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

[The Folk Prophet]

The question comes down to (in my mind) this: Do you wish sin wasn't sin?

That amounts to asking if you wish God wasn't God.

I'll let Alma from the Book of Mormon explain the logic: (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/42.13-22?lang=eng&clang=eng#p12)

13 Therefore, according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God.

14 And thus we see that all mankind were fallen, and they were in the grasp of justice; yea, the justice of God, which consigned them forever to be cut off from his presence.

15 And now, the plan of mercy could not be brought about except an atonement should be made; therefore God himself atoneth for the sins of the world, to bring about the plan of mercy, to appease the demands of justice, that God might be a perfect, just God, and a merciful God also.

16 Now, repentance could not come unto men except there were a punishment, which also was eternal as the life of the soul should be, affixed opposite to the plan of happiness, which was as eternal also as the life of the soul.

17 Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a punishment?

18 Now, there was a punishment affixed, and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto man.

19 Now, if there was no law given—if a man murdered he should die—would he be afraid he would die if he should murder?

20 And also, if there was no law given against sin men would not be afraid to sin.

21 And if there was no law given, if men sinned what could justice do, or mercy either, for they would have no claim upon the creature?

22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Grunt said:

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.

Well, that wasn't even my argument anyway.  "Justify" wasn't the thrust of my argument.  Let me make an attempt to clarify a different way.

Your "hang up" with the Word of Wisdom in the first place is basically,"The way I've been doing it seems to work just fine.  Why mess with it?  Where's the need to go the next step to complete abstinence of alcohol?"  Is that a correct interpretation of your position?  That's what I've been hearing.

The answer is: There is no need to do so.  Does that surprise you?

There is NOTHING WRONG with what you're doing.  I'll go back to a previous point I made on another thread.  The only reason we believe in complete abstinence is because it is part of a covenant.  We've made such a covenant to abstain completely.  You have not.  So, there is no reason for you to do so until you've made that covenant.

The reason I brought up the benefit of abstinence was that you seem to think there was something wrong with it.  No.  There is nothing wrong with it any more than there is anything wrong with the path you've chosen.  They're both good paths.  They both work in their own way WITH THEIR OWN BENEFITS.  I was pointing out some benefits of our belief. That doesn't mean that I was saying your way was bad or wrong.  It's just another GOOD choice that someone else may make.  

I'm hoping that you don't see anything WRONG with complete abstinence.  It is just not the choice you would make at this point in your life -- for you.

If you limit yourself to very moderate levels just for health, you will have your reward.  But if you go the extra step because it is a covenant, the Lord has promised us certain blessings beyond the mortal reasons I have given.  And I could share experiences that have proven so in my life.

[prisonchaplain]

3 hours ago, Grunt said:

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.

Here's an article that suggests 30% have abused alcohol, and that the lag between problem drinking and seeking a solution is roughly 8 years.  http://www.cbsnews.com/news/30-of-americans-abuse-alcohol-study-says/  I'm well aware that there are wildly varying studies out there. However, I feel pretty confident about saying that the United States has a relatively horrible drinking culture, and that our heavy reliance on driving cars makes even modest consumption abusive for the drivers.

[Grunt]

My point is either lost on you or I'm unable to express it clearly.   I'll bow out of the discussion at this point. 

I will add this has nothing to do with the Word of Wisdom.  I lack the insight to know why God decrees anything.  I was discussing the reasoning man has applied to it.  

Edited August 15, 2017 by Grunt

[anatess2]

10 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Well, that wasn't even my argument anyway.  "Justify" wasn't the thrust of my argument.  Let me make an attempt to clarify a different way.

Your "hang up" with the Word of Wisdom in the first place is basically,"The way I've been doing it seems to work just fine.  Why mess with it?  Where's the need to go the next step to complete abstinence of alcohol?"  Is that a correct interpretation of your position?  That's what I've been hearing.

The answer is: There is no need to do so.  Does that surprise you?

