Truth Or Spin.

[dirtius maximus]

*TO BE CLEAR, I am not promoting that anyone engage in behaviours herein. I only wish to discuss the matter of spinning an issue whether from the Church side or from outside the Church directed at the Church.

I happened across a few videos about one couples struggle with something. The man stated that the Church creates the problem by telling people how they should feel when they learn this particular thing has happened. The wife seemed to agree. I discussed with someone of the opposite gender the topic of the "webisodes" a few weeks ago. Our consensus was that outside of the Church people engage in this activity and those peoples lives are not consumed or ruined by the activity. So given that discussion and the video I found I started to wonder if there is any truth to what the man in the video said. Or is it just a spin from him. And does the Church spin an issue or only focus on the extreme of an issue? Is there anything wrong with spinning an issue. I could spin water to make it appear bad (a city in california came very close to banning water because of the spin they received i.e. dihydrogen monoxide is the primary ingredient to pesticides, kills X number of children a year, etc.) It does seem that some things are taught in the extreme. And only the negative extreme is focused on in some cases

"For the Strenght of Youth" (FSY)

Never lower your dress standards for any occasion. Doing so sends the message that you are using your body to get attention and approval and that modesty is important only when it is convenient.

Is someone who wears a dress with no back or thin or non-existant shoulder straps using their body to get attention? Or could someone just feel "beauty" to themself in said dress and not want any outside attention at all? Is a "tankini" a lowering of standards?

Also, do not drink coffee or tea, for these are addictive and harmful. Any form of alcohol is harmful to your body and spirit. Being under the influence of alcohol weakens your judgment and self-control and could lead you to break the law of chastity or other commandments. Drinking can lead to alcoholism, which destroys individuals and families.

Is alcohol always harmful? And how many persons who drink alcohol in any amount become alcoholics?

Another issue, sort of related, is that I have read that at one point in the history of BYU ball room dancing was a big no-no (of course I don't know reliable a SLTRIB commentary is), but now they have renouned ball room dancing program (when I considered BYU, I only said "I would go to BYU only for the ball room dancing so I could meet pretty girls.") I didn't go to BYU and I don't dance but I still meet a pretty girl.

Some of the information from FSY I would say can rightly be said definatively, for example the several times "it offends the Spirit" or similar statements. I would say that the Prophet and Apostles could know with an surety. And that in all cases, vulgarity offends the Spirit.

[CV75]

*TO BE CLEAR, I am not promoting that anyone engage in behaviours herein. I only wish to discuss the matter of spinning an issue whether from the Church side or from outside the Church directed at the Church.

Please provide an example of how teenage immodesty and drinking would be spun in a positive manner.

One cannot lower his standards without sending a message about those standards or suffering from potential harmful effects.

God has the correct point of view, and places the emphasis and provides the interpretation according to our need. I think "spin" is not an accurate way of characterizing the principle of "line upon line..." The FSY is more in line with teaching the truth than spinning a point of view to gain acceptance of its being truthful, whether it is or not.

[frankenstein]

doesn't seem that is what is being asked

Edited June 5, 2011 by frankenstein

[Deborah]

Is someone who wears a dress with no back or thin or non-existant shoulder straps using their body to get attention? Or could someone just feel "beauty" to themself in said dress and not want any outside attention at all? Is a "tankini" a lowering of standards?

If a girl is wearing such a dress it is either to get attention or approval for being "in." I think our young women need to set a higher standard rather than follow the standard they are bombarded with. Many immodest dresses can be made modest with the new thin shirts which fill in the gaps.

Is alcohol always harmful? And how many persons who drink alcohol in any amount become alcoholics?

Of course alcohol isn't in and of itself harmful. It's the abuse that is. However, it has been shown that certain people have a tendency toward addiction and one may not know he has this propensity until he does something. Therefore the advice to avoid it altogether is prudent in today's world. Common sense would tell us this doesn't apply to the minimal amounts in medicines.

