Jesus Drank Wine

[Scott Lloyd]

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?

The fact that prophets and apostles as a unified body over a long period of time have continuously sustained the efficacy of President Grant's action is enough for me to conclude that he was indeed acting under divine revelation.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Ryan.Samples]

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.

Sorry, I haven't figured out how to edit (can't edit?) my posts. The school clearly doesn't prohibit the act of abstaining from alcoholic beverages. "That don't make no sense."

[Scott Lloyd]

Does this position amount to Pharasic hedging?

Not to me. In fact it makes a great deal of sense.

[Ryan.Samples]

The fact that prophets and apostles over a long period of time have continuously sustained the efficacy of President Grant's action is enough for me to conclude that he was indeed acting under divine revelation.

Does that not lead down the path to consensus revelation? We all decide it is true, we sustain it is true, so it is true. Adultery is a sin only until a) someone says it is now okay and b) lots of people agree with the new interpretation or application. That seems a slippery slope to me.

[Ryan.Samples]

Not to me. In fact it makes a great deal of sense.

"You shouldn't use the Interwebz because there are pornographic images scattered about there. In order to ensure you don't view them, you must never use the Internet." See what I did there?

[Scott Lloyd]

Does that not lead down the path to consensus revelation? We all decide it is true, we sustain it is true, so it is true. Adultery is a sin only until a) someone says it is now okay and b) lots of people agree with the new interpretation or application. That seems a slippery slope to me.

If a lifetime of Church membership, I've never observed anything among its leading councils to indicate the position on the Word of Wisdom is of the nature of a consensus, but rather total and absolute unanimity.

[Scott Lloyd]

"You shouldn't use the Interwebz because there are pornographic images scattered about there. In order to ensure you don't view them, you must never use the Internet." See what I did there?

The analogy breaks down in that there is a great propensity for value and good in the Internet. Today, it is virtually indispensible. The same cannot be said for the substances prohibited under the Word of Wisdom. People can live quite well -- even thrive -- without them.

[Ryan.Samples]

The analogy breaks down in that there is a great propensity for value and good in the Internet. Today, it is virtually indispensible. The same cannot be said for the substances prohibited under the Word of Wisdom. People can live quite well -- even thrive -- without them.

No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments. -I Tim 5:23

It would seem God and Paul disagree with you about alcohol's usefulness.

Furthermore, people can live quite well and thrive without the Internet. They did it for a long time before Al Gore came along.

[Scott Lloyd]

No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments. -I Tim 5:23

It would seem God and Paul disagree with you about alcohol's usefulness.

Mark Beesley (above) gave a good summary of how conditions today are substantially different than in Bible times.

It was God who gave the commandment to today's apostles and prophets to convey the Word of Wisdom. Ergo, if Paul were alive today and held the position of apostle, I have every reason to believe his teachings would coincide with those of other apostles of today.

Furthermore, people can live quite well and thrive without the Internet. They did it for a long time before Al Gore came along.

It's debatable that they can thrive. I shudder to think how hindered my children would be in school today were it not for the Internet.

But at any rate, there is immense value and good that comes from the Internet. I don't see a great deal of indispensable good coming from the non-medicinal consumption of alcohol, tobacco, coffee or tea.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[mercyngrace]

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 don't see refusing anesthesia as revealing a strength of character but I did refuse it and gave birth three times "naturally". I made the choice out of a reasonable fear that the medication would depress the breathing of my already prematurely arriving offspring. It was pure maternal instinct and had nothing to do with building character.

Edited April 27, 2012 by mercyngrace

[Saints Alive]

But at any rate, there is immense value and good that comes from the Internet. I don't see a great deal of indispensable good coming from the non-medicinal consumption of alcohol, tobacco, coffee or tea.

There is a good body of evidence that suggest red wine is very beneficial to the health of the heart. Some evidence has also suggested that antioxidants in coffee might be beneficial. I got nothing for tobacco though.

[Saints Alive]

I don't see refusing anesthesia as revealing a strength of character but I did refuse it and gave birth three times "naturally". I made the choice out of a reasonable fear that the medication would depress the breathing of my already prematurely arriving offspring. It was pure maternal instinct and had nothing to do with building character.

there is a world of difference between the natural process of birth and the unnatural process of removing bone.

[ERayR]

There is a good body of evidence that suggest red wine is very beneficial to the health of the heart. Some evidence has also suggested that antioxidants in coffee might be beneficial. I got nothing for tobacco though.

