D&C 89:17 Says We Can Have Beer?! Or So There Is A Claim By Some.

[captain-jack]

So as I sail around the internet, I came across this blog post. The author makes a comparison to someone who eats an unhealthy amount of meat, doesn't like his vegetables, and seems to be painted as a pig. Another person is painted as being very health conscious but has a beer now and then. Supposedly the heathly beer drinker is following the Word of Wisdom and the pig isn't. They premise this argument with DC 89:17

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.

I felt that at a cursory glance it does merit some thought. However, context is king. Was it good because water could be contaminated and a very slightly fermented drink could protect against that? That no longer being the case, does the argument still hold true? Or looking at verse 16:

All grain is good for the food of man; as also the fruit of the vine; that which yieldeth fruit, whether in the ground or above the ground—

It specifically says food, ending the verse with a hyphen gives the assumption that the following verse is listing what is good as food.

What say ye?

[Duncan]

I'd say one reason that we should avoid beer and alcohol is it's addictive, plus the smell is putrid- If the blog author thinks otherwise he should visit AA

[CV75]

What say ye?

I think comparing individuals in ths manner stirs up contention and enmity. I think it would have been enough to say that, in his opinion, beer is a mild barley drink and using it with pure intent is consistent with the spirit of the law. Of course, it could then be argued that truly living the spirit of the Word of Wisdom entails submission to the current leadership's interpretation and explanation of it. I can only say that as I live it in this way, I have less a disposition to judge those who live it differently, and would rather pray for them than hold up a bone of contention.

[ERayR]

So as I sail around the internet, I came across this blog post. The author makes a comparison to someone who eats an unhealthy amount of meat, doesn't like his vegetables, and seems to be painted as a pig. Another person is painted as being very health conscious but has a beer now and then. Supposedly the heathly beer drinker is following the Word of Wisdom and the pig isn't. They premise this argument with DC 89:17

I felt that at a cursory glance it does merit some thought. However, context is king. Was it good because water could be contaminated and a very slightly fermented drink could protect against that? That no longer being the case, does the argument still hold true? Or looking at verse 16:

It specifically says food, ending the verse with a hyphen gives the assumption that the following verse is listing what is good as food.

What say ye?

I say he should get to know a few of the beer alcoholics that I know. But, if he/she wants to drink beer then any rationalization is as good as another. Why don't they just drink non-alcoholic?

[canard78]

Mild barley drinks were certainly beer back in the 1800s. The no alcohol at all became a temple recommend requirement in the early 1900s around the time of prohibition.

I'll go dig out some references once I'm on my laptop.

[iamse7en]

Yes context is king. Thy very person who received this revelation continued to drink beer, as in "drank a glass of beer at Moessers" (Joseph's journal, June 1, 1844). And all of the leaders afterwards continued the belief that mild barley drinks were just fine. It wasn't until HJG's administration that strong drink was changed to include all alcoholic beverages. And I don't recall this being a revelation, and the D&C continues to specifically permit mild barley drinks. I don't drink an occasional beer or wine as my earlier Mormon counterparts did (because it wasn't and isn't a sin), only because the policy is quite clear on what it takes to enter today's Temple doors. Drinking mild beer and wine was not against the WoW and still isn't today, but it is against church policy for now until it is finally changed back to its original intent and meaning. Or perhaps until the Saints don't need to be commanded in all things and rely on pharisaical rules.

[pmccombs1]

What say ye?

Why is the rum gone?

[Calm]

It wasn't until HJG's administration that strong drink was changed to include all alcoholic beverages.

I wonder if the change in culture (at least some of it) surrounding beer drinking was the main reason why it switched to being considered as strong drink. Getting drunk became an end in and of itself for many people...not just for the emotional effect of making them numb, but it appears to me that there was an aura attached to the idea of letting oneself lose control that became popular among those with too much leisure time, an attitude toward drunkenness (no shame in being drunk as there had been in the past) that continues to this day from what I've seen...sometimes even when one is stupid enough to get behind the wheel and ends up hurting someone (as evidenced by lighter sentences in the past if one was intoxicated and held not accountable for one's decision...which is about as stupid of a legal attitude as I have ever heard as no one forces someone to go out and get drunk, if one is accountable before one takes the drink and choose to drink, then that makes one accountable for everything one does under the influence because one has willingly been influenced.)

