Jesus And Wine

[Mktavish]

Hmmmm this is a debatable subject among my bretheren I see. That of alchohol and its consumption habits. But Im guessing some are curious of its production.

Disclaimer : drinking alcohol of the volume equal to 3 beers in 1 hour is pure gluttony or a very serious attempt to veil your earthly endeavors : jesus might mention ... you should atleast taste your beer rather than use the alcohol to hide from your fears.

Many people think that brewing your own beer these days is more alchoholic than buying beer at the store.

I can attest that brewing your own beer is actually theraputic and lessens the alcoholics sebatious nature.

There is nothing more spiritual than boiling the whort (sugar water) and then adding the yeast and watching the process... and finally partakeing of the drink yeilded by the yeast ... with maturation ofcourse.

Even if you dont want to drink beer ... I highly recomend going through the process of creating it.

[Sevenbak]

Sevenbac:

There are essentially only two things you can do to store grape juice(without modern canning). Exposed to air you produce vinegar(not particularly pleasant to drink), or you seal it in some vessel to exclude air that starts the firmenting process in a matter of minutes, and can last up to a few days. The rest of the time is ageing which allows for evaporation of water and alcohol, and in the case of wooden barrels allows for the migration of wood flavors and estors to enter the the vinegar or wine. Once put in evaporation proof containers vinegar and wine no longer lose water and alcohol. In the case of wine the vinegar bacteria(already present) will eventually turn even the best wines to vinegar.

There is a reason the Sctriptures tell us not to put new wine into old skins, and they are not all theological.

Saint, yes, we've established that the common wine anciently used the easily preserved method of fermentation. That is not disputed, nor am I saying that Jesus necessarily didn't drink such wine. (although several ancient references even say that was usually diluted with water at least 4 to 1) I'm merely pointing out that there were Jews that practiced a higher form of adherence to laws and vows that they made, that negated them inbibing the common methods.

We just don't know all the specifics. Carry on.

[Cobalt-70]

I don't know what reference you were referring to, but here's this Josephus reference to "fruit of the vine". Ironically, he also describes "wine" the same way in the passage, that is, fresh juice. Here's the reference from Jospehus describing Joseph's dream.

2. He therefore said, that in his sleep he saw three clusters of grapes hanging upon three branches of a vine, large already, and ripe for gathering; and that he squeezed them into a cup which the king held in his hand; and when he had strained the wine, he gave it to the king to drink, and that he received it from him with a pleasant countenance. This, he said, was what he saw; and he desired Joseph, that if he had any portion of understanding in such matters, he would tell him what this vision foretold. Who bid him be of good cheer, and expect to be loosed from his bonds in three days' time, because the king desired his service, and was about to restore him to it again; for he let him know that God bestows the fruit of the vine upon men for good; which wine is poured out to him, and is the pledge of fidelity and mutual confidence among men; and puts an end to their quarrels, takes away passion and grief out of the minds of them that use it, and makes them cheerful. "Thou sayest that thou didst squeeze this wine from three clusters of grapes with thine hands, and that the king received it: know, therefore, that this vision is for thy good, and foretells a release from thy present distress within the same number of days as the branches had whence thou gatheredst thy grapes in thy sleep.

I don't see how you can use this quote to argue that 1st century Jews used unfermented grape juice for Passover. First of all, this is a dream, and as you know, in dreams things often happen instantly that in real life take time. Second, I don't see how unfermented grape juice "puts an end to their quarrels, takes away passion and grief out of the minds of them that use it, and makes them cheerful." This "mellowing" effect could only refer to alcoholic wine.

[Cobalt-70]

Saint, yes, we've established that the common wine anciently used the easily preserved method of fermentation. That is not disputed, nor am I saying that Jesus necessarily didn't drink such wine. (although several ancient references even say that was usually diluted with water at least 4 to 1) I'm merely pointing out that there were Jews that practiced a higher form of adherence to laws and vows that they made, that negated them inbibing the common methods.

