by the Otter on March 21st, 2009

Question

Help answer this question below.

I remember hearing somewhere that the first comma in the current edition of Doctrine & Covenants 89:13 is an error. Has anyone else heard this? Can anyone confirm or disprove this? Thanks!

This question references this URL.

Like
Report

Share:: Facebook; Twitter; Other

Answers. 3 helpful answers below.

by EmptyWallet on July 5th, 2009
Well if you wanna use that to live by..Go ahead...
Comments
- LOL… touché. I’m really just curious, though.
  - Report
  by the Otter on July 11th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on April 23rd, 2009
Otter, I hadn't heard that and I can't confirm it but it makes sense given the history:

"...when it was given by the Prophet, and published in the early editions of the Doctrine and Covenants, the comma after the word “used” was not there. In fact, that comma was added when the Doctrine and Covenants was first divided into columns in 1920."

So it should probably be a dash or nothing depending on whether you think that Joseph Smith was promoting vegetarianism (add a dash) or discouraging it (nothing).

Consider the passage all three ways and in context:

STATUS QUO:
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.

WITH DASH:
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.

WITH NOTHING:
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.

And it's a link to "Gramps" take on it, he seems to cover the controversy nicely, favoring the "nothing" stance.
http://www.askgramps.org/if-according-to-dc-89-we-are-to-eat-meat-sparingly-why/

Personally, I favor the dash theory because I lean toward vegetarianism, but that's me!
Comments
- Great response, Mister_IT. Since we should always respect our elders, I must assume that “Gramps” is correct. Now if you’ll excuse me while I go get a Triple Whopper® with Cheese…. ^_^
  - Report
  by the Otter on April 24th, 2009
- .
  LOL. I think I remember reading somewhere that the fellow who was the original "Gramps" has passed and the website is now manned by a team of LDS Scholars.
  .
  It's, candidly, one of my favorite sites! I really like their work.
  .
  Maybe I'll start a site called, "Ask the Curmudgeon" someday!
  .
  ;-)
  - Report
  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on April 24th, 2009
- LOL
  - Report
  by the Otter on April 24th, 2009
- sillyness, although I'd be careful how many of those Triple Whoppers® you eat, sparingly is still sparingly
  ;^)
  - Report
  by John Cox on November 9th, 2009
- .
  Exactly!
  .
  I'm so glad that we finally got this cleared up!
  .
  ;-)
  - Report
  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on November 9th, 2009
- LOL… in the interests of full disclosure, I’ve never had so much as a Double Whopper, let alone a Triple. Of course, it could be worse:
  
  http://photos.macnn.com/news/0910/windows7whopper-lg.jpg
  
  (Yes, it really existed!)
  - Report
  by the Otter on November 9th, 2009
- Wow!
  -
  Well in intrest of full disclosure, I have eaten more than one Tripple Whopper and found them all delisciouse. Eating meat sparingly is one of the things I'm still working on.
  - Report
  by John Cox on November 9th, 2009
- .
  Is that what they call a "WidowMaker Burger"?
  .
  Oy!
  - Report
  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on November 9th, 2009
- Japanese mafia hit: ¥50.000.000
  Windows 7 Burger: ¥777
  Knowing a deal when you see one: priceless.
  - Report
  by the Otter on November 10th, 2009
- Lol! Awesome!
  - Report
  by John Cox on November 10th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
10 comments | Post one | Permalink
by george on April 21st, 2009
your'e jokin right, does this truely matter in the whole expanse of time and space!?
Comments
- Actually, I’d say it’s pretty dang important. We’re talking about the word of God here, and the presence of that comma makes it say the exact opposite of what it would say, without it. This of course deals with a much less serious offense, but it’s kind of like if someone omitted the “not” in “Thou shalt not kill.” Kinda makes a difference, y’know?
  
  Thanks, though!
  - Report
  by the Otter on April 22nd, 2009
- it's not a word though is it?! it's a grammer thing, the meaning would not completely change. it's not really comparable with thou shalt not kill! or thou shalt kill! get a grip my friend.
  the word of god as you say, well if HE wanted to change anything i'm sure HE would. debating on here is just a bit pointless i thought.
  any other questions for debate i welcome.
  lol
  - Report
  by george on April 22nd, 2009
- Actually, the meaning *does* completely change. Observe:
  
  “[I]t is pleasing unto me that [flesh of beasts and fowls] should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine,” i.e. God wants us to only eat meat in times of winter or famine;
  
  vs.
  
  “[I]t is pleasing unto me that [flesh of beasts and fowls] should not be used only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine,” i.e. God wants us to not restrict the eating of meat to times of winter or famine.
  
  The comma *completely* changes the meaning!
  
  And as for your comment regardless Him changing it if He wants, you’re right, and I expect that if it’s wrong, He *will* make sure it’s been changed, in the next edition. However, we must also remember that revelation virtually never comes about, unless the question first be asked.
  - Report
  by the Otter on April 22nd, 2009
- So what question was Alma the younger asking?
  what question did Saul ask?
  
  revelation came to them, did it not!
  - Report
  by george on April 23rd, 2009
- That’s why I said revelation *virtually* never comes about, unless the question first be asked. The exceptions to this rule are so noteworthy, they get recorded in the scriptures! :-)
  - Report
  by the Otter on April 23rd, 2009
- I find it prudent to note that the revelation to Alma the younger was not unsolicited. His father Alma the elder had been praying unceasingly for it.
  - Report
  by John Cox on November 9th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
6 comments | Post one | Permalink

Question

I remember hearing somewhere that the first comma in the current edition of Doctrine & Covenants 89:13 is an error. Has anyone else heard this? Can anyone confirm or disprove this? Thanks!

Answers. 3 helpful answers below.

Comments

Comments

Comments

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

Rumor question: I heard that McDonalds uses plastic or some kind of synthetic filler in their milkshakes. I find it hard to believe. Can anyone confirm or disprove this? I don't eat at McD's, but after seeing Supersize Me, I wonder.

Anyone ever eaten ossa die morti (bones of the dead)?!

I heard this song on the radio today.I think it's fairly new.I remember hearing the words ' The way you talk , the way you walk' and also the word ' Amara ' I think.Can anyone tell me the song title . Thanks ;]

If in the First Vision Joseph Smith saw God the Father in the flesh with with a body in 1820, why did he teach later (in the 1835 edition of Doctrine and Covenants, p. 53) that God the Father did not have a physical body? (see link for scan of this page)

In the first edition of the doctrine and covenants, printed in 1835,sect101:4, there is a denial of polygamy, calling it a "crime of fornication..." this remained in the D&C until 1876, when it was removed, and section132 added commanding it. WHY?

Professionally Researched

Can you import other calendar programs into a Palm Treo with comma separated values?

Can I file Chapter 7 separately if my husband lives somewhere else?

What was the first arcade game designed by a woman?

What was the first year Metal Gear Solid was made?

Who was the first DJ to play turntables as a musical instrument?

ANSWERBAG BUZZ

Answerbag.com
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!

Question

I remember hearing somewhere that the first comma in the current edition of Doctrine & Covenants 89:13 is an error. Has anyone else heard this? Can anyone confirm or disprove this? Thanks!

Answers. 3 helpful answers below.

Comments

Comments

Comments

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

Professionally Researched

ANSWERBAG BUZZ

Answerbag.com Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!

Answerbag.com
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!