Beer taken to excess will be just as intoxicating as whiskey, etc. after all. And watching college kids have contests on who can get drunkest quickest makes me think that in many ways, even if the majority of members could control themselves with beer, having a bright line in these days of excess is a wise idea for the weakest of Saints, especially our children and youth.

http://www.boston.co...from_2000_2008/

Alcohol poisoning deaths are soaring in Massachusetts, and state health officials are pointing to a number of potential causes — from binge drinking to the sales-tax exemption given to alcohol sold in stores.

The number of deaths attributed to drinking fatal levels of alcohol jumped from 18 in 2000 to 228 in 2008, a 12-fold increase that has pushed alcohol into the second spot for causes of poisoning death ahead of cocaine overdoses, according to a report by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health.

The report found that in 2008, the most recent year for which statistics are available, alcohol was associated with 1 in 4 poisoning deaths, which include drug overdoses, placing it behind fatal overdoses caused by opioids like heroin and OxyContin, which accounted for 69 percent of all poisoning deaths.

The vast majority of the deaths, 88 percent, were ruled accidental.

While health officials are struggling to get a handle on the cause of the dramatic increase in alcohol-related deaths, they say several factors could play a role.

Massachusetts, with its plethora of colleges and universities, also has a binge-drinking rate that is higher than the national average, according to Michael Botticelli, director of the state Bureau of Substance Abuse Services.

Binge drinking is defined as five or more drinks at a time.

Botticelli also pointed to an increase in the number and variety of alcohol energy drinks, which contain stimulants such as caffeine.

“These beverages have been shown to contribute to an increased probability of alcohol poisonings,’’ Botticelli said in a statement.

He said another potential cause is the expanded availability and marketing of beverages that contain a higher volume of alcohol per serving.

Last month, Massachusetts liquor regulators banned the sale of caffeine-packed alcoholic drinks, such as Four Loko, known as “blackout in a can.’’

The drinks are popular with students looking for a quick and cheap buzz. But officials have warned that the caffeine and other stimulants encourage binge drinking by preventing consumers from realizing how drunk they might be.

I think having nondrinking as a firmly established part of LDS culture now is much more helpful than it would have been if it had been a recent attempt to change things to no drinking. Plus if media portrayal is anywhere close to accurate (it is not something I've studied so feel free to correct me if I am wrong in depending on movies portraying that era), bingeing among youth has been going on for a long time, at least since the 50s and 60s so the timing of the change was probably perfect in regards to adding a safeguard for LDS youth during those cultural eras.

And considering the culture that was at least popular in the US major cities during the early 1900s and apparently in Europe as well, protecting our people through a more strict temperance rule would have been commonsense it seems to me so it hardly surprising that it became a church policy at that time and continues to this day...though we teach that it will eventually be removed at least in part.

Edited August 7, 2013 by calmoriah

[Duncan]

Something I have learned and not the hard way is if there is a rehab centre for something then it's better to stay away!!

[canard78]

Something I have learned and not the hard way is if there is a rehab centre for something then it's better to stay away!!

You'll starve then. There are plenty of rehab centres for food addictions/eating disorders.

But I still get your point.

A while ago, when I was considering my membership, I wondered whether I'd want to drink if I left. I resolved I wouldn't. It's a waste of money, bad for you, smells bad (why bother 'acquiring the taste') and leads to bad decision making.

I'm also from a culture (most of UK) that's into going out "on the lash" and getting hammered.

It all seems slightly pointless.

