Have you ever wished the church would allow for moderate drinking?

[zil]

51 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

You know what? The more I learn about you, the more I like you! 

Well, if that doesn't offend him, nothing will!

[prisonchaplain]

3 hours ago, Maureen said:

@LiterateParakeet, my comment was in response to @Carborendum's comment not really believing a person can be a moderate drinker based on polling non-moderate drinkers. We do exist.

M.

The exception that proves the rule!

In all seriousness, I do not begrudge those Christians who are members of churches that permit moderate drinking, from doing so, just as I've never yet met an LDS member begrudge me my java. The caveat is that, given the severity of the drinking problem in our country, I'd urge great caution about when/where and with whom...

[Sunday21]

I was a moderate drinker when inactive. I get the moderate drinker thing.

But some people can't manage moderate drinking and if you are pregnant moderate drinking can damage the fetus. it is so easy to drink, not knowing that you are pregnant.

So, if possible, to avoid these problems, I would like as many as possible to be dry.

i don't know if this is true but there legends in Canada of towns going dry and consequently they laid off half the police force.

i wonder about research on prohibition? I know that there were bad effects for Canada! Some Canadian families became wealthy based on supplying alcohol to the states! People here think this is both funny and commendable. They want to put up a statue to one of these enterprising people in a nearby town. 

Edited August 14, 2017 by Sunday21

[Guest Godless]

11 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

So if the water could kill them, what did they do to keep hydrated?

Beer back then was generally pretty light and low in alcohol, enough so that it acted as a suitable hydration beverage. And it was known to be safe to drink, even if the reasons why weren't fully understood.

The Egyptians in particular were very fond of beer. They even had a special recipe that was extra light and easy to mass-produce as a thirst-quencher for their slaves.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Grunt said:

This is where I am.  I agree with prohibition based on doctrine, but don't accept the "because you can become an abuser" argument.

Whether it applies to you or not is not the point.  It obviously doesn't. But it is still a valid argument.  Think of how many alcohol abusers would NOT be abusing if they simply abstained completely.  Compare that to how few there are of people like you who can actually be responsible and only have that one bottle of beer a few times a year.

[Snigmorder]

14 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

So if the water could kill them, what did they do to keep hydrated?

It's not like death was guaranteed. 

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, Godless said:

Beer back then was generally pretty light and low in alcohol, enough so that it acted as a suitable hydration beverage. And it was known to be safe to drink, even if the reasons why weren't fully understood.

The Egyptians in particular were very fond of beer. They even had a special recipe that was extra light and easy to mass-produce as a thirst-quencher for their slaves.

See, this is one of those tidbits you could include in your "drinking trivia that Mormons should know" seminar I keep hoping you'll put together.

[seashmore]

I can tell you that, at this very moment, if I hadn't made a promise to abstain from alcohol, I'd have a couple drinks to help me forget my problems tonight. (My sister moved out tonight, two months after she moved in and I can't get my mom to call when she said she would or return mine.) But this is why so many people choose to drink. "I don't like who I am when I'm sober," and "I wish I could forget the things I've seen" are both things I've heard people actually say when talking about why they drink/drank so much. Drowning your sorrows and grief in the living waters of the Gospel is so much more effective than drowning them in alcohol, but it also requires so much more effort. Knowing this, and combined with my maternal family history, I could almost guarantee you I'd be an alcoholic were it not for the WoW, even after some of the things I've seen and heard with my own eyes.

[Grunt]

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Whether it applies to you or not is not the point.  It obviously doesn't. But it is still a valid argument.  Think of how many alcohol abusers would NOT be abusing if they simply abstained completely.  Compare that to how few there are of people like you who can actually be responsible and only have that one bottle of beer a few times a year.

Sure, but using the same argument, think of how many lives would be saved if we banned driving.  

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Grunt said:

Sure, but using the same argument, think of how many lives would be saved if we banned driving.  

You could make that argument.  But it wouldn't stand up.

