Beer and the Word of Wisdom

[Solon]

Il Padrino Ute’s recent question in the Religion forum about iced tea, coupled with my ongoing musings about presentist revisionism spawned this question I’ve been nursing for awhile. The Word of Wisdom, to me at least, pretty clearly allows for consumption of beer and other “mild drinks.” According to my understanding, the WoW prohibits wine and “strong drinks” (D&C 89.3, 5), but “mild drinks” made from grains (D&C 89.17) are okay.

After doing a little digging, and finding that the “commandmentization” of the WoW is debatable, it has come to my attention that, either due to ignorance of alcoholic beverages or an oversight spawned by the current policies, few people - whether scholars or religious figures - have made the distinction between strong and weak drinks in a WoW context.

So, the nit-picking about iced tea and caffeine aside, can LDS drink beer with a clean conscience? (BTW, the temple recommend question asks the member only, "Do you keep the Word of Wisdom?")

I think they can.

I invite you to peruse the fine articles written by Thomas G. Alexander and Robert J. McCue for the primary sources, background information, and some insightful commentary on how the Word of Wisdom “became” a commandment and how it fits into the broader context of American social movements.

Thomas G. Alexander, “The Word of Wisdom: From Principle to Requirement” in Dialogue, vol. 14.3 (Autumn 1981), pp. 78-88.

Robert J. McCue, “Did the Word of Wisdom Become a Commandment in 1851?” in Dialogue, vol. 14.3 (Autumn 1981), pp. 66-77.

You can read Dialogue vol. 14 at:
http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/doc...&CISOSHOW=6510

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Solon

So, the nit-picking about iced tea and caffeine aside, can LDS drink beer with a clean conscience? (BTW, the temple recommend question asks the member only, "Do you keep the Word of Wisdom?")

It seems to me questions like these are what forced the GA's to make the chastity temple recommend question more specific a few years back. Pretty soon we'll have each question be a sin laundry-list, with little footnotes to caveats and exceptions. Going in for a recommend will feel like being read your Miranda rights.

Regardless of what happened in 1851 or 1921, it's pretty clear what the strict rules of the Word of Wisdom are. In fact, I think there are few commandments that are as clearly spelled out. I always find curious this desire to go back to a past era of the church and attempt to re-interpret the words of past authorities and leaders, neglecting in the process what has been said in our day.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Tex

I always find curious this desire to go back to a past era of the church and attempt to re-interpret the words of past authorities and leaders, neglecting in the process what has been said in our day.

Maybe there will someday be a "laundry list" to go with WoW questions, but that doesn't explain this apparent incongruity. This is not so much an attempt to "re-interpret the words of past authorities" as to interpret them in the first place. The text seems clear enough to me, but today's practice is different. Why?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Oddly enough, I read those very articles back in August. Anthon Lund drinking Danish beer is not the kind of thing that most contemporary LDS are comfortable knowing.

Regardless, I think the fact that there isn't a "laundry list" is very purposeful. Some people long for such a list, but I think it would be a huge mistake.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Solon

Maybe there will someday be a "laundry list" to go with WoW questions, but that doesn't explain this apparent incongruity. This is not so much an attempt to "re-interpret the words of past authorities" as to interpret them in the first place. The text seems clear enough to me, but today's practice is different. Why?

I'm not familiar enough with its evolution to say, and if someone's interested in researching it, then by all means. I'm sure it would be fascinating to see how it has changed and the forces that drove it.

Where I separate myself is when research turns up an earlier view/teaching/policy and the researcher concludes, "This is how it should be today."

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Oddly enough, I read those very articles back in August. Anthon Lund drinking Danish beer is not the kind of thing that most contemporary LDS are comfortable knowing.

Regardless, I think the fact that there isn't a "laundry list" is very purposeful. Some people long for such a list, but I think it would be a huge mistake.

I agree. That's the last thing I'd like to see.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Solon

Il Padrino Ute’s recent question in the Religion forum about iced tea, coupled with my ongoing musings about presentist revisionism spawned this question I’ve been nursing for awhile. The Word of Wisdom, to me at least, pretty clearly allows for consumption of beer and other “mild drinks.” According to my understanding, the WoW prohibits wine and “strong drinks” (D&C 89.3, 5), but “mild drinks” made from grains (D&C 89.17) are okay.

After doing a little digging, and finding that the “commandmentization” of the WoW is debatable, it has come to my attention that, either due to ignorance of alcoholic beverages or an oversight spawned by the current policies, few people - whether scholars or religious figures - have made the distinction between strong and weak drinks in a WoW context.

So, the nit-picking about iced tea and caffeine aside, can LDS drink beer with a clean conscience? (BTW, the temple recommend question asks the member only, "Do you keep the Word of Wisdom?")

I think they can.

I invite you to peruse the fine articles written by Thomas G. Alexander and Robert J. McCue for the primary sources, background information, and some insightful commentary on how the Word of Wisdom “became” a commandment and how it fits into the broader context of American social movements.

Thomas G. Alexander, “The Word of Wisdom: From Principle to Requirement” in Dialogue, vol. 14.3 (Autumn 1981), pp. 78-88.

Robert J. McCue, “Did the Word of Wisdom Become a Commandment in 1851?” in Dialogue, vol. 14.3 (Autumn 1981), pp. 66-77.

You can read Dialogue vol. 14 at:
http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/doc...&CISOSHOW=6510

Of course if we are talking about American beer then we are talking about a 'mild drink' at 3.2%.

Now if we are talking Canadian beer at 5 - 6% ...

[BlueHair]

I think the temple recommend questions will become more vague in the future. My prediction is the church will become more inclusive as it evolves. From what I hear, temple attendance isn't that good, so making it harder to get in would be counter-productive.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Anthon Lund drinking Danish beer is not the kind of thing that most contemporary LDS are comfortable knowing.

Why would this be uncomfortable with most LDS? Isn't it well understood that the WoW has evolved over time in its level of enforcement?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Why would this be uncomfortable with most LDS? Isn't it well understood that the WoW has evolved over time in its level of enforcement?

Many adults (at least in the English-speaking church) are vaguely aware of how things have changed. They know that Brigham Young made it more commandment-ish in 1851 and so on. But they don't know about all the back and forth, or how it wasn't connected to Temple worthiness for a long time. And they haven't considered the relationship between D&C 89 and current practice. The emphasis of caring for one's body and observing to partake or not partake of certain things is there in D&C 89, but Temple worthiness today is about abstaining from 5 things:coffee, tea, tobacco, alcohol, and harmful drugs. Things like the temperature of a beverage, or how often one eats meat, or whether one uses herbs, are very secondary these days (as far as the official Church is considered, individual members are sometimes zealous in these areas), and 89's distinction between mild drinks and wine of your own make and strong drinks is ignored, as are things like oats are for horses.

I think that any Church History class that wants to give a broad understanding of changing Mormon doctrine and practices should trace the material in those articles that Solon cited.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Why would this be uncomfortable with most LDS? Isn't it well understood that the WoW has evolved over time in its level of enforcement?

The way I see it, enforcement is different from changing what the text indicates. I don't think anyone could make an argument that whiskey or cigars were acceptable just because the WoW was loosely "enforced," but I do think the text says that beer is okay. Is the church prohibiting something for which there is no doctrinal / revelatory reason?

I wonder if this is what happens when a semi- or pseudo-doctrinal tradition becomes entrenched over time. Are we 75 years away from a temple recommend question that asks if the member watches "Rated R" movies, since at some point it "became" a bona fide commandment?