Wow Prohibition On Beer Simply An Artifact Of Prohibition?

[Ahab]

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?

There are many directions you can go with the thoughts I intended to share, but no that's not one I intended.

People should be careful about saying they don't ever consume any alcohol, though. Most people do, without realizing it.

What do you think that means in regards to whether or not people are following the Word of Wisdom? If someone makes their own drinks, like root beer, using yeast and sugar, at what point would you say they should no longer drink it if they have made a large batch of it? To get any fizzle at all it usually needs to sit around for at least a few days. At which point do you think it becomes a "mild" drink, and when wouild you no longer drink it and throw it out as no longer good to drink?

[mathonihah]

There are many directions you can go with the thoughts I intended to share, but no that's not one I intended.

People should be careful about saying they don't ever consume any alcohol, though. Most people do, without realizing it.

The air you breathe also contains germs. Does that mean that you should sit and eat a whole plate full of germs?

What do you think that means in regards to whether or not people are following the Word of Wisdom? If someone makes their own drinks, like root beer, using yeast and sugar, at what point would you say they should no longer drink it if they have made a large batch of it? To get any fizzle at all it usually needs to sit around for at least a few days. At which point do you think it becomes a "mild" drink, and when wouild you no longer drink it and throw it out as no longer good to drink?

That is for you to decide. I have never made home-made root beer, and have no intention of make it. Since you are the one who are making it, you are best placed to answer that question for yourself. If in doubt, you should discuss it with your bishop or stake president. I can't help you with that.

[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, but they are breaking the Word of Wisdom though.

[Ahab]

No, but they are breaking the Word of Wisdom though.

That's a mistaken idea and I'm trying to help you realize that.

What is beer? What's it made of? Many kinds of beer, with many ways to make it, right? Suppose you start out making root beer (a form of beer) with yeast and sugar and you let is sit out long enough to become carbonated, and then without you even realizing it all the sugar gets eaten up as it sits in storage until you drink it. It was beer when you first made it, and as it sat it went from soft to mild to strong, as we generally use those terms to describe it. At what point is it no longer mild? At what point are you not following the Word of Wisdom? You just now said someone is breaking it just by the fact that they are drinking a beer. Would you now like to retract your statement or are you going to continue to be wrong without realizing it?

[mathonihah]

That's a mistaken idea and I'm trying to help you realize that.

What is beer? What's it made of? Many kinds of beer, with many ways to make it, right? Suppose you start out making root beer (a form of beer) with yeast and sugar and you let is sit out long enough to become carbonated, and then without you even realizing it all the sugar gets eaten up as it sits in storage until you drink it. It was beer when you first made it, and as it sat it went from soft to mild to strong, as we generally use those terms to describe it. At what point is it no longer mild? At what point are you not following the Word of Wisdom? You just now said someone is breaking it just by the fact that they are drinking a beer. Would you now like to retract your statement or are you going to continue to be wrong without realizing it?

My answer to that is, if in doubt, don't drink it. I have no interest in making my own fermented drinks, so the question of "incremental content" doesn't arise. Commercial beers usually have a fixed level of alcohol content. But the best answer to your question is, if in doubt, don't drink it. Avoid the appearance of evil, not just the evil. If I was invited to a garden party where drinks are served, I wouldn't even hold a glass of fruit juice in my hand, to avoid giving anybody the wrong impression.

[Ahab]

My answer to that is, if in doubt, don't drink it. I have no interest in making my own fermented drinks, so the question of "incremental content" doesn't arise. Commercial beers usually have a fixed level of alcohol content. But the best answer to your question is, if in doubt, don't drink it. Avoid the appearance of evil, not just the evil. If I was invited to a garden party where drinks are served, I wouldn't even hold a glass of fruit juice in my hand, to avoid giving anybody the wrong impression.

Wow. Okay. Can't fault you for that, I suppose. No real harm in being too careful or cautious. I just wouldn't be so loud in pronouncing sin upon others if they feel comfortable getting a little closer to the limit of what is and is not acceptable. Beer and wine can both be acceptable drinks as long as you know where to draw the line.

[mathonihah]

Wow. Okay. Can't fault you for that, I suppose. No real harm in being too careful or cautious. I just wouldn't be so loud in pronouncing sin upon others if they feel comfortable getting a little closer to the limit of what is and is not acceptable. Beer and wine can both be acceptable drinks as long as you know where to draw the line.

Well it is not what the Lord says. He says, "it is not good". If it is not good, then it is not good.

[Cobalt-70]

I don't think there can be much doubt that "mild drinks" made from grain refers to beer. Brigham Young clearly interpreted it in that fashion, and the drinking of beer was common in pioneer Utah.

