As a former drinker, I can attest that even one drink can impair your judgement. Big time. Now there’s some scientific proof.
UPDATE: Please see this article.
This observation is not meant to be judgmental about all of the social drinkers we know who go to a party and nurse a glass of wine or one beer all night. I’m even not willing to be judgmental about all of those people who may have three or four drinks over a three-hour period. Heck, in my time I’ve known people who could drink 10 drinks over several hours and not even show it.
But as a convert, I often hear “why are you Mormons so concerned about just one drink? Studies have proven that a glass of wine a day is good for you. If you really cared about health and the Word of Wisdom, then you would allow one drink a day.” And they have a point. That’s a very difficult argument to overcome. Now, there’s some scientific proof about something that all drinkers know in their hearts: one drink does affect you. It impairs some of your ability to make the right decisions. Yes, it loosens you up and makes you “feel good,” but alcohol is like any other drug that changes your mood. One drink does matter.
Let’s be clear here: I stopped drinking before I was baptized as part of a one-year conversion process. The reason I stopped was that I realized that I could not have “just one drink.” Once I had one drink I had five or six drinks. So, my reasons may be different than others. I realized I had a compulsive problem and that I needed to stop drinking for my own health. I wouldn’t call myself an alcoholic because I didn’t drink that often, but when I did I had too many drinks. (Note: some people would define this as alcoholism).
After my conversion, I began to see the word of wisdom as primarily an issue of faith. I wanted to keep the promises I made when I was baptized, and I wanted to become temple worthy, so I never thought about breaking the word of wisdom simply because it was an act of faith. But of course it is difficult to logically discuss the issues involved with the WoW with non-members. There is the issue of “just one drink.” There is the issue of why we can drink Coke but not coffee and why we can’t drink decaf coffee. To these people I simply say: “look, I am happier not drinking alcohol or coffee, so it works for me. But the main reason I did it was that it was a test of my faith. I know that this is difficult to understand but faith often is a test. And by keeping the WoW I feel like I am healthier and happier.”
It is extremely difficult to logically answer the “just one drink” doubters. But at least now there is one study to give them.
I too suffered a drinking problem, but was LDS, and my drinking started post mission at BYU after falling off the LofC wagon with my first post mission gf. I hit the hard stuff from the get-go and wonder if that had a lot to do with my illness (I couldn’t stop at a moderate amount of booze). I mean there’s a big difference between beer, wine and the high octane stuff in terms on time to impact the brain. I can be drunk in minutes before finishing one drink of the good stuff. Then I quickly learned to use LIITs with women. In a nut shell, a person can develop a drinking problem starting with beer or wine, but I suspect it takes far longer.
Just to be clear: I was a beer man. I would get seriously impaired after half a bottle of beer and could definitely feel it. But the few times I did drink the hard stuff it was even worse. So, I would agree with Steve EM but I would also testify that even one beer or glass of wine can have an effect.
Two things to say when accosted about the ‘healthy glass of wine daily’:
-Ask how their liver likes it.
-Researchers have recently revisited the data and have discovered that the nondrinking group included reformed alcoholics who do not drink at all, and whose health had already been impaired due to prior heavy drinking. When they remove those people from the statistics, the supposed health benefits go away.
Sometimes we just have to wait awhile for the full answers.
To balance this post out, another recent study, done at the University of Utah, concludes that cell phone drivers are just as dangerous if not moreso than drunk drivers (drivers at the 0.08 legal limit). AND, cell phone drivers are INFINITELY more likely to cause an accident (0 drunk accidents; 3 cell phone accidents).
Obviously impaired driving is bad; but sometimes I wonder why drunk driving is so singled out over ‘sleepy’ driving or driving while distracted or emotional. Especially given the subjectiveness of drunkenness that Geoff B mentions (some people are impaired after 1/2 a drink; others can drink 10 and not show it).
I always tell people, “I don’t drink even one drink because I don’t want to be a burden or bad influence on my brothers and sisters who may struggle with this issue.” Back in Ye Olde Pre-LDS Days, I could hold my liquor fine and drank in as much moderation as a teenager could muster. I don’t doubt that I could still drink in moderation if I were inclined, but I’m no worse off for not drinking.