1. Take a look at the ratios.  Remove DWI incidents and how many people actually get into an accident on a regular basis? Not many (total deaths is about 1 per 100,000,000 vehicle miles traveled.  That's about 0.003% of all drivers.  About 10% are injured.  But that doesn't adjust for the same person getting into multiple accidents in a year. (can't find non-injury/non-fatal incidents). Remember that the number of incidents will be less than either of these statistics because of multiple deaths and injuries in a given incident due to ONE driver.  Of all the people who drink, how many abuse it? 26.9% of drinkers participate in binge drinking.  How many more do heavy drinking without it reaching the threshold of "binge drinking"?

2. There is a very practical reason to drive a car that has tremendous benefits to society.  What substitute is available?  None, really.  What is the benefit of alcohol?  Pleasure, refreshment.  What substitute is available?  PLENTY.

3. There are adjustments that can be made for driving, traffic laws, remove cell phone use, DWI, licensing, seat belts, insurance, etc.  Alcohol?  None.

Apart from that we need to recognize that it is about staying away from the edge of the cliff.

Quote

21 ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou ^ashalt not ^bkill; and whosoever shall kill shall be ^cindanger of the judgment:

22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is ^aangry with his brother ^bwithout a cause shall be ^cin danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, ^dRaca, shall be ^ein danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

...

27 ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit ^aadultery:

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever ^alooketh on a ^bwoman to ^clust after her hath committed ^dadultery with her already in his heart.

29 And if thy right eye ^aoffend thee, pluck it out, and cast itfrom thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into ^bhell.

30 And if thy right ^ahand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into ^bhell.

The New Covenant says that we aren't just looking to see just how far we can go before we're utterly condemned.  The New Covenant is about trying to continually reach for the Lord in all things and try to stay far away from condemnation in the fear of God (meant in both the classical and modern way).

I had a conversation about drinking with a friend who said she only drank maybe once a month.  Given what I knew about her, I believe it.  But one concern she had was raising her child to be responsible with alcohol. 

I told her that's the easiest thing in the world.  "How?" she asked.  

Just tell them it's stupid.  It's a whole lot easier to tell them not to drink when you yourself NEVER drink.  You drink even once a month and they know it, you have a hard time explaining to a child why they shouldn't.  Children's minds don't work the same way as adults do.  At least, her daughter couldn't understand it. 

My kids?  I have no worries that any of them will ever drink.

Edited August 14, 2017 by Guest

[Sunday21]

A teacher once told one of my classes that you can do an experiment. Go to a gathering of people and decline to drink. Look at the behaviour of those who drink. This experiment should teach you a lot. Think about the behaviour of a drinker.  Do you want one of these people in charge of your kids? Should you be in charge of your kids if you have been drinking?

Edited August 14, 2017 by Sunday21

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I had a conversation about drinking with a friend who said she only drank maybe once a month.  Given what I knew about her, I believe it.  But one concern she had was raising her child to be responsible with alcohol. 

I told her that's the easiest thing in the world.  "How?" she asked.  

Just tell them it's stupid.  It's a whole lot easier to tell them not to drink when you yourself NEVER drink.  You drink even once a month and they know it, you have a hard time explaining to a child why they shouldn't.  Children's minds don't work the same way as adults do.  At least, her daughter couldn't understand it. 

My kids?  I have no worries that any of them will ever drink.

My dad worked for a Beer company.  We get free beers and so we always have cases of them lying around the house.  My dad also collects wine bottles.  He has an entire unlocked cabinet full of all different shapes and sizes.  Yet, none of us in the family drink.  Not my dad, not my mom, not my brothers, not me.  And we grew up Catholic - no prohibition on it at all.  And my parents didn't prohibit it either.  As a matter of fact, my one and only taste of beer was when I was about 6 or so years old and the beer company created lite beer.  My dad came home with a few bottles before it got marketed and had us try it because it's supposed to taste like soda.  Yuck!  That was the first and last time I tasted beer.  We just never liked the smell or the taste of it!  We get free sodas too (the same Beer Company bottles Coca-Cola products) so when there's Sprite sitting next to Beer, we always go for the Sprite because it smells good and tastes better.  And we are all into sports.  It's a very common teaching that alcohol (and smoking) ruins your athleticism.  And my dad's wine collection?  Still there.  All unopened.  I don't know, it's probably vinegar by now.

