Wow Prohibition On Beer Simply An Artifact Of Prohibition?

[thesometimesaint]

Thanks for the info, as I noted I'm fairly clueless about "adult beverages" in general. I see the similarities now.

I don't drink the stuff myself. But the science behind the process has always fascinated me.

[rockpond]

Perhaps you missed my post #97. Have a look at that; then have a look at my posts #101 and #110; then tell me if you understand my reasoning, and if so why you disagree with it.

I think that I understand your reasoning but I still am uncomfortable with your conclusion that the alcohol, per se, is THE singular reason for which we are told not to partake of those drinks. Consider, for example, the counsel Joseph received to not purchase wine from his enemies. He could make it on his own or use something else. Alcohol doesn't appear to be the primary concern. I recognize that D&C 27 pre-dates section 89 but so do your scriptural examples.

Referring to your scriptural examples, my question would be this: Acknowledging your valid point about the idiomatic similarities that are commonly found in translated scripture, I'm wondering what were the original words used by those who first recorded the scripture?

You don't really have to research out an answer it unless you want to for yourself... it's not a challenge, nor a CFR. Just a thought. I don't have a dog in this race (so to speak) since I really have no intention of imbibing any of these beverages. Ever. I guess my concern here is the certainty with which you declare that it must be the ingredient of alcohol as the reason we don't partake. That's all. But if that reasoning works for you - stay with it. It's not bad reasoning and I certainly don't want to encourage anyone to drink.

[mathonihah]

I think that I understand your reasoning but I still am uncomfortable with your conclusion that the alcohol, per se, is THE singular reason for which we are told not to partake of those drinks. Consider, for example, the counsel Joseph received to not purchase wine from his enemies. He could make it on his own or use something else. Alcohol doesn't appear to be the primary concern. I recognize that D&C 27 pre-dates section 89 but so do your scriptural examples.

"Wine or strong drink" is not forbidden for the purpose of administering the Sacrament. That is clearly stated in D&C 27:4 as well as D&C 89:5. It is the social drinking of it that is prohibited.

Referring to your scriptural examples, my question would be this: Acknowledging your valid point about the idiomatic similarities that are commonly found in translated scripture, I'm wondering what were the original words used by those who first recorded the scripture?

Whatever the original words were, they are reflected in the translation. The original words wouldn't have said something different from the translation.

I guess my concern here is the certainty with which you declare that it must be the ingredient of alcohol as the reason we don't partake. That's all. But if that reasoning works for you - stay with it.

What "works for me" is not an issue. "Strong drink" means alcoholic drink. If all alcoholic drinks are forbidden, and non-alcoholic drinks (except the obvious one) are not forbidden, what is the most logical conclusion that can be drawn from that?

[semlogo]

What "works for me" is not an issue. "Strong drink" means alcoholic drink. If all alcoholic drinks are forbidden, and non-alcoholic drinks (except the obvious one) are not forbidden, what is the most logical conclusion that can be drawn from that?

I think strong drinks is referring to distilled liquor.

[rockpond]

"Wine or strong drink" is not forbidden for the purpose of administering the Sacrament. That is clearly stated in D&C 27:4 as well as D&C 89:5. It is the social drinking of it that is prohibited.

Wouldn't that lead one to believe that there is something more at play here than simply an absolute prohibition against the substance of alcohol? I mean, if it's okay to drink in the sacrament, why does the substance itself become the prohibitive factor in social drinking. And what of non-social drinking... if I drink alone is that okay?

Whatever the original words were, they are reflected in the translation. The original words wouldn't have said something different from the translation.

Isn't that an awfully big leap? Have you studied the original Greek, Hebrew, and Egyptian manuscripts? Do we not believe that there were errors in translation of the Biblical text? Is "wine and strong drink" used in translations other than the KJV?

I'm not asking you to answer all of those questions, just suggesting that you might be making a lot of assumptions to arrive at your position.

