Beer Good. Meat Bad. But we do the opposite.

[Cydonia]

You are exactly right, it took me a number of years to figure that out, but the fact is, I made a Covenant with God to follow it - period, end of story.

Me, too. And what God said is beer is OK and meat should be eaten sparingly.

I'm following the meat being eaten sparingly part. And I don't drink beer whether it's OK or not.

So I'm covered. But a lot of people aren't following D&C 89. Why?

[sixpacktr]

So....is marijuana a wholesome herb?

Only if you put it in your brownies....

[beefche]

So I'm covered. But a lot of people aren't following D&C 89. Why?

Do you think all LDS people follow all of the commandments perfectly? Do you think we all have faith, hope, and charity as it has been commanded? Do you believe that we magnify our callings as we should? Do we study our scriptures as commanded? Do we pray morning, noon, night as commanded?

Those are all rhetorical questions. I'm hoping they help you understand that not all people follow commandments as well as we should.

[hordak]

It doesn't seem like I'm trying to justify anything, because I don't drink beer and I do eat meat sparingly.

What I am trying to reconcile is that what the D&C says does not follow with what we practice. Nor does there seem to be any other clear cut statement from God saying that we should do something other than what is in D&C 89.

PS. We don't believe in hell.

Good last point:D

I'm having trouble seeing where your coming from.

WoW says wine good for sacrament, church says no , your fine with that.

WoW says no hot drinks, church teach hot is fine coffee and tea are bad, your ok with that

WoW says it is not even a commandment, church teaches it is, your fine with that.

WoW says Beer ok (IMO) and eat meat sparingly or not at all, church teaches beer bad, meat good, and you have a "problem" with it?

What makes the other WoW teachings, that add to, change, or contradict the written WoW (D&C 89) any different than this one?

[sixpacktr]

Me, too. And what God said is beer is OK and meat should be eaten sparingly.

I'm following the meat being eaten sparingly part. And I don't drink beer whether it's OK or not.

So I'm covered. But a lot of people aren't following D&C 89. Why?

Because we're not as righteous as you are.

You've been given answers to your 'questions' over and over again, yet you continue to beat the same dead horse. Beer is not a mild drink. And yes, you DID claim the D&C said beer was okay. It isn't. Mild barley drinks can mean lots of things. To me, it is barley tea, which I drink gallons of during the summer, since it is one of the national summer drinks in Japan. Are you saying that those people that lived in the 1800's were too stupid to figure out to steep roasted barley, or wheat, or anything else, and drink the tea they had made? Are you so blinded to making sure that everyone ELSE understands that they are not following the letter of the WoW law that the ONLY rational explanation to what the Lord said thru Joseph for 'mild barley drinks' was beer?

What, exactly, is your point? I would wager that most members, by being overweight, also don't follow the WoW. Or that they don't get enough exercise, or sleep, or some of the other things. Again, what in the flip is your point?

[Cydonia]

I'm having trouble seeing where your coming from.

WoW says wine good for sacrament, church says no , your fine with that.

WoW says no hot drinks, church teach hot is fine coffee and tea are bad, your ok with that

WoW says it is not even a commandment, church teaches it is, your fine with that.

WoW says Beer ok (IMO) and eat meat sparingly or not at all, church teaches beer bad, meat good, and you have a "problem" with it?

What makes the other WoW teachings, that add to, change, or contradict the written WoW (D&C 89) any different than this one?

Sacrament I'm not as concerned about because the D&C only says that we can use wine, it doesn't say we have to. Nor does the current church say we "can't" necessarily. It's just that we don't.

The reason I'm willing to accept hot drinks as coffee and tea is the same as the reason that mild beverage made from barley means beer. (See earlier in the thread.)

D&C 89 says it's not a commandment. The church does not say it is a commandment. They only make it a requirement to be baptized, hold a leadership position, enter the temple, etc. When did the church say it was a commandment?

Where I'm coming from: It doesn't sit well with me that God said one thing, we do another, and then we say we "Just do it because God said so."

No, what God said so, we are not doing. Why?

[MarginOfError]

There are a few other barley drinks out there, but none that were popular in the US in that time. Brigham Young said that he understood "hot drinks" to mean coffee and tea because “I have heard it argued that tea and coffee are not mentioned therein; that is very true; but what were the people in the habit of taking as hot drinks when that revelation was given? Tea and coffee. We were not in the habit of drinking water very hot, but tea and coffee 'the beverages in common use'."

The mild barley beverage in common use was beer. So that settles that.