There is NOTHING WRONG with what you're doing.  I'll go back to a previous point I made on another thread.  The only reason we believe in complete abstinence is because it is part of a covenant.  We've made such a covenant to abstain completely.  You have not.  So, there is no reason for you to do so until you've made that covenant.

The reason I brought up the benefit of abstinence was that you seem to think there was something wrong with it.  No.  There is nothing wrong with it any more than there is anything wrong with the path you've chosen.  They're both good paths.  They both work in their own way WITH THEIR OWN BENEFITS.  I was pointing out some benefits of our belief. That doesn't mean that I was saying your way was bad or wrong.  It's just another GOOD choice that someone else may make.  

I'm hoping that you don't see anything WRONG with complete abstinence.  It is just not the choice you would make at this point in your life -- for you.

If you limit yourself to very moderate levels just for health, you will have your reward.  But if you go the extra step because it is a covenant, the Lord has promised us certain blessings beyond the mortal reasons I have given.  And I could share experiences that have proven so in my life.

 

4 hours ago, Grunt said:

My point is either lost on you or I'm unable to express it clearly.   I'll bow out of the discussion at this point. 

I will add this has nothing to do with the Word of Wisdom.  I lack the insight to know why God decrees anything.  I was discussing the reasoning man has applied to it.  

Yeah, this is kinda wierd.

You're both talking 2 different things and arguing about it.  Carb is talking about World of Wisdom.  Grunt is not.  Interestingly, PC doesn't subscribe to the Word of Wisdom so he has to come up with another reason than - muh covenant... which is how Grunt chimed in.

So yeah, saying avoid alcohol because some (30% or 10% doesn't matter) abuse it doesn't cut it in my own humble opinion.  Grunt used the car analogy, I'm thinking the gun rights analogy also works.

 

Edited August 15, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Grunt said:

My point is either lost on you or I'm unable to express it clearly.   I'll bow out of the discussion at this point. 

I will add this has nothing to do with the Word of Wisdom.  I lack the insight to know why God decrees anything.  I was discussing the reasoning man has applied to it.  

I think that may be the source of our not connecting.  I was emphasizing that man's reasoning has nothing to do with God's decrees, while at the same time trying to address your issues with it.  I guess they really had nothing to do with each other.

Edited August 15, 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I'm thinking the gun rights analogy also works.

I think that is a great analogy for what I was talking about.  I'm a proud gun owner.  I think everyone ought to have a gun.  I may even wonder why anyone would choose to NOT have a gun.  I may even think it is foolish.

But if I were pressed to answer,"Is it morally wrong to refuse to own a gun?"  I'd have to say,"No.  That's your right.  I'm certainly not going along with it.  But you're not wrong for refusing to own a gun."

And if I were pressed to answer,"If the Lord told you that you need to give up all your guns and never hold another gun ever again, would you do it?"  I'd have to say,"It may be difficult.  But if I knew the Lord required it of me, I'd have to obey."

[omegaseamaster75]

12 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The question comes down to (in my mind) this: Do you wish sin wasn't sin?

That amounts to asking if you wish God wasn't God.

I'll let Alma from the Book of Mormon explain the logic: (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/42.13-22?lang=eng&clang=eng#p12)

13 Therefore, according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God.

14 And thus we see that all mankind were fallen, and they were in the grasp of justice; yea, the justice of God, which consigned them forever to be cut off from his presence.

15 And now, the plan of mercy could not be brought about except an atonement should be made; therefore God himself atoneth for the sins of the world, to bring about the plan of mercy, to appease the demands of justice, that God might be a perfect, just God, and a merciful God also.

16 Now, repentance could not come unto men except there were a punishment, which also was eternal as the life of the soul should be, affixed opposite to the plan of happiness, which was as eternal also as the life of the soul.

17 Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a punishment?