What "works for me" is not an issue. "Strong drink" means alcoholic drink. If all alcoholic drinks are forbidden, and non-alcoholic drinks (except the obvious one) are not forbidden, what is the most logical conclusion that can be drawn from that?

You also wrote in your previous post #97:

In fact, the phrase “wine or strong drink” occurs so often in the Bible that it seems to have been used as an idiom to refer to any kind of alcoholic drinks.

I get the logical conclusion you are arriving at but it is based on the premise that "strong drink" must refer to any drink containing alcohol. I don't see where you have established that premise. The fact that you highlighted a bunch of scriptures that use the phrase does not prove that a) "strong drink" was universally used in the source languages and b) "strong drink" means anything with alcohol.

[Saints Alive]

What "works for me" is not an issue. "Strong drink" means alcoholic drink. If all alcoholic drinks are forbidden, and non-alcoholic drinks (except the obvious one) are not forbidden, what is the most logical conclusion that can be drawn from that?

Your logic is faulty, it is obvious from the beer drinking culture of the early saints that all alcoholic drinks were not forbidden. If you payed half attention to my OP or the blog I provided you would realize that beer was only included because of prohibition. Alcohol in general is not the evil you seem to think it is.

[Ahab]

They didn't have carbonated soft drinks back then in the US, not until the 1870s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_drink

Yes they did. It's just that the carbonatiuon came from the yeast eating the sugar and burping up the carbon gas, rather than from a cyclinder with pressurized carbon dioxide in it.

[mathonihah]

I think strong drinks is referring to distilled liquor.

I don't, for the reasons previously given.

[glitterNgold]

I recently visited Boulder, CO and tried a local chocolate stout beer. OMG, has anyone else tried that? So delicious.

[mathonihah]

Wouldn't that lead one to believe that there is something more at play here than simply an absolute prohibition against the substance of alcohol? I mean, if it's okay to drink in the sacrament, why does the substance itself become the prohibitive factor in social drinking. And what of non-social drinking... if I drink alone is that okay?

By social drinking I meant non-sacramental drinking. That included drinking alone.

The difference between the two is that sacramental drinking will be will involve such a small quantity of alcohol that it will not affect the mood or spiritual well being of anyone.

Isn't that an awfully big leap? Have you studied the original Greek, Hebrew, and Egyptian manuscripts? Do we not believe that there were errors in translation of the Biblical text? Is "wine and strong drink" used in translations other than the KJV?

I have some ideas. The KJV is the type of translation that attempts to get very close to the wording of the original, not only in meaning but also in syntax, hence the assurance that the phrases used in the original Hebrew will be as idiomatic as their equivalent English translations in the KJV.

I'm not asking you to answer all of those questions, just suggesting that you might be making a lot of assumptions to arrive at your position.

I don't think so. If you want to check the various phrases in the KJV across multiple translations, that is easy to do. There are online tools which enable you to do that. Here is one you might like to try out:

http://biblos.com/

You also wrote in your previous post #97:

I get the logical conclusion you are arriving at but it is based on the premise that "strong drink" must refer to any drink containing alcohol. I don't see where you have established that premise. The fact that you highlighted a bunch of scriptures that use the phrase does not prove that a) "strong drink" was universally used in the source languages and b) "strong drink" means anything with alcohol.

I said that the phrase "wine or strong drink" is used in the KJV idiomatically to signify any kind of alcoholic drink, and I still adhere to that.

[T-Shirt]

Your logic is faulty, it is obvious from the beer drinking culture of the early saints that all alcoholic drinks were not forbidden. If you payed half attention to my OP or the blog I provided you would realize that beer was only included because of prohibition. Alcohol in general is not the evil you seem to think it is.

Here are a few quotes (among many others) that suggest you may not be correct:

October 30, 1870

Brigham Young

Many of our sisters think they cannot live without tea: I will tell you what we can do—I have frequently said it to my brethren and sisters—if they cannot live without tea, coffee, brandy, whisky, wine, beer, tobacco, etc., they can die without them. This is beyond controversy. If we had the determination that we should have, we would live without them or die without them.