Many years ago when my son was a teenager he and all his church friends were swept up in the drug epidemic that ran through our stake. Before it was time to get ready for a mission he kicked himself and got straightened out but unfortunately his friends continued in their addiction. I asked him later how he got into the drugs as he wasn't a follower. He said he led his friends into it. He had wanted to see what it was like and his friends followed. He was able to cold turkey but his friends weren't, a thing which he came to regret.

Another issue, sort of related, is that I have read that at one point in the history of BYU ball room dancing was a big no-no

It must have been some time ago because I took a class in ballroom dancing at BYU in the sixties. I hated it because they were always short of boys and because I was tall I had to be the boy. And young men wondered later why I always tried to lead.

[ERayR]

*TO BE CLEAR, I am not promoting that anyone engage in behaviours herein. I only wish to discuss the matter of spinning an issue whether from the Church side or from outside the Church directed at the Church.

I happened across a few videos about one couples struggle with something. The man stated that the Church creates the problem by telling people how they should feel when they learn this particular thing has happened. The wife seemed to agree. I discussed with someone of the opposite gender the topic of the "webisodes" a few weeks ago. Our consensus was that outside of the Church people engage in this activity and those peoples lives are not consumed or ruined by the activity. So given that discussion and the video I found I started to wonder if there is any truth to what the man in the video said. Or is it just a spin from him. And does the Church spin an issue or only focus on the extreme of an issue? Is there anything wrong with spinning an issue. I could spin water to make it appear bad (a city in california came very close to banning water because of the spin they received i.e. dihydrogen monoxide is the primary ingredient to pesticides, kills X number of children a year, etc.) It does seem that some things are taught in the extreme. And only the negative extreme is focused on in some cases

For someone who disagrees anything they read is most often interpreted as spin.

"For the Strenght of Youth" (FSY)

Is someone who wears a dress with no back or thin or non-existant shoulder straps using their body to get attention? Or could someone just feel "beauty" to themself in said dress and not want any outside attention at all? Is a "tankini" a lowering of standards?

It depends on what your standards are. If they are modesty of dress I would say yes they are.

Is alcohol always harmful? And how many persons who drink alcohol in any amount become alcoholics?

Well it is harmful to brain cells. If it is your child who might be predisposed to become an alcoholic do you want to take that chance? When one refrains from partaking of alochol you remove any chance of becoming an alcoholic.

Another issue, sort of related, is that I have read that at one point in the history of BYU ball room dancing was a big no-no (of course I don't know reliable a SLTRIB commentary is), but now they have renouned ball room dancing program (when I considered BYU, I only said "I would go to BYU only for the ball room dancing so I could meet pretty girls.") I didn't go to BYU and I don't dance but I still meet a pretty girl.

This I don't know for sure but I am inclined to disbelieve as the church held dances from the beginning. Also dancing was a nightly occurance on some companies as they came west.

Some of the information from FSY I would say can rightly be said definatively, for example the several times "it offends the Spirit" or similar statements. I would say that the Prophet and Apostles could know with an surety. And that in all cases, vulgarity offends the Spirit.

Edited June 5, 2011 by ERayR

[CV75]

doesn't seem that is what is being asked

Do you mean the specific lines before the question marks?

Is someone who wears a dress with no back or thin or non-existant shoulder straps using their body to get attention? Yes, as one purpose of clothing is to gain attention for a statement, especially after reading FSY. Or could someone just feel "beauty" to themself in said dress and not want any outside attention at all? Yes, and self-attention is just as bad as gaining attention from others when it is facilitated by immodesty. Is a "tankini" a lowering of standards? Yes, if it is worn as a dress.

Is alcohol always harmful? Yes, it always kills something (brain cells, skin cells, bacteria, etc.). And how many persons who drink alcohol in any amount become alcoholics? According to the WHO, currently some 76 millions worldwide, with those beginning drinking as teenagers more likely to become alcoholic.

[dirtius maximus]

Deborah thank your for your response. "Common sense would tell us this doesn't apply to the minimal amounts in medicines." ErayE would seem to disagree with you "Well it is harmful to brain cells."