Now, just don’t tell me not to cook with booze. Cheap sake, crappy imported beer, and bargain basement wine are great for cooking, but the alcohol cooks out, and besides, only a fool would ever attempt to drink any of them recreationally (and only a lifelong Mormon would be tempted to do so!)! 🙂
I’m not very tolerant of those who argue that they can drink responsibly. The problem is that what looks responsible after one drink is a lot different than it does before one drink. Alcohol impairs judgment by interfering with the functioning of the pre-frontal lobe of the brain — the area responsible for judgment. That is why inhibitions are altered. There is a “go” signal from the linbic system but no “stop and think first” feed-back from the pre-frontal lobe. As a result, one drink can impair judgment and make the good sense that exists without a drink disappear. The problem is that for alocoholics the pre-frontal lobe is completely non-functional in judgments about how much to drink.
As the grandson of an alocholic, I am quite sure that one drink is all that it would take for me to be enslaved by alcohol. So I have never imbibed — never. It would be poor judgment on my part to take even one drink.
Blake,
That makes a lot of sense to me, although I don’t think I was alcoholic or addicted. To explain, with the support of my wife and others, one day I just turned the problem over to the Lord and was given the strength to stop. Never had the DTs or went to AA, etc. But, one could interprete some of your remarks as implying that use of stealthy booze like LIIT to facilitat things on a date is a form of rape, and I don’t think that’s what you mean.
I’ll probably regret this, but here goes anyway…
I’m Mormon. I also drink.
Is there a bigger bogeyman in Mormonism? Certainly rape, murder, incest, etc. trump drinking, but those are considered immoral (and illegal) in almost all religions and societies. Drinking’s negative reputation is obviously not entirely unwarranted. Alcholism is bad. Drunk driving is bad. Doing harmful things under the influence (that one might otherwise not do) is bad.
But lets face it, millions of people, both past and present, have figured out a way to drink alcohol responsibly. Are the negative aspects of drinking (like say narcotics?) harmful and detrimental enough for society to outlaw all drinking? In most societies they (the “negative aspects”) are not. What about for God? Again, in most religions they are not. Prophets in the Old and New Testament, including Christ himself, evidently drank alcohol and still managed to be holy men. The early prophets and leaders of the LDS Church also drank, responsibly in most cases, and ushered in the Restoration.
My point is not to be provocative. My point is not to rationalize drinking. My point is that drinking is not the bogeyman Mormons make it out to be. As it is with most things, one size (abstinence) does not fit all. It works well for some. For others, like Blake’s grandfather (or grandmother?) it is an imperative. For others, “moderation” works pretty well. And believe it or not, those moderatation folks still feel God’s love and spirit, even if they’re an unorthodox Mormon like me.
Do you have a Temple Recommend, Mormon Drinker? I ask not to bash you but because I’m generally curious as a new convert. I haven’t had a drink since several months before I was baptized and I haven’t really missed it but I must admit to occasional yearnings for a beer. I go to the temple in a month and I just wonder how you answer the question “Do you keep the Word of Wisdom?”
I think I might learn something from Steve EM if someone would explain his acronymns:
LofC wagon
my first post mission gf.
use LIITs with women
okay, I’m guessing LofC=Law of Chastity and gf=girlfriend
is LIITs a typo for LIMITs? or is it really Long Island Iced Tea, but I don’t get how you would use that one women, did they not recognize it as an alcoholic drink?
tired, stupid or naive: pick two or three out of three.
One drawback I’m finding as I get older, is I tend to freak out or have no idea how to deal with people who drink due to almost complete lack of experience. Although I think of the drinking part of the WofW as pretty much arbitrary rather than inherently significant, dealing with actual shiny-eyed drinking people is really hard. I have no sense of scale or appropriate response.
Which is pretty much out of tune with a history of teetoling christian women who were compassionate when someone came home uncharacteristically drunk or overemotional–or found ways to be kind to actual alcoholics.