Now, as to the current prohibition on beer drinking in the modern Church ... that is, to me, an entirely different question. I, for one, can see the wisdom in encouraging the Saints to not take part in the modern "beer culture" of our world. To me, the issue is less one of the "mild drink," per se, and more one of the culture that has been built up around it--a culture largely antithetical to the building up of Zion.

I'm not a beer drinker, but I don't see how what you call the "beer drinking culture" is antithetical to the building up of Zion. How could it be, when Brigham Young allowed breweries to flourish in the Utah Territory as part of the church's broader plan to build up Zion there? Besides how is the "beer drinking culture" that much different from the "wine drinking culture" that Jesus lived in. The wine "culture" was important to Jesus, as a means of showing communion acceptance with his disciples. He even incorporated that "culture" into the Lord's Supper, which became a major Christian ritual. If there is a "culture" around drinking beer or wine, isn't it a culture that fosters friendship, the bearing of one another's burdens, and social goodwill? We Mormons may not do the beer thing, but I don't think we should be so quick to judge the "beer culture" as something antithetical to Mormonism, while saying nothing about the "culture" of sitting on our butts watching TV and eating a half gallon of ice cream, and never going to the gym.

[Cobalt-70]

He has. “Wine or strong drinks” pretty much excludes any alcoholic drink that is of the same strength as wine or higher, which includes beer.

The word "or" in the phrase "wine or strong drinks" means that wine is not a strong drink. Otherwise, it would say "wine or other strong drinks."

[Cobalt-70]

Question for those who believe that the Word of Wisdom in its original form permits the drinking of beer. The wording of the revelation is clearly antithetical to the drinking of wine; and puts it on the same level as "strong drinks":

"That inasmuch as any man drinketh

wine or strong drink

among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him." (D&C 89:5)

Now the percentage alcohol in beer is not substantially lower than wine. There are different kinds of both of course. Some beers even have a higher percentage of alcohol than some types of wine. But on average wine contains between 12.5% and 14.5% alcohol, whereas beer contains on average between 4% and 6% alcohol (see here and here for more information). But beer is normally consumed in much greater quantities than wine. It is considered a "thirst quencher". Hence an average beer drinker probably consumes the same quantity of alcohol as an average wine drinker. But if wine is prohibited, what makes you think that beer should be allowed? The verse in question that is quoted in support of that belief is as follows:

"Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain." (D&C 89:17)

I am not at all sure this must necessarily refer to beer. Unless somebody actually inquires from the Lord, and obtain a revelation to that effect (or better still, a recipe for how that kind of drink should be made!), I think it is presumptuous of any of us to jump to conclusions as to exactly what it means. Second-guessing the Lord is never a good idea. Asking him is always the best policy.

I think the prohibition against wine (except in Sacraments) has more to do with the perceived problem of "conspiring men" that Joseph Smith believed were planning to poison wine and liquor purchased by Mormons, than with any health effect relating to the amount of alcohol. This issue had already been raised in D&C 27, which told Mormons to make their own wine and liquor, rather than purchasing it from enemies who might poison them. But wine, in particular, was never meant to be permanently prohibited, at least if we take D&C 27 seriously, which prophesied that during the impending Millennium, Joseph Smith would be drinking wine on the earth with Jesus, Moroni, John the Baptist, and others.

[sdc999]

My answer to that is, if in doubt, don't drink it. I have no interest in making my own fermented drinks, so the question of "incremental content" doesn't arise. Commercial beers usually have a fixed level of alcohol content. But the best answer to your question is, if in doubt, don't drink it. Avoid the appearance of evil, not just the evil. If I was invited to a garden party where drinks are served, I wouldn't even hold a glass of fruit juice in my hand, to avoid giving anybody the wrong impression.

I've never quite understood this. You are either guilty or not guilty. If you think others would pass judgement just from appearance, then are you saying that if you see someone with a glass of 'something', it is guilty until proven innocent? Besides, most people lack the guts to come up to you and say something to your face, else, if they do, you do have the right to tell them just how stupid they really are - and, it's none of their business!

Same story, different event. I saw a bishop's wife appoach a man in the foyer once and she 'judged' him on an apparent action. He told her, in plain english, what she could do to herself. Appropriate - not really, but really really funny. People judge the 'appearance of evil' because they have gotten away with it too many times.

[Ahab]

The word "or" in the phrase "wine or strong drinks" means that wine is not a strong drink. Otherwise, it would say "wine or other strong drinks."

I agree that wine is not a strong drink, but even if it were, it is still acceptable to drink it within certain parameters.