There is evidence of some benefits but that has to be weighed against the known harmful effects.

[Calm]

There is a good body of evidence that suggest red wine is very beneficial to the health of the heart. Some evidence has also suggested that antioxidants in coffee might be beneficial. I got nothing for tobacco though.

But one can get the same benefits from other foods without the same costs.

[Saints Alive]

But one can get the same benefits from other foods without the same costs.

CFR that you can get the same benefits as wine from other foods.

[Stargazer]

No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments. -I Tim 5:23

It would seem God and Paul disagree with you about alcohol's usefulness.

Furthermore, people can live quite well and thrive without the Internet. They did it for a long time before Al Gore came along.

Red wine apparently contains substances which are actually beneficial to health. But is it the wine, or more to the point you're tossing out there, the alcohol, or is it the other factors in the grape juice it originated as? If Paul's advice were about the alcohol, as you've suggested here, then Everclear would be your libation of choice, not water. You'd best be careful with that, however; I've tried it -- and let me tell you, whoa!

People can live quite well without automobiles, too. They did it for a long time before Henry Ford came along. Just ask the Amish.

[Saints Alive]

Red wine apparently contains substances which are actually beneficial to health. But is it the wine, or more to the point you're tossing out there, the alcohol, or is it the other factors in the grape juice it originated as? If Paul's advice were about the alcohol, as you've suggested here, then Everclear would be your libation of choice, not water. You'd best be careful with that, however; I've tried it -- and let me tell you, whoa!

People can live quite well without automobiles, too. They did it for a long time before Henry Ford came along. Just ask the Amish.

not nessisarily true, fermentation changes the chemical properties of the grape juice so you don't get the same properties.

[selek1]

“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.

And Young was just as quick to correct himself when he overstepped his grounds.

Has President Grant or the Church attempted to "walk back" this requirement?

Have they stated that it is merely "policy"?

No- so why do you assume it to be the case without evidence to corroborate that assumption?

Wine isn’t the same as cocaine or tobacco, there are many, many people who imbibe without becoming addicts.

There are many people who smoke without becoming addicts and who marijauna without becoming addicted.

That doesn't make such actions right.

The whole “alcohol is addictive” line is totally blown out of proportion IMHO. Any substance can become addictive.

I agree. You should stop trying to use it as an excuse to move the goalpost.Also (and I'm channeling both our mothers here) "If your friends jump off a cliff, would you jump, too?"

It matters not that Cinepro and the rest of the Pomp of Babylon insist that "Hey, it won't hurt you. If it feels good do it. It's just a silly and meaningless restriction by tee-totaling old white men."

It matters only that you as a Latter-day Saint have made that covenant with the Lord.

As a faithful Saint, you have only two choices: you either keep the covenants you freely made or you attempt to rationalize backsliding from those covenants."

There is no third alternative.

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.

I agree. Drinking wine- in and of itself- is only a subjective wrong.

Disobedience to the covenants you have made, however, has lasting eternal consequences- no matter how you and the other barracks-lawyers try to pretend otherwise.

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

And yet the act of baptism itself is wholly arbitrary and utterly meaningless. Getting dunked has no effect except when it is endowed with meaning by Priesthood authority and eternal commandment.

The covenant to abstain from alcohol is no different.

The endowment is no different. It is a set of meaningless gestures and half-ludicrous sybology without eternal effect or consequence- until it is endowed by meaning through the covenants we make and keep with God.

The Word of Wisdom is exactly the same thing. However silly, foolish, or outdated the Pomp of Babylon may declare it to be, it is a meaningless restriction- right up until the moment it is endowed with power and authority through the covenants we have made with God.

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

So- in your mind, fooling around is okay so long as one or both partners are infertile? Homosexual fornication and beastiality are hunky-dory because there's no chance of bringing children into the world?

Sounds like a might subjective standard you've got there.

Or might it be instead (and as the Church teaches) that the procreative powers are sacred and not to be defiled for mere carnal indulgence?

That being the case, can't the same be said of your body-as-a-temple? Might it be- as someone else suggested earlier- that we are covenented to avoid alcohol not because it is intrinsically evil, but because we (as living Temples to the Lord) are held to higher standarnds of purity and consecration?

I never made a claim that they were.

No- but you raised the issue of objective versus subjective wrongs.

And in certain cultures and religious faiths, bearing false witness- and even murder (under certain circumstances)- against the faithless is not only right, but a religious duty with eternal consequences.

"Your religion-versus-my-religion" is, of course, the ultimate subjective judgement, is it not?

