Question
Gramps,
When I joined the Church 15 years ago, I quit smoking, drinking alcohol, tea, and coffee. Could you explain about eating meat sparingly, as it seems most eat a lot of it–even at the Church linger longers.
Bruce
Answer
Bruce,
Walk into any Latter-day Saint potluck or social event, and you’ll likely encounter a spread of dishes featuring beef, chicken, or turkey. For a faith known for its commitment to health codes—particularly the well-known avoidance of alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and tea—some are surprised that meat is frequently on the menu. After all, the Word of Wisdom, a revelation from God to Joseph Smith in 1833, found in Doctrine and Covenants section 89, clearly advises that the flesh of beasts and fowls “are to be used sparingly” and, arguably, “only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.”
So why does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints serve meat in temples, at church socials, and as part of its welfare program? Why is meat consumption not as strictly monitored as substances like alcohol or coffee? And what does “sparingly” really mean?
The Word of Wisdom, contained in Doctrine and Covenants section 89, is the Latter-day Saint health code. It’s best known for prohibiting alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and tea, but its counsel on diet is broader and notably nuanced regarding meat.
Section 89:12-13 states:
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.
And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.
There’s immediate vagueness in the language. Grammatically, the phrase “should not be used, only in times of winter…”—especially with questionable punctuation—has led to centuries of commentary and debate. The early editions of Doctrine and Covenants did not include a comma after “used,” which can drastically change the sense of the verse. Without the comma, it may be interpreted as a general permission to eat meat in any season, not just in emergencies; with the comma, it implies that meat should only be used during times of need.
This vagueness is mirrored in subsequent verses discussing grains, fruits, and what “these” should refer to—further mixing directions on meat, grain, and wild animals.
Thus, from the scriptural text alone, we know:
– Meat is permitted, but the command is to consume it “sparingly.”
– Certain conditions (winter, cold, famine) might warrant more meat consumption.
– The clearest standard is moderation, not elimination.
If the scriptural guidance is vague, what have Church leaders said? And why isn’t meat restriction enforced with the same rigor as abstaining from alcohol or coffee?
After the 1833 revelation, compliance was slow and incomplete. It was not until after 1851, under President Brigham Young, that the health code became a commandment for all members, and even then, the focus was largely on abstaining from tobacco, alcohol, coffee, and tea. The Jewish law, for example, was highly prescriptive, but the Word of Wisdom was described as a “principle with promise,” leaving members considerable responsibility to interpret wisely and individually.
President Ezra Taft Benson, in a 1983 address, emphasized the caution against indiscriminate killing of animals and the importance of consuming meat sparingly. He echoed scriptural warnings: “Wo be unto man that sheddeth blood or that wasteth flesh and hath no need.”
Elder Boyd K. Packer, in an oft-referenced 1996 talk, noted:
The Word of Wisdom was ‘given for a principle with promise’ (D&C 89:3). That word principle in the revelation is a very important one. A principle is an enduring truth, a law, a rule you can adopt to guide you in making decisions. Generally, principles are not spelled out in detail. That leaves you free to find your way with an enduring truth, a principle, as your anchor…learn to use moderation and common sense in matters of health and nutrition, and particularly in medication. Avoid being extreme or fanatical or becoming a faddist. For example, the Word of Wisdom counsels us to eat meat sparingly (see D&C 89:12). Lest someone become extreme, we are told in another revelation that ‘whoso forbiddeth to [eat meat] is not ordained of God’ (D&C 49:18)” [5].
Thus, modern prophets and apostles have repeatedly warned against extremes—both excessive meat eating and outright prohibitions on its consumption.
Again and again, official and unofficial Church sources have affirmed that “sparingly” is intentionally undefined. It is left to individual and family interpretation, considering climate, culture, health needs, and available food sources. The Church has no official policy giving a quantitative limit on meat consumption—once a week, twice a month, or any similar standard.
These leadership teachings also counsel against imposing one’s personal revelation or interpretation on others, highlighting the principle of agency and seeking revelation for oneself.
