84 replies to this topic

[Saints Alive]

Ok I am not trying to reinvent the wheel as much as I want to reevaluate all the justifications for the Paradox of the WoW specific prohibition of wine and the fact the Jesus not only drank wine but made a whole batch of the stuff at a wedding party (and I am assuming they had a lot before the party) when they ran out.

Why was it ok for jesus to drink wine yet now it is considered such a sin as to keep you out of the temple?

Possible explanations:

1. Jesus drank a 'different' wine than what we have now so it didn't have the same alcohol content.
(i have heard this from several sources but I happen to know that if anything wine was STRONGER in jesus time than it is now)

2. It was ok because wine had a different cultural significance.
(i dont think that culture can justify sin, if so than we'd better prepare for gay marriage to become ok)

3. it was ok because the WoW wasn't a commandment yet.

(even if the WoW wasn't a commandment yet, we all know from the story of cain and abel that murder was wrong before the law of moses)

[mercyngrace]

I think the generally accepted answer comes from the preface of the WOW itself.  We don't currently drink wine owing to the "evil designs" of "conspiring men in the last days".

Edited by mercyngrace, 26 April 2012 - 06:28 PM.

[Saints Alive]

Would you care to elaborate? I don't see the relation. Are you saying all wineries are ran / owned by evil men conspiring to do us harm? Sounds a little far fetched to me.

[volgadon]

Saints Alive, on 26 April 2012 - 06:34 PM, said:

Would you care to elaborate? I don't see the relation. Are you saying all wineries are ran / owned by evil men conspiring to do us harm? Sounds a little far fetched to me.

It was a case of a tiny group vs. largely hostile outsiders

[Saints Alive]

volgadon, on 26 April 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

It was a case of a tiny group vs. largely hostile outsiders

I can understand the historical sense but what about today? Is the prohibition merely a relic of a bygone time?

[Zakuska]

Even the great wine biber Jesus himself has gone sober and follows the WOW now.

Mark 14
25 Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

It's not a sin unless God specifically tells you to do or not to do something and you do the opposite.

[selek1]

Saints Alive, on 26 April 2012 - 06:16 PM, said:

Ok I am not trying to reinvent the wheel as much as I want to reevaluate all the justifications for the Paradox of the WoW specific prohibition of wine and the fact the Jesus not only drank wine but made a whole batch of the stuff at a wedding party (and I am assuming they had a lot before the party) when they ran out.

Why was it ok for Jesus to drink wine yet now it is considered such a sin as to keep you out of the temple?

Why was it required of Jews to abstain from pork, while we are allowed to enjoy a nice crispy BLT?

Why is it okay for my seventeen-year-old to drive the family car while the fourteen-year-old must either walk, bike, or bum a ride?

Different covenant- different rules.

All of the smokescreens, "what-if's", and back-and-forth about heath benefits, adverse effects, "Johhny gets to while I don't" and all the rest are an exercise in irrelevancy.

We abstain because we have covenanted to do so.

As a Latter-day Saint, you are either dedicated to obeying your covenants- or you are not.

Edited by selek1, 26 April 2012 - 06:45 PM.

[Rivers]

Saints Alive, on 26 April 2012 - 06:41 PM, said:

I can understand the historical sense but what about today? Is the prohibition merely a relic of a bygone time?

The only way I can make sense of it is to say that we believe in following the living prophet and the living prophets say that we shouldn't drink wine.  That's all there really is to it.
Section 89 was not even a commandment.  It was simply a list of good health tips and a promise of spiritual blessings.  Later prophets made parts of the Word of Wisdom into commandments.  It all comes down to following the living prophet.

[Zakuska]

selek1, on 26 April 2012 - 06:44 PM, said:

Why was it required of Jews to abstain from pork, while we are allowed to enjoy a nice crispy BLT?

Why is it okay for my seventeen-year-old to drive the family car while the fourteen-year-old must either walk, bike, or bum a ride?

Different covenant- different rules.

All of the smokescreens, "what-if's", and back-and-forth about heath benefits, adverse effects, "Johhny gets to while I don't" and all the rest are an exercise in irrelevancy.

We abstain because we have covenanted to do so.

As a Latter-day Saint, you are either dedicated to obeying your covenants- or you are not.

I know of quite a few groups in the OT who were not aloud to drink wine. (eg. Nazarites)  The Priests also were not allowed into the temple if they had been drinking so there is precident for the WOW as a temple worthiness requirement.

