Seeking the Good of Others

Meat Sacrificed to Idols:

One of the issues in the first-century church that was addressed in writing by Paul concerned meat that had been sacrificed to idols.  Debates over what to eat might seem strange within a church established by a man who said:

“Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?”

However, as formerly pagan/Roman converts began joining congregations of the church of Jesus Christ, an issue arose concerning the eating of meat.

Pleasing the Romans gods thru animal sacrifice resulted in temples having more meat than their priests and priestesses could eat.  So, as a source of income, the temples would sell the extra meat to vendors — who would in turn sell that meat in the marketplace for general consumption.  Thus, it was common for meat sold in the marketplace to have been previously consecrated as a sacrifice to a Roman god.  The Jews stayed away from such meat because they were wary of the chances encountering the “unclean” food-handling practices and they believed that to partake of consecrated meat was to give second-hand approval of idol worship.  The Gentiles did not believe that meat could be tainted by a sacrifice they did not participate in.  Both parties brought these preconceived cultural views on the subject with them into the church of Jesus Christ — thereby making the matter a point of contention within the church.

The council recorded in Acts 15 urged Gentile converts to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols.  In essence, the council sought to assure that at the next church sacramental meal a formerly-Jewish believer could eat meat he was served with confidence — knowing it had never been part of a sacrificial cow, and a formerly-Roman believer could not be accused of participating in idol worship.

Applying the Matter to Ourselves:

Whenever I read Paul’s writings on the subject of members of the church of Jesus Christ eating meat that had was considered “unclean” by some — I can’t help but think of the current LDS views on things like meat, caffeinated drinks, beer, and wine.  So last week, I read thru 1 Corinthians 8-10, imagining that Paul was writing to church members today on the subject of the Word of Wisdom.

Paul’s Law of Offense = Seek the good of others instead of being concerned for your own good:

The following was taken from 1 Corinthians 8-10.

Some people might think that all things are lawful for them because of justification by faith or because of all the knowledge they have on the issue.  While the freedom in Christ or the knowledge you obtain may make you feel important, it is love that strengthens the church of God.  If you claim to know all the answers, then you don’t really know very much.  However, the person who loves God – the same is known by Him.

Whether or not everything is lawful for you – not everything is expedient or constructive.

You may be able to consume any food or drink without raising questions of moral conscience within yourself because you understand that everything from the earth comes from the Lord.  Why should your freedom be limited by what someone else thinks?  If you are capable of enjoying all things that come from God, then why should you be condemned for it?  We can’t win God’s approval by what we eat – you won’t lose anything if you abstain, and you won’t gain anything if you partake.  So whether you eat or drink – whatever you do – do it all to glorify God.

However, not all believers understand this.  Some are accustomed to thinking that words of wisdom concerning diet are commandments – and their weak consciences will be offended.

Should a non-member ask you over to his or her house, by all means go if you want to and eat whatever is offered to you, out of respect for their hospitality.  But then should a member there point out that the food or drink served ought to be considered morally objectionable to you because of your religion – don’t consume it out of consideration for the one who told you.  For you must be careful that your freedom doesn’t cause another of a weaker conscience to stumble.

If your superior knowledge on a subject were to encourage a believer to do something they believe is wrong, then you would be sinning against Christ because he died for that person too.

If my dietary choices would cause another believer to sin, then may I never break the “commandments” outlined in any words of wisdom concerning diet so long as I live.  I do not desire another believer to stumble.  Don’t give offense to Jews, Gentiles, or the church of God.  Try to please everyone in what you do.  Don’t just do what is best for yourself – do what is best for others, so that many may be saved.

When you are with those who are weak, you should share their weakness because you have a desire to bring the weak to Christ.  It is best to try and find common ground with people, doing everything you can that you might save some.