[Sethbag]

I beg to differ.

A prophet, by pure revelation, can be shown background information about a passage of scripture that is not readily apparent or even present in the passage of scripture as it is written down.

Thus, a prophet can provide insights about scripture that an ordinary reader cannot.

How often a prophet does that may be a matter for discussion, but his ability to do it -- by the gift and power of God -- is a given.

Moreover, a prophet can provide a divinely revealed application for a particular passage of scripture that is tailored to the time and place in which that application is revealed to him.

Personally, I believe this has been the case with D&C 89.

Theojudicial activism. ;-) I think the OP prefers a strict constructionist approach to scripture. Apparently Scott Lloyd is OK with scripture as a living document.

[rockpond]

Theojudicial activism. ;-) I think the OP prefers a strict constructionist approach to scripture. Apparently Scott Lloyd is OK with scripture as a living document.

+1 to the term Theojudicial Activism.

As noted before, I don't have strong feelings about this particular Word of Wisdom debate since I have zero desire to drink beer. But, I do take issue with the idea that our prophets are on the receiving end of clarifying revelations that they don't bother to pass along to the membership. That doesn't sit well with me.

[Sethbag]

What bothers me most is the self-serving motivation behind the argument in the first place. We're bombarded by apologists excusing away what the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators have said as just their opinions, and that what is authoritative is the scriptures, on the one hand, and on the other we're told that the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators trump the scriptures because they've got special insight that can apply in a different time and society than when the scriptures were written. I don't really think you can have it both ways.

But this is a side issue, really. Mathonihah is simply wrong when he says that 12% wine doesn't differ substantially from 4-5% beer.

As for my own opinion, I think it's pretty clear beer wasn't originally intended to be banned under the WoW, and that the barley as raw material for mild drinks pretty much supports that. But either way, I couldn't care less, because Joseph Smith's opinions on the matter carry no more weight with me than anyone else's, and I'm not even convinced that Joseph Smith really held the opinion that became D&C 89 very strongly, for that matter, at least as evidenced by his own behavior over time.

Alcohol is a problem when it's a problem, and when it's not a problem, it's, uh, not a problem. How's that for a tautology?

Btw, I think wishing to avoid the potential problem is a perfectly reasonable reason for people to decide to abstain from alcohol. Some percentage of people will be prone to alcoholism, and I don't know that anyone can tell beforehand if it will be them. And finding out after the fact can be destructive. But I also don't think that reason offers compelling logic for why all people should always abstain. It becomes a personal choice, like so many other aspects of our various lifestyles.

[Ahab]

+1 to the term Theojudicial Activism.

As noted before, I don't have strong feelings about this particular Word of Wisdom debate since I have zero desire to drink beer. But, I do take issue with the idea that our prophets are on the receiving end of clarifying revelations that they don't bother to pass along to the membership. That doesn't sit well with me.

While you'll often hear the phrase "follow the prophet" what you'll find when you do follow a prophet is that he's going to God for his answers, and you can do that just as well as he can in regards to things in your own stewardship. Follow him in the sense of doing what he does and what he tells others to do.

Or, in other words, you don't have to wait until someone tells you what God has said. You can always just ask God, yourself.

Anytime. Anywhere. For whatever reason, or issue.

[Bernard Gui]

Having read many talks in the Journal of Discourses on the subject of the Word of Wisdom, I have arrived at this understanding of the issue

1. In the early days, it was considered wise council, but there was no onus on those who did not observe it.

2. During the trek West and the early colonization, it took back seat to other more pressing issues.

3. As things settled down, some of the brethren pointed out its important position in the Doctrine and Covenants,

the fact that it had been ignored, and wanted it to be reconsidered as a revealed law for the Church.

4. The brethren revived it in conference talks and other venues, but were met mostly with apathy.

5. They also acknowledged the fact that many of the older Saints, many of the leaders, and new immigrants

from Europe and Canada were already addicted to various substances and had great difficulty giving them up.

6. Brigham and others noted this apathy and the flow of money back to the East to purchase items prohibited in the WoW,

so for economic reasons attempted to produce them in Utah.

7. Eventually, they gave up on their generation and made the conscious decision to focus their efforts on the youth.

8. This was a wise course, and the WoW has since become a hallmark of the Church.

This is the way I see it. I have long suspected that I am one who is predisposed to alcoholism because it runs in

the family, so I feel blessed by the WoW. My dad joined the Church in his 40s, and had to give up all of those good things.

We ended up with a lot more disposable income. He didn't smell bad or act weird any more. He became a model for

friends and a kindly advocate for abstention. Blessings all around.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Bernard Gui

[mathonihah]

The word "or" in the phrase "wine or strong drinks" means that wine is not a strong drink. Otherwise, it would say "wine or other strong drinks."