August 31, 1875

Brigham Young

Parties may say—"We did this thoughtlessly and ignorantly; we did not think there was any harm in drinking tea, coffee, beer or a little liquor, or in smoking or chewing tobacco; and having worked for our wages, we considered that we had a right to spend a portion of them in these luxuries, if we were disposed to do so." But Justice will say, "If you had enquired you might have learned that the use of these things was not only no good to you, but was absolutely injurious, and that the means used in purchasing them was utterly wasted, and hence you who have been guilty of this folly must be brought to an account for it."

Conference Report, October 1913

Elder German F. Ellsworth

I remember, on one occasion, being in the dining car upon a railroad train, on a hot, dusty day, from Canada to Minneapolis. I think every man and woman on the dining car, with the exception of myself, had a bottle of beer, and, while I had never been addicted to it in my life, I confess that it looked very cooling, but I did not order it. (You don't know that, but I do, and therein lies the testimony I received.) Before I had finished my meal, the four people sitting opposite to me, were talking about their visit to the Temple block. They began to discuss what a superstitious people we are, and how there was something mysterious connected with the acoustic properties in this building. When I had finished my meal, I handed them my card, and said: "My friends, no matter how far you travel, you never know in whose presence you may be talking. I am a 'Mormon' elder, and what you have been saying about the superstition of my people is not true." After we retired from the dining car I had the privilege of talking to them about an hour, correcting their false impressions. The thing that has come to my mind, time and time again, has been: Had I indulged in a bottle of beer, knowing the instructions and teachings that I have had from my youth, would I have had the courage to defend my religion? Would I have had the courage to tell them who I was, and what people I represented in the world? It has been a testimony to me, my brethren and sisters, that God is present in us, and we are the greatest witnesses of our sincerity by our conduct before our fellow-men and before God our Father.

Conference Report, April 1914

Elder Joseph S. Geddes

Elder Heber Q. Hale, who has now been placed as president of one of the newly organized stakes, in Boise, Idaho. In giving his report he said he had been away from home upwards of three years, and the greatest sermon he had preached while away was one without words. When he landed in Germany, some of the elders warned him about what he should say and do, especially what he should do, because he could not yet say much. So, when a cup of tea was placed before him, he could not tell the good lady he did not drink tea; he could not explain the reason why. The tea was finally removed, and a cup of coffee placed instead thereof. He could not tell why he did not drink that. Neither could he tell why he did not drink the beer, when that was placed by his plate; but he thus preached one of the most powerful discourses that he preached while upon his mission, and it was one without words, for within a few days Brother Hale had the privilege of leading that good lady and all her family into the waters of baptism.

October 9, 1881

John Taylor

f they choose evil let them choose it. We talk sometimes about the influence of saloons, of whisky and beer, and all these kinds of things. Cannot you Latter-day Saints let them alone? If you cannot you are not fit to be Latter-day Saints and you will not be so long.

Conference Report, April 1898

Elder Lars E. Eggersten

"I am now between 81 and 82 years old, and during the past three years, have traveled between twenty and thirty thousand miles in the interest and for the benefit of the youth of Zion who are connected with our Sunday schools.

"I use neither tea, coffee, tobacco, wine, beer, or liquor, and I am blest of the Lord with good health, which causes my heart to rejoice exceedingly."

Conference Report, April 1898

George Q. Cannon

But I have desired, and have so expressed myself, that our children should be brought up to be a new generation, so to speak, that there will not be a tea drinker, a coffee drinker, a tobacco user, a liquor or beer drinker in the whole generation; that we may have a generation that can say "I never tasted tea and coffee, I never tasted tobacco, I never use any of these intoxicants;"

Conference Report, April 1901

Elder Brigham Young

A young man said to me, "I can't go to my quorum meeting tonight." "What is the matter?' "I have been smoking, and they will smell my breath." That is one of the evils. What is that young man doing? He is cutting himself off from the presence of the Spirit of God, which he must have in him to enable him to perform his duty. Another one said, "I can't go to the quorum meeting tonight." Why? "I have been drinking some beer and smoking an old pipe, and I dare not go." For the sake of gratifying his appetite he cannot attend his duties as a Latter-day Saint.