Even though you are a free person, with no earthly slave master, you must become a servant to all people to bring them to Christ.  When you are with Jews, live like a Jew to bring them to Christ.  When you are with members who strictly adhere to Church™ teachings, live under that law – even though you are not subject to that law, do so in order to bring Christ to them.  When you are with Gentiles who are without the law, then also live apart from that law for the purpose of bringing them to Christ.  But you must not ignore the law of God – always obey the law of Christ.

Questions:

• Is my characterization of Paul’s teaching on offense accurate?
• What lessons can be drawn from his teaching?
• Is my connection of his teaching on eating pagan meat with the Word of Wisdom™ fair?
• Is this teaching consistent with the rest of the Scriptures?
• How can we balance Paul’s law of offense with spicing up your church experience, rebelling against body modesty, or cheerfully doing all things?

Next Article by Justin:  Money-free Communities

Previous Article by Justin:  Cheerfully Doing All Things

What the Word of Wisdom says and what it doesn’t say

D&C 89, the revelation known as the Word of Wisdom, gives both very specific and very general instructions. Sometimes we have a tendency to read more into it than is there, or to take away what is actually written there. In the economy of heaven, supererogation is a sin. We are expected by the Lord to do what is required by him. No more, no less.

And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them. (3 Ne. 11: 40)

But whoso among you shall do more or less than these are not built upon my rock, but are built upon a sandy foundation; and when the rain descends, and the floods come, and the winds blow, and beat upon them, they shall fall, and the gates of hell are ready open to receive them. (3 Ne. 18: 13)

Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church. (D&C 10: 68 )

And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning. (D&C 93: 25)

And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil. (D&C 98: 7)

For that which is more or less than this cometh of evil, and shall be attended with cursings and not blessings, saith the Lord your God. Even so. Amen. (D&C 124: 120)

So, in the spirit of doing no more and no less than what the Word of Wisdom says, let’s review just what it does say, and what it doesn’t say.

• Wine Drinking wine is prohibited by the revelation with but one exception: we can use wine for the sacrament if we ourselves make it, but it must be pure grape wine, not other types of wine.
• Strong Drink Drinking strong drink is strictly prohibited, however, it is given the use of washing our bodies.
• Tobacco Smoking, chewing and eating tobacco is strictly prohibited, however, it is given the use of a healing herb for bruises and sick cattle, with cautions on its use (as tobacco poisoning is a real danger.)
• Hot Drinks Hot drinks, defined by modern prophets as tea and coffee, are strictly prohibited to be used on the outside or inside of the body.
• Wholesome Herbs The Lord gives the thumbs up, but says to use them in the season thereof, with prudence and thanksgiving.
• Fruit Again the Lord gives his approval of their use, but says to use them in the season thereof, with prudence and thanksgiving.
• Flesh of Beasts and Fowls of the Air The Lord gives his approval for their use but emphasizes two times in the revelation that they are only to be used in times of winter, cold or famine, which is his definition of the word “sparingly” and also says that it is pleasing to him that they not be used, at all, except under the conditions he states. Also, these things are to be used with thanksgiving.
• Grain The Lord gives a thumbs up for all grain, both for man, beasts of the field, fowls of heaven and all wild animals on dry earth.
• Mild Grain Drinks The Lord gives a thumbs up for all mild grain drinks. Mild grain drinks at the time the Word of Wisdom was revealed was interpreted by the saints, including, apparently, the Prophet Joseph Smith himself, as being beer drinks, with alcoholic content between 1% and 5%, as opposed to strong drink, which was hard liquor with alcoholic content of 40% or more.
• Fruit-Bearing Plants The Lord gives a thumbs up to all fruit-bearing plants, whether that “fruit” is found above or below ground.