But the more important issue is not about beer. The more important issue is that the D&C says eat only a small amount of meat except in the winter or famine, and yet three meat sandwiches and hot dogs are common summer fair in the church.

As Seminarysnoozer said "But often times I try to follow the commandments without understanding the purpose or reasoning behind them."

If I were to do that, I'd eat meat sparingly (meaning infrequently) and I would not worry about drinking a mild beverage made from barley, which following the "beverages in common use" guideline, would be beer.

So why do we interpret and not follow the guideline as written?

The following section I will leave for historical purposes, but let it be noted that I failed to consult the text of the Doctrine and Covenants which reads "flesh of beasts" and not "meat." This discrepancy renders the following paragraph meaningless. Thanks, Cydonia, and my apologies for the snarkiness.Unfortunately, this line of reason doesn't hold up under careful scrutiny. If we are to say that tea and coffee are prohibited because they were the common drinks at the time; and then we say that beer isn't prohibited because it was the common mild drink of the time; then we must apply that same reasoning to the meat, and we only eat sparingly the kind of meat that was commonly eaten by the Saints at the time. So does that mean we can eat ostrich meat in abundance? What about llama? Are we unrestricted in our kangaroo consumption?

The Word of Wisdom, as given in the Doctrine and Covenants, is not closed, nor is it complete. It is a revelation that is subject to change and interpretation by the prophets. It is a revelation that laid the foundation for a law of health that could be provided to the Church through God's prophet and adapted to the needs of the Saints at any time. In order to correctly interpret the Word of Wisdom, you must also study the interpretations that have been given to us through the prophets.

For all of those who are saying that beer isn't a mild drink because it is alcoholic, that technically isn't true. A hard drink is a drink that is made through a distilling process, such as vodka or rum. Beer and wine are made through fermentation, which qualifies them as mild drinks. The question that must be asked, then, was whether Smith had intended to make such a distinction in the revelation. It's very possible he wasn't fully aware of the difference either.

If you read the History of the Church, you'll notice that Smith was strongly opposed to the use of alcohol among the Saints. He often spoke of alcohol consumption with some disgust. It's possible that his disgust for alcohol use was related to some of the experiences he may have had with alcohol while experiencing the "jovialities of youth." Having read other writings of Smith's, I have no trouble believing that he would intend that the Saints eliminate beer from their diets. But I can't prove that either. What I do know is that later prophets interpreted the Word of Wisdom to mean abstaining from all alcoholic beverages. Those interpretations pretty well close the book on the discussion.

With regards to meat, I see Cydonia's point. I think it's very possible that many in the Church do not adhere to this as well as they could (myself included). The problem is to figure out what is "sparingly." The three-meat sandwich made with three kinds of cold cuts may not be very much meat, especially if we consider it in proportion to the bread, vegetables, and condiments with which it is served. Does sparingly mean that having a small piece of meat each meal is acceptable, so long as the rest of the meal consists of vegetables, fruits, herbs, and breads? Or does sparingly mean once a week? once a month? only between November and March? To my knowledge, we have not been given any further interpretation of this, and so I dont' know the answer to that. For myself, it means I need to eat more vegetables and fruit and a little less meat. But whereas I am in excellent health, I'm not inclined to make drastic changes to my diet that don't have the promise of drastic improvements to my health.

Edited November 4, 2009 by MarginOfError

[john doe]

What about hard lemonade? How is it made?

[hordak]

Sacrament I'm not as concerned about because the D&C only says that we can use wine, it doesn't say we have to. Nor does the current church say we "can't" necessarily. It's just that we don't.

The reason I'm willing to accept hot drinks as coffee and tea is the same as the reason that mild beverage made from barley means beer. (See earlier in the thread.)

D&C 89 says it's not a commandment. The church does not say it is a commandment. They only make it a requirement to be baptized, hold a leadership position, enter the temple, etc. When did the church say it was a commandment?

Where I'm coming from: It doesn't sit well with me that God said one thing, we do another, and then we say we "Just do it because God said so."

No, what God said so, we are not doing. Why?

Thanks for the explanation but assuming baptism and temple convents are necessary for exaltation/salvation i think that would classify them as commandments. I think you are splitting hairs.

[mnn727]

But a lot of people aren't following D&C 89. Why?

