Wow Prohibition On Beer Simply An Artifact Of Prohibition?

[mathonihah]

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.

I am a convert. I used to drink before I joined the Church; and for several years after I joined I occasionally tipped my toes in it before finally giving it up permanently. So what I am going to say is from personal experience.

The first is that it is impossible to be under the influence of alcohol (even in small amounts) and still be able to enjoy the influence of the Holy Spirit at the same time, because it mimics the process. It operates on the internal organs of the mind in similar ways. The Holy Spirit communicates with man initially through his spirit, or spiritually; but since man is natural as well as being a spirit, that communication has to filter through the natural mind before it can be recognizes and understood by what the scriptures call “the natural man,” or by man in his natural state; and alcohol operates on, or takes over the biological machinery through which that communication takes place. It mimics the process, and renders the Holy Spirit unable to use the same biological mechanisms to communicate with man while he is under that influence.

The second thing I discovered about drinking alcoholic beverages is that there is no such thing as “moderate drinking”. If you are going to drink at all, you are going to drink enough for it to affect your mood; and once it starts affecting your mood, then it is no longer “moderate” (by my reckoning); and it is a very slippery slope from that to drinking “more;” and before you know it you are hooked.

The Church's advice is the best and most correct. Don't be tempted to experiment with it; or you will regret it if you do.

Edited February 12, 2013 by mathonihah

[T-Shirt]

I think I have definitively shown in my previous post #136 that the position taken in the OP is incorrect. At the very least, I have shown that beer was included in the WOW, long before the days of prohibition. Does anyone still think that beer was only included as a result of prohibition?

[jerm]

That article is clearly wrong, because it identifies wine as a mild drink, which is forbidden in the Word of Wisdom. If beer and wine are both “mild” drinks, how come one is forbidden and the other allowed?

No, it identifies unfermented or lightly fermented wine as a mild drink. Would you say unfermented wine is against the Word of Wisdom? You are essentially saying that because the article doesn't fit your definition of "mild drinks", it is clearly wrong. You are making a no true scotsman fallacy.

The last two paragraphs. There is only one kind of sacrsment where wine was used, and that was THE Sacrsment.

Distiller liqueurs were not used for temple washings. It is a disinfectant which can be used for the washing of wounds. That is what the Word of Wisdom is referring to by the “washing of your bodies”.

The Word of Wisdom doen't say, "THE Sacrament," it says, "Sacraments." Sounds like you need to brush up on your church history. I suggest David Buerger's "Mysteries of Godliness". He quotes this from Oliver Cowdry's journal:

[M]et in the evening with ro. Joseph Smith, Jr. at his house, in company with ro. John Corrill, and after pure water was prepared, called upon the Lord and proceeded to wash each other's bodies, and bathe the same with whiskey, perfumed with cinnamon. This we did that we might be clean before the Lord for the Sabbath, confessing our sins and covenanting to be faith to God.

While performing this washing unto the Lord with solemnity, our minds were filled with many reflections upon the propriety of the same, and how the priests anciently used to wash always before ministering before the Lord." (Oliver Cowdery Sketch Book, 16 January. 1836, pp. 4-5, archives, Historical Department, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah)

This is one of the "sacraments" v.5 is referrng to and what "washing of your bodies" refers to in v.7. This is not speculation.

And if wine is classified as mild drink, and is forbidden, then so would be beer, which would fall into the same category.

No, the prohibition is against wine, not mild drink. Maybe the issue is not actually alcohol but heavy use of alcohol.

[jerm]

I think I have definitively shown in my previous post #136 that the position taken in the OP is incorrect. At the very least, I have shown that beer was included in the WOW, long before the days of prohibition. Does anyone still think that beer was only included as a result of prohibition?

You have shown that some General Authorities were concerned with beer and lumped it in with other forms of alcohol in the Word of Wisdom before prohibition. Not every General Authority agreed. Check out "The Word of Wisdom: From Principal to Requirement." It makes the issue much less black and white.

[Ahab]

No, the prohibition is against wine, not mild drink. Maybe the issue is not actually alcohol but heavy use of alcohol.

Right !!! At least as I see it, and I can see it very clearly. I think it helps to know how people made drinks back then, when they actually made some drinks using sugar.

Think of them making some apple juice, and then imagine that apple juice sitting around for a little while after they made it. Immediately after they made it is when it would be the freshest and best tasing apple juice, because after it sat around a little while it would start to ferment, naturally. It wouldn't take it very long to start the fermentation process, either. It wouldn't have much of a kick right away, though. but as it sat around a little while it would start getting stronger and stronger, or rather, harder and harder. But for a while it would be just juice, and then what you might call mild cider, and then after a while longer it would become hard cider. Hard apple cider. That's a form of alcohol just as much as rum that is made from sugar cane sitting around for a little while.