As it reads "any form" would include medicine. But if the statement is not mean to be so absolute, why not just say "Alcohol can harm your body". Better yet, why even make up reasons, just say "The Lord has commanded us to refrain from alcohol". Also as it reads, it would seem that yes, alcohol is always harmful to the body.

As for the modesty statement.

Consider bathing suits, I wear a speedo when swimming, I use to wear shorts that went to the top of my knee, I find those impractical now that I have wore a speedo. A speedo dries quickly, doesn't drip water every where like cotton blend long shorts. I don't wear a speedo for attention I wear one for piratical purposes. I just don't believe there are many statements about individual behaviour that can be so absolute, or a stated in such a way to appear absolute. A person is wearing something that LDS do not approve of, whether it is a woman wearing a pant suit or feminine slacks to Church, or a woman wearing a sleeveless top that leaves the shoulders exposed, it seems rather wrongly judgmental to say a person wearing something is wearing something for one reason and one reason only.

For me there are times when absolute statements are correct and there are times when absolute statements are not correct. I think that the FSY has both.

Edited June 5, 2011 by dirtius maximus

[Deborah]

For me there are times when absolute statements are correct and there are times when absolute statements are not correct. I think that the FSY has both.

But since FSY is directed to youth, I think absolutes are more in keeping with the intended audience. Young people think more in terms of black and white and may not have the experience to understand the shades of grey. If they have questions they should be asking their parents.

[Deborah]

"Common sense would tell us this doesn't apply to the minimal amounts in medicines." ErayE would seem to disagree with you "Well it is harmful to brain cells."

And for still developing brains that is the case. Have you heard of fetal alcohol syndrome? It's brain damage from a pregnant mother drinking alcohol and causes permanent damage. That is why parents need to dispense medicines, particularly those with strong solutions. No teen or below should be drinking alcohol.

[ERayR]

Deborah thank your for your response. "Common sense would tell us this doesn't apply to the minimal amounts in medicines." ErayE would seem to disagree with you "Well it is harmful to brain cells."

Please quit speaking for me. Your question was "Is alcohol always harmful"? I was merely drawing attention that alcohol kills brain cells. I placed no judgement but made the statement only to draw your attention to that fact. I suppose it all depends on whether you have any brain cells to spare.

Common sense would tell you there are times when the benefits outweigh the consequences, as in medicines.

Edited June 6, 2011 by ERayR

[Vanguard]

*TO BE CLEAR, I am not promoting that anyone engage in behaviours herein. I only wish to discuss the matter of spinning an issue whether from the Church side or from outside the Church directed at the Church.

I happened across a few videos about one couples struggle with something. The man stated that the Church creates the problem by telling people how they should feel when they learn this particular thing has happened. The wife seemed to agree. I discussed with someone of the opposite gender the topic of the "webisodes" a few weeks ago. Our consensus was that outside of the Church people engage in this activity and those peoples lives are not consumed or ruined by the activity. So given that discussion and the video I found I started to wonder if there is any truth to what the man in the video said. Or is it just a spin from him. And does the Church spin an issue or only focus on the extreme of an issue? Is there anything wrong with spinning an issue. I could spin water to make it appear bad (a city in california came very close to banning water because of the spin they received i.e. dihydrogen monoxide is the primary ingredient to pesticides, kills X number of children a year, etc.) It does seem that some things are taught in the extreme. And only the negative extreme is focused on in some cases.

"For the Strenght of Youth" (FSY):

Never lower your dress standards for any occasion. Doing so sends the message that you are using your body to get attention and approval and that modesty is important only when it is convenient.

Is someone who wears a dress with no back or thin or non-existant shoulder straps using their body to get attention? Or could someone just feel "beauty" to themself in said dress and not want any outside attention at all? Is a "tankini" a lowering of standards?