So, all my sibling's kids don't drink.  Not even my nephew whose mom is an occasional drinker.  Even without any prohibition.

Coffee is an interesting thing.  My mom drinks coffee.  My dad thinks it's disgusting.  But she told us kids that coffee is only an adult drink.  So we weren't allowed to drink the coffee that is sitting on the coffee cart.  We can have grandma's coffee (usually sikwate - pure cacao,  or roasted rice).  But when I got to be adult, I never liked the taste of coffee either.  I preferred the sikwate so I would have hot chocolate and never touched coffee.  I even wrote a letter to the hotels to provide free hot chocolate in addition to free coffee.  None of my siblings got into coffee except for one.  He started drinking coffee in med school to keep himself awake.

Edited August 14, 2017 by anatess2

[omegaseamaster75]

On 8/12/2017 at 11:50 AM, prisonchaplain said:

My church (Assemblies of God) just re-affirmed our stance against the consumption of alcohol, adding the prohibition for ministers to our bylaws. At least one individual didn't like it, and went went to social media to post that he supposed Jesus would not be welcomed among us (he turned water to wine and consumed wine at the Last Supper). Of course, by his logic most states (even true-blue Washington) would not allow Jesus to drive donkeys either.

We used to allow it.

Our current non consumption of alcohol is a matter of policy. You never know it could change.

[Iggy]

14 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

We used to allow it.

Our current non consumption of alcohol is a matter of policy. You never know it could change.

Could you please provide confirmation of this. A link to where you got this information. Thanks.

[omegaseamaster75]

@Iggy

D&C 89:2 To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days— 

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V14N03_80.pdf

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

Edited August 14, 2017 by omegaseamaster75

[Grunt]

7 hours ago, Carborendum said:

You could make that argument.  But it wouldn't stand up.

1. Take a look at the ratios.  Remove DWI incidents and how many people actually get into an accident on a regular basis? Not many (total deaths is about 1 per 100,000,000 vehicle miles traveled.  That's about 0.003% of all drivers.  About 10% are injured.  But that doesn't adjust for the same person getting into multiple accidents in a year. (can't find non-injury/non-fatal incidents). Remember that the number of incidents will be less than either of these statistics because of multiple deaths and injuries in a given incident due to ONE driver.  Of all the people who drink, how many abuse it? 26.9% of drinkers participate in binge drinking.  How many more do heavy drinking without it reaching the threshold of "binge drinking"?

2. There is a very practical reason to drive a car that has tremendous benefits to society.  What substitute is available?  None, really.  What is the benefit of alcohol?  Pleasure, refreshment.  What substitute is available?  PLENTY.

3. There are adjustments that can be made for driving, traffic laws, remove cell phone use, DWI, licensing, seat belts, insurance, etc.  Alcohol?  None.

Apart from that we need to recognize that it is about staying away from the edge of the cliff.

The New Covenant says that we aren't just looking to see just how far we can go before we're utterly condemned.  The New Covenant is about trying to continually reach for the Lord in all things and try to stay far away from condemnation in the fear of God (meant in both the classical and modern way).

I had a conversation about drinking with a friend who said she only drank maybe once a month.  Given what I knew about her, I believe it.  But one concern she had was raising her child to be responsible with alcohol. 

I told her that's the easiest thing in the world.  "How?" she asked.  

Just tell them it's stupid.  It's a whole lot easier to tell them not to drink when you yourself NEVER drink.  You drink even once a month and they know it, you have a hard time explaining to a child why they shouldn't.  Children's minds don't work the same way as adults do.  At least, her daughter couldn't understand it. 

My kids?  I have no worries that any of them will ever drink.

You're moving the goal posts.  The point was the number of people who wouldn't be abusers if they didn't drink.  The response of "the number of people who wouldn't be harmed if we didn't drive cars" is completely valid.  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

You're moving the goal posts.  The point was the number of people who wouldn't be abusers if they didn't drink.  The response of "the number of people who wouldn't be harmed if we didn't drive cars" is completely valid.  

This may sound childish, and I'll have to apologize, but it's true.  You moved the goal posts first.

