Jesus Drank Wine

[Pahoran]

I wonder if they "cleansed" the wound with wiskey first?

Depending upon the alcohol content, it would probably have made a pretty good field antiseptic.

Regards,

Pahoran

[cinepro]

Are you serious?

Yes. Even today, LDS commonly use "NyQuil", which has alcohol in it, for medicinal purposes. And obviously we avail ourselves of any medically expedient drug for anesthesia under countless circumstances (even LDS children at Primary Children's Hospital).

If there were two LDS children in 2012 undergoing leg operations, and one accepted anesthesia and the other didn't, what would that tell you about their characters?

[Jaybear]

If there were two LDS children in 2012 undergoing leg operations, and one accepted anesthesia and the other didn't, what would that tell you about their characters?

I think that would tells us more about the parents, than the children.

[volgadon]

Yes. Even today, LDS commonly use "NyQuil", which has alcohol in it, for medicinal purposes. And obviously we avail ourselves of any medically expedient drug for anesthesia under countless circumstances (even LDS children at Primary Children's Hospital).

If there were two LDS children in 2012 undergoing leg operations, and one accepted anesthesia and the other didn't, what would that tell you about their characters?

It would indicate a special strength of character of the one refusing anesthesia.

[Jaybear]

It would indicate a special strength of character of the one refusing anesthesia.

Strikes me as an example of parents indulging an irrational fear, which they probably place in the child.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Jaybear

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

It MUST be The Millenium We agree.

[Storm Rider]

This has always been an issue for me. Joseph received this revelation as a Word of Wisdom; not a requirement, not a judgment on righteousness, but a recommendation for the saints. The issue I have is that there has never been a revelation to make it more than a recommendation, yet it is now used to separate into the righteous and unrighteous (or maybe not righteous enough) to enter the temple. Without a revelation directing the Church to a certain action we are left with a policy.

The Church as always gotten into to trouble when policy is used to designate righteousness or worthiness and then used to restrict activity or participation in temple ordinances. IF something is so important as to restrict the enjoyment of the temple blessings, why wouldn't God be the author of such?

At times in my life I have been able to content myself with, "This is what the prophet asks of us today." It is strictly a temporary policy that will be done away with when Jesus returns. However, when I read the words of Jesus about not being what goes in the mouth that is a problem, the round of problems and chaffing begins anew. It is something that just stays in my craw and I have never been able to get it out.

If it is not by revelation, then don't speak, don't create a policy, don't create a new rule. Stick to revelation and all will be well in Zion.

[Zakuska]

This has always been an issue for me. Joseph received this revelation as a Word of Wisdom; not a requirement, not a judgment on righteousness, but a recommendation for the saints. The issue I have is that there has never been a revelation to make it more than a recommendation, yet it is now used to separate into the righteous and unrighteous (or maybe not righteous enough) to enter the temple. Without a revelation directing the Church to a certain action we are left with a policy.

The Church as always gotten into to trouble when policy is used to designate righteousness or worthiness and then used to restrict activity or participation in temple ordinances. IF something is so important as to restrict the enjoyment of the temple blessings, why wouldn't God be the author of such?

Which is intresting... Especially with all the Spittoons in the Salt Lake Temple.

http://family.websho...029521605abHuwf

By todays Standards J.Golden Kimball wouldn't be able to attend the temple.

At times in my life I have been able to content myself with, "This is what the prophet asks of us today." It is strictly a temporary policy that will be done away with when Jesus returns. However, when I read the words of Jesus about not being what goes in the mouth that is a problem, the round of problems and chaffing begins anew. It is something that just stays in my craw and I have never been able to get it out.

If it is not by revelation, then don't speak, don't create a policy, don't create a new rule. Stick to revelation and all will be well in Zion.

Paul sure seemed to make his own "policies" as well.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Zakuska

[Calm]

This has always been an issue for me. Joseph received this revelation as a Word of Wisdom; not a requirement, not a judgment on righteousness, but a recommendation for the saints..... Without a revelation directing the Church to a certain action we are left with a policy.