[EllenMaksoud]

So as I sail around the internet, I came across this blog post. The author makes a comparison to someone who eats an unhealthy amount of meat, doesn't like his vegetables, and seems to be painted as a pig. Another person is painted as being very health conscious but has a beer now and then. Supposedly the heathly beer drinker is following the Word of Wisdom and the pig isn't. They premise this argument with DC 89:17

I felt that at a cursory glance it does merit some thought. However, context is king. Was it good because water could be contaminated and a very slightly fermented drink could protect against that? That no longer being the case, does the argument still hold true? Or looking at verse 16:

It specifically says food, ending the verse with a hyphen gives the assumption that the following verse is listing what is good as food.

What say ye?

Here we go, skirting the edge of sin again. I was saved from such hell, that I would not dare.

[Duncan]

You'll starve then. There are plenty of rehab centres for food addictions/eating disorders.

But I still get your point.

A while ago, when I was considering my membership, I wondered whether I'd want to drink if I left. I resolved I wouldn't. It's a waste of money, bad for you, smells bad (why bother 'acquiring the taste') and leads to bad decision making.

I'm also from a culture (most of UK) that's into going out "on the lash" and getting hammered.

It all seems slightly pointless.

I don't think where I live has food detox centres, we have pet stores by the billions

We have an Elder in our ward from Newcastle, England and we LOVE him! he says "em" alot and "you know what I mean" in a high pitch voice and he has us saying pillock, fairy cakes and tinker but we don't know what those mean but they are fun to say

Edited August 7, 2013 by Duncan

[Hamba Tuhan]

I always find it mildly amusing when people are certain Joseph Smith possessed the authority to proclaim revelations but then dislike the fact that his successors have the authority to interpret and refine those revelations.

As far as the wisdom inherent in the later banning of even mildly alcoholic drinks, the science is catching up with this as well:

In conclusion, alcohol is one of the most well established causes of cancer and causes a considerable burden of disease in terms of both mortality and morbidity. With respect to cancer, alcohol is a cause of cancers of the upper-aero digestive tract, breast, colorectum, liver and stomach. The effect of alcohol on cancer risk is dose dependent and it is not possible to establish a level of consumption below which there is no increase in risk with respect to cancer. (emphasis added)

Edited August 7, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[canard78]

I don't think where I live has food detox centres, we have pet stores by the billions

We have an Elder in our ward from Newcastle, England and we LOVE him! he says "em" alot and "you know what I mean" in a high pitch voice and he has us saying pillock, fairy cakes and tinker but we don't know what those mean but they are fun to say

Buy him some "Custard Creams" from an import shop and he'll be over the moon.

And don't use the 'W' word around him. My Canadian trainer, for whom it wasn't swearing, thought it very amusing to call me one. Even after I told him it was one of the worst in UK swear words.

[Storm Rider]

This is an area where some of us like to find a bone to pick. As I have said before, I appreciate and rely heavily upon the revelations received by prophets, seers, and revelators and I hate policies created by men (in a religious, spiritual context). The wisdom of Section 89 stands today just as reliable as it did when Joseph received it. The challenge for each LDS is to determine if we will follow the prophet today or not; if we desire to enter the temple; and if we want to refuse to submit to a certain way of doing things. I understand how some individuals will take a pass on these challenges while others easily submit. I know too many people who drink who are not drunks; comparing drinking to being drunk is unhelpful and confuses the issue. The issue is will we follow the prophet?

[Garden Girl]

I don't believe for one minute that beer as we know it today is comparable to "mild barley drinks" of the WoW.... With a 12% alcohol content for most beers (more for some), it doesn't take long to become impaired. Even if one has only one or two beers it doesn't matter.., they are still not the same.

GG

Edited August 7, 2013 by Garden Girl

[Kenngo1969]

You'll starve then. There are plenty of rehab centres for food addictions/eating disorders.

But I still get your point.

A while ago, when I was considering my membership, I wondered whether I'd want to drink if I left. I resolved I wouldn't. It's a waste of money, bad for you, smells bad (why bother 'acquiring the taste') and leads to bad decision making.

