The Official "Ask A Mormon" Thread

[fishonjazz]

I think many people think alcohol tastes like crap and is unhealthy.

I find it strange that drinkers often see a problem with people who don’t drink.

 

[Rubashov]

I think many people think alcohol tastes like crap and is unhealthy.

I find it strange that drinkers often see a problem with people who don’t drink.

Well they're no fun down the pub. Plus if you're going out with a bird that don't drink you either have not drink yourself or watch her watch you drinking glass after glass of plonk. Its awkward.

 

[LogGrad98]

This confusion must be annoying for you and your many wives.

Wife #3 doesn't care, which is why she stays in the cellar where she belongs.

 

[infection]

I think part of the problem is viewing alcohol as black and white, good and evil. If the faulty assumption is that LDS doctrine believes alcohol and coffee itself to be inherently evil substances, then I see why one would be resistant to the idea of Jesus consuming something “evil.” However, alcohol itself isn’t inherently “evil” any more than pork is “evil.” However, restrictions for both have been associated with a covenant at different times.

 

[colton]

I thought Colton said something to that effect once.

But without refrigeration or sanitation grapejuice would become wine eventually. The powdery white stuff on the skin of grapes is yeast.

Sent from my SM-J700P using JazzFanz mobile app

I may have said that some Mormons think that. I've definitely run across some that do. But it's not something the church as a whole believes. I don't believe it myself, although it does seem likely that the wine that was referred to did not have the same alcohol content as wines today do.

But anyway, I thought loggrad's answer was quite good. And keep in mind that we believe it was Jesus himself who gave the commandment.

Also, we don't necessarily believe that other people drinking alcohol are sinning. They haven't made the same covenant we have. But I agree with you about getting drunk being wrong (sinful), regardless.

 

[king exum]

Do Mormons have a different bible canon? Does it have different books in it?

I don't believe the story's about Lot and Jesus drinking are legitimate, they were probably added in by scribes. Jeremaiah 5:5?

I think avoiding alcohol is the smartest choice imo...i don't see any benefits in it

 

[Gameface]

As far as alcohol is concerned, many cultures have various forms of fermented alcoholic beverages. Fermented alcoholic beverages have never lead to major alcohol issues within a society, very rarely leads to alcoholism. Distilled spirits are generally where problems arise. I think when talking about alcohol and the problems it causes it is important to make the distinction between low alcohol content fermented beverages and high alcohol content liquor.

 

[colton]

Do Mormons have a different bible canon? Does it have different books in it?

We use the standard protestant Bible, i.e. King James Version, but with some additional volumes of non biblical scripture as well. The additional scripture includes The Book of Mormon, which we believe is ancient scripture like the Bible, but given to a group of Israelites who left Israel and migrated to the Americas. It was translated from the ancient record through miraculous means by Joseph Smith and published in 1829. The other additional writings we accept as scripture are in the books The Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price, which for the most part are collections of revelations from God given to Joseph Smith, whom we accept as a modern day prophet and apostle. The commandment against alcohol comes from a revelation to Joseph Smith in 1833 recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants. At first it was more of a general guideline but then later (1860ish iirc) was changed by Brigham Young to be a stricter prohibition.

 

[Rubashov]

Do Mormons have a different bible canon? Does it have different books in it?

I don't believe the story's about Lot and Jesus drinking are legitimate, they were probably added in by scribes. Jeremaiah 5:5?

I think avoiding alcohol is the smartest choice imo...i don't see any benefits in it

thats cause you're thick. Until about 150 years ago drinking alcohol was the safest thing to do. For most of the miserable souls in this world a light mead would be better for them than the water they drink.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

As far as alcohol is concerned, many cultures have various forms of fermented alcoholic beverages. Fermented alcoholic beverages have never lead to major alcohol issues within a society, very rarely leads to alcoholism. Distilled spirits are generally where problems arise. I think when talking about alcohol and the problems it causes it is important to make the distinction between low alcohol content fermented beverages and high alcohol content liquor.