Is it not possible that Pres. Grant received a revelation that it would be wise for the Church to be moved from viewing the WoW as a personal choice to a requirement?

The Church as always gotten into to trouble when policy is used to designate righteousness or worthiness and then used to restrict activity or participation in temple ordinances.

CFR please

[Storm Rider]

Is it not possible that Pres. Grant received a revelation that it would be wise for the Church to be moved from viewing the WoW as a personal choice to a requirement?

CFR please

I really don't like talking about this topic; I have personally issues with it and I don't like to be a source that may affect others wrongly. To all readers, please remember that I am only human and this is a personal problem and nothing more.

Had Grant received a revelation then I suspect he would have announced as such; however, the way it was handled was to hearken back to the actions of an earlier apostle that committed the saints to live the standards of the WofW. In effect, he created policy out of whole cloth. When a revelation is received it is announced as such and the Brethren have never been shy about declaring a revelation.

As far as the CFR goes, I would submit the priesthood ban as example number one. No revelation just a policy that was created and had the misfortune to be carried down through the decades until a revelation was required to reverse it.

The P. ban and the WofW are the two most significant areas where the Church has created policy and both have negatively impacted the lives of individuals i.e. they have prevented individuals from entering the temple to receive the ordinances of exaltation. For me personally, this comes very, very close to unrighteous dominion.

About 25 years ago I remember teaching adult SS class where the class felt that disobeying the WofW was more heinous than breaking the law of chastity. I was so dumbfounded and at that point to the present I have had an issue with the way the Church taught the WofW, the way that it has been used to denote righteousness, and its impact on the lives of members. Please, I am not saying there have not been benefits, nor am I saying that that alcohol has not damaged the lives of thousands, millions of people, so please don't run out the plethora of examples of all the bad that alcohol as done to humanity. I am focusing solely using a policy to restrict attending the temple. It is a brick wall and no amount of research has every allowed me to call it anything but a policy.

Probably the worst thing about it, if it was really a revelation we should find a new section in the D&C to change the words of the 89th section. All I have to do is read the 89th section and I get angry at the way it is handled today.

This is one my many weaknesses and I am glad that others don't have it.

[Saints Alive]

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

“A Prophet is only a Prophet when he is acting as such” so was he speaking for himself or for the lord? BY said many things in GC that he later said was BY talking and not the Lord.

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.

Wine isn’t the same as cocaine or tobacco, there are many, many people who imbibe without becoming addicts. The whole “alcohol is addictive” line is totally blown out of proportion IMHO. Any substance can become addictive.

Call For References:

Please provide evidence for the following assertions:

"completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things "

"only subjectively wrong".

Other than not following Prophets council what effect does the reasonable and responsible consumption of alcohol (and more specifically wine) have? I say none. Since it is only (as far as I can tell) wrong because of disobedience that means that the action isn’t wrong of itself – subjectively wrong.

Is baptism "completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things"?

Nope, we all know that it has eternal consequences, and it is quite clear why.

Is the endowment "completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things"?

Nope, same as above.

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

Chastity has the consequence of bringing children into the world, outside of marriage that can have eternal consequences.

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

I never made a claim that they were.

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.

I think I have shown how some of the examples you listed have objective consequnces

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?

I didn’t ask you to care about my opinion or think it relevant, you choose to respond.

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.

Good point.

[cinepro]

It would indicate a special strength of character of the one refusing anesthesia.

It never occurred to me that "refusing anesthesia" shows "a special strength of character". Does anyone else see it this way? Has anyone here ever declined anesthesia at the dentist or other medical situation out of a desire to build character?

[Scott Lloyd]

Strikes me as an example of parents indulging an irrational fear, which they probably place in the child.

How so? As I understand the story, the parents would have permitted the administration of alcohol had Joseph himself been willing to receive it. CFR that the parents had some "irrational fear" that they were indulging and placing in the child.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

It never occurred to me that "refusing anesthesia" shows "a special strength of character". Does anyone else see it this way? Has anyone here ever declined anesthesia at the dentist or other medical situation out of a desire to build character?