Consider how yeast is just floating around in the air, even if you don't add it to some other things to make something like bread or a carbonated beverage. Combining yeast and sugar creates alcohol, too, as the yeast eats up the sugar and burps out the CO2 gases into the drink. At first it's just a "soft" drink, and then it becomes a "mild" drink, and with even more time it can also become a "hard" drink.

A lot of people today are separated from that process because they just think of things as they buy them in stores, but back in the day people actually made their own drinks using yeast and sugar, or just from some fruit, while the drink sat around for a while until it all got drunk.

[T-Shirt]

You have shown that some General Authorities were concerned with beer and lumped it in with other forms of alcohol in the Word of Wisdom before prohibition. Not every General Authority agreed. Check out "The Word of Wisdom: From Principal to Requirement." It makes the issue much less black and white.

I understand that it took years for the full meaning of the WOW to develop and that much debate took place. My point is that the OP was suggesting that beer was not considered part of the WOW until after prohibition. I have this is not true. Although it may have been debated, it most certainly was considered to be forbidden by the WOW by several prominent leaders of the Church, long before prohibition.

[jerm]

Right !!! At least as I see it, and I can see it very clearly. I think it helps to know how people made drinks back then, when they actually made some drinks using sugar.

Think of them making some apple juice, and then imagine that apple juice sitting around for a little while after they made it. Immediately after they made it is when it would be the freshest and best tasing apple juice, because after it sat around a little while it would start to ferment, naturally. It wouldn't take it very long to start the fermentation process, either. It wouldn't have much of a kick right away, though. but as it sat around a little while it would start getting stronger and stronger, or rather, harder and harder. But for a while it would be just juice, and then what you might call mild cider, and then after a while longer it would become hard cider. Hard apple cider. That's a form of alcohol just as much as rum that is made from sugar cane sitting around for a little while.

Consider how yeast is just floating around in the air, even if you don't add it to some other things to make something like bread or a carbonated beverage. Combining yeast and sugar creates alcohol, too, as the yeast eats up the sugar and burps out the CO2 gases into the drink. At first it's just a "soft" drink, and then it becomes a "mild" drink, and with even more time it can also become a "hard" drink.

A lot of people today are separated from that process because they just think of things as they buy them in stores, but back in the day people actually made their own drinks using yeast and sugar, or just from some fruit, while the drink sat around for a while until it all got drunk.

You make it sound as if they just left juice sit around and whoops, its alcoholic. I think this is a good (though fairly simplistic) way alcoholic drinks developed but by the 19th century, they knew what they were doing.

[jerm]

I understand that it took years for the full meaning of the WOW to develop and that much debate took place. My point is that the OP was suggesting that beer was not considered part of the WOW until after prohibition. I have this is not true. Although it may have been debated, it most certainly was considered to be forbidden by the WOW by several prominent leaders of the Church, long before prohibition.

Yeah, I think that's right, though I'm not sure that's what the Pure Mormonism post claims (I'll have to read it again). The trend towards making the WoW more explicitly a commandment seems to coincide with the prohibition movement (which started kicking in strongly in about 1906 I think) but that is a different issue. Then again, there were factions, like Brigham Young Jr. and other Apostles that thought beer and at least Danish beer should not be included, even up to that point in time. There were definitely people on the prohibition side like Heber J. Grant who wanted any alcohol included but that sentiment was not monolithic. Apostles like Anthon Lund and Matthias Cowley enjoyed Danish beer and currant wine on occasion. The WoW wasn't explicitly used as a Temple Recommend qualification until after Prohibition so maybe the OP was conflating the two.

Edited February 13, 2013 by jerm

[Saints Alive]

The first is that it is impossible to be under the influence of alcohol (even in small amounts) and still be able to enjoy the influence of the Holy Spirit at the same time, because it mimics the process. It operates on the internal organs of the mind in similar ways. The Holy Spirit communicates with man initially through his spirit, or spiritually; but since man is natural as well as being a spirit, that communication has to filter through the natural mind before it can be recognizes and understood by what the scriptures call “the natural man,” or by man in his natural state; and alcohol operates on, or takes over the biological machinery through which that communication takes place. It mimics the process, and renders the Holy Spirit unable to use the same biological mechanisms to communicate with man while he is under that influence.