Edited February 12, 2013 by T-Shirt

[Five Solas]

Enjoying the above legalisms (and remarkably varying expanations/justifications advanced) with a cold bottle of Ballard Bitter (a.k.a., Red Hook's Long Hammer IPA). No, it's not of my "own make." But Ballard is a nearby neighborhood in Seattle where the original Red Hook brewery began. Close enough, I say!

--Erik

PS. I didn't have my first beer until I was 37, about 6 months after I became a Christian. Gave me a whole new perspective on the goodness of God. Apparently the Middle English word for yeast was "goddes good" or "goddisgoode" (God is good) because "bicause it cometh of ye grete grace of God." How cool is that?

:0)

[sdc999]

Enjoying the above legalisms (and remarkably varying expanations/justifications advanced) with a cold bottle of Ballard Bitter (a.k.a., Red Hook's Long Hammer IPA). No, it's not of my "own make." But Ballard is a nearby neighborhood in Seattle where the original Red Hook brewery began. Close enough, I say!

--Erik

PS. I didn't have my first beer until I was 37, about 6 months after I became a Christian. Gave me a whole new perspective on the goodness of God. Apparently the Middle English word for yeast was "goddes good" or "goddisgoode" (God is good) because "bicause it cometh of ye grete grace of God." How cool is that?

:0)

Very Cool. I must add that about six months ago, I started drinking a glass or two of red wine a night (usually while watching a sunset); sometimes substituting a finer beer or two. My doctor has been so impressed that my constant 140/92ish BP (last 4-5 check-ups) has gone down to 118/80. He recommended I keep up the routine.

[Stargazer]

I don't see the point you are trying to make though.

I'm not sure I had one, going down that road at least. It was starting to confuse me, too.

[Stargazer]

Who says? It is drinking it that is forbidden, not rinsing your mouth with it. It says "strong drinks," not "strong mouth washes".

I appreciate the humor, but really, if you rinse your mouth out with it, it seems to me that you're drinking it. Some of it is bound to go down the throat, and/or get absorbed by the linking of the mouth. And if you take a medication that uses alcohol as the carrier fluid (because some medicinals don't dissolve in water), you are certainly drinking that, aren't you? Is it therefore forbidden?

Well, I think that's pharisee talk. I don't like phariseeism.

[Stargazer]

OOPS gave you a rep point but meant to hit edit.

Thanks, anyway.

[Stargazer]

Normal distillation can not produce 100% alcohol. A molecular filter or Azeotrope must be used. Everclear while very strong 192 proof. 200 proof(100%) alcohol is not legal to own anywhere, outside of a chemistry lab, in the US. It takes a special license from the ATF to get it. It has absolutely no taste or color. So would be of limited value for ingestion, even if available.

Well, you're partly correct here. An azeotrope by the way isn't a tool to produce 100% alcohol, it is the name for what is also called a "constant boiling mixture". When the ratio between alcohol and water reaches 95.6% alcohol and 4.4% water they form an azeotrope and boil off equally, so you can't get to 100% by distillation, as you said. I was blathering on about 200-proof Everclear but this was me just overhyping it. The Everclear brand is sold in 151 and 190 proofs. If I thought it was important I would CFR you on the 200 proof being illegal per ATF regs, because I don't believe there is such a regulation.

As to the rest, 190 proof Everclear has no taste or color, either (I have some, I just checked -- hic!). In many states you can't get it at all; my state requires an inexpensive license to get 190 proof, with the cost of the license varying with how much you are permitted to buy in state liquor stores each year. Except that since we recently privatized liquor sales in my state of Washington, I think you don't need the license any more.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

Enjoying the above legalisms (and remarkably varying expanations/justifications advanced) with a cold bottle of Ballard Bitter (a.k.a., Red Hook's Long Hammer IPA). No, it's not of my "own make." But Ballard is a nearby neighborhood in Seattle where the original Red Hook brewery began. Close enough, I say!