That, in a nutshell, is what the Lord says about what we can or cannot eat. Now, here is what the Lord doesn’t say:

• Cola drinks The Lord is silent on cola drinks.
• Chocolate The Lord is silent on chocolate, including hot chocolate drinks.
• Caffeine The Lord is silent on the consumption of caffeine.
• Seafood The Lord is silent on eating seafood, both sea creatures and sea plants. After all, the saints were in the middle of the country and had no access to seafood, so why talk about it?
• Insects, Arachnids, etc. The Lord is silent on the eating of insects, arachnids (scorpions, etc.)
• Drugs The Lord is silent on drugs, whether legal or illegal.
• Cooking The Lord is silent about cooking food. He doesn’t approve or disapprove of raw-foodism.
• Vegan Diets The Lord is silent about vegan diets.
• Vegetarian Diets The Lord is silent about vegetarianism, though the revelation seem to stress a mainly plant-based diet.
• Every other type of food consumed, not mentioned in the revelation. The Lord is silent.

Some modern LDS interpretations on the revelation that contradict how the saints who lived at the time of the revelation interpreted it:

• Wine Means Grape Juice The early saints did not understand the revelation to mean grape juice. It was wine, as in it had alcoholic content. It is lumped together with strong drink for this reason. After all, what’s wrong with drinking grape juice?
• Mild Barley Drink Is Barley Water The early saints did not use barley water. The mild barley drinks they made were beers, not barley water. The Lord in the revelation is referring to the practices of the time. Therefore, he is referring to, and approving of, beer.

Open interpretations:

• Wholesome Who decides what a wholesome herb is? You do.
• Tea Although the prophets have interpreted “hot drinks” to mean tea and coffee, just what constitutes the tea that is prohibited is interpreted by LDS in different ways. For example, there are four types of tea: black tea, oolong tea, white tea and green tea. Some choose to interpret tea as being only the type of tea that was in use by the saints at the time of the revelation, leaving the other three types open for use. Especially green tea, which many people feel has great healing properties. Others reject all teas, including herbal teas.
• Coffee Many saints think that it is the caffeine in coffee that makes it prohibitive and so drink decaffeinated coffee.

Sometimes as LDS we tend to be a little too judgmental of our fellow saints, based upon our preconceived notions of what the Word of Wisdom is and isn’t. Just because a saint has a bottle of vodka in his cupboard doesn’t mean he’s drinking it, it may mean he’s using it for washing purposes. Just because a saint has a winery and is bottling wine doesn’t mean he’s drinking it, it may mean he’s preparing for the day when we will again partake of the sacrament with wine. Just because a sister refuses to eat meat, it doesn’t mean she is breaking any commandment. Just because a saint is a raw-foodist or vegan or vegetarian, doesn’t mean they are weird or strange. Just because a saint drinks coca-cola or green tea or makes a meal of cake and ice cream doesn’t mean that they are sinners. And even if we ever see a saint drinking Guinness, at 5% alcohol, are they really breaking the Word of Wisdom? The earlier saints wouldn’t have thought so.

Remember, the Word of Wisdom was given for “the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.” It may be less of a test to see if we can follow it and more of a test to see if we can stop judging our fellow saint.

Previous Word of Wisdom article: Strong drinks, mild drinks, hot drinks, wine, etc.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

The interpolation of a footnote

And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God; 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. (D&C 49: 18-19)

There is so much confusion about the meaning of this sentence among latter-day saints. The problem lies in that when a person reads “forbiddeth to abstain from meats,” they can’t seem to process the phrase. Then, when they read the next phrase, “that man should not eat the same,” they erroneously think that this phrase is clarifying and defining the action of the person who is doing the forbidding, and not the action of the person who is doing the abstaining.

An erroneous and misleading footnote

There is also a footnote to the word “forbiddeth” found in verse 18 which is erroneous, which reads: “IE biddeth to abstain, see v. 19.”

This footnote would have us believe that the word “forbiddeth” was erroneously written and should be instead “biddeth,” which means the exact opposite. The only reasoning we are given of why we should substitute a word which means the exact opposite for the word that is actually in the revelation, is that verse 19, according to whoever put in this footnote, suggests that the Lord is stressing that meat “is ordained for the use of man for food” and therefore this is the reason why a person who “bids to abstain from meats” would be contrary to the will of the Lord and not a person who “forbids to abstain from meats.”