18 Now, there was a punishment affixed, and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto man.

19 Now, if there was no law given—if a man murdered he should die—would he be afraid he would die if he should murder?

20 And also, if there was no law given against sin men would not be afraid to sin.

21 And if there was no law given, if men sinned what could justice do, or mercy either, for they would have no claim upon the creature?

22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

Is the consumption of alcoholic beverages a sin? and if so for how long has it been a sin? since 1921? or earlier?

When we covenant to keep the word of wisdom violation of that covenant is a sin.  

 

 

[anatess2]

22 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Is the consumption of alcoholic beverages a sin? and if so for how long has it been a sin? since 1921? or earlier?

When we covenant to keep the word of wisdom violation of that covenant is a sin.  

 

 

Consumption of alcoholic beverages is only a sin to those who made that covenant.  It doesn't really matter when the law was made into a covenant.  It only matters when one entered the covenant.

[The Folk Prophet]

5 hours ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Is the consumption of alcoholic beverages a sin? and if so for how long has it been a sin? since 1921? or earlier?

When we covenant to keep the word of wisdom violation of that covenant is a sin.  

 

 

Point....missed.

[The Folk Prophet]

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Consumption of alcoholic beverages is only a sin to those who made that covenant.  It doesn't really matter when the law was made into a covenant.  It only matters when one entered the covenant.

Actually it becomes a sin when one is made aware that God has commanded otherwise. Covenants are not required to render disobedience to known commands of God "sin". Now one can argue back and forth as to the accountability/knowledge relationship all day. But the principle remains. Knowing God's commands makes one accountable whether one has made a promise to keep them or not.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Actually it becomes a sin when one is made aware that God has commanded otherwise. Covenants are not required to render disobedience to known commands of God "sin". Now one can argue back and forth as to the accountability/knowledge relationship all day. But the principle remains. Knowing God's commands makes one accountable whether one has made a promise to keep them or not.

But does the Lord command all men to abide by the WoW?  I don't think so.  Not all were commanded to take upon themselves the Nazarite covenant.  But some did and were specially blessed because of it.  When I consider the WoW, I rather compare it to the Nazarite Covenant than any "general commandments".

[The Folk Prophet]

39 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

But does the Lord command all men to abide by the WoW?

That is beyond the point.

Edit: That being said, I don't agree with you. I think the Lord has commanded just so. Once one is made aware of this commandment, one is accountable.

Edited August 15, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

That is beyond the point.

Then I'm confused.  I thought that was exactly the point you were making.

46 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Actually it becomes a sin when one is made aware that God has commanded otherwise. Covenants are not required to render disobedience to known commands of God "sin". Now one can argue back and forth as to the accountability/knowledge relationship all day. But the principle remains. Knowing God's commands makes one accountable whether one has made a promise to keep them or not.

We were talking about the WoW specifically.  That's what this thread is about. 

So, what were you talking about?

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Carborendum said:

Then I'm confused.  I thought that was exactly the point you were making.

We were talking about the WoW specifically.  That's what this thread is about. 

So, what were you talking about?

I'm talking about having a desire for sin to no longer be sin. Which should be obvious since it's exactly what I said in my first post here.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm talking about having a desire for sin to no longer be sin. Which should be obvious since it's exactly what I said in my first post here.

OK.  But that post that I responded to was in response to Anatess' post about alcohol consumption only being a sin for those who have made a covenant to refrain.  Is that just bad timing?  Or why did link your post to hers?

Edited August 15, 2017 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

17 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

OK.  But that post that I responded to was in response to Anatess' post about alcohol consumption only being a sin for those who have made a covenant to refrain.  Is that just bad timing?  Or why did link your post to hers?

Because I was replying to her.

Also, perhaps you missed my edit: I don't agree with you. God commands all men to come unto Christ. That means, in the latter-days, to join the LDS church (per LDS interpretation), which part of that command is to keep the word of wisdom. Who is excluded from this, exactly?

[prisonchaplain]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

That is beyond the point.