I think it would depend on the situation and the effect of the drug. I was not allowed to drive myself after having been given something when my molars were removed. It would have shown strength of character if there was a need for me to drive and I was able to refuse it (I probably wouldn't, pain and me don't get along, if there is an option to go painless, I will). My understanding of how Lucy saw the story was that Joseph didn't want to lose selfcontrol and become all emotional in front of his parents, particularly her. Alcohol likely would have caused it as it wouldn't have removed all the pain unless taken to the point of knocking him out...dangerous for a child I would think, more likely it would have just removed the fear about it prior to and after the surgery, there still would have been plenty of screaming. As it was, he didn't scream having the self control to not to....which is very impressive to me.

Edited April 27, 2012 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

Had Grant received a revelation then I suspect he would have announced as such;

Maybe, but not necessarily.

... however, the way it was handled was to hearken back to the actions of an earlier apostle that committed the saints to live the standards of the WofW. In effect, he created policy out of whole cloth.

I disagree. I believe he was inspired with divine wisdom and foresight to emphasize and making binding a revelation that had previously been received. I'm confident this happens all the time among the Brethren.

When a revelation is received it is announced as such and the Brethren have never been shy about declaring a revelation.

I submit that the Brethren are in constant receipt of revelation regarding the day-to-day operation of the Church. They don't codify every such instance, nor is it necessary that they do so.

As far as the CFR goes, I would submit the priesthood ban as example number one. No revelation just a policy that was created and had the misfortune to be carried down through the decades until a revelation was required to reverse it.

This is the begging-the-question fallacy. I submit that your view about the pre-1978 policy about the priesthood stems from your misconception that every single revelation received by prophets must be written down, announced as such and codified.

[Saints Alive]

Written revelation certainly makes things more clear, especially when something (like the priesthood ban) is verbally portrayed as revelation only to later find out that it is not.

[semisonic]

I think Joseph's strength of character comes from the fact that his dad ,Sr, had a problem with alcohol and that Joseph didn't want to partake of said problem or experience like his father. Not sure if this is why Joseph refused or not, but could be why it shows strength of character

[Scott Lloyd]

Written revelation certainly makes things more clear, especially when something (like the priesthood ban) is verbally portrayed as revelation only to later find out that it is not.

I don't believe it can be positively known at this juncture that the priesthood ban was not revelation.

[semisonic]

About the priesthood ban, evidence's point, imo, that is was more so a mistaken policy by Brigham Young and not revelation taking into consideration the context of things of when he started preaching it, and Joseph having given the priesthood to such as Elijah Abel etc... Elder Holland was asked last month about priesthood authority and blacks and the priesthood in one long question when he was speaking at Harvard in the Q&A session.....his response indicates that they are called men of god but they are human and make mistakes(in a nutshell) Listen to it:

http://broadcast2.lds.org/newsroom/2012-03-0260-elder-holland-harvard-qanda-64k-eng.mp3

interesting response. Of course Elder's Holland's response might just be his opinion.

[Scott Lloyd]

About the priesthood ban, evidence's point, imo, that is was more so a mistaken policy by Brigham Young and not revelation taking into consideration the context of things of when he started preaching it, and Joseph having given the priesthood to such as Elijah Abel etc... Elder Holland was asked last month about priesthood authority and blacks and the priesthood in one long question when he was speaking at Harvard in the Q&A session.....his response indicates that they are called men of god but they are human and make mistakes(in a nutshell) Listen to it:

http://broadcast2.lds.org/newsroom/2012-03-0260-elder-holland-harvard-qanda-64k-eng.mp3

interesting response. Of course Elder's Holland's response might just be his opinion.

Thank you for posting this very interesting session.

In responding, I'm somewhat hindered by the fact that the question to which you refer was not audible on the recording, so I have only Elder Holland's response to go by.

