The Official "Ask A Mormon" Thread

[Thee Jazz Fan]

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?

 

[LogGrad98]

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?

Every state does that, they all tax alcohol and tobacco, some more, some less. This is just intellectual dishonesty really.

https://taxfoundation.org/state-sales-gasoline-cigarette-and-alcohol-tax-rates/

 

[fishonjazz]

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.

Jesus didn't needs drinks to be safe in order to drink them.
He's jesus dude. He drinks what he wants without fear or consequence.

 

[♪alt13]

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?

Yes, you could answer any of the questions that I asked if you wouldn't mind. I don't at all think that you can speak for the church or the government. My questions were for you based on the last paragraph of your post that I quoted.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Yes, you could answer any of the questions that I asked if you wouldn't mind. I don't at all think that you can speak for the church or the government. My questions were for you based on the last paragraph of your post that I quoted.

There are 17 states that control the sales of alcoholic beverages. Utah is the 8th highest in regards to tax on these beverages per gallon.

You are not clear on what you are asking. Are you trying to single Utah out of all of the other states like it is different here? Is there an implied question you are asking? Can you restate your question/point/direction? I feel like I'm on jeopardy and you worked backward from "your answer" to arrive at the question you think leads to it.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.