Edit: That being said, I don't agree with you. I think the Lord has commanded just so. Once one is made aware of this commandment, one is accountable.

Perhaps WITHIN the church. For example, a lot of traditional Christians are aware that LDS do not drink coffee/tea. Are we accountable for that knowledge?

[JohnsonJones]

I don't wish for the church to allow moderate drinking, I do not miss that.

I have many relatives that drink (like all of them) and most of them do NOT drink heavily (though some are blazing alcoholics).  The Germans may drink half a cup of wine at dinner...and that's it.  I'd call that moderate.  I'd also say it's far healthier for them than those of us who do not do so.  We keep the Word of Wisdom as Mormons not necessarily because the science behind it says that this is the healthier thing to do, but because we view it as a commandment that was further reinforced for us to keep by Latter Day Prophets (I think it was either JFS or Heber J. Grant that made it mandatory, have to look at my books to recall better).

On the otherhand, the thing I would like them to allow...is coffee.  I think there are FAR more heavy coffee drinkers out there than those who are heavy alcohol drinkers. 

I don't even drink hot chocolate myself, so I suppose I'm pretty hardcore in keeping the WoW in my personal interpretation...but I could really go for a cup of joe sometimes.

Edited August 15, 2017 by JohnsonJones
wording clarification to make my statement clearer

[Guest]

4 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

God commands all men to come unto Christ. That means, in the latter-days, to join the LDS church (per LDS interpretation), which part of that command is to keep the word of wisdom. Who is excluded from this, exactly?

OK.  I hadn't thought of that.  Hmm. Interesting.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

.  The Germans may drink half a cup of wine at dinner...and that's it.  I'd call that moderate.

That's called "light drinking" but obviously it's not an exact science. I think to a culture that forbids alcohol even "light"  alcohol use is hard to understand.

Notice I didn't say it's moral, healthy, or anything else.  

[SilentOne]

 

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

But does the Lord command all men to abide by the WoW?  I don't think so.  Not all were commanded to take upon themselves the Nazarite covenant.  But some did and were specially blessed because of it.  When I consider the WoW, I rather compare it to the Nazarite Covenant than any "general commandments".

5 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Also, perhaps you missed my edit: I don't agree with you. God commands all men to come unto Christ. That means, in the latter-days, to join the LDS church (per LDS interpretation), which part of that command is to keep the word of wisdom. Who is excluded from this, exactly?

4 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Perhaps WITHIN the church. For example, a lot of traditional Christians are aware that LDS do not drink coffee/tea. Are we accountable for that knowledge?

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

OK.  I hadn't thought of that.  Hmm. Interesting.

I think the requirement would come in when somebody is aware that the commandment is of God. So somebody being aware that we have a prohibition against drinking doesn't make them subject to the commandment, but if they receive a witness that the gospel is true and the church is being lead by prophets, they are then responsible for following all our commandments that they are aware of.

[SilentOne]

And as for the original question, I haven't exactly wished for drinking to be allowed, though I have been curious about what various wines taste like and what sort of a drunk I would be.

[Sunday21]

One huge advantage of being dry is cost savings. Especially for family gatherings. You also don't need to find bouncers, clear up so much mess afterwards or listen to the apologies from people who ruined the party. 

I used to host a big lds party for sisters once a year. Big cost savings, no one insulted anyone else. No fights or outbursts. No having to designate someone to look out for drunks. Much less complicated.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Sunday21 said:

One huge advantage of being dry is cost savings. Especially for family gatherings. You also don't need to find bouncers, clear up so much mess afterwards or listen to the apologies from people who ruined the party. 

I used to host a big lds party for sisters once a year. Big cost savings, no one insulted anyone else. No fights or outbursts. No having to designate someone to look out for drunks. Much less complicated.

But you're Canadian.  Your parties are in Canadia.  I thought all you Canadians were kind, mild-mannered, polite, non-violent people.