The phrase, “wine or strong drinks” is biblical. It occurs in the Bible more than twenty times. It means “wine or any other comparable drink,” which included beer, but not spirits. Distilled liquors did not exist in those days; but beers (and other fermented drinks) did exist.

Edited February 14, 2013 by mathonihah

[rockpond]

The phrase, “wine or strong drinks” is biblical. It occurs in the Bible more than twenty times. It means “wine or any other comparable drink,” which included beer, but not spirits. Distiller liquors did not exist in those days; but beers (and other fermented drinks) did exist.

Actually, the English phrase "wine or strong drinks" appears precisely zero times in the original writings that became the KJV Bible.

And your conclusion that it means "wine or any other comparable drink" is something that you have failed to prove here. It is conjecture on your part and "comparable drink" offers little clarity anyway.

[Sethbag]

The phrase, “wine or strong drinks” is biblical. It occurs in the Bible more than twenty times. It means “wine or any other comparable drink,” which included beer, but not spirits. Distiller liquors did not exist in those days; but beers (and other fermented drinks) did exist.

Out of curiosity, in Alma 55 when it talks about wine specially prepared to be stronger than usual, do you read that as having been fortified with additional alcohol? Since wine is already as strong as it's possible to get without distillation, by what process do you suppose they would have fortified it?

Btw, port wine is wine that is fortified with brandy before the entire sugar content has been fermented away, so that it is both sweet and more strongly alcoholic than conventional wine. The brandy is distilled though. I'm curious what you think about that fortified wine in Alma 55, because if distillation had not in fact been invented yet, I think that's probably anachronistic.

[mathonihah]

Actually, the English phrase "wine or strong drinks" appears precisely zero times in the original writings that became the KJV Bible.

Okay, then tell me what the original phrasing is which has been translated in the KJV as “wine or strong drink”.

Edited February 14, 2013 by mathonihah

[mathonihah]

Out of curiosity, in Alma 55 when it talks about wine specially prepared to be stronger than usual, do you read that as having been fortified with additional alcohol? Since wine is already as strong as it's possible to get without distillation, by what process do you suppose they would have fortified it?

Btw, port wine is wine that is fortified with brandy before the entire sugar content has been fermented away, so that it is both sweet and more strongly alcoholic than conventional wine. The brandy is distilled though. I'm curious what you think about that fortified wine in Alma 55, because if distillation had not in fact been invented yet, I think that's probably anachronistic.

It doesn't say “fortified”. Distilled spirits didn't exist in those days. You “fortify” wine by adding distilled spirits into it. It says wine prepared in its strength; that means naturally fermented to be as strong as possible. Average wine is about 12% alcohol. In those days it may have been less. Maximum strength drink that can be obtained through natural fermentation is 20%, which is pretty strong. After 20% alcohol is achieved fermentation automatically stops, because yeast cannot continue to ferment after that point. Naturally fermented wine comes in different strengths, and presumably they had figured out ways of making it as strong as possible.

Edited February 14, 2013 by mathonihah

[mathonihah]

If someone makes their own drinks, like root beer, using yeast and sugar, at what point would you say they should no longer drink it if they have made a large batch of it?

The legal definition of a drink being labelled as “alcohol free” is having less than 0.5% alcohol content, and I am happy to go along with that. I have no problem buying and drinking commercially produced drinks (like root beer) with that much alcohol content, and occasionally do.

Edited February 14, 2013 by mathonihah

[mathonihah]

This is the way I see it. I have long suspected that I am one who is predisposed to alcoholism because it runs in the family, so I feel blessed by the WoW. My dad joined the Church in his 40s, and had to give up all of those good things.

We ended up with a lot more disposable income. He didn't smell bad or act weird any more. He became a model for friends and a kindly advocate for abstention. Blessings all around.

Okay, what was so “good”about them then? The Lord did say, “It is not good” you know.

[Sethbag]

I've never produced my own wine or beer, but I've read quite a lot about it, and from what I've read the 12-14% alcohol content is pretty much the usual upper limit, with the mid teens (~15%) reachable only in a few cases by special techniques, if fortification is not done. I'm not going to argue that particular point too strenuously though. I went back and re-read the relevant passage and there's enough wiggle room to make it not worth it.

My first impression was that it was prepared strong specifically for this purpose, implying it was done right before they took it to the enemy, which would preclude special fermentation processes (which would have taken weeks). But it just says it had been prepared strong, and doesn't specifically say it was prepared just for the purpose.