Here's my recap:

1. I did agree that, obviously, you are a responsible drinker.  I applaud you for that.  I have nothing but respect for the fact that you could pull that off.  I never meant to imply otherwise with what I said.
2. I made a statement (abusers) that showed there is in fact wisdom in the doctrine of complete abstinence from alcohol. It does not mean there are no other ways.  But this road is certainly a good one.  And I don't understand why anyone would say this one is bad.
3. You countered with the comparison to driving.  That moved the goal post because of "Faulty Comparison." 
4. So, at that point, it was not the original argument anymore.  I needed to show the points that make this a faulty comparison. I pointed out the differences between the apples and the oranges.  This should have shown you why it was not a fair comparison.

Now, I need help understanding what your last post is getting at.  My intent with the post was to show that the apples/oranges comparison was inappropriate.  I thought I made such differences clear.  But you are saying that the comparison is valid.  Please explain.

Here's what I pointed out:

1. Statistical differences in negative outcomes/behavior due to the subject in question.  They were huge.
2. The utility of each behavior. i.e. what good they produced.  Huge difference.
3. The availability of substitutes that produce the same benefits.  Huge difference.
4. The ability to implement procedural mechanisms to mitigate against negative outcomes.  Huge difference.

So, where are the two behaviors similar enough to warrant a just comparison?

Edited August 14, 2017 by Guest

[prisonchaplain]

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

You're moving the goal posts.  The point was the number of people who wouldn't be abusers if they didn't drink.  The response of "the number of people who wouldn't be harmed if we didn't drive cars" is completely valid.  

I'm not concerned about goal posts, but by simple cost/benefit analysis, the importance of people driving for job-creation, economic development, poverty alleviation, etc. is much greater than the benefits of alcohol consumption. I'm guessing, though I could be very wrong, that the detriment to health and life is similar. So, the comparison would fail more on the benefit side than on the cost side. No?

[Midwest LDS]

Honestly, no I'm glad the church doesn't allow drinking. My mom and I are converts, so I've been around alcohol at family gatherings most of my life because most of my family are drinkers. I can't stand it. Even when they are not completely smashed, it makes the majority of them vulgar, crude, and stupid. I'm sure there are plenty of people in the world who drink moderately, but I don't care. For me alcohol is associated with nothing but bad memories and I don't want the church to relax the commandments against it.

On a lighter note I've always said " I'd rather be able to eat pork and not drink, then be able to drink and lose my bacon"☺

[Grunt]

31 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

This may sound childish, and I'll have to apologize, but it's true.  You moved the goal posts first.

Here's my recap:

1. I did agree that, obviously, you are a responsible drinker.  I applaud you for that.  I have nothing but respect for the fact that you could pull that off.  I never meant to imply otherwise with what I said.
2. I made a statement (abusers) that showed there is in fact wisdom in the doctrine of complete abstinence from alcohol. It does not mean there are no other ways.  But this road is certainly a good one.  And I don't understand why anyone would say this one is bad.
3. You countered with the comparison to driving.  That moved the goal post because of "Faulty Comparison." 
4. So, at that point, it was not the original argument anymore.  I needed to show the points that make this a faulty comparison. I pointed out the differences between the apples and the oranges.  This should have shown you why it was not a fair comparison.

Now, I need help understanding what your last post is getting at.  My intent with the post was to show that the apples/oranges comparison was inappropriate.  I thought I made such differences clear.  But you are saying that the comparison is valid.  Please explain.

Here's what I pointed out:

1. Statistical differences in negative outcomes/behavior due to the subject in question.  They were huge.
2. The utility of each behavior. i.e. what good they produced.  Huge difference.
3. The availability of substitutes that produce the same benefits.  Huge difference.
4. The ability to implement procedural mechanisms to mitigate against negative outcomes.  Huge difference.

So, where are the two behaviors similar enough to warrant a just comparison?

Again, I disagree.  I see where the disagreement of semantics lies, though.  The basis for your claim is "faulty comparison" and I don't accept that it is.  The two behaviors needn't be similar to warrant a just comparison.  The comparison is just based upon the outcome:  no alcohol means no harm from alcohol, even though alcohol can exist without harm, regardless the statistics;  no driving means no harm from driving, even though driving can exist without harm, regardless the statistics. 