Lev 10
8 ¶And the Lord spake unto Aaron, saying,
9 Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations:
10 And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean;

Edited by Zakuska, 26 April 2012 - 06:51 PM.

[Saints Alive]

I've heard the "because I said so" line too. Perhaps that is the only reason but I still have a hard time wrapping my head around why God would ask us to do something that is completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things and only subjectively wrong.

[volgadon]

Saints Alive, on 26 April 2012 - 06:41 PM, said:

I can understand the historical sense but what about today? Is the prohibition merely a relic of a bygone time?

No, the modern emphasis stems largely from Heber J. Grant's reaction to the evils of alcohol.

[Saints Alive]

volgadon, on 26 April 2012 - 06:55 PM, said:

No, the modern emphasis stems largely from Heber J. Grant's reaction to the evils of alcohol.

so is that to say it is Heber Grants law and not Gods?

[volgadon]

Saints Alive, on 26 April 2012 - 06:57 PM, said:

so is that to say it is Heber Grants law and not Gods?

Only if you hold that Heber J. Grant was not a prophet and had no business going anywhere near the Word of Wisdom.

[Pahoran]

Oh dear.

Doctrine and Covenants 89:
4 Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation—

Since it explicitly says that it applies to our time, what "paradox" is there?

Regards,
Pahoran

[KevinG]

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around why someone in the 21st century would consider abstaining from addictive substances completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things and only subjectively wrong.

[selek1]

Call For References:

Please provide evidence for the following assertions:

"completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things "

"only subjectively wrong".

Is baptism "completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things"?
Is the endowment "completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things"?
Are chastity and marital fidelity "completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things"?

Is adultery "only subjectively wrong"?  What about bearing false witness?  Is murder "only subjectively wrong"?

If not, why not?

All of our modern law and "conventional" morality boils down to a subjective sense of right or wrong.

A common consensus (which is the penultimate root of common law) remains a subjective, rather than objective judgement.


More generally speaking, why should we care what YOU think is relevant?  We did not make sacred covenants with you, and are not answerable to your interpretation of those constraints.

When I covenanted with my wife, I promised to love, honor, and cherish- in sickness and in health.  Does it truly matter to our covenant that someone else thinks such a covenant is old, archaic, or passe?

You are entitled to your opinion- but why should we consider your interpretation of what is "truly important" over the Lord's?

Should we likewise harken to the caterpillar chewing on a leaf instead of the planter and cultivator of the vineyard?

[mercyngrace]

Saints Alive, on 26 April 2012 - 06:34 PM, said:

Would you care to elaborate? I don't see the relation. Are you saying all wineries are ran / owned by evil men conspiring to do us harm? Sounds a little far fetched to me.

What would you like me to elaborate on?  You asked why we currently abstain and I gave you a reference for the "generally accepted answer" to your question. I didn't receive the revelation currently known as section 89 so I am left, as a member of the church, only with the decision of how to respond to it. IOW, I'm not saying anything about wineries or breweries or anyone else. I'm pointing you to the reason the Lord gave to Joseph Smith. Provided you accept one as God and the other as prophet, and you accept the subsequent statements by church presidents on the matter, this is what you are left with as a reason.

mercyngrace, on 26 April 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

I think the generally accepted answer comes from the preface of the WOW itself.  We don't currently drink wine owing to the "evil designs" of "conspiring men in the last days".

[cinepro]

In my experience, people who can't handle the idea of Jesus drinking wine are probably unaware of the fact that Joseph Smith continued to drink wine even after the publication of D&C 89.

[cinepro]

And while we're on the subject of Joseph Smith, can anyone explain the story of Joseph Smith's leg operation to me.  Specifically, would there have been anything wrong with Joseph having taken alcohol as an anesthetic?  If not, why is the story notable?

[selek1]

cinepro, on 26 April 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

And while we're on the subject of Joseph Smith, can anyone explain the story of Joseph Smith's leg operation to me.  Specifically, would there have been anything wrong with Joseph having taken alcohol as an anesthetic?  If not, why is the story notable?

Oh, please.  How many times have you brought up this hobby horse and feigned ignorance each time?

For the umpteenth time:
No- as a boy, Joseph was not under covenant to avoid wine or intoxicating spirits, therefore he would have committed no wrong.

Ironically, using alcohol as a makeshift anesthetic (when none other is available) would not be a violation of the Word of Wisdom today.

As to the anecdote's relevance, it's called an "insight into his character".

You might have trolled across the concept once or twice,

Edited by selek1, 26 April 2012 - 07:45 PM.