Members often wonder why meat is served so liberally at Church functions, temples, and in welfare distributions if the Word of Wisdom teaches sparing use. The institutional answer is twofold: first, the Church does not mandate vegetarianism, nor does it prohibit all meat. Second, organizational decisions follow prophetic leadership, not individual member opinions. The interpretation of “sparingly” varies by individual, but the standard is directed by those sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators.
The historical context of the Word of Wisdom was a world where food preservation was limited, winters could be deadly, and plant-based foods were harder to store. In the present day, with global food supply chains, refrigeration, and year-round access to fruits and grains, does this advice still apply as it did in 1833?
Many modern studies—both within and outside the Church community—highlight the health benefits of a plant-based diet. High meat consumption, especially red and processed meat, has been linked with increased risks of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and obesity. Indeed, Joseph F. Merrill, an apostle in 1948, noted:
Americans eat too much meat, a non-essential in the human diet, because all the proteins needed are available in… eggs, milk, cheese, beans, nuts, wheat, and more or less in other cereals, vegetables, and fruits.
Latter-day Saints who have pursued a “whole food, plant-based” approach often report significant improvements in health and well-being, and interpret this as living the Word of Wisdom more fully. Some, like Jane Birch (author of “Discovering the Word of Wisdom”), also report increased spiritual clarity and peace as a result of following what they see as God’s optimal dietary pattern.
Still, leadership cautions remain against dietary extremism. Church leaders consistently affirm that while plants should form the core of a healthy diet, forbidding meat is not doctrinally supported.
Is being a vegetarian or vegan consistent with membership in the Church? The answer is an unequivocal yes: members are not required to eat meat, and vegetarianism is not a sin. Instead, some have felt cultural or social pressures, but not doctrinal ones.
Doctrine and Covenants 49:18 cautions: “whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God.” This cautions against dogmatically prohibiting meat, not against choosing to eat little or no meat for personal or health reasons.
Unlike abstaining from alcohol or coffee, which are standard for temple recommend interviews, meat consumption is not a quantifiable standard of worthiness in the Church. Historical reasons for this include the difficulties early Saints faced in avoiding meat altogether (like when crossing the plains) and the pragmatic flexibility of principle-based guidelines.
As Paul Hoskisson notes, “the clarity of a standard of abstinence is quantitatively easier to understand and assess as compared to admonitions to use wholesome plants with ‘prudence and thanksgiving,’ make grain the ‘staff of life,’ or eat meat ‘sparingly’ and ‘only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.’ Even so, the process of lifting the general Church membership to even the basic standard of abstinence from alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and tea took almost 100 years, and even now…the task is not complete.”
Both scholarly research and statements by Church leaders draw attention to a curious situation in section 89. In 1921, when the Doctrine and Covenants was divided into columns, a comma was inserted after “used” in verse 13. This seemingly small editorial change led to much debate: does it mean God wanted us to eat meat only in times of winter, cold, or famine—or at all times, but sparingly?
Many leaders before and after 1921, including those old enough to have noticed the change, interpreted the verse the same way: meat is to be eaten sparingly, with extra justification in times of hardship, but not prohibited otherwise. There is no evidence that the addition of the comma fundamentally shifted Church doctrine or common practice.
Ultimately, the Word of Wisdom is a principle—a set of inspired guidelines given by God, leaving specifics to the judgment, inspiration, and agency of individuals.
If you choose to eat meat sparingly—or even abstain entirely for health, ethical, or spiritual reasons—you do so with God’s approval.
If you include moderate portions of meat in your diet, you are not out of step with Church teachings, as long as you avoid excess and wastage.
If you feel spiritually prompted to adjust your diet, you are encouraged to pray, seek personal revelation, and follow the Spirit.
Judgment or condemnation of others for more or less rigid choices is consistently discouraged, as is dogmatism about private dietary decisions.
As one wise Latter-day Saint put it, “It is unwise to cast judgment upon others in matters such as this…Don’t hate me because I sin differently than you. We all have shortcomings and challenges to our faith and obedience to God…Seek first to strengthen yourself and your testimony. Then you can lift others up in humility and love to where you are, just as Christ seeks to do for all of us.”
Gramps