The second thing I discovered about drinking alcoholic beverages is that there is no such thing as “moderate drinking”. If you are going to drink at all, you are going to drink enough for it to affect your mood; and once it starts affecting your mood, then it is no longer “moderate” (by my reckoning); and it is a very slippery slope from that to drinking “more;” and before you know it you are hooked.

The Church's advice is the best and most correct. Don't be tempted to experiment with it; or you will regret it if you do.

Most of what you said is completly false, you can both be influenced by the Holy Spirit (even if you are flat out drunk). I don't believe in a Holy Spirit that is confined by physical limitations, if your heart is in the right place or if god wills it, you can be influenced by the HS.

As for you second point, I'd be willing to bet that at least 90% of adults are able to drink in moderation (defined as 2 servings per day for males and 1 per day for females) with out any problems, or without becoming "hooked". Are there people who drink irresponsibly? Yes, but there are also those who eat irresponsible and treat their spouses and children irresponsible, that doesn't mean that everyone who eats or has a family is irresponsible.

[Saints Alive]

I understand that it took years for the full meaning of the WOW to develop and that much debate took place. My point is that the OP was suggesting that beer was not considered part of the WOW until after prohibition. I have this is not true. Although it may have been debated, it most certainly was considered to be forbidden by the WOW by several prominent leaders of the Church, long before prohibition.

Actually many Apostles argued that beer was ok, see the article. Ultimately prohibition came around and there was no room for debate as it was now illegal.

[T-Shirt]

Actually many Apostles argued that beer was ok, see the article. Ultimately prohibition came around and there was no room for debate as it was now illegal.

That is all pretty much irrelevant to the point. All I needed to do was show that many prominent leaders of the Church (including prophets) preached against the use of beer before prohibition. I clearly have done that.

[Five Solas]

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?

Your discernment is pretty good, Stargazer. Maybe not great--but still pretty good.

:0)

The post immediately preceding mine contained a number of humorous quotations (however unintended and sincere the authors may have been). Yes, I enjoyed reading them. And no, I don't think LDS are unique when it comes to creating extra-Biblical legalisms. In truth, I see myself do this regularly. Not over the question of beer any longer (Praise God!), but I find myself judging based on job, appearance, and all manner of standards that are my own creation and not Biblical. So while I can be amused at the folly of others (e.g., the prophets of Baal in 1 Kings 18)--I am not completely oblivious to folly of my own.

--Erik

[Stargazer]

Your discernment is pretty good, Stargazer. Maybe not great--but still pretty good.

:0)

The post immediately preceding mine contained a number of humorous quotations (however unintended and sincere the authors may have been). Yes, I enjoyed reading them. And no, I don't think LDS are unique when it comes to creating extra-Biblical legalisms. In truth, I see myself do this regularly. Not over the question of beer any longer (Praise God!), but I find myself judging based on job, appearance, and all manner of standards that are my own creation and not Biblical. So while I can be amused at the folly of others (e.g., the prophets of Baal in 1 Kings 18)--I am not completely oblivious to folly of my own.

--Erik

Well, you're wise, then. Would that more folks were so wise.

[Stargazer]

And after reading all the way though that Maxwell Institute/FARMS thread, believe me, I need a driink.

[thesometimesaint]

You make it sound as if they just left juice sit around and whoops, its alcoholic. I think this is a good (though fairly simplistic) way alcoholic drinks developed but by the 19th century, they knew what they were doing.

Actually that is what happens, Exposed to air it becomes vinegar, sealed it becomes CO2 and alcohol. We use specific types of yeast for consistency of taste, be it wine, beer, or bread. We've known about how wine, beer, and bread are made for about 30,000 years now.

[mathonihah]

Most of what you said is completly false, you can both be influenced by the Holy Spirit (even if you are flat out drunk). I don't believe in a Holy Spirit that is confined by physical limitations, if your heart is in the right place or if god wills it, you can be influenced by the HS.

As for you second point, I'd be willing to bet that at least 90% of adults are able to drink in moderation (defined as 2 servings per day for males and 1 per day for females) with out any problems, or without becoming "hooked". Are there people who drink irresponsibly? Yes, but there are also those who eat irresponsible and treat their spouses and children irresponsible, that doesn't mean that everyone who eats or has a family is irresponsible.

Not going to argue the point. A word to the wise is sufficient. Feel free to indulge if you wish.

[mathonihah]

And after reading all the way though that Maxwell Institute/FARMS thread, believe me, I need a driink.

Or a mouthwash!

[Saints Alive]

That is all pretty much irrelevant to the point. All I needed to do was show that many prominent leaders of the Church (including prophets) preached against the use of beer before prohibition. I clearly have done that.