The section and verse headings

Additionally, the section heading gives this information: “Some of the beliefs of the Shakers were that…the eating of pork was specifically forbidden, and many did not eat any meat;…The revelation refuted some of the basic concepts of the Shaker group.”

Because of the comments found in the section heading, specifically, that this revelation refuted some of the basic concepts of the Shaker group and that one of these basic concepts was the abstaining from pork, we are immediately conditioned upon reading the revelation that the verses which deal with the eating of animal flesh will contain a refutation of abstaining from meats. But just to make sure that this idea is sunk deep into our minds, regardless of what the revelation says, we find that the verse heading summarizes verses 17-21 as being an approval of eating meat: “17-21, Eating of meat is approved;”

Faulty logic

All of this reasoning is completely faulty, devoid of logic and of simple English grammar. Let’s take a look at this scripture and pick it apart, using the simple rules of English.

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

Definitions of the words involved

Everyone knows what the word “forbiddeth” means, but in case there are some who still haven’t learned its definition, I will write it here, taken from the Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary:

Definition of Forbid

1 : to proscribe from or as if from the position of one in authority : command against <the law forbids stores to sell liquor to minors> <her mother forbids her to go>
2 : to hinder or prevent as if by an effectual command <space forbids further treatment here>

Most people know what the words “command against”, “hinder” and “prevent” mean, but some may not know what the word “proscribe” means, so I again write its definition here, taken from the above mentioned dictionary:

Definition of Proscribe

1 : to publish the name of as condemned to death with the property of the condemned forfeited to the state
2 : to condemn or forbid as harmful or unlawful : PROHIBIT

Finally, in case a person is unsure of the meaning of the word “abstain,” I include its definition here:

Definition of Abstain

: to refrain deliberately and often with an effort of self-denial from an action or practice

From the above definitions, it is apparent that both definitions of the word “forbid” can apply to this revelation. In the case of definition #1 of “forbid,” a person can forbid to abstain from meats by condemning, either publicly or privately, the practice of abstention from meats, calling those who practice abstention sinners and/or unhealthy; or he may forbid the practice of abstention from meats, using it as a sign of unworthiness for any number of callings or even for a temple recommend. Those who forbid in this manner would be persons garbed in the authority of the priesthood or persons who acted as if they possessed authority to speak against the practice of abstention from meats. Such people may actually command a congregation or group of church members against practicing abstention from meats and preach that such a practice is of the devil.

In the case of definition #2 of “forbid,” a person who abstains from meats may be hindered or prevented from abstaining by the circumstances they find themselves in, such as being invited to eat at a member’s house or church function and discover that everything offered is meat or meat-based, not due to necessity or famine, but due to the willful disobedience or ignorance of the Lord’s law of meat consumption. Such an individual or family, finding themselves in such a circumstance, would have to leave and find nourishment elsewhere, or go hungry or participate in eating meat in a time which wasn’t winter or famine or cold, thus being forced to break the law also.

Of the two listed definitions for the word “proscribe,” only definition #2 applies to the revelation.

The word “abstain” only has one listed definition, so this makes our job easier.

The phrase “forbiddeth to abstain from meats,” which so many people can’t seem to process, becomes exceptionally clear in its meaning once we’ve reviewed the above definitions. But in case it still isn’t clear, I’ll give you some illustrations as to what this phrase is talking about.

There are two people being referred to in this phrase: he who is doing the forbidding, who we will call The Forbidder, and he who is doing the abstaining, who we will call The Abstainer.