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

The operative words being "I think".

What you have not shown is what was asked of you- substantiation of your claim that violating the covenants and imbibing did not have eternal consequences.

You have failed utterly in that regard.

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

And the Pharisees didn't ask Christ to care about their opinions, either. He merely chose to respond when they tried to entrap and mislead the Saints with false doctrine.

[Mark Beesley]

Does this position amount to Pharasic hedging?

No, because it is not the creation of rules and practices to guard against inadvertant violation of the law. The law is don't drink, etc. This law is not don't get in a car accident, don't get STDs, don't accidentally shoot yourself in the foot.

My post was simply speculation as to what the Lord may have been protecting against, but it was speculation on my part. Now, if you want to say the Lord engages in Pharisaic hedging, be my guest.

[Saints Alive]

And Young was just as quick to correct himself when he overstepped his grounds.

Has President Grant or the Church attempted to "walk back" this requirement?

Have they stated that it is merely "policy"?

No- so why do you assume it to be the case without evidence to corroborate that assumption?

There are many people who smoke without becoming addicts and who marijauna without becoming addicted.

That doesn't make such actions right.

I agree. You should stop trying to use it as an excuse to move the goalpost.Also (and I'm channeling both our mothers here) "If your friends jump off a cliff, would you jump, too?"

It matters not that Cinepro and the rest of the Pomp of Babylon insist that "Hey, it won't hurt you. If it feels good do it. It's just a silly and meaningless restriction by tee-totaling old white men."

It matters only that you as a Latter-day Saint have made that covenant with the Lord.

As a faithful Saint, you have only two choices: you either keep the covenants you freely made or you attempt to rationalize backsliding from those covenants."

There is no third alternative.

I agree. Drinking wine- in and of itself- is only a subjective wrong.

Disobedience to the covenants you have made, however, has lasting eternal consequences- no matter how you and the other barracks-lawyers try to pretend otherwise.

And yet the act of baptism itself is wholly arbitrary and utterly meaningless. Getting dunked has no effect except when it is endowed with meaning by Priesthood authority and eternal commandment.

The covenant to abstain from alcohol is no different.

The endowment is no different. It is a set of meaningless gestures and half-ludicrous sybology without eternal effect or consequence- until it is endowed by meaning through the covenants we make and keep with God.

The Word of Wisdom is exactly the same thing. However silly, foolish, or outdated the Pomp of Babylon may declare it to be, it is a meaningless restriction- right up until the moment it is endowed with power and authority through the covenants we have made with God.

So- in your mind, fooling around is okay so long as one or both partners are infertile? Homosexual fornication and beastiality are hunky-dory because there's no chance of bringing children into the world?

Sounds like a might subjective standard you've got there.

Or might it be instead (and as the Church teaches) that the procreative powers are sacred and not to be defiled for mere carnal indulgence?

That being the case, can't the same be said of your body-as-a-temple? Might it be- as someone else suggested earlier- that we are covenented to avoid alcohol not because it is intrinsically evil, but because we (as living Temples to the Lord) are held to higher standarnds of purity and consecration?

No- but you raised the issue of objective versus subjective wrongs.

And in certain cultures and religious faiths, bearing false witness- and even murder (under certain circumstances)- against the faithless is not only right, but a religious duty with eternal consequences.

"Your religion-versus-my-religion" is, of course, the ultimate subjective judgement, is it not?

The operative words being "I think".

What you have not shown is what was asked of you- substantiation of your claim that violating the covenants and imbibing did not have eternal consequences.

You have failed utterly in that regard.

And the Pharisees didn't ask Christ to care about their opinions, either. He merely chose to respond when they tried to entrap and mislead the Saints with false doctrine.

I think your totally misreading this post, I'm not advocating breaking the word of wisdom. I do think it is useful to ask why though. As for your CFR I did answer it if you don't like the answer to bad.

[Stargazer]

not nessisarily true, fermentation changes the chemical properties of the grape juice so you don't get the same properties.

Yes, and in an effort to not be speaking from ignorance I did a little Wikipedia research on this and find all kinds of interesting things. I'd say it is worth posting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine#Health_effects

A part of this I reproduce here:

A chemical in red wine called resveratrol has been shown to have both cardioprotective and chemoprotective effects in animal studies Low doses of resveratrol in the diet of middle-aged mice has a widespread influence on the genetic levers of aging and may confer special protection on the heart. Specifically, low doses of resveratrol mimic the effects of what is known as caloric restriction—diets with 20–30 percent fewer calories than a typical diet. Resveratrol is produced naturally by grape skins in response to fungal infection, including exposure to yeast during fermentation. As white wine has minimal contact with grape skins during this process, it generally contains lower levels of the chemical. Other beneficial compounds in wine include other polyphenols, antioxidants, and flavonoids.