Some also preached against eating meat and drinking hot drinks (temperature wise) That doesn't mean that their interpretation are correct or the will of The Lord. I think you are missing my point. If it were not for prohibition we would still be debating if beer was included in the word of wisdom or not, much like how we debate how much meat is appropriate and if caffeine is included or not. Solidification of all alcohol as against the WoW only came about because of prohibition. Where there people who believed alcohol was the evil substance before prohibition? Sure but the temperance movement is older than prohibition so they were likely caught up in that. Edited February 13, 2013 by Saints Alive

[thesometimesaint]

Such discussions are far older than US Prohibition. The Old Testament talks about it.

[Ahab]

You make it sound as if they just left juice sit around and whoops, its alcoholic.

Yep, it occurs naturally, even when people don't even know it is "alcoholic". Even fruit that has fallen from a tree has "alcohol" imn it, even though usually only a "mild" form, but if you eat enough of it you can get "drunk" by just eating some fruit. And a lot of people who eat it may not even know it has a trace of "alcohol" in it. They'll just think it tastes good while getting a little bit "drunk".

I think this is a good (though fairly simplistic) way alcoholic drinks developed but by the 19th century, they knew what they were doing.

I'm just trying to straighten out the mistaken notion that alcohol has to be bought from a store, and only when a person intends to buy it. It's just a natural by-product of letting some fruit or grain sit around for a while, even if it's not the best form or proof of alcohol that can be made, or bought.

People who think they don't ever consume alcohol just need to think a little bit more to realize they actually are unless they eat and drink everything when it is fresh or has been frozen or vacuum packed.

Food storage, anyone? Anyone have any apples or nuts or grains sitting around in a cellar? If that stuff has been sitting around for a while in its natural condition, without having been frozen or vacuum sealed for freshness, it likely has a little "alcohol" in it.

[jerm]

Actually that is what happens, Exposed to air it becomes vinegar, sealed it becomes CO2 and alcohol. We use specific types of yeast for consistency of taste, be it wine, beer, or bread. We've known about how wine, beer, and bread are made for about 30,000 years now.

I think you're misunderstanding my point... Yeah, I get that's how they make the stuff. But it was made on purpose not by accident... When Joseph Smtih ordered a bottle of wine to raise their spirits at Carthage jail, he wasn't asking for grape juice that just happened to be sitting around for a couple months.

Edited February 13, 2013 by jerm

[jerm]

That is all pretty much irrelevant to the point. All I needed to do was show that many prominent leaders of the Church (including prophets) preached against the use of beer before prohibition. I clearly have done that.

So you argued against the straw man you created and won. Congradulations!

[mathonihah]

Yep, it occurs naturally, even when people don't even know it is "alcoholic". Even fruit that has fallen from a tree has "alcohol" imn it, even though usually only a "mild" form, but if you eat enough of it you can get "drunk" by just eating some fruit. And a lot of people who eat it may not even know it has a trace of "alcohol" in it. They'll just think it tastes good while getting a little bit "drunk".

I'm just trying to straighten out the mistaken notion that alcohol has to be bought from a store, and only when a person intends to buy it. It's just a natural by-product of letting some fruit or grain sit around for a while, even if it's not the best form or proof of alcohol that can be made, or bought.

People who think they don't ever consume alcohol just need to think a little bit more to realize they actually are unless they eat and drink everything when it is fresh or has been frozen or vacuum packed.

Food storage, anyone? Anyone have any apples or nuts or grains sitting around in a cellar? If that stuff has been sitting around for a while in its natural condition, without having been frozen or vacuum sealed for freshness, it likely has a little "alcohol" in it.

I am not quite sure what is the point you are trying to make with that. Nobody denies that alcohol is a naturally occurring substance, and may already be present in minute quantities in ultra ripe fruit we eat. But I never heard anybody being arrested for driving while being under the influence of alcohol because they eat an over-ripe fruit before driving. Are you suggesting that just because alcohol is a naturally occurring substance, which may already be present in minute quantities in our regular diet, that it is therefore okay to drink and drive while you are above the legal alcohol limit?

[Saints Alive]

. Are you suggesting that just because alcohol is a naturally occurring substance, which may already be present in minute quantities in our regular diet, that it is therefore okay to drink and drive while you are above the legal alcohol limit?

Are you suggesting that responsible adults who have a beer or glass of wine with dinner are in the same category as drunk drivers?

[mathonihah]

Are you suggesting that responsible adults who have a beer or glass of wine with dinner are in the same category as drunk drivers?

No. I am trying to find out what the logic of his argument it as it was presented.