The Forbidder

The Forbidder is the one being condemned in this revelation. The revelation reads:

And whoso forbiddeth…is not ordained of God. (D&C 49: 18 )

The word “forbid” is conjugated. It is the action word. “Whoso” is the person who is performing the action and it is this action that is being condemned, the action of forbidding. The word “forbiddeth” is merely an archaic way of saying “forbids.” Another way of saying the same thing is “whoever forbids” or “whoever is doing the forbidding” is not ordained of God. Once you grasp the concept that there are two people, one who does the action (The Forbidder) and one who receives the action (The Abstainer), and that one of these people is being condemned, the revelation becomes very clear.

The problem most people have is determining just what The Forbidder is forbidding. Yet, we don’t have this problem with other uses of the same word. For instance, here are two examples: “John forbids Suzie to go outside.” “John forbids to go outside.” In both of these sentences, the person (John) is The Forbidder. In the first example, The Forbidder was forbidding one person (Suzie) from going outside. In the second example, The Forbidder was forbidding everyone in general from going outside. In the same way, The Forbidder of the revelation is forbidding everyone in general from abstaining from meats.

Just as in these examples, in which first there was a conjugated verb (John forbids) and then an infinitive verb (to go), so the revelation contains a conjugated verb (whoso forbiddeth) and then an infinitive verb (to abstain). Let’s put John and Suzie into the revelation to make it easier to see what is happening. We’ll make it in the form of a conversation:

John: “Suzie, I forbid you to abstain from meats.”
Suzie: “But I want to abstain from meats! I like to abstain from meats!”
John: “I don’t care. It is wrong to abstain from meats. The Lord has ordained meat for our use and we should eat meat. I forbid to abstain from meats.”
Suzie: “You can’t forbid to abstain from meats. The Lord said, ‘And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats…is not ordained of God.’ So, if you forbid me to abstain from meats, you are committing a sin.”
John: “Oh, er,…uh,…well, in that case, I don’t forbid to abstain from meats. If you want to abstain from meats, go right ahead and abstain from meats. You’ve got your free agency.”

“John forbids to abstain from meats.” “And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats.” The English language rules apply to the revelation just as much as they do to our examples and thus the revelation makes perfect sense.

The Abstainer

The Abstainer is the one being upheld and justified in this revelation. The revelation reads:

to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same (D&C 49: 18 )

The comma and phrase that follows the word “meats” is but a clarifying phrase, clarifying the meaning of abstention from meats. In other words, the Lord doesn’t mean people who avoid touching meats or being around meats, but He specifically is talking about people who don’t eat meats. The people who don’t eat meats are The Abstainers, and these people are the ones being wronged by The Forbidder. Thus, it is The Abstainer who is justified and is not called to repentance, whereas it is The Forbidder who is the one who is devoid of the Spirit of God, who “is not ordained of God.”

The interpolation of the footnote

Our footnote (“IE biddeth to abstain, see v. 19.”) claims to have received revelation that “forbiddeth” means “biddeth,” which would make the sentence mean the exact opposite of what it does, and it seems to take its authority from an interpretation of verse 19, which reads:

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. (D&C 49: 19)

It is important to note that verses 18 and 19 are both part of the same sentence, so in order to understand both verses, we must take all parts of the sentence together when interpreting it in any way. Accordingly, here is that sentence:

And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God; 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. (D&C 49: 18-19)

It becomes apparent, once a person understands that The Forbidder is the one being condemned, that the Lord is attempting to teach His law concerning the eating of meat, which is currently found in D&C 89: 12-13 and 15, in which it is indicated that the Lord is pleased when meat is not consumed, but that He allows it only during times of cold or famine or winter.

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…And these hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger. (D&C 89: 12-13, 15)

The key to the revelation found in D&C 49: 19 are the words of the Lord revealing just what these animals and fowls and everything else that comes of the earth are ordained for. They are

ordained for the use of man for food and for raiment, and that he might have in abundance. (D&C 49: 19)

These creatures are ordained for food and for raiment, but additionally they are ordained that man might have in abundance. You cannot have an abundance of animals and of fowls and of that which comes from the earth if you are killing these things and eating them. Abundance comes from allowing things to live and multiply.