There definitely is a difference.

I have never viewed the LDS Church Word of Wisdom approach to alcohol, coffee, and tea in the light of "those things are inherently bad".

I have viewed it in a two-fold way. First, our prophet has asked us to avoid those things, so a line was drawn in the sand. If we covenant to avoid them because we have faith that the prophet actually converses with Jesus, and that is His will, then that is the first and most important thing. Secondly, I view these items, and plenty of others not listed as not good for us in the fact that they can cause addiction if used improperly or with moderation and that they reduce or affect our reasoning, decision making, and ability to feel God's Spirit. There are as many tolerances to these substances as there are people, and we won't really know until we try it. I view it as avoiding the whole situation by avoiding the possibility that we will be so affected by one or all of these addictive types of substances. This is also why many LDS people use the story of how close can you drive a wagon to the edge of the cliff, with the punch line of "I don't care how good and skilled you are and how close you can get to it, it's best to be as far from the cliff as possible with that wagon."

I seem to remember something said to Joseph Smith on the alcohol about "conspiring men in the last days", or some such thing. I'm too lazy to look it up, but there are and have been plenty of people/companies that create products that are addictive for the main reason that it creates return customers and increases their earnings. If you're in it for only the money, why not create a desirable product that creates such an addiction that people not only want to come back for more, but "have" to.

/2cents

 

[Gameface]

There definitely is a difference.

I have never viewed the LDS Church Word of Wisdom approach to alcohol, coffee, and tea in the light of "those things are inherently bad".

I have viewed it in a two-fold way. First, our prophet has asked us to avoid those things, so a line was drawn in the sand. If we covenant to avoid them because we have faith that the prophet actually converses with Jesus, and that is His will, then that is the first and most important thing. Secondly, I view these items, and plenty of others not listed as not good for us in the fact that they can cause addiction if used improperly or with moderation and that they reduce or affect our reasoning, decision making, and ability to feel God's Spirit. There are as many tolerances to these substances as there are people, and we won't really know until we try it. I view it as avoiding the whole situation by avoiding the possibility that we will be so affected by one or all of these addictive types of substances. This is also why many LDS people use the story of how close can you drive a wagon to the edge of the cliff, with the punch line of "I don't care how good and skilled you are and how close you can get to it, it's best to be as far from the cliff as possible with that wagon."

I seem to remember something said to Joseph Smith on the alcohol about "conspiring men in the last days", or some such thing. I'm too lazy to look it up, but there are and have been plenty of people/companies that create products that are addictive for the main reason that it creates return customers and increases their earnings. If you're in it for only the money, why not create a desirable product that creates such an addiction that people not only want to come back for more, but "have" to.

/2cents

The power of addiction is real. A desire for an uninterrupted supply of beer lead to the establishment of human civilization, as the nomadic lifestyle led to long periods with no beer, so permanent settlements were required with the primary purpose of growing barley and using it to produce beer. It has been firmly established that beer production predates bread production by a significant margin.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/how-beer-gave-us-civilization.html

https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1...q8LNLnvg8C-ITitcPg1_5sOUfp3hc_JLk3a9ET1KEI8g=

 

[Jazz Spazz]

The power of addiction is real. A desire for an uninterrupted supply of beer lead to the establishment of human civilization, as the nomadic lifestyle led to long periods with no beer, so permanent settlements were required with the primary purpose of growing barley and using it to produce beer. It has been firmly established that beer production predates bread production by a significant margin.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/how-beer-gave-us-civilization.html

https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1...q8LNLnvg8C-ITitcPg1_5sOUfp3hc_JLk3a9ET1KEI8g=

I'm not disagreeing with you. It doesn't interest me to research it in great detail, as I know it does you.

In general I agree with the difference between the fermentation and distillation. The first article you sent stated that distillation started around 2000 years ago, so around the time of Christ give or take.