Generally speaking, what does our own society say about these standards? What is considered the norm? C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity said, "Thus, while the rule of chastity is the same for all Christians at all times, the rule of propriety changes. A girl in the Pacific Islands wearing hardly any clothes and a Victorian lady completely covered in clothes might both be equally "modest", proper, or decent, according to the standards of their own societies: and both, for all we could tell by their dress, might be equally chaste (or equally unchaste)." In other words, the standard is largely a moving target based on several variables that change over time and across cultures. As for right now, FSY seems to have approximated an acceptable reflection of where the standard should be. So yes, someone who wears a dress with no back is using their body to get attention. Or are we in the Pacific Islands?

___________________________________

"For the Strength of Youth" (FSY):

Also, do not drink coffee or tea, for these are addictive and harmful. Any form of alcohol is harmful to your body and spirit. Being under the influence of alcohol weakens your judgment and self-control and could lead you to break the law of chastity or other commandments. Drinking can lead to alcoholism, which destroys individuals and families.

Is alcohol always harmful? And how many persons who drink alcohol in any amount become alcoholics?

This is different. The WoW has been codified as an inflexible standard across any generation and culture. In reference to addictive substances, IMO, they would have done better to have said, "..."these are unacceptably addictive and harmful". In other words, alcohol is not always measurably harmful though the risk if it becoming such merits complete abstinence.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Is alcohol always harmful?

Contrary to popular belief, the correct answer to this question is now understood to be yes:

It was the World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research, after analysing the major international epidemiological studies on cancer causation to an unprecedented extent, that concluded the risk of alcohol-related cancer increases with every alcoholic drink consumed.

Page 157 of the WCRF’s most recent (2007), comprehensive report says: “The evidence does not show any “safe limit of intake.” (The report is available here.)

Link.

"A considerable proportion of the most common and most lethal cancers is attributable to former and current alcohol consumption," concludes a large European study published online April 8 in BMJ.

...

Risk Increases With Every Drink

"The cancer risk increases with every drink, so even moderate amounts of alcohol — such as a small drink each day — increases the risk of these cancers," according to a press release from Cancer Research UK, which cosponsors the ongoing EPIC study, along with several European agencies.

"Many people just don't know that drinking alcohol can increase their cancer risk," said Sara Hiom, director of health information at Cancer Research UK.

"Cutting back on alcohol is one of the most important ways of lowering your cancer risk," along with not smoking and maintaining a healthy bodyweight, she said.

The researchers touch on this point in their discussion. They refer back to studies that have shown a beneficial effect of alcohol on death from cardiovascular disease, especially coronary heart disease and ischemic stroke, which have in the past led to recommendations to enjoy a drink to benefit the heart.

But they point out that "even though light to moderate alcohol consumption might decrease the risk for cardiovascular disease, and mortality, the net effect is harmful."

"Thus, alcohol consumption should not be recommended to prevent cardiovascular disease or all-cause mortality," they write.

No Sensible Limit

The researchers also emphasize that this latest study, in addition to several others, shows that "there is no sensible limit below which the risk of cancer is decreased."

Link.

[Jeff K.]

Generally speaking, what does our own society say about these standards? What is considered the norm? C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity said, "Thus, while the rule of chastity is the same for all Christians at all times, the rule of propriety changes. A girl in the Pacific Islands wearing hardly any clothes and a Victorian lady completely covered in clothes might both be equally "modest", proper, or decent, according to the standards of their own societies: and both, for all we could tell by their dress, might be equally chaste (or equally unchaste)." In other words, the standard is largely a moving target based on several variables that change over time and across cultures. As for right now, FSY seems to have approximated an acceptable reflection of where the standard should be. So yes, someone who wears a dress with no back is using their body to get attention. Or are we in the Pacific Islands?

CS Lewis lived in a time of diverse cultures that had a more limited influence upon each other (due to communication for the most part, and travel) than we see now. I would say cultures are becoming homogenized more rapidly now than in the past (look at the ubiquitous use of jeans). His observation applies less today than it did in his day.

Youth do indeed tend to think in absolutes or black and white, or rather, they want specifics, not vague generalities. They have too many self produced generalities with which to deal with as it is, they would like something more firm to hold on to while they work out the other stuff.

[CV75]

Youth do indeed tend to think in absolutes or black and white, or rather, they want specifics, not vague generalities. They have too many self produced generalities with which to deal with as it is, they would like something more firm to hold on to while they work out the other stuff.

Three cheers for undeveloped frontal lobes!

[Jeff K.]

Actually it is because they have to develop so many questions and generalities that they "need" certain harbors where they have a firm foundation.

One might believe constantly contemplating one's navel and perpetual questioning of the every moral and action is somehow good, but all it really does is make it easier for self deception, or deception by others. Widsom does not automatically occur when someone is thinking about something and their hormones are simultaneously raging. One can convince one's self of almost anything in those situations.

But you of course are free to ignore the many realities and presume teens will not talk themselves into all kinds of problems if they don't have certain signposts that say "don't go there". Its not the frontal lobe I worry about, its the other stuff which seems to be ignored.

Edited June 6, 2011 by Jeff K.

[CV75]

Actually it is because they have to develop so many questions and generalities that they "need" certain harbors where they have a firm foundation.

One might believe constantly contemplating one's navel and perpetual questioning of the every moral and action is somehow good, but all it really does is make it easier for self deception, or deception by others. Widsom does not automatically occur when someone is thinking about something and their hormones are simultaneously raging. One can convince one's self of almost anything in those situations.

But you of course are free to ignore the many realities and presume teens will not talk themselves into all kinds of problems if they don't have certain signposts that say "don't go there". Its not the frontal lobe I worry about, its the other stuff which seems to be ignored.

Are you saying that the teenager’s undeveloped frontal lobe has nothing to do with his lack of goal-oriented rational thinking such as recognizing the consequences of actions, choosing between good and bad actions and appropriate social responses, his vulnerability to addiction, or with his need for clarity and structure? Would you extend that to say that an infant’s undeveloped brain has nothing to do with the age of accountability?

[thesometimesaint]

dirtius maximus:

Technically speaking minimal amounts of alcohol can add a tasty element to cooked foods. The quarter cup I use in making a big pot of Risotto is unlikely to have ANY negative effects on anyone. But we are talking very small amounts with most of the alcohol burned off.

I seriously doubt many would consider medicines a beverage. That is what gravy is for.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 06 June 2011 - 07:00 AM, said:

Actually it is because they have to develop so many questions and generalities that they "need" certain harbors where they have a firm foundation.

One might believe constantly contemplating one's navel and perpetual questioning of the every moral and action is somehow good, but all it really does is make it easier for self deception, or deception by others. Widsom does not automatically occur when someone is thinking about something and their hormones are simultaneously raging. One can convince one's self of almost anything in those situations.

But you of course are free to ignore the many realities and presume teens will not talk themselves into all kinds of problems if they don't have certain signposts that say "don't go there". Its not the frontal lobe I worry about, its the other stuff which seems to be ignored.

Are you saying that the teenager’s undeveloped frontal lobe has nothing to do with his lack of goal-oriented rational thinking such as recognizing the consequences of actions, choosing between good and bad actions and appropriate social responses, his vulnerability to addiction, or with his need for clarity and structure? Would you extend that to say that an infant’s undeveloped brain has nothing to do with the age of accountability?

What I am stating is what was written.

What I am implying is that an abandonment of clear lines of morality in order to constantly reinvent the wheel, undermine faith, or leave open the question that such things as premarital sex should possibly be engaged in since we are developing the "frontal lobe". Now you know what I wrote and what it implies. Hopefully the point is understood along the lines I intended.

[Jeff K.]

dirtius maximus:

Technically speaking minimal amounts of alcohol can add a tasty element to cooked foods. The quarter cup I use in making a big pot of Risotto is unlikely to have ANY negative effects on anyone. But we are talking very small amounts with most of the alcohol burned off.

I seriously doubt many would consider medicines a beverage. That is what gravy is for.

Actually it wouldn't be the alchol so much as the taste of the beverage than remains.

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

Alcohol in the form of wine does release flavor compounds that ordinary water can not. Plus it does add its own taste. That is the reason the best vanilla extracts have a high percentage of alcohol(more than 35% or 70 proof).

A tiny fraction of the alcohol does remain after the cooking process is complete. But it is too small as to constitute any real threat to human health.

[CV75]

What I am implying is that an abandonment of clear lines of morality in order to constantly reinvent the wheel, undermine faith, or leave open the question that such things as premarital sex should possibly be engaged in since we are developing the "frontal lobe".

Of course the undeveloped frontal lobe cannot be used as a valid excuse for immoral behavior. But it is a major contributor to the “self produced generalities” that puts susceptible teenagers in the position of requiring (and prompts the more conscientious teenagers to seek) clear, specific moral guidance. While developmental issues are certainly at play (which the FSY addresses so well for this age group), so is the overriding power of truth as upheld by the teenage conscience and the Gift of the Holy Ghost, which the FSY also addresses so well. The FSY accommodates the needs of people with teenage frontal lobes.

[BCSpace]

Never lower your dress standards for any occasion. Doing so sends the message that you are using your body to get attention and approval and that modesty is important only when it is convenient.

Is someone who wears a dress with no back or thin or non-existant shoulder straps using their body to get attention? Or could someone just feel "beauty" to themself in said dress and not want any outside attention at all? Is a "tankini" a lowering of standards?

Doesn't matter what someone is consciously thinking about their mode of dress. What matters is how people and society perceive them. Frankly, society hasn't changed in this regard for at least the last four decades.

Also, do not drink coffee or tea, for these are addictive and harmful. Any form of alcohol is harmful to your body and spirit. Being under the influence of alcohol weakens your judgment and self-control and could lead you to break the law of chastity or other commandments. Drinking can lead to alcoholism, which destroys individuals and families.

Is alcohol always harmful? And how many persons who drink alcohol in any amount become alcoholics?

Read D&C 89. This is adapted to the capacity of the weakest of all Saints and because of conspiring men who exist in the last days. It does not matter if someone can "hold their liquor" or only drinks on a few social occasions etc. Breaking the WoW is always harmful whether directly, or by example, or by something that happens down the road, or it becomes a stumbling block to belief, etc.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 06 June 2011 - 10:39 AM, said:

What I am implying is that an abandonment of clear lines of morality in order to constantly reinvent the wheel, undermine faith, or leave open the question that such things as premarital sex should possibly be engaged in since we are developing the "frontal lobe".

Of course the undeveloped frontal lobe cannot be used as a valid excuse for immoral behavior. But it is a major contributor to the “self produced generalities” that puts susceptible teenagers in the position of requiring (and prompts the more conscientious teenagers to seek) clear, specific moral guidance. While developmental issues are certainly at play (which the FSY addresses so well for this age group), so is the overriding power of truth as upheld by the teenage conscience and the Gift of the Holy Ghost, which the FSY also addresses so well. The FSY accommodates the needs of people with teenage frontal lobes.

Clear lines of morality exist so that you do not need to constantly rethink whether or not sinning is bad, the excuse of frontal lobe development is one that it appears you put forward. I tend to disagree with such an excuse since constantly rethinking if sin is acceptable or not is also one of testing/tempting God to continuously reverify what was already made known. I do not see going back and questioning the moral issues God has already testified to be the correct ones as developing a more complex frontal lobe. So when someone states quite clearly:

Jeff K., on 06 June 2011 - 06:37 AM, said:

Youth do indeed tend to think in absolutes or black and white, or rather, they want specifics, not vague generalities. They have too many self produced generalities with which to deal with as it is, they would like something more firm to hold on to while they work out the other stuff.

And you respond with a rather flippant ....

Three cheers for undeveloped frontal lobes!

