Moderate Alcohol Consumption

[thesometimesaint]

Ray Callis Hatton III:

The reason for not putting new wine into old bottles. As fermentation takes place the bottle already having been stressed from the previous wine will burst. Homemade Root Beer will do the same.

The yeast does not have to come from a previous use. It occurs quite naturally on the skin of grapes, and in the air. Crush the grapes, and there is plenty of wild yeast on the grapes, and in the air to ferment it. The reason for putting cultured yeast into the crush is then the cultured yeast will overwhelm the wild. Wild yeasts will give an off taste to wine, assuming it is safe to drink.

Before the advent of modern refrigeration, and canning, there was really only four things that can be done with grapes. Eat them raw, make raisins, make vinegar, make wine. Boiling it will not significantly preserve it as that simply concentrates the sugars, not so good for yeasts, but excellent for molds, and bugs unless used quickly.

[krose]

If a prophet "clarifies" doctrine, such as it is written in the D&C, then I consider the clarification doctrine as well. What else could it mean?

I take it, then, that you believe that the denial of the priesthood to African blacks, which was a clarification of the "curse" mentioned in Abraham 1, was official doctrine until it was reversed in 1978? It was not a mistaken view or interpretation, but the revealed will of God until he changed his mind?

[Ray Callis Hatton III]

False, there is a fifth product that was drank as a beverage that was widely known for centuries in the Near East and Mediterranean countries and commonly also called "wine" and is described as being non-alcoholic. This beverage is known as "vino cotto" in Italian, "vin cuit" in French, "nardenk" in Syriac and "dibs" in Arabic. Greeks just call it "oinos", or wine.

Aristotle in his book Metereologica, he clearly refers to a boiled grape juice as some of the kinds of wine : "For some kinds of wine [oinos], for example must [gleukos], solidify when boiled." Later in the book "though called wine [oinos], it has not the effect of wine, for it does taste like wine and does not intoxicate like ordinary wine."

In this text Aristotle explicitly informs us of an unfermented grape product he called "wine." It did have the taste but not the intoxicating effect of ordinary wine.

Athenaeus, the Grammarian, explains in his Banquet that he recommends unfermented wine (glukus): "Let him take sweet wine, either mixed with water or warmed, especially that kind called protropos, the sweet glukus, as being good for the stomach; for sweet wine [oinos] does not make the head heavy."

Note: the unfermented wine here was recommended for stomach problems. Considering the meaning of Paul's recommendation to Timothy to "use a little wine for the sake of your stomach" (1 Tim 5:23).

In New Testament times, dibs were mixed with water and were drunk. The later practice of Catholics to mix their wine with water might be related to the use of dibs. Might there be a symbolic reason why dibs would be used? Both blood and water were poured in the cup of Christ at the cross. John recorded that, "one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water" (John 19:34).

Impossible?

[captain-jack]

I take it, then, that you believe that the denial of the priesthood to African blacks, which was a clarification of the "curse" mentioned in Abraham 1, was official doctrine until it was reversed in 1978? It was not a mistaken view or interpretation, but the revealed will of God until he changed his mind?

In spite of Joseph Smith giving priesthood to a few black people? I think that God allowed it because too many people would falter and fight against the church. I do not believe God was wrong on the matter, simply allowing the short comings of his followers for a time until they were ready to accept the truth that any worthy man can and should have the priesthood.

[Scott Lloyd]

You chose to disparage science's ability to evaluate your dogma ...

I wouldn't have expected Daniel to let this one get by, but since I don't see a reply from him, I'll have a shot at it.

I re-read Daniel's opening post. If he chose to "disparage" anything, it was the propensity of secularist anti-Mormons and ex-Mormons to try to apply certain studies in their own efforts to bash Mormonism as pertaining to the Word of Wisdom. If anything, Daniel himself was using science (i.e. a recent British study) to debunk the attacks of said anti-Mormons and ex-Mormons.