That is between them and God and not really any of your business unless you are their Bishop or they specifically ask you. And frankly with your understanding of the WoW, I sure ain't going to asking you for advise affecting my spirituality Edited November 4, 2009 by mnn727

[MarginOfError]

That in these dire days, we may, each in his own place, enjoy the abundant physical blessings of the righteous life, we call upon all true Latter-day Saints, in or out of office, to keep this law of health,—completely to give up drink, to quit using tobacco, which all too often leads to drink, to abandon hot drinks and the use of harmful drugs, and otherwise to observe the Word of Wisdom. We urge the Saints to quit trifling with this law and so to live it that we may claim its promises... so great is the curse of drink that we should not be held guiltless did we not call upon all offending Saints to forsake it and banish it from their lives forever.(First Presidency Message, Conference Report, October 1942; find it at Scriptural Index to the Latter-day Prophets)

Seems pretty clear by this statement that all liquor is now prohibited, regardless of its status as a mild or strong drink.

You might also check out Observing the Word of Wisdom from Teachings of the Prophet Heber J. Grant. Although he does not explicitly prohibit alcohol consumption as was done later (see the above quote), he rails against it pretty well.

I'm afraid I still don't have anything regarding the interpretation of "sparingly." That one seems to be left to the individual. But like I said before, I have no problem accepting that we, as a general Church membership, don't adhere to that as well as we could and/or should.

[pam]

While the revelation came first as a “greeting; not by commandment or constraint” (D&C 89:2), when members of the Church had had time to be taught the import of the revelation, succeeding Presidents of the Church declared it to be a commandment. And it was accepted by the Church as such.

The Word of Wisdom was “given for a principle with promise” (D&C 89:3). That word principle in the revelation is a very important one. A principle is an enduring truth, a law, a rule you can adopt to guide you in making decisions. Generally principles are not spelled out in detail. That leaves you free to find your way with an enduring truth, a principle, as your anchor.

Members write in asking if this thing or that is against the Word of Wisdom. It’s well known that tea, coffee, liquor, and tobacco are against it. It has not been spelled out in more detail. Rather, we teach the principle together with the promised blessings. There are many habit-forming, addictive things that one can drink or chew or inhale or inject which injure both body and spirit which are not mentioned in the revelation.

Everything harmful is not specifically listed; arsenic, for instance—certainly bad, but not habit-forming! He who must be commanded in all things, the Lord said, “is a slothful and not a wise servant” (D&C 58:26).

In some cultures, native drinks are claimed to be harmless because they are not specifically mentioned in the revelation. Yet they draw members, particularly men, away from their families to parties which certainly offend the principle. Promises made in the revelation will be denied to the careless or the reckless.

Obedience to counsel will keep you on the safe side of life.

You can read the entire talk here

[Justice]

I'm sorry for your loss, but that's an argument of semantics. It doesn't in any way address my question.

Huh?

Show me how a "beer" passes for a "mild drink?"

...and I'm not buying it's "milder" than others.

This is justification at it's worst.

[MarginOfError]

Hard drink Definition | Definition of Hard drink at Dictionary.com

hard drink

noun

an alcoholic beverage that is distilled rather than fermented

Where as beer is a fermented drink, it would not be considered a 'hard drink.' I"m not sure what other term you would use to describe it besides 'mild drink.'

What it's of little consequence. As I showed earlier, the First Presidency interpreted all liquor to be contrary to the Word of Wisdom.

[Misshalfway]

I think any substance or drink that creates dependance or alters ones consciousness is to be avoided. So much for the peyote road.

Which reminds me, I just saw this PBS thing about how Dr.s are trying to alter LDS away from its psychedelic properties so they can help people with severe headaches. It kinda made me think of the reference in the WofW about tabacco having medicinal purposes. I know we aren't cattle, but maybe there is a wise use for these things.

[MarginOfError]

I think any substance or drink that creates dependance or alters ones consciousness is to be avoided. So much for the peyote road.

Which reminds me, I just saw this PBS thing about how Dr.s are trying to alter LDS away from its psychedelic properties so they can help people with severe headaches. It kinda made me think of the reference in the WofW about tabacco having medicinal purposes. I know we aren't cattle, but maybe there is a wise use for these things.

That certainly explains all the visions, prophecies, and speaking in tongues.

[Misshalfway]

That certainly explains all the visions, prophecies, and speaking in tongues.

Or maybe why I can't type.

[Cydonia]

Unfortunately, this line of reason doesn't hold up under careful scrutiny. If we are to say that tea and coffee are prohibited because they were the common drinks at the time; and then we say that beer isn't prohibited because it was the common mild drink of the time; then we must apply that same reasoning to the meat, and we only eat sparingly the kind of meat that was commonly eaten by the Saints at the time. So does that mean we can eat ostrich meat in abundance? What about llama? Are we unrestricted in our kangaroo consumption?