--Erik

PS. I didn't have my first beer until I was 37, about 6 months after I became a Christian. Gave me a whole new perspective on the goodness of God. Apparently the Middle English word for yeast was "goddes good" or "goddisgoode" (God is good) because "bicause it cometh of ye grete grace of God." How cool is that?

:0)

Why would you enjoy the legalisms? I detect a bit of mild-humored sarcasm here. You think that LDS are the only ones to get a little detailed in their discussions about what is correct vs incorrect action?

[mathonihah]

I appreciate the humor, but really, if you rinse your mouth out with it, it seems to me that you're drinking it. Some of it is bound to go down the throat, and/or get absorbed by the linking of the mouth. And if you take a medication that uses alcohol as the carrier fluid (because some medicinals don't dissolve in water), you are certainly drinking that, aren't you? Is it therefore forbidden?

It also says that strong drinks are for the washing of your bodies. Using it as a mouth wash fulfills that requirement. And the mouth wash in question does not have a pleasant taste (because of all the other ingredients), and nobody in their right mind would want to drink it—unless they were so addicted to alcohol that anything would do.

[thesometimesaint]

Well, you're partly correct here. An azeotrope by the way isn't a tool to produce 100% alcohol, it is the name for what is also called a "constant boiling mixture". When the ratio between alcohol and water reaches 95.6% alcohol and 4.4% water they form an azeotropeand boil off equally, so you can't get to 100% by distillation, as you said. I was blathering on about 200-proof Everclear but this was me just overhyping it. The Everclear brand is sold in 151 and 190 proofs. If I thought it was important I would CFR you on the 200 proof being illegal per ATF regs, because I don't believe there is such a regulation.

As to the rest, 190 proof Everclear has no taste or color, either (I have some, I just checked -- hic!). In many states you can't get it at all; my state requires an inexpensive license to get 190 proof, with the cost of the license varying with how much you are permitted to buy in state liquor stores each year. Except that since we recently privatized liquor sales in my state of Washington, I think you don't need the license any more.

True. Sorry for not clarifying.

High proof vodka also is pretty tasteless. I don't know if its because there literally is no taste or if the alcohol masks any taste.

http://www.lyondellbasell.com/techlit/techlit/Brochures/Ethyl_Alcohol%209551.pdf

My sister is a research chemist and her work requires 200 proof alcohol for some of the tests she runs. She needs and has a permit from the Feds to get the stuff.

There maybe additional state regs for its purchase. That would depend on what state you're in.

[Stargazer]

It also says that strong drinks are for the washing of your bodies. Using it as a mouth wash fulfills that requirement. And the mouth wash in question does not have a pleasant taste (because of all the other ingredients), and nobody in their right mind would want to drink it—unless they were so addicted to alcohol that anything would do.

Well, so much for my pathetic attempt to argue for things I don't believe in. Heh. I actually completely agree with you, no matter what I have seemed to be saying. Just trying to play Abogado del diablo. And very poorly.

[ERayR]

Thanks, anyway.

[ERayR]

What "works for me" is not an issue. "Strong drink" means alcoholic drink. If all alcoholic drinks are forbidden, and non-alcoholic drinks (except the obvious one) are not forbidden, what is the most logical conclusion that can be drawn from that?

Sometimes what seems obvious turns out to be the wrong answer. Not often but sometimes.

[ERayR]

It also says that strong drinks are for the washing of your bodies. Using it as a mouth wash fulfills that requirement. And the mouth wash in question does not have a pleasant taste (because of all the other ingredients), and nobody in their right mind would want to drink it—unless they were so addicted to alcohol that anything would do.

Edited February 12, 2013 by ERayR

[mathonihah]

Sometimes what seems obvious turns out to be the wrong answer. Not often but sometimes.

So what is your conclusion? Is alcohol the forbidden ingredient or isn't it?