To deny the comparison as faulty, one must first establish an agreed level of acceptable damage for the comparison to hold true.  I don't accept there is one since I reject the "risk justifies restriction" argument completely.

[Grunt]

28 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

I'm not concerned about goal posts, but by simple cost/benefit analysis, the importance of people driving for job-creation, economic development, poverty alleviation, etc. is much greater than the benefits of alcohol consumption. I'm guessing, though I could be very wrong, that the detriment to health and life is similar. So, the comparison would fail more on the benefit side than on the cost side. No?

Again, Chaplain, we would have to establish an acceptable level of benefit to justify risk.  I don't accept that as the basis for restriction of freedom.

[prisonchaplain]

@Grunt Your argument is that the detriment of alcoholic consumption does not rise to the level at which government should consider Prohibition? If so, this is a purely an academic discussion. My understanding is that Prohibition was initially successful and driving down consumption, alcohol-driven abuses, and drinking/driving accidents. However, over time, as the black market developed, the benefits eroded. Bottom line: There is no political will whatsoever to reinstitute Prohibition in the U.S.  HOWEVER, these discussions remain worthy and alive for church denominations--especially those already practicing abstinence, who are facing push-back from younger members, who've drunk the post-modern Koolaid and come to believe that almost all such restrictions are "legalistic" and "judgmental."

[Grunt]

6 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

@Grunt Your argument is that the detriment of alcoholic consumption does not rise to the level at which government should consider Prohibition? If so, this is a purely an academic discussion. My understanding is that Prohibition was initially successful and driving down consumption, alcohol-driven abuses, and drinking/driving accidents. However, over time, as the black market developed, the benefits eroded. Bottom line: There is no political will whatsoever to reinstitute Prohibition in the U.S.  HOWEVER, these discussions remain worthy and alive for church denominations--especially those already practicing abstinence, who are facing push-back from younger members, who've drunk the post-modern Koolaid and come to believe that almost all such restrictions are "legalistic" and "judgmental."

Chaplain,

Not exactly.  I'm not involving the government in my discussion at all.  I'm saying the argument "it's not safe to drink alcohol because you might become an addict" isn't a valid argument, and if the argument is "cause vs possible effect" that same logic applies to numerous scenarios.  

Furthermore, I've stated as church doctrine it is completely logical and valid.  It should be left at that, though, as the LDS does with coffee, or validated through harmful effects of alcohol.  Addiction shouldn't be one of them, though, since millions of people consume alcohol without addiction.

Edited August 14, 2017 by Grunt

[prisonchaplain]

@Grunt Thank you for getting me on the same page. If my 9th grade health teacher was correct, I would disagree with your assessment--at least within the LDS world (and that of other abstinence churches). We were told that if we were raised to believe that consuming alcohol was sinful, and we chose to drink anyway, we had a 50% chance of becoming alcoholic. My case was scarier, because if we came from homes where there was alcohol abuse, the odds were again 50%.

Nationwide, the odds are 10%. Is that risk high enough to encourage abstinence? I'd suggest that most doctors would encourage their patients to avoid substances that would put them at a 10% risk of a disease that would end up being "life-controlling." So, I'm not so sure the argument is weak.

As for coffee, not too many LDS I've encountered have tried to deter non-LDS from consuming...

[Grunt]

7 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

@Grunt Thank you for getting me on the same page. If my 9th grade health teacher was correct, I would disagree with your assessment--at least within the LDS world (and that of other abstinence churches). We were told that if we were raised to believe that consuming alcohol was sinful, and we chose to drink anyway, we had a 50% chance of becoming alcoholic. My case was scarier, because if we came from homes where there was alcohol abuse, the odds were again 50%.

Nationwide, the odds are 10%. Is that risk high enough to encourage abstinence? I'd suggest that most doctors would encourage their patients to avoid substances that would put them at a 10% risk of a disease that would end up being "life-controlling." So, I'm not so sure the argument is weak.

As for coffee, not too many LDS I've encountered have tried to deter non-LDS from consuming...

Chaplain,

I believe your data may be off.  According to CDC only 10% of drinkers they determine to "drink too much" are alcoholics.  How many people in the country drink?  I don't know.  I think my comparison is spot on.