Wine that has been diluted by at least 4 to 1 is, by at least the more orthodox Jewish definitions, no longer usable for Passover. Today, at least, a wine/grape juice mixture can't get the orthodox Star-K Kosher certification unless it has at least 4% alcohol. (http://www.star-k.org/kashrus/kk-ThePesachSeder.htm) Of course, this is all based on the opinions of modern rabbis, but there's no reason to think that the ancient tradition of using fermented wine in seder did not extend back to the foundation of the Passover tradition. I'm no rabbinical scholar, but apparently (see http://www.angelfire.com/pa2/passover/thefourcupsofwineforpassover.html), the "four cups of wine" tradition originated during Roman times, as a derivative of pagan Roman feasts. Jews mimicked free Roman males' practice of drinking wine while reclining during feats, as symbolism that the Jewish men and women, like the Romans, were free (see http://www.bmv.org.il/shiurim/pesachim/pes10.html). The wine used during Roman feasts was certainly fermented. Finding one or two ancient references to "new", pre-fermented wine does not prove that 1st century Jews used grape juice for Seder.

[ERayR]

I hate to see some go the tortuous route to justify drinking of wine by Jesus and the early saints. The simple reason is that it was not forbidden by the "word of wisdom" of bygone days and it is now. God does not have to justify why and neither do I.

[Cobalt-70]

I hate to see some go the tortuous route to justify drinking of wine by Jesus and the early saints. The simple reason is that it was not forbidden by the "word of wisdom" of bygone days and it is now. God does not have to justify why and neither do I.

I don't think this issue is beyond apologetics. But the thing that needs explaining is not the fact that Jesus drank. Rather, the big question is, if Jesus drank wine in the 1st century, and he and all the apostles and prophets will drink wine during the Millennium (see D&C 27), and wine is the symbol of the blood of Jesus, then why in the 20th and 21st centuries is drinking wine considered so evil as to keep one out of the temple? That's the question that should be keeping us in the Mormon apologetic community awake at night.

[ERayR]

I don't think this issue is beyond apologetics. But the thing that needs explaining is not the fact that Jesus drank. Rather, the big question is, if Jesus drank wine in the 1st century, and he and all the apostles and prophets will drink wine during the Millennium (see D&C 27), and wine is the symbol of the blood of Jesus, then why in the 20th and 21st centuries is drinking wine considered so evil as to keep one out of the temple? That's the question that should be keeping us in the Mormon apologetic community awake at night.

To murder is evil. To abuse another human being is evil. Drinking wine is a sin. Sinning and evil are not synonymous. Evil is a sin but a sin may not be evil.

As for drinking wine keeping one out of the temple, it is for disobedience to God's commandment. To understand why it is a sin now and not then would require an intimate understanding of the mind of God. That's above my paygrade and probably yours too.

The problem is most want to hold God accountable to their understandin when really they are accountable to God. Your question above is a prime example.

Edited September 17, 2011 by ERayR

[Stargazer]

Do Mormons consider it a sin to drink wine today?

If so, what is the doctrinal basis to characterize drinking wine a sin?

Well, I for one don't consider drinking wine to be a sin. Even today. It is, however, a violation of a covenant which I voluntarily took upon myself some 45 years ago.

[Stargazer]

To murder is evil. To abuse another human being is evil. Drinking wine is a sin. Sinning and evil are not synonymous. Evil is a sin but a sin may not be evil.

As for drinking wine keeping one out of the temple, it is for disobedience to God's commandment. To understand why it is a sin now and not then would require an intimate understanding of the mind of God. That's above my paygrade and probably yours too.

The problem is most want to hold God accountable to their understandin when really they are accountable to God. Your question above is a prime example.