One is forced to question whether or not you really understand the content in bold. Questioning and requestioning whether or not to sin does not help the frontal lobe so much as help develop and excuse for hormones. Development issues are not only at play, they are overridingly strong relative to some sort of platonic approach to re-evaluation of whether or not some sin or another is acceptable. There are many other non immoral and non transgressional ideas that may be explored outside of the immoral, and those areas can clearly be delineated as they presently are in the church. So yes, youth need to know clearly the lines by which they may, or may not cross because their behavior is so important to receiving the Holy Ghost. There are many other things that can be explored other than escape clauses from moral restrictions. Or do you feel such moral questions are the overriding necessity for the development of frontal lobes?

[Jeff K.]

dirtius maximus:

Technically speaking minimal amounts of alcohol can add a tasty element to cooked foods. The quarter cup I use in making a big pot of Risotto is unlikely to have ANY negative effects on anyone. But we are talking very small amounts with most of the alcohol burned off.

I seriously doubt many would consider medicines a beverage. That is what gravy is for.

But still.....

What Happens to the Alcohol?

Conventional wisdom holds that after a few minutes of cooking, the alcohol in wine evaporates. That's not exactly the case. Research from the USDA shows that 85 percent of the alcohol remains after wine is added to a boiling liquid and then removed from the heat. The longer a dish is cooked, however, the less alcohol remains. If a food is baked or simmered 15 minutes, 40 percent of the alcohol will remain; after one hour, only 25 percent remains; after 2 1/2 hours, just 5 percent. But since wine does not have a large amount of alcohol to begin with (generally 12 to 14 percent), the final amount of alcohol in a dish is not a problem for most people.

cooking light

You might want to consider The Sober Kitchen.

Mere avoidance of cocktails, wine, beer, and liquor may not be enough to keep a recovering alcoholic sober. Alcohol can show up in larger-than-expected concentrations in any dish prepared with wine. Even long-simmered dishes such as Beef Burgundy may retain a small portion of alcohol, enough to set off physical responses in those intolerant. Moreover, certain flavors and textures may need to be avoided because they may set off irresistible cravings. Chef Liz Scott's The Sober Kitchen provides a wealth of basic information and dozens of outstanding recipes to benefit both people in recovery and those who take care of them. In straightforward prose, she explains the dangers of dining out and gives advice on how to avoid being confronted with alcohol-laden dishes. Her recipes show creativity, especially in shortcut desserts. Scott demystifies Chinese condiments and sauces, and she informatively explores the varieties of potatoes now common in markets. An important and original contribution to the literature of health and cooking, this book lacks any tone of self-pity and belongs in public library collections. Mark Knoblauch

Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Liz Scott was a professional chef when she stopped drinking. She worried how she could continue to work when her relationship with alcohol had changed so drastically. She found a way to continue cooking professionally without using alcohol OR sacrificing gourmet excellence or exquisite taste. I found Liz Scott's "The Sober Kitchen" when looking for a gift for a sober friend. I ended up buying a copy for myself after reading the great recipes and the sober self-care explanations that are so sensible, whether one is in recovery or just living life on its own terms, no easy feat today.

I suppose there are no absolutes, but it raises the question. If an alcoholic can be affected by the amount being cooked with, what does that say of the Word of Wisdom in regard to the overall use of alcohol (and I don't mean a few drops of vanilla extract but the more liberal use for flavors.

[Hamba Tuhan]

If an alcoholic can be affected by the amount being cooked with, what does that say of the Word of Wisdom in regard to the overall use of alcohol (and I don't mean a few drops of vanilla extract but the more liberal use for flavors.

Why draw this distinction, Jeff?

Scenario A: 1/4c (60ml) of white wine is added to a risotto at the very beginning of the simmering process. Total alcohol added: 7.2ml. After the risotto has simmered for one hour, 25% of this alochol remains. New total alcohol content: 1.8ml. Divided into six serves, the total alcohol content per serve is .3ml.

Senario B: 1t (5ml) of vanilla extract is stirred into a cup of whipping cream which is then served on top of a dessert pie. Total alcohol added: 1.75ml. Divided into six serves, the total alcohol content per serve is .29ml.

I just don't see the difference. Of course, I live in a country where we buy vanilla essence containing zero alcohol.