but to always talk in context of the Word of Wisdom, which helps somewhat). Members seem to feel threatened by these ideas. Again, I ask why.

This culture and canon disparity reaches all the way up to some of the choices the church and its leaders make. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints currently owns at least one hunting preserve whereon people may pay to kill animals (unless this has changed since the year 2000 when this fact was published in the Deseret News - Westlake's wildlife: LDS missionary couple operate church-owned hunting preserve). Another example of this disparity is the church-owned Deseret Ranch, the largest working cattle ranch in the United States with 44,000 head of cattle and 45 actively leased hunting clubs for the “harvesting” of other animals. Juxtaposed with the words of the Prophets, this is ironic (if that's the right word).

I mention these not in the spirit of “the brethren are wrong therefore they are liars and hypocrites and not of God.” I think anyone mature in the gospel understands that no one is perfect – not Adam, Eve, Noah, Moses, Enoch, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Joseph Smith, Emma Smith, Brigham Young, or even the current prophets, apostles, and church leaders. This realization should not inspire a crisis of faith. No, I talk about this because I believe there is yet room for improvement within our church, and I intend to chip amiably and firmly away at it until God says it's gone.

I wish that uprooting culture and planting doctrine was easier; easier on me, you, and everyone. Yet it is not. But this difficulty is not as overwhelming nor lonely as I once thought. Rather, it is a blessed difficulty, one that I choose to bear. Dreading ridicule for eating a garden burger at the next elder's quorum barbecue, or looking over my shoulder for lurking animal “science” majors every time the Word of Wisdom comes up, or eating a meal of chips and salad at ward dinners are small prices to pay to know that I am following my conscience according to my understanding.


Decisions... Mine, Yours, and Ours
My life has changed along with the gradual collection of this understanding. I currently buy no beef, poultry, or other land-animal flesh at the grocery store. I do buy shrimp on occasion, and some fish. I am in the process of evaluating my eating of fish, however – my conscience is pricked when I ponder on this. I do not want the depletion of ocean wildlife on my hands, nor can I think in good conscience that these creatures are an exception to God's command to abstain from the destruction of life in all but the most dire of situations. I also generally stay away from eggs, since the egg production industry can hardly be separated from the poultry machine in general. I have not purchased cheese in about a year, and I only buy sour cream because I can't, for the life of me, find a store in the town in which I live that sells Sour Supreme, an awesome soy-based substitute. I haven't bought milk in several years, either, and have come to enjoy many alternatives. I stay away from dairy in general because, again, I find it difficult to separate the dairy industry from the beef production machine. Besides, dairy products just aren't very healthy.

I prefer not to label myself vegetarian or even pesco-vegetarian, mainly because I think labels only serve stereotypes and constrict my freedom to change, adapt, and grow. It also prevents awkward social situations, in which one person's labeling of me leads to accusations of hypocrisy or dishonesty. In social situations in which I find little other recourse than to accept offered meat, I oblige by taking as little as possible. This bothers me little, for persuasion has its time and its place, and it's usually not at the dinner table where one is a guest. However, when I feel I can explain my choice of only eating meat to save my life without causing more damage than good, I do so.

I have been doing this for roughly three years, and intend to continue until I encounter a time of famine or excess of hunger. Lest any think that my health has suffered as a result of these choices, let me be clear about the state of my body. I am in excellent health. Yesterday I ran a mile in 5:30, on par with my personal record set roughly 8 years ago at the age of 17. I am 5'10”, weigh 173 lbs, and I weight lift three times a week, kick box twice, and have recently started training in submission wrestling/grappling. I would be even more involved in athletics if life allowed. I believe I have been (and continue to be) physically, spiritually, and intellectually rewarded for eating very little meat and mostly grains, fruits, and vegetables.

I turn this discussion to you now. In light of this information, you can decide whatever you would like. As I have said, you are free to find fault with it. I welcome honest and open discussion for I, like you, am seeking a clearer understanding of Truth. If you decide to change some of your dietary choices as a result of what we are speaking of here, please know a couple of things: First, you're not alone. Second, it's a lot easier than you think it's going to be. Just remember you don't have to make the transition all at once. In fact, I wouldn't recommend it. Try cutting out red meat, then poultry, then other meats, and so on. Third, everyone is going to try and scare you out of eating little meat or dairy for health reasons. I can't tell you how many times people have asked me, “where do you get your protein?” which is a misinformed question at best, largely conditioned by the beef industry and the media. I promise you that if you are wise and do not go to extremes, you have nothing to be concerned about with regard to your personal health. In fact, I emphatically promise that you will see positive health changes as a result. Fourth, hold the doctrine as your iron rod of stability, not the latest health or economic or ethical findings. Those things are good and wonderful, but they will not provide a steady platform from which you can aid the church in adopting and owning its own doctrine.

If you decide to continue eating meat on a regular basis, I would only ask that you do so because you have honestly examined the doctrine and have come to a different conclusion by the Spirit than what I have written here. If you do come to a different conclusion, please let me know! I'd love to hear about it.


One Last Thought
The most disappointing thing I encounter in the church is the feeling that one is not allowed to discuss that which conscience prompts. If we can never discuss difficult or uncomfortable things, how will we ever gain a better understanding? How will we learn? Is not the purpose of our existence becoming like God? That purpose, I think, implies more than lip service to the doctrine of eternal progression – it requires learning a thing or two and even changing along the way. And certainly it requires clear rather than insulated consciences.

In the end I desire the spirit of understanding to permeate Zion. I want us to understand each other, the doctrine, God's will, our individual purposes, and the problems in the church along with their solutions. I submit these things to you in that spirit.


Mark
16 April 2008

---