Since when is drinking wine a sin? Since the Word of Wisdom was accepted by the Saints as an obligation for full fellowship in the Church? No, not even then, because drinking wine is not a sin! If it were a sin, then the Savior could not fulfill the requirements of the atonement, because he definitely drank wine. He did say that He wasn't going to drink wine again until the Milennium, but that's not because drinking wine is a sin, it's because it was part of His covenant as part of the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. I take that as a foreshadow of the Word of Wisdom, and related to the kind of obligations that, for example, a Nazarite had laid upon him, which included not drinking wine and not getting haircuts! Not that getting a haircut was a sin, but because it was part and parcel of that assumed obligation.

Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[Cobalt-70]

To murder is evil. To abuse another human being is evil. Drinking wine is a sin. Sinning and evil are not synonymous. Evil is a sin but a sin may not be evil.

As for drinking wine keeping one out of the temple, it is for disobedience to God's commandment. To understand why it is a sin now and not then would require an intimate understanding of the mind of God. That's above my paygrade and probably yours too.

The problem is most want to hold God accountable to their understandin when really they are accountable to God. Your question above is a prime example.

Are you saying there is such a thing as a good sin, and that perhaps drinking wine is a good sin? Never heard of that concept within Mormon doctrine.

How very trinitarian of you to suggest that God cannot be comprehended, therefore why try? I think that's a cop-out. Joseph Smith taught Mormons that exaltation is synonymous with knowing the mind of God.

[Cobalt-70]

Well, I for one don't consider drinking wine to be a sin. Even today. It is, however, a violation of a covenant which I voluntarily took upon myself some 45 years ago.

Are you referring to temple covenants? If so, I don't think we're talking about a covenant specifically referencing the Word of Wisdom.

[Storm Rider]

I don't think this issue is beyond apologetics. But the thing that needs explaining is not the fact that Jesus drank. Rather, the big question is, if Jesus drank wine in the 1st century, and he and all the apostles and prophets will drink wine during the Millennium (see D&C 27), and wine is the symbol of the blood of Jesus, then why in the 20th and 21st centuries is drinking wine considered so evil as to keep one out of the temple? That's the question that should be keeping us in the Mormon apologetic community awake at night.

This is often been an issue of earlier days for me. My conclusion is that the Wof W is used today by the leaders of the Church as a way of discipline, of keeping the saints from becoming "of" the world, and maintaining a code of health. My thoughts on if the current standard of the WofW is inspired is irrelevant. It is required for me to enter the temple. I firmly believe that this is a temporary, mortal policy in the Church and has no bearing on other dispensations or the eternal realms

One of my saddest moments while teaching is when my adult Sunday school class felt breaking the Word of Wisdom was of more import than breaking the Law of Chastity. I was stunned. How could the saints have become so confused in their priorities? This current policy has done harm, although I do believe more good has come from it. I believe that when the Lord chooses this policy will be done away. Obedience to the WofW has nothing to do with personal righteousness, correctness before the Lord, or anything else.

Leaders have such a great burden on their shoulders and their service is demanding. However, I believe they will bear the weight of poor choices or uninspired choices IF they ever made them. They demand repentance the same as our own sins in our different roles of stewardship.

[ERayR]

Since when is drinking wine a sin? Since the Word of Wisdom was accepted by the Saints as an obligation for full fellowship in the Church? No, not even then, because drinking wine is not a sin! If it were a sin, then the Savior could not fulfill the requirements of the atonement, because he definitely drank wine. He did say that He wasn't going to drink wine again until the Milennium, but that's not because drinking wine is a sin, it's because it was part of His covenant as part of the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. I take that as a foreshadow of the Word of Wisdom, and related to the kind of obligations that, for example, a Nazarite had laid upon him, which included not drinking wine and not getting haircuts! Not that getting a haircut was a sin, but because it was part and parcel of that assumed obligation.

Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

I was in a hurry posting and didn't make myself clear. If you are a Mormon drinking wine is a sin because you have covenanted to obey the word of wisdom amongst other covenants. If you are not a LDS then, no drinking wine is not a sin.