I'm also from a culture (most of UK) that's into going out "on the lash" and getting hammered.

It all seems slightly pointless.

This is off-topic, so forgive me, Cap'n. (Welcome back, by the way! Hope Mrs. Sparrow and the Little Sparrow(s) are well! ) Easiest DUI [Driving Under the Influence] arrest my dad ever took part in, he wasn't even on patrol. It was Jul. 4, U.S. Independence Day, and he'd volunteered to work the parade. He parked his patrol car in a turn lane with lights activated and got out to direct traffic off of Main Street so the parade could start (my mom and I were in the car) and a guy pulled up behind his patrol car in a truck and simply sat there. He couldn't understand my dad's hand signals telling him he had to turn, so my dad decided to go see what was up. He walked up to the driver's side of the truck, the guy rolled down his window, my dad was blown away when he exhaled, took one look into his bloodshot eyes and said, "You're hammered! Wait here and I'll have someone come 'help' you." The guy simply said, "O.K." After the guy rolled up his window, my dad keyed up his walkie and we heard the call over the radio as he said, "Tooele, 2-Hotel-3, I need a duty car at 400 North and Main for a 10-55." Ahhh, good times! (Too bad our hammered friend doesn't remember them!)

Edited August 7, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

I don't believe for one minute that beer as we know it today is comparable to "mild barley drinks" of the WoW.... With a 12% alcohol content for most beers (more for some), it doesn't take long to become impaired. Even if one has only one or two beers it doesn't matter.., they are still not the same.

GG

Yeesh, no wonder some of the posters who partake curse Utah's 3.2 beer! (P.S.: I see they're not alone: http://www.pitch.com...-buzzed-history. MN, OK, KS, and CO also have 3.2. Reader Advisory: The linked site is an "anti-3.2" site, so if such things might offend you ...)

Edited August 7, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Calm]

Interesting that the 3.2 "CMB" is seen as a teenager's drink. Any adult will, of course, want something stronger.

I had no idea that alcohol content varied so much. Is there a way to tell just from the 'feel' of the beer how strong it is? If one was just given a glass of beer that was much stronger than one was usually used to, one could get unexpectedly drunk on one's usual limit, I'm thinking, if there is not some sort of 'burn' or other indicator of strength besides labeling...which one wouldn't get if just given a glass in a bar or restaurant.

http://www.alcoholcontents.com/beer/

I am thinking there are good reasons to hold a bar or restaurant partially responsible for a patron's decision to drink too much if they don't want patrons about the strength of their beer.

Edited August 7, 2013 by calmoriah

[kassie]

Dietary rules change over time (see quotations below from the OT).

I know many LDS who eat pork. I am not fond of it so I don't cook it but I have eaten it when it was served by a friend in her home without protesting. Nor have I ever tried camel or rock badger or eaten mice. I haven't touched pig carcasses either. But we also know NOW what JS and most people of his time didn't know then. That most of the things prohibited by JS in the WOW are now known to be bad for your health. Something to think about....

Leviticus 11:7-8 "And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. You shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you."

Isaiah 66:17 “Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following one in the midst, eating pig's flesh and the abominations, and mice, shall come to an end together, declares the Lord."

Leviticus 11:1-47 "And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, These are the living things that you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth. Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. Nevertheless, among those that chew the cud or part the hoof, you shall not eat these: The camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. And the rock badger, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you."

[Teancum]

Mild barley drinks were certainly beer back in the 1800s. The no alcohol at all became a temple recommend requirement in the early 1900s around the time of prohibition.

I'll go dig out some references once I'm on my laptop.

WoW was a TR requirement under President Grant. Before that you could drink beer or any other liquor and get a TR. Heck BY owned a brewery and JS wanted to put a bar in the Nauvoo House but Emma nixed it.

[thesometimesaint]

Dietary rules change over time (see quotations below from the OT).