The Lord was attempting to teach these Shakers and all others who would get the chance at reading this revelation, that He neither commands nor forbids to abstain from meats, and that He neither commands nor forbids to eat meats, that each person has their free agency and could do what they wanted to do with the things of the earth, including killing and eating them, for He ordained that man can kill and eat animals in certain, specific circumstances, namely, in times of famine and excess hunger, in winter, in cold, or in other words, to save their lives, but that there were stiff penalties assigned to those who killed and ate flesh without having a genuine need to do so.

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. (JST Gen. 9: 11)

The evidence that the Lord is decidedly against the killing and eating of animals where there is no need is found in D&C 49: 21:

And wo be unto man that sheddeth blood or that wasteth flesh and hath no need. (D&C 49: 21)

Lest we get the wrong idea…

After mentioning that the things of the earth (beasts, fowls and all) are so that man might have in abundance, the Lord is quick to cut off any erroneous thoughts that we would be justified in the attempt to accumulate wealth at the expense of others. The very next verse, verse 20, plainly indicates that the temporal inequalities which we see around us are the result of sin and not the plan of God:

But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin. (D&C 49: 20)

And so, although the Lord wants us to have in abundance, He wants us to share our wealth with all, so that all may enjoy the fruits of the earth equally.

The false footnote revisited

Another problem with this pesky footnote (“IE biddeth to abstain, see v. 19.”) is that we find the same use of the word “forbiddeth” in another part of the revelation, in verse 15, which reads:

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. (D&C 49: 15)

Here, in this sentence, if we use the same rules followed by our uninspired footnote, that “forbiddeth” means “biddeth,” what we get is something entirely at odds, again, with our revealed religion. Putting the word “biddeth” into this sentence renders it:

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

The sentence becomes entirely contradictory, for if marriage is ordained of God unto man, then whoso biddeth to marry should also be ordained of God, not the reverse. It becomes apparent, then, that if the Lord knew how to correctly use the word “forbiddeth” in verse 15, He would also know how to correctly use the word “forbiddeth” in verse 18. Our footnote is making the false claim that the Lord doesn’t know the difference between “forbiddeth” and “biddeth.”

More on the subject of meats

In 1 Timothy 4: 1-3 we find another interesting reference to meat-eating:

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; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 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. (1 Tim. 4: 1-3)

In this scripture, we get a view of another false doctrine, that of commanding to abstain from meats. Just as he who forbids to abstain from meats is not ordained of God, because each person has the free agency to not eat meat, should they desire not to eat, so is he who commands to abstain from meats not ordained of God, since everyone has the free agency to eat meat, should they desire to eat, knowing that it is allowable under certain, justifiable circumstances.

It should be noted that if we use the word “biddeth” in D&C 49: 18, we essentially get the counsel recorded in 1 Timothy 4: 3, that “commanding to abstain from meats” is not of God. “Biddeth to abstain” is the same as “commandeth to abstain.” The Lord, knowing that he had already covered the sin of commanding to abstain in 1 Timothy 4: 3, apparently decided he was going to cover the other sin of forbidding to abstain, which was equally sinful, in that both sins abridged the free agency of man in a thing in which God had given unto man to decide (the eating or abstention of meats.)

The Shakers

It is interesting to note that verses 18-21 of section 49 actually are telling the Shakers that although their doctrine of abstaining from pork was not inspired of God and was not the true doctrine of God, they would not be forced to abandon the practice should they decide to continue to abstain from eating pork or any other meat, that should any latter-day saint forbid them their practice of abstaining from meats, the latter-day saint would be the one devoid of the Spirit of God, not them. The revelation essentially was telling them they could continue this practice without persecution in the church.

Next Word of Wisdom article: Strong drinks, mild drinks, hot drinks, wine, etc.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist