Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JAHS

Cooking With Alcohol

Cooking with alcohol  

179 members have voted

  1. 1. In your opinion does cooking with alcohols such as wine or beer violate the Word of Wisdom, given the fact that sometimes not all alcohol is cooked out of such a dish?

    • Yes
      22
    • No
      157


Recommended Posts

I think a lot depends on intention. If I am soaking my rum cake in enough rum to try to get any sort of buzz off of it, I am probably in violation of the spirit of the law.

I remember reading about the idea of creating a variety of marijuana that would curb nausea but wouldn't get you high. Not surprisingly, the idea wasn't too popular among the medical marijuana crowd.

I think the Pharisee's out there go a little overboard on their zealousness ( and this is coming from a TBM who has never drunk alcohol). There was a letter to the editor of the Ensign (December 1972) where the writer asked "we wonder if many of the Saints were aware of the high caffeine content in chocolate...an eight ounce bar of chocolate has 160 milligrams of caffeine... Nearly twice as much as in a cup of coffee"

While their intention in warning the saints might have been good, they played fast and loose with the facts.

An 8 oz bar of chocolate is a half pound. Not a normal amount for consumption. Milk Chocolate has about 5 mg per ounce. You don't get to the 20 mg/oz they were referencing unless you are eating unsweetened baking chocolate.

And a typical cup of coffee can have 100-250 mg of caffeine in it (dunkin donuts coffee has 143-206) Not the 80 mg they referenced

But it was more impact-full than saying "a typical hersheys bar contains about the same amount of caffeine as teaspoon of coffee" which is a much more accurate comparison.

Share this post


Link to post

I think the Pharisee's out there go a little overboard on their zealousness ( and this is coming from a TBM who has never drunk alcohol). There was a letter to the editor of the Ensign (December 1972) where the writer asked "we wonder if many of the Saints were aware of the high caffeine content in chocolate...an eight ounce bar of chocolate has 160 milligrams of caffeine... Nearly twice as much as in a cup of coffee"

While their intention in warning the saints might have been good, they played fast and loose with the facts.

An 8 oz bar of chocolate is a half pound. Not a normal amount for consumption. Milk Chocolate has about 5 mg per ounce. You don't get to the 20 mg/oz they were referencing unless you are eating unsweetened baking chocolate.

And a typical cup of coffee can have 100-250 mg of caffeine in it (dunkin donuts coffee has 143-206) Not the 80 mg they referenced

The Word of Wisdom's ban on "hot drinks" was not originally specifically about caffeine. I don't think anybody in Smith's day expressed an issue with chocolate, unless it was hot chocolate taken as a drink. In those days, doctors were saying that it was the temperature of these drinks that had the most harmful effect, by heating and thus stimulating the body. One medical writer contemporary to Smith even went so far as to say that hot water was more harmful than hot tea. (See http://www.dialoguej...e_V14N03_48.pdf, p. 55.)

My impression of D&C 89 is that it is not so much about what the drink contains, as about (1) whether the drink is "strong," or (2) whether the temperature of the drink is "hot." Wine is treated differently in D&C 89 because of the "conspiring men" that Joseph Smith believed were trying to poison Mormon wine. Wine was neither "hot" nor particularly "strong," but was susceptible to adulteration by conspiring non-Mormons--thus, Mormon wine was supposed to come directly from Mormon wineries and preferably used only for sacrament (until Mormons are able to drink wine during the Millennium without worry of such conspiracies, according to D&C 27).

Edited by Cobalt-70

Share this post


Link to post

A concept gets established by a powerful, revered figure who inevitably dies and therefore can't be consulted for clarifications about how that concept applies to every one of life's invariably innumerable situations, so the followers have to figure out how it applies and go around in circles trying to do so.

Fortunately Christ was resurrected so we can ask Him how revelations apply to us every day! (I am of the strong opinion we all keep the basics and then ask God how they apply to us. This was confirmed when I and my wife felt differently about caffeinated soda and I was later diagnosed with a condition that requires me to limit exposure to stimulants.) If we do receive personal revelation beyond the basics it's for us - not for us to preach to everyone else about.

Share this post


Link to post

I think it is the spirit of the thing, not the letter.

Some medications must contain alcohol because some chemicals do not dissolve adequately in water, or at all, and hence the important factors may not arrive in the patients body in the intended dosage. My wife is a real WoW stickler. Her and I have a standing disagreement about caffeine-containing soft drinks: she's against, and I'm not. But she is also a bit of an herbalist, especially when it comes to medicinal herbs, and in order to administer some herbal combinations one must prepare them in the form of an alcoholic tincture. She does not shrink from this, and in fact has a special license from the state government that allows her to buy 190 or even 200 proof Everclear in order to make these tinctures. She does not shy from using the tinctures, and using them without first trying to boil off the alcohol. Possibly because if she boils off the alcohol all she'll have left is some damp powder. Parenthetically, I am enchanted with the idea that I am the only TR-worthy member of the ward High Priests group, possibly even the stake HP Quorum with -- at the moment -- 2 liters of Everclear in his closet!

I seem to recall a story, possibly apocryphal, that David O. McKay once ate a few rum-centered bons-bons, horrifying a few onlookers, and didn't afterwards put himself on some kind of church discipline. In fact, seemed a bit perplexed at their reactions.

YMMV.

Share this post


Link to post

Cobalt-70:

It is available here in the US as "The Stateside" in New York.

It is an ancient drink probably invented along side beer, and was/is used as a mild tonic. I have no information as to Mormon specifics, as we were/are a very minor religious sect. But it does fit well with the tenor of the times in people looking for a more healthy lifestyle.

Share this post


Link to post

The Word of Wisdom's ban on "hot drinks" was not originally specifically about caffeine. I don't think anybody in Smith's day expressed an issue with chocolate, unless it was hot chocolate taken as a drink. In those days, doctors were saying that it was the temperature of these drinks that had the most harmful effect, by heating and thus stimulating the body. One medical writer contemporary to Smith even went so far as to say that hot water was more harmful than hot tea. (See http://www.dialoguej...e_V14N03_48.pdf, p. 55.)

My impression of D&C 89 is that it is not so much about what the drink contains, as about (1) whether the drink is "strong," or (2) whether the temperature of the drink is "hot." Wine is treated differently in D&C 89 because of the "conspiring men" that Joseph Smith believed were trying to poison Mormon wine. Wine was neither "hot" nor particularly "strong," but was susceptible to adulteration by conspiring non-Mormons--thus, Mormon wine was supposed to come directly from Mormon wineries and preferably used only for sacrament (until Mormons are able to drink wine during the Millennium without worry of such conspiracies, according to D&C 27).

A few interesting quotes I found related to chocolate and Hot drinks.

Elder Mark E. Peterson once said:

"At no time has cocoa or chocolate been included in the prohibitions of the Word of Wisdom, and at no time has the Church said that cocoa is as harmful as coffee. Those who make these claims do so on their own responsibility, and obviously without knowing the facts of the matter" (Elder Mark E. Peterson, Patterns for Living [bookcraft, 1962], pp. 235-37).

Joel H. Johnson, with whose family the Prophet Joseph Smith was intimate, relates that on a Sabbath day in July (1833) following the giving of the "Word of Wisdom," when both Joseph and Hyrum Smith were in the stand, the Prophet said to the Saints: "I understand that some of the people are excusing themselves in using tea and coffee, because the Lord only said 'hot drinks' in the revelation of the Word of Wisdom. Tea and coffee are what the Lord meant when he said 'hot drinks.'(Johnson, J. H., A Voice from the Mountains, p. 12)

Share this post


Link to post

The Song of the Temperance Union

We're coming, we're coming, our brave little band

On the right side of temp'rance we do take our stand.

We don't use tobacco, because we do think

That the people who use it are likely to drink

Away, away, with rum, by gum,

Rum by gum, rum by gum

Away, away, with rum, by gum,

The song of the Temperance Union.

We never eat fruitcake because it has rum,

And one little slice puts a man on the bum.

Oh, can you imagine the pitiful plight

Of a man eating fruitcake until he gets tight?

A man who eats fruitcake lives a terrible life.

He's mean to his children and beats on his wife.

A man who eats fruitcake dies a terrible death,

With the odor of raisins and rum on his breath!

We never eat cookies because they have yeast,

And one little bite turns a man to a beast.

Oh, can you imagine the utter disgrace

Of a man in the gutter with crumbs on his face?

We never drink water -- they put it in gin,

And one little sip and a man starts to grin.

Oh, can you imagine a sorrier sight

Than a man drinking water and singing all night?

We never eat peaches because they ferment,

And a peach will ferment at the least little dent.

Oh, can you imagine a sight more obscene,

Than a man getting tipsy on peaches and cream!

Beware of plum pudding, the kind that they light.

They drench it in brandy so it will ignite.

The thought is revolting to temperate folk,

For people go blotto inhaling the smoke.

We never touch coffee; it makes our eyes gleam,

At least when they add Irish whiskey and cream.

Oh, can you imagine a fate more unkind

Than sluggin' down coffee and going stone blind?

We never drink milkshakes 'cause they're made with malt,

And one little slurp makes your brain somersalt.

Oh, can you imagine behavior so rash

As bartop gymnastics with a frothy mustache

We never play jumprope 'cause jumpers take hops,

And once they start hopping, they hops 'til they drops.

This vile degradation starts out as a game

And grammar school innocence turns into shame.

We never have backrubs because it's a crime,

And we will oppose them in song and in rhyme.

For an alcohol backrub is worse than straight gin

When you think of the liquor absorbed through the skin.

We never use Brylcream 'cause that's got bay rum,

And too many rubbings can turn your head numb,

But if there's a thought that'll leave you in fits,

Just imagine the millions of paralytic nits.

Now if you go hiking and get sores on your feet,

Don't use rubbing spirits as a means for to treat,

'Cause it seeps through the pores of your feet by osmosis,

And you end up by having ten drunk little toesis.

We never eat cornflakes because they have malt,

And we can't imagine a much greater fault.

Oh, can you imagine a sight that's more droll

Than a woman at breakfast slumped over her bowl!

Share this post


Link to post

Joel H. Johnson, with whose family the Prophet Joseph Smith was intimate, relates that on a Sabbath day in July (1833) following the giving of the "Word of Wisdom," when both Joseph and Hyrum Smith were in the stand, the Prophet said to the Saints: "I understand that some of the people are excusing themselves in using tea and coffee, because the Lord only said 'hot drinks' in the revelation of the Word of Wisdom. Tea and coffee are what the Lord meant when he said 'hot drinks.'(Johnson, J. H., A Voice from the Mountains, p. 12)

That is a pretty dubious quote if used for the purpose you are intending to use it for. The quotation is 50 years old and therefore might be reliable as to its gist, but would be completely unreliable as a precise quotation. It also doesn't make sense as quoted by Joel Johnson, because coffee and tea are, in fact, "hot" and therefore the "excuse" is nonsensical. Next, Johnson claims that both Joseph and Hyrum spoke that day and said essentially the same thing, and thus there is likelihood of confusing who said what. Finally, Johnson quoted the anecdote for the purpose of demonstrating that coffee and tea were included within the Word of Wisdom, not to exclude other "hot drinks" from the revelation, so whatever the precise words of Smith were, it is unlikely that some nuance of that 50-years prior wording is a reliable indicator of some point for which the quote was not intended.

Share this post


Link to post

Dang ~ I thought this thread was for sharing recipes! :(

I had the best tequila and lime tilapia this week and some amazing she-crab soup. Ahh well, maybe I'll start a recipe swap thread in the social hall... ;)

Share this post


Link to post

That is a pretty dubious quote if used for the purpose you are intending to use it for. The quotation is 50 years old and therefore might be reliable as to its gist, but would be completely unreliable as a precise quotation. It also doesn't make sense as quoted by Joel Johnson, because coffee and tea are, in fact, "hot" and therefore the "excuse" is nonsensical. Next, Johnson claims that both Joseph and Hyrum spoke that day and said essentially the same thing, and thus there is likelihood of confusing who said what. Finally, Johnson quoted the anecdote for the purpose of demonstrating that coffee and tea were included within the Word of Wisdom, not to exclude other "hot drinks" from the revelation, so whatever the precise words of Smith were, it is unlikely that some nuance of that 50-years prior wording is a reliable indicator of some point for which the quote was not intended.

Yes the quote itself as worded seems to not make much sense as written. Here's something similar that Brigham Young said much longer than 50 years ago:

"The Word of Wisdom prohibits the use of hot drinks and tobacco. I have heard it argued that tea and coffee are not mentioned therein;

that is very true; but what were the people in the habit of taking as hot drinks when that revelation was given? Tea and coffee. We were not in the habit

of drinking water very hot, but tea and coffee - the beverage in common use. And the Lord said hot drinks are not good for the body or the belly.(JD 13:277 Oct 1870, Discourses of Brigham Young:283)

So it is possible that Joseph Smith was simply saying that just because something was not specifcally mentioned in the revelation does not mean that it was not included as being prohibited.

Share this post


Link to post

Very good OP. As an undergraduate, I published a paper on this topic.

For the first hundred years of the Church, Mormons interpreted the Word of Wisdom much more loosely than they do today. Moderation was the key:

  • Coffee, tea, and alcohol were among the list of provisions that the Church recommended for the westward trek.
  • Church leaders used wine for the sacrament at Sunday meetings and at the dedication celebrations for the temples in Kirtland, Ohio, Nauvoo, etc.
  • Brigham Young chewed tobacco for most of his adult life. (He acquired the habit before he converted to Mormonism, and he struggled in vain to completely give it up, managing to quit for a nine-year period between 1848 and 1857.)
  • Young encouraged some early Latter-day Saints to begin vineyards in Utah, sending one group of Swiss immigrants to southern Utah to start the Dixie Wine Mission. Their vineyards were very successful, and they sold wine all over the Western United States in the late nineteenth century.

So why are we as Mormons today teetotalers, when our ancestors weren't? The fact that early Latter-day Saints regarded the Word of Wisdom differently than we do today? The answers are many and varied, but quite interesting.

Share this post


Link to post

Very good OP. As an undergraduate, I published a paper on this topic.

For the first hundred years of the Church, Mormons interpreted the Word of Wisdom much more loosely than they do today. Moderation was the key:

  • Coffee, tea, and alcohol were among the list of provisions that the Church recommended for the westward trek.
  • Church leaders used wine for the sacrament at Sunday meetings and at the dedication celebrations for the temples in Kirtland, Ohio, Nauvoo, etc.
  • Brigham Young chewed tobacco for most of his adult life. (He acquired the habit before he converted to Mormonism, and he struggled in vain to completely give it up, managing to quit for a nine-year period between 1848 and 1857.)
  • Young encouraged some early Latter-day Saints to begin vineyards in Utah, sending one group of Swiss immigrants to southern Utah to start the Dixie Wine Mission. Their vineyards were very successful, and they sold wine all over the Western United States in the late nineteenth century.

So why are we as Mormons today teetotalers, when our ancestors weren't? The fact that early Latter-day Saints regarded the Word of Wisdom differently than we do today? The answers are many and varied, but quite interesting.

Yes we do regard it differently as counseled by our current prophets, whose word is more important to us than the earlier church leaders, if we really do believe in latter-day revelation as we claim. We listen to them and the Holy Ghost who help us to live it the way that is best for our own individual lives and not pass judgment on the way others choose to live it.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes we do regard it differently as counseled by our current prophets, whose word is more important to us than the earlier church leaders, if we really do believe in latter-day revelation as we claim. We listen to them and the Holy Ghost who help us to live it the way that is best for our own individual lives and not pass judgment on the way others choose to live it.

+1

Share this post


Link to post

I believe the WoW to be a revelation given by God himself not a concept that was established by a powerful, revered figure who...

In addition, assuming the figure you speak of is the Prophet Joseph Smith, he was not powerful or revered in the worldly sense when this revelation was received by him.

Whether or not you ascribe the commandment to God, it was given through a person (JS) who was definitely revered, and also powerful in the sense that his words held much sway for the members of the Church. That is all I meant. In exactly the same way as the words of Moses (whether given him from God or not) held sway for the Israelites.

Also, we saints are not left to run in circles trying to figure out how it applies. We have the very gift and ability given to Joseph Smith to help discern these things, the Holy Spirit and personal revelation from God.

This may be true. Yet we still see so many people, guided by the Holy Spirit, with differing opinions.

I disagree. God can ask for a lot more than for us to just listen to our conscience. He can ask us to accept all the gifts and powers he gives to us so that we can see our way through to Him.

If you prefer the term "light of Christ" to "conscience", that's fine. However, I really believe that we all struggle plenty with simply keeping ourselves in line with what we know (independently from the aid of the Spirit), which is why I use the term conscience. We all do things which we know better than to do. If we just put our head down and do what we know is right, I think that will get us quite far. And if this sounds preachy, I suppose it is. But I'm preaching to myself as much as anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes the quote itself as worded seems to not make much sense as written. Here's something similar that Brigham Young said much longer than 50 years ago:

"The Word of Wisdom prohibits the use of hot drinks and tobacco. I have heard it argued that tea and coffee are not mentioned therein;

that is very true; but what were the people in the habit of taking as hot drinks when that revelation was given? Tea and coffee. We were not in the habit

of drinking water very hot, but tea and coffee - the beverage in common use. And the Lord said hot drinks are not good for the body or the belly.(JD 13:277 Oct 1870, Discourses of Brigham Young:283)

So it is possible that Joseph Smith was simply saying that just because something was not specifcally mentioned in the revelation does not mean that it was not included as being prohibited.

Yes. I think that was probably Smith's point.

Just as a clarification, when I said that the quote by Joel Johnson was 50 years old, I meant that Johnson was writing down things that Smith supposedly said about 50 years prior.to the time they were written down. Thus, while Smith's general meaning might (or might not) have been preserved over those 50 years of residence in Johnson's memory, certainly the nuances of his exact language were not.

Edited by Cobalt-70

Share this post


Link to post

So why are we as Mormons today teetotalers, when our ancestors weren't? The fact that early Latter-day Saints regarded the Word of Wisdom differently than we do today?...

I think the teetotaling perspective was a result of church connections with the Temperance and Prohibition movemets.

Share this post


Link to post

Cobalt-70:

Yet Utah voted to end Prohabition. The last state needed but it still voted for its end.

Share this post


Link to post

Cobalt-70:

Yet Utah voted to end Prohabition. The last state needed but it still voted for its end.

yet up until the beginning of prohibition wine was still used for sacrament.

Share this post


Link to post

I think the teetotaling perspective was a result of church connections with the Temperance and Prohibition movemets.

Yet Utah voted to end Prohabition. The last state needed but it still voted for its end.

The repeal happened as the result of a citizen vote, in spite of opposition by the prophet and GAs. The state legislature was bypassed as well... the 21st is the only amendment passed using state ratifying conventions.

Share this post


Link to post

krose:

I don't advocate for the use of alcohol by anyone, but the problems with prohabition outweighed the benefits. It didn't/doesn't take a rocket scientist to weigh advantages vs disadvantages of any given action.

Share this post


Link to post

My daughter is a Chef and asked our Stake President about this issue. He said it was not against the WoW to cook with alcohol. He even said it was ok for her to taste wine to learn what goes with what during her training at school as part of her culinary classes.

Share this post


Link to post

My daughter is a Chef and asked our Stake President about this issue. He said it was not against the WoW to cook with alcohol. He even said it was ok for her to taste wine to learn what goes with what during her training at school as part of her culinary classes.

Seems a reasonable man.

Share this post


Link to post

yet up until the beginning of prohibition wine was still used for sacrament.

Wikipedia lists 1912 as the official church wide end to the use of wine in the sacrament, but it provides no citation. www.dummies.com lists the beginning of the practive of substituting water for wine as 1906, and ties it to the temperance movement. But, again, not citation is given.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Robert F. Smith
      Yasemin Saplakoglu, "There May Be a Link Between Coffee and Lung Cancer, Study Suggests," LiveScience, April 3, 2019, online at https://www.livescience.com/65136-coffee-lung-cancer.html .
       
    • By LisaALu
      Born and raised LDS, married in the Temple...the whole 9 yards.  Well....except I like to drink, sometimes socially, other times to "make things go away".  My husband and I started on a vacation 17 years ago, and justified that since it was out of the country....we went every other year, came back, prayed for forgiveness and moved on.  But in the last 2-3 years we have become far more involved.  We can go 4-5 months and then binge for 2 weeks.  Then we set a new time frame and start over.  We don't go to the Temple because we feel that we shouldn't.  So here is the thing...our recommends are 3 days from expiring and the counselor is bugging us to schedule.  STUCK!  TO be clear, neither of us have an issue with doctrine, Joseph Smith or Priesthood....or any of the other usual things.  We have always clung to our faith.  So what we have  in a sense going on, is that we want our cake and to eat it too.  The dilemma is what to do about the counselor.  If we don't go within a certain time for a renewal, we hit the Bishops radar...if we get called in, he's going to want to know why. I am not ready to come clean, I don't want help.  But I don't want to lie in a sacred interview.  To add to the mix, we are going to Europe and plan on drinking a lot of wine.  Later this year another vacation where we will be drinking a lot.  If you are wondering, no, it's not alcoholism on either side...it's that binge thing.  We hold out and then binge in our "off" time.  Knowing that we have no intention of quitting this year...I feel I am stuck with 2 choices.  First, come clean to the Bishop, and deal with consequences, such as being removed from our callings (we have limited our other activities such as Temple and off and on with Sacrament) OR we lie...(it's hard to write that).  If we just get through those interviews, we are off anyones radar while we continue to seek our way through this mess we made.  I want the whole Eternity thing.  My husband is more of a closed book and can't say what he wants.  He wants me...for ever, but he is hurt by the church....I should say WE are hurt by people in the church...their cultural stupidity and not doctrine..  Our 4 children have all opted out, my husband says "if they aren't going to be there, why would I work so hard to be there" of course he doesn't mean that about me.  So it's complicated.  We know the people aren't true, but the church is.  But boy can they do damage.  So I am looking for thoughts. Ps, anyone know how to ask the counselor for time without it going on the Bishops agenda?
    • By Marginal Gains
      Scott Lloyd, on a different thread, said:
      Which begs the question (if one agrees with Scott) about how we differentiate between the bits of the Word Of Wisdom that are binding, and which aren’t?
    • By Mystery Meat
      As an attorney, I spend my day dealing with nuance and subjectivity. Perhaps, few words are more subjective in the commandments of God, then the word sparingly when it comes to the consumption of meat. I would be curious to know how each of you treat this part of the Word of Wisdom. It has been on my mind as of late and I feel like a change is in order in my life.
      Note: this thread is not the place to discuss the Word of Wisdom as a commandment, the love of animals, or what science has to say about anything. If you can't stay on topic, you will be removed.
×
×
  • Create New...