To fully get the benefits of resveratrol in wines, it is recommended to sip slowly when drinking wines. Due to inactivation in the gut and liver, most of the resveratrol in imbibed red wine does not reach the blood circulation. However, when sipping slowly, absorption via the mucous membranes in the mouth can result in up to around 100 times the blood levels of resveratrol.

Red wines from the south of France and from Sardinia in Italy have been found to have the highest levels of procyanidins, which are compounds in grape seeds suspected to be responsible for red wine's heart benefits. Red wines from these areas have between two and four times as much procyanidins as other red wines. Procyanidins suppress the synthesis of a peptide called endothelin-1 that constricts blood vessels.

I was intrigued about the resveratrol, especially since it is normally not present until the grape skin has been subjected to a fungal infection! Apparently, some sort of defense mechanism of the grape. Note that swallowing the wine doesn't gain you much from the resveratrol; it is contact with mucus membranes in the mouth that brings absorption. So you could gargle your wine and get resveratrol that way, without swallowing it. In the article on resveratrol proper, it is said that the actual amounts of resveratrol in red wine is very low. Here's a site that sells it: http://www.wholehealth.com/vitamins-supplements/resveratrol. A Google or Bing search will show many more.

The polyphenols in red wine I am sure can be obtained from other sources, too.

HOWEVER, I will note that statistical studies of the population of Utah (known to be heavily LDS) suggests that following the Word of Wisdom, even at the "price" of not getting your resveratrol, has its own benefits.

As to the procyanidins mentioned in the third paragraph above, you can find those here: http://www.cybercie.com/keyword-procyanidin/cat-150/offers.html?c=2300205&gclid=CN_k_eiU1q8CFQ4zhwodfzxUCw Given that this source appears to be from cinnamon, it appears that eating cinnamon toast in the morning from time to time will provide with this biochemical.

I bet that most if not all of the interesting nutrients in red wine can likewise be found elsewhere, as you CFR'd someone else.

[selek1]

I think your totally misreading this post, I'm not advocating breaking the word of wisdom.

You have consistently argued that it is silly, arbitrary, serves no purpose, and has no scriptural or doctrinal validity.

If that's not advocacy for breaking or doing away with it, then we must redefine the terms.

I do think it is useful to ask why though.

If that were your sole motivation, you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss and attempt to undermine the valid reasons already offered.

In every case where someone explained "why", your response was a variation on, "Yeah, but..."

As for your CFR I did answer it if you don't like the answer to bad.

You did not- you simple resorted to a Sesame Street-level game of "Some of these things are not like the others."

You did not support the assertion you made- namely that imbibing alcohol in contradiction of the Word of Wisdom had no eternal consequences..

I will, however, take the desperate handwaving as a conscession that you cannot support it.

Thank you for playing.

Edited April 27, 2012 by selek1

[Calm]

CFR that you can get the same benefits as wine from other foods.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/food-and-nutrition/AN00576

You need to remember that you can get the same benefit from different antioxidants, one doesn't have to have the identical chemical.

[Calm]

I bet that most if not all of the interesting nutrients in red wine can likewise be found elsewhere, as you CFR'd someone else.

Or other nutrients with the same benefits without the costs. One can even get most of them in a pill form.

Neither the American Heart Association nor the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute recommend that you start drinking alcohol just to prevent heart disease. Alcohol can be addictive and can cause or worsen other health problems.

Drinking too much increases your risk of high blood pressure, high triglycerides, liver damage, obesity, certain types of cancer, accidents and other problems. In addition, drinking too much alcohol regularly can cause cardiomyopathy — weakened heart muscle — causing symptoms of heart failure in some people. If you have heart failure or a weak heart, you should avoid alcohol completely. If you take aspirin daily, you should avoid or limit alcohol, depending on your doctor's advice. You also shouldn't drink alcohol if you're pregnant. If you have questions about the benefits and risks of alcohol, talk to your doctor about specific recommendations for you.

http://www.mayoclini...NSECTIONGROUP=2

Edited April 27, 2012 by calmoriah

[volgadon]

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.

But far from all addictive substances have the same far-reaching social and personal consequences that alcohol does.