I know many LDS who eat pork. I am not fond of it so I don't cook it but I have eaten it when it was served by a friend in her home without protesting. Nor have I ever tried camel or rock badger or eaten mice. I haven't touched pig carcasses either. But we also know NOW what JS and most people of his time didn't know then. That most of the things prohibited by JS in the WOW are now known to be bad for your health. Something to think about....

Leviticus 11:7-8 "And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. You shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you."

Isaiah 66:17 “Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following one in the midst, eating pig's flesh and the abominations, and mice, shall come to an end together, declares the Lord."

Leviticus 11:1-47 "And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, These are the living things that you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth. Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. Nevertheless, among those that chew the cud or part the hoof, you shall not eat these: The camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. And the rock badger, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you."

Pigs are a competitor with man for food stuffs. In a desert environment with scarce food it isn't wise to raise animals that compete with you for food. OTOH Goats and sheep are not competitors. Camels/horses are far more useful as beasts of burden in commerce and/or agriculture.

[pmccombs1]

I'm a luthier, and when I travel in that capacity, I am bound to meet interesting people. Once, in St. Paul, I dined with a sundry crowd: A Catholic priest, a painter, a Jewish atheist, and a Juliard-trained concert violinist who had been kicked out of every bar on 7th street. Like me, all of them were violin makers; but only the alcoholic and I abstained from drink when we sat down together. He knew he lacked a certain self-command when it came down to it, so his rule was that he couldn't have any at all.

G.K. Chesterton once said that no one has even begun to understand comradeship who does not accept with it a certain hearty eagerness in eating, drinking, or smoking, an uproarious materialism which to many women appears only hoggish. You may call the thing an orgy or a sacrament; it is certainly an essential.

I can vouch for that! At the end of the night, only two of us remained stolid mysteries to the others. All true friendliness begins with fire and food and drink and the recognition of rain or frost.... Each human soul has in a sense to enact for itself the gigantic humility of the Incarnation. Every man must descend into the flesh to meet mankind. So it would seem.

During our evening repasts, Chesterton's words came alive to me. I could see why he considered teetotalism a "desperate second best." Second to what? Second to eating and to drinking wholesomely. To abstain is to manifest the necessity but not the ideal; the deliverance but not the desire. All of humanity's greatest and most potent helpmates come with their risks. One may lose himself in drink, it is true; but it is also possible to get drunk on religion.

Perhaps the day will come when we shall return again to the Word of Wisdom and forget this Word of Conformity that it has become.

Edited August 7, 2013 by pmccombs1

[USU78]

Mild barley drinks were certainly beer back in the 1800s. The no alcohol at all became a temple recommend requirement in the early 1900s around the time of prohibition.

I'll go dig out some references once I'm on my laptop.

Don't forget the pickle that the existence then and now of barley water puts your allegation into.

[canard78]

But we also know NOW what JS and most people of his time didn't know then. That most of the things prohibited by JS in the WOW are now known to be bad for your health. Something to think about...

This is overplayed sometimes. It's true that we know more about the health risks today. But the WoW was given in the context of other people opposing alcohol etc:

"In the end, some overlap between the Word of Wisdom and the health reform movement of the nineteenth century is to be expected. This was a time of “refreshing” (Acts 3:19), a moment in history where light and knowledge were pouring down from heaven. On the night Joseph Smith entertained the angel Moroni for the first time, in the fall of 1823, the angel quoted a line from the Book of Joel and said it was about to be fulfilled: “I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh,” the passage read (Joel 2:28; emphasis added). Insofar as temperance reform made people less dependent on addictive substances, prompting humility and righteous action, the movement surely was inspired by God. “That which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually,” the Book of Mormon stated (Moroni 7:13).27 Rather than concerning themselves with cultural overlap, Latter-day Saints can joyously contemplate how God’s spirit touched so many, so widely, and with such force."

Impressively this is on lds.org. Lots more info in the article:

https://history.lds.org/article/doctrine-and-covenants-word-of-wisdom?lang=eng