I note, first off, that he did not say anything that, to a knowledgeable Latter-day Saint, would seem particularly new or startling; we have always acknowledged that prophets and apostles have human failings. Nor did he refer specifically to the question of blacks and the priesthood, and he most definitely did not acknowledge or identify errancy in the pre-1978 policy.

The Church in the past, and in a statement very recently, has disavowed misguided conjecture, by Church leaders and others, to try to explain the mind of God with regard to the policy when they did not possess the knowledge to make such an explanation. But I believe in doing that, the Brethren have gone as far as they feel they can properly go. That is, they have not repudiated the policy itself or said that it was not God-directed, stating only that the reasons for it are unknown.

[Mark Beesley]

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)

Can you think of a time in the history of the world where wine and other alcoholic beverages were mass produced and marketed like they are today?

Can you think of a time in the history of the world where it was more dangerous not to have complete control of one's faculties as it is today? (Think in terms of drunk drivers, sexually transmitted diseases, and the proliferation of guns..)

I think the Lord recognized the dangers we were going to be facing in the 20th and 21st Centuries and knew that alcohol wasn't going to be much help in getting through safely. But, that's just my opinion.

[semisonic]

He was asked about blacks in the priesthood and be it as it may he address the "human" failings of church leaders in response to the questions a part of his answer.......you can interpret that as you may as that was Elder Holland's intent i believe in his answer.

[Ryan.Samples]

Maybe, but not necessarily.

I disagree. I believe he was inspired with divine wisdom and foresight to emphasize and making binding a revelation that had previously been received. I'm confident this happens all the time among the Brethren.

I submit that the Brethren are in constant receipt of revelation regarding the day-to-day operation of the Church. They don't codify every such instance, nor is it necessary that they do so.

This is the begging-the-question fallacy. I submit that your view about the pre-1978 policy about the priesthood stems from your misconception that every single revelation received by prophets must be written down, announced as such and codified.

This exchange represents the problem that, in my experience, many non-Mormons have with LDS teachings. Did God say to do something or not? If the original revelation indicates it isn't a commandment, then it isn't a commandment. If someone comes along and then declares it is a commandment, then shouldn't the words of that new guy become part of canon? If the new Grant revelation is binding, why isn't it codified? If--as I read in another thread recently--the canonized standard works hold authority / precedence over all other utterances, then wouldn't we need to have the commandment canonized?

I have long asserted that in order to truly know what the church both teaches now and has taught in the past, one has to sift through every General Conference talk, every sermon, every Ensign article, to find out what God is purportedly saying. If I have to look outside the standard works to find the commandment for the Word of Wisdom, on how many other topics does the faithful saint or diligent researcher have to likewise look outside the standard works?

Are you picking up what I'm putting down?

[Scott Lloyd]

He was asked about blacks in the priesthood and be it as it may he address the "human" failings of church leaders in response to the questions a part of his answer.......you can interpret that as you may as that was Elder Holland's intent i believe in his answer.

Without being able to hear the wording of what you've acknowledged was a long (and was perhaps a rambling) question, I am unwilling to concede that Elder Holland was applying his response specifically to the pre-1978 policy or that he meant it to imply the policy itself was other than God-directed.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Ryan.Samples]

Can you think of a time in the history of the world where wine and other alcoholic beverages were mass produced and marketed like they are today?

Can you think of a time in the history of the world where it was more dangerous not to have complete control of one's faculties as it is today? (Think in terms of drunk drivers, sexually transmitted diseases, and the proliferation of guns..)

I think the Lord recognized the dangers we were going to be facing in the 20th and 21st Centuries and knew that alcohol wasn't going to be much help in getting through safely. But, that's just my opinion.

Does this position amount to Pharasic hedging? My alma mater (Liberty University) prohibits its undergraduates from attending dances and prohibits all students of any level and all faculty / staff to abstain from alcohol. I still can't get a good explanation for either restriction, since apparently neither Jesus nor Martin Luther could work at the school. That notion amuses me, I must confess.