“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.”
—Doctrine and Covenants 89:12–13
If any scripture in LDS canon seems to encourage abstaining from meat, it’s this one. Verse 13 especially appears to place a restriction on meat consumption:
“It is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.”
At first glance, the comma after “used” appears to break the sentence into two thoughts. One might read it as:
“It is pleasing unto me that they should not be used.”
[They should be used] only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.
This reading implies that God is pleased when meat is not eaten at all, except in extreme circumstances.
But there’s another way to read the same sentence—one that removes the emphasis introduced by that comma. Without the comma, the line becomes:
“It is pleasing unto me that they should not be used only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.”
This changes the meaning entirely. Instead of saying meat should be used only in times of hardship, it says the Lord is pleased when meat is not restricted to just those times. In other words, He’s pleased when meat is used sparingly—but not solely during winter or famine.
This second interpretation might feel odd at first, perhaps because of the structure—“should not” and “only” creates a kind of double-negative. But once you read it a few times, the meaning becomes clear: God is pleased when we don’t reserve meat only for desperate situations.
So Why the Comma?
This is where history becomes important. That comma wasn’t always there. In editions of the Doctrine and Covenants prior to 1921—including those published during Joseph Smith’s lifetime—the comma after “used” in verse 13 did not exist. It was added in the 1921 and later editions, which naturally influences how the passage is interpreted.
So this second reading isn’t a modern reinterpretation—it’s how the verse originally appeared.
What About Verses 14–17?
Some readers turn to the next verses in the revelation for support of a meat-restrictive view. Verse 15 says:
“And these hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger.”
Taken out of context, it seems to reinforce the idea that meat is only for emergencies. But the surrounding verses clarify that the subject here isn’t meat—it’s grain.
Verse 14 begins:
“All grain is ordained for the use of man and of beasts, to be the staff of life…”
And verse 17 says:
“Wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine…”
The idea is likely that certain grains are generally best for specific animals and humans, and that all of these collectively help the whole in times of famine. These verses emphasize the flexibility of grain as a food source for man and beasts, which ends up benefiting the whole food supply, especially in times of famine. So when verse 15 says “these hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger,” it can be referring all of these options, including animals that creep on the earth, as a food source.. It is not about restricting meat to only being used for famine and extreme hunger.
The view that these verses are talking about grain being the staff to lean on in hard times, aligns with the story of Joseph in Egypt (Genesis 41), where grain was the key to surviving seven years of famine. Of all food sources, grain stores well and can sustain both humans and animals in times of famine.
I think it is possible that the “only in times of famine and excess of hunger” can be referring to the use of all of these options for food, including animals that “creep on the earth”, which you may not normally consider for food, nor would it be recommended in a regular diet. This can be giving an allowance so if someone eats something during a famine that might otherwise seem disgusting, they should not worry about it offending God. For example, in normal circumstance if I prayed for food and then saw a rodent creeping by, I would not consider that a potential answer to prayer. Only in times of famine or excessive hunger might that be a consideration for me.
A Practical Note
If someone avoids meat entirely and plans to rely on it only in an emergency, there may be health consequences. Sudden reintroduction of meat during a crisis, when the body is stressed, could cause digestive issues.
Worse still, animals themselves may be in poor health during famine conditions, making their meat less safe or nutritious. In such cases, preserved meat—frozen or dried during times of abundance—would be far more practical and safer than attempting to begin meat harvesting during a crisis.
Conclusion
I don’t believe the Word of Wisdom forbids eating meat except in extreme circumstances. I believe it is encouraging responsible management of meat for food. It is “pleasing unto [the Lord]” when animals are used sparingly—not only during famine or cold. The revelation points out the sustaining power of grain, especially in times of hardship. It expands options for excessive hunger, so we don’t need to feel guilty about eating unusual options during a famine.
Understanding the original punctuation and context helps reveal a more balanced and practical view—one that invites gratitude, moderation, and wisdom.