It's possible that it is the distillation of alcohol that is the difference maker between views on it in that time, and now after it has been more widely established.

That's just off the top of my head.

/shrug

 

[Thee Idiotic Minivan K]

I think you're misunderstanding. I'm not talking about minute details, nobody cares if Jesus wore sandals or not because it didn't have anything to do with his beliefs. Now if a religion that claims the Bible is true were to say that you can't wear sandals because so and so prophet said so, then I think it would be valid to say that Jesus wore them, and He never said anything about them. Trying to relate that to cars/cell phones or whatever is missing the entire point.

I just find the Mormon teaching on alcohol contradictory to how Jesus actually lived, and I was curious as to their reasoning behind it. That's all. I have no real desire to change my in-laws beliefs...I think they're fairly silly about it, but it's not a big enough deal to me to where I'm actually going to argue with them about it. I just don't drink around them, pretty simple. I know you were probably joking, but just to clarify, I think there's a huge difference between having a drink or two and getting drunk. I do drink alcohol, I don't get drunk. Big difference, imo.

I'm pretty sure wine mentioned in the Bible is just grape juice wine we know of would've been categorized as strong drink or fermented. There's no where in the Bible that says Jesus drank alcohol

 

[colton]

I'm pretty sure wine mentioned in the Bible is just grape juice wine we know of would've been categorized as strong drink or fermented. There's no where in the Bible that says Jesus drank alcohol

Apparently there are many Greek/Hebrew words that have been translated as "wine". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_in_the_Bible.

Talking about the marriage at Cana in specific, I looked it up and the Greek word was "oinos". That commonly refers to wine with some alcohol content, but according to that Wikipedia article can occasionally refer to non-alcoholic grape juice. So I guess your view is a possibility, but probably not too likely unless one believes for other reasons that Jesus would not have drunk alcohol.

 

[Gameface]

I'm pretty sure wine mentioned in the Bible is just grape juice wine we know of would've been categorized as strong drink or fermented. There's no where in the Bible that says Jesus drank alcohol

Are you LDS?

Wine in that era probably wouldn't have been 13%abv as it typically is now, although it very well could have been. But there's a good chance it was somewhere in the 6-10%abv range.

They would have had no way to stop grape juice from turning to wine. They didn't know what yeast or any other micro-organism was. They didn't understand canning or pasteurization, which would have been required to prevent fermentation from taking place.

Where ancient beer was likely 2-4%abv, barley produces significantly more complex sugars that are more difficult to ferment. Grapes produce a simple sugar that yeast can easily and almost completely convert to alcohol.

The only way ancient people would have had grape juice is if it was produced immediately before consumption.

Fermentation had the significant added side benefit of allowing for long term storage without the possibility of pathogens making you sick. No known pathogens can live in wine or beer. People up into the 1700s drank beer and wine in place of water because it was much safer.

 

[fishonjazz]

They would have had no way to stop grape juice from turning to wine. They didn't know what yeast or any other micro-organism was. They didn't understand canning or pasteurization, which would have been required to prevent fermentation from taking place.

Are you saying Jesus couldn't stop grape juice from turning into wine? But he could turn water into wine and other magic.
Are you saying Jesus didn't know about yeast and pasteurization and stuff? Jesus knows everything.

 

[Gameface]

Are you saying Jesus couldn't stop grape juice from turning into wine? But he could turn water into wine and other magic.
Are you saying Jesus didn't know about yeast and pasteurization and stuff? Jesus knows everything.

lol, damn, you got me

 

[LogGrad98]

Are you LDS?

Wine in that era probably wouldn't have been 13%abv as it typically is now, although it very well could have been. But there's a good chance it was somewhere in the 6-10%abv range.

They would have had no way to stop grape juice from turning to wine. They didn't know what yeast or any other micro-organism was. They didn't understand canning or pasteurization, which would have been required to prevent fermentation from taking place.