[ERayR]

Are you saying there is such a thing as a good sin, and that perhaps drinking wine is a good sin? Never heard of that concept within Mormon doctrine.

How very trinitarian of you to suggest that God cannot be comprehended, therefore why try? I think that's a cop-out. Joseph Smith taught Mormons that exaltation is synonymous with knowing the mind of God.

I will thank you to stop putting words in my mouth. Go back and read for comprehension.

[thesometimesaint]

Is eating pork a sin? Not now, for most Christians, but in ancient Hebrew history it sure was.

40 years ago when I joined the Church I agreed to follow the WoW as a requirement for baptism, a little over a year before I went to the Temple.

[Robert F. Smith]

Is eating pork a sin? Not now, for most Christians, but in ancient Hebrew history it sure was.

40 years ago when I joined the Church I agreed to follow the WoW as a requirement for baptism, a little over a year before I went to the Temple.

Correct, Saint.

If our leaders (presumably acting at the behest of God himself) want to make the Saints of the Last Days into nazirites by proscribing alcoholic beverages, that seems to me little different from a proscription on polygyny. Neither is inherently wrong, but neither can be practiced without the permission of God. We Saints are members of a covenant community charged with huge responsibilities in preparation for the Parousia. That certain elements of sanctification should be emphasized seems to me quite appropriate.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[Cobalt-70]

This is often been an issue of earlier days for me. My conclusion is that the Wof W is used today by the leaders of the Church as a way of discipline, of keeping the saints from becoming "of" the world, and maintaining a code of health. My thoughts on if the current standard of the WofW is inspired is irrelevant. It is required for me to enter the temple. I firmly believe that this is a temporary, mortal policy in the Church and has no bearing on other dispensations or the eternal realms

I agree with you. In the 20th and 21st centuries, the Word of Wisdom is about the discipline, not the intrinsic evil of the prohibited items. It's not so much even about the Word of Wisdom revelation, because today we are prohibited from drinking beer, even though the revelation itself specifically allows beer, and narcotics use is considered part of the code even though it was not part of the revelation.

I also think that the Word of Wisdom is one of the things church leaders felt they needed to (re)emphasize within Mormonism as a replacement for polygamy, which up to the early 20th century had been the big thing that separated Mormons from the outside world and made them a "people." If polygamy is gone, they worried, what else is there in Mormonism that makes us special? Well, the Word of Wisdom was one thing. Plus, the the early 20th century emphasis on the Word of Wisdom happened to coincide with the Prohibition movement. So in that sense, the 20th and 21st century Mormon dietary code is a lot like the Jewish prohibitions on eating pork or shellfish, the original reasons for which are lost in Hebrew prehistory, but Jews do it anyway because it sets them apart from the gentiles.

[ERayR]

I agree with you. In the 20th and 21st centuries, the Word of Wisdom is about the discipline, not the intrinsic evil of the prohibited items.

I would disagree that there is anything in the Word of Wisdom that is intrinsicly evil. In fact I would say that nothing mentioned in the WoW is evil at all. Forbidden does NOT = evil.

[Calm]

I would disagree that there is anything in the Word of Wisdom that is intrinsicly evil. In fact I would say that nothing mentioned in the WoW is evil at all. Forbidden does NOT = evil.

If beer tasted anything like it smells, I've got to call it evil no matter how good the buzz is.

[thesometimesaint]

calmoriah:

Cooking with it tastes pretty good. Gives a slight malty, hoppy taste to breads, and chesse dishes.

[Mktavish]

Some how this thread was much more interesting when I was drunk.

[ERayR]

Well, I for one don't consider drinking wine to be a sin. Even today. It is, however, a violation of a covenant which I voluntarily took upon myself some 45 years ago.

If one has made no covenants it is not a sin. If covenants have been made then breaking those covenants would be a sin.