What are you talking about?

The D&C doesn't say meat. It says flesh of beasts.

In regards to "splitting hairs," I feel I'm doing just the opposite.

The common mild barley beverage drunk in the midwest at the time of the D&C 89 revelation was beer. So we can discuss Japanese teas made of barley all we want. But Brigham Young knew "hot drinks" meant coffee and tea because that was common sense. That's what they had to drink that was hot. Hot drinks doesn't include hot chocolate because that was not a common commodity amongst the saints at the revelation of "WoW."

So to say meat good, bear bad, is to construct a "split hair" argument built around the meaning of "sparingly" and that some cultures far removed from our own use barley to make tea.

But if you take the very clear statements at face value, as Brigham Young perscribed, then they say beer's OK and meat should only be used in times of famine and cold.

So why do we not take D&C 89 at face value?

[Misshalfway]

We don't take it as face value only because of what Moe has said twice now. Because the prophets have told us specifically what we should avoid.

[pam]

The D&C doesn't say meat. It says flesh of beasts.

Now I'm confused..so what is meat then? Isn't it the flesh of beasts?

[MarginOfError]

What are you talking about?

The D&C doesn't say meat. It says flesh of beasts.

You're right...my apologies. I wasn't looking at the exact text when I wrote that and will retract the comment. I've made an edit to explain in the post where I said those things. Thanks.

In regards to "splitting hairs," I feel I'm doing just the opposite.

And I agree that you're doing the opposite.

The common mild barley beverage drunk in the midwest at the time of the D&C 89 revelation was beer. So we can discuss Japanese teas made of barley all we want. But Brigham Young knew "hot drinks" meant coffee and tea because that was common sense. That's what they had to drink that was hot. Hot drinks doesn't include hot chocolate because that was not a common commodity amongst the saints at the revelation of "WoW."

So to say meat good, bear bad, is to construct a "split hair" argument built around the meaning of "sparingly" and that some cultures far removed from our own use barley to make tea.

But if you take the very clear statements at face value, as Brigham Young perscribed, then they say beer's OK and meat should only be used in times famine and cold.

So why do we not take D&C 89 at face value?

I'll assume you haven't read my second post yet, but it explains the prohibition on beer that came later. I'm still with you on meat though.

Edited November 4, 2009 by MarginOfError

[Cydonia]

Now I'm confused..so what is meat then? Isn't it the flesh of beasts?

Pam, read the whole post that I quoted and it should clear up your confusion.

Misshalfway, Hinckley said that we should not have caffeine, but we still go with the coffee and tea understanding. This is done because Hinckley's statement was not "revelation" (at least that is the answer I've always heard).

So the statement of prophets regarding things is not considered revelation unless given as revelation.

No further revelation seems to have been made to supersede the D&C 89 revelation. So why do we not follow it?

[Vort]

Pam, read the whole post that I quoted and it should clear up your confusion.

Misshalfway, Hinckley said that we should not have caffeine, but we still go with the coffee and tea understanding. This is done because Hinckley's statement was not "revelation" (at least that is the answer I've always heard).

So the statement of prophets regarding things is not considered revelation unless given as revelation.

No further revelation seems to have been made to supersede the D&C 89 revelation. So why do we not follow it?

None is so blind as he who will not see, or so deaf as he who will not hear.

[Cydonia]

None is so blind as he who will not see, or so deaf as he who will not hear.

Thank you, Vort. Your feeling that I am going to "hell" though I break no church rules or requirements and simply am asking a question is noted.

[mrmarklin]

So why do we not take D&C 89 at face value?

Cydonia:

D&C 89 cannot be taken at face value in the 21st Century because it has been modified by the prophets in later years, namely 1930 when it became a commandment. There are so many general conference sermons (I think you can take them as revelations) about this topic that you can read that it is fatuous to continue your arguments.

You also show your ignorance regarding beer as a "mild" drink. Beer as produced around the world has many levels of alcohol content, and even here in the US it is subject to varying controls regulating content from 3.2% on up. In Germany, a country to which I have traveled extensively, it is the national beverage. The alcohol content there is generally higher and the beverage can only have 4 contents to qualify as beer: barley, malt, hops and water. If you have ever been to Germany you will realize that the level of alcohol consumption is much higher than here in the US, and that alcoholism, and related problems are much more evident in public than they are here. I will say that in some ways the German public is more tolerant of certain behaviors than in the US. In toto however, I think it's safe to say that beer is not a "mild" drink.