Where ancient beer was likely 2-4%abv, barley produces significantly more complex sugars that are more difficult to ferment. Grapes produce a simple sugar that yeast can easily and almost completely convert to alcohol.

The only way ancient people would have had grape juice is if it was produced immediately before consumption.

Fermentation had the significant added side benefit of allowing for long term storage without the possibility of pathogens making you sick. No known pathogens can live in wine or beer. People up into the 1700s drank beer and wine in place of water because it was much safer.

There is zero doubt, due to archaeological and anthropological evidence and scientific evaluation, that alcoholic drinks were consumed with regularity throughout all of human history in virtually all cultures. There is also zero doubt that they drank juice and fermented (alcoholic) juice or wine (and beer) as we colloquially know it, made from a variety of fruits and grains, not just grapes. Fermenting was one of the ways used by man for centuries, indeed for millenia, to preserve food to make it safe for consumption when not in season or when food was scarce, and a natural result of fermentation of most foods is alcohol (sourdough even has minute amounts of alcohol in it, for example).

I imagine they drank wine with varying amounts of alcohol, although everything I have read on the subject implies that generally the alcohol content was low enough to more or less make it safe to drink but it would also make it very difficult to get drunk, per se. Although it is very reasonable to suspect that there were those that purposely did what they could to up the alcohol content for obvious reasons (hence the development of distilling techniques). It is also more than reasonable to assume that Jesus consumed beverages that contained alcohol as at that time it would have been one of the sure ways to get safe water and juice when juice wasn't in season. It is actually more unreasonable to assume that he abstained entirely from alcohol-containing beverages given the state of making liquids safe to consume at that time in history.

 

[♪alt13]

There definitely is a difference.

I have never viewed the LDS Church Word of Wisdom approach to alcohol, coffee, and tea in the light of "those things are inherently bad".

I have viewed it in a two-fold way. First, our prophet has asked us to avoid those things, so a line was drawn in the sand. If we covenant to avoid them because we have faith that the prophet actually converses with Jesus, and that is His will, then that is the first and most important thing. Secondly, I view these items, and plenty of others not listed as not good for us in the fact that they can cause addiction if used improperly or with moderation and that they reduce or affect our reasoning, decision making, and ability to feel God's Spirit. There are as many tolerances to these substances as there are people, and we won't really know until we try it. I view it as avoiding the whole situation by avoiding the possibility that we will be so affected by one or all of these addictive types of substances. This is also why many LDS people use the story of how close can you drive a wagon to the edge of the cliff, with the punch line of "I don't care how good and skilled you are and how close you can get to it, it's best to be as far from the cliff as possible with that wagon."

I seem to remember something said to Joseph Smith on the alcohol about "conspiring men in the last days", or some such thing. I'm too lazy to look it up, but there are and have been plenty of people/companies that create products that are addictive for the main reason that it creates return customers and increases their earnings. If you're in it for only the money, why not create a desirable product that creates such an addiction that people not only want to come back for more, but "have" to.

/2cents

Food for thought

If one thinks that it is on some level wrong to make people dependent on a product then is it not also wrong to tax gouge people with a chemical dependency? If not then at least isn't it wrong to use the excessive portion of that tax to reduce the tax burden of other citizens? Shouldn't the excessive portion be spent on harm reduction and treatment?

Aren't Utahns taking advantage of people with addictions to tobacco and alcohol in order to protect their own wallets?

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Food for thought

If one thinks that it is on some level wrong to make people dependent on a product then is it not also wrong to tax gouge people with a chemical dependency? If not then at least isn't it wrong to use the excessive portion of that tax to reduce the tax burden of other citizens? Shouldn't the excessive portion be spent on harm reduction and treatment?

Aren't Utahns taking advantage of people with addictions to tobacco and alcohol in order to protect their own wallets?

And here we break from the LDS Church and doctrines/practices, to a "see what church members (Utahns) are doing" type of conversation.

Are you asking me to justify what Utah government people are doing or have done? Is there an agenda here, or a real question you are looking to have answered?