This issue drives me and the wife nuts. We are both very health aware (her more so as a trainer, lifeguard, fitness instructor) and it is misleading to cite the “one drink a day is okay” study. The health benifits from drinking one glass of wine a day are negligable, but also could be equally filled by drinking grape juice once a day. Bottom line: the alcohol is not the benifit. It never will be. I have seen some (I won’t say all) members who slowly rationalize the, “just one drink” and progress to a level where they decend to innactivity. The risk is not worth it in my mind. I know a member who after drinking, and following chastity issues gradually came to church later and later to conveniently miss sacrament untill he doesn’t attend at all. I am saddened because I know he is still plauged by guilt. I consider it part of my personal responsibilty as a temple recommend holder to live worthily, not only for myself – but to be an example to others.
A Non Amous: No, I do not have a temple recommend. The choice was mine, and it had nothing to do with drinking. However, I do choose to remain active in the Church. I have a calling.
When personal beliefs/choice/accountability/integrity butt heads with the standards and beliefs of the community, it can be a tough road to walk. Although drinking is far more trivial than, say, personal beliefs that are at odds with Church re nature of God, scripture, prophets, or women’s issues, gay issues, race issues, etc., drinking is more visible and easier to measure or monitor. Despite its comparatively trivial nature, I expect I’d be more roundly judged/ostracized/marginalized by my fellow ward members, were they to find out, than if I were an Apostate or Gay. I think this is because there is no more identifiable aspect of Mormon identity than the Word of Wisdom. A drinking Mormon is like an Amish being caught with a house full of products from General Electric.
Congrats on your conversion and upcoming temple experience. “Conversion”, changing one’s life, acquire new truths, making new covenants/commitments, drawing closer to God… that is what the journey of life is all about. If you have found happiness in Mormonism, I wouldn’t recommend juggling drinking and your Mormon beliefs because you have a yearning for an occasional beer. I don’t think drinking, in an of itself, is so great to give up anything important for, especially one’s beliefs.
Johnna Cornett said, “dealing with actual shiny-eyed drinking people is really hard. I have no sense of scale or appropriate response.”
I know what you mean. I was once really self-conscious of the same thing. And I’d imagine most never-had-a-drink Mormons feel the same way. This self-consciousness probably keeps many from socializing with other drinkers, which is unfortunate, I think. It just exacerbates the drinking bogeyman.
My simple advice is this: just be yourself. I’ve been on both sides: a sober person talking to a drinker, and a drinker talking to a sober person. There is no big secret, no magic handshake, nothing behind the curtain. The drinker isn’t thinking anything different about you. If you are talking to a drunk, who cares. The drunk either won’t remember talking to you in the morning, or he or she does, will be too embarrassed to remember or care how you might have acted.
BroBrandonB said: “This issue drives me and the wife nuts. We are both very health aware (her more so as a trainer, lifeguard, fitness instructor) and it is misleading to cite the “one drink a day is okay” study. The health benifits from drinking one glass of wine a day are negligable, but also could be equally filled by drinking grape juice once a day.”
Frankly, I couldn’t agree more. A lame excuse for drinking (to say nothing of health or fitness) if there ever was one. It can also be a dangerous reason to start drinking, or to drink more, as a person predisposed to alchoholism can now rationalize drinking for health reasons. I think it is fine and responsible to talk about the health benefits of wine (why supress facts?), I just think it is silly to then recommend or prescribe wine for health reasons when 1.) the health benefits are minor at best, and 2.) there are perfectly suitable substitutions. (Futhermore, wine is not inexpensive… I can think of cheaper, if not free, ways to improve one’s health.)
I personally believe drinking responsibly, or in moderation, does have benefits. Let’s be honest here, and not hide behind weak excuses like health: Drinking is fun. Period. Drinking is relaxing. It brings people together. Drinking can help one deal with stress. Music sounds better. Sex feels better. Maybe “better” is the wrong word, but “different” works. (All of the obvious caveats apply okay? When I say “deal with stress”, I’m not talking about avoiding responsibility, hiding from problems, etc… I’m talking about sharing a bottle of wine with your wife after an especially long week at work.)
I’ve been to too many Mormon wedding receptions that could have greatly benefited by a little responsible drinking. Nobody seems to want to be there, just another responsibility. You eat a few appetizers. You make polite, often forced, chit chat with a few people about Church stuff. And then you leave after 45 minutes because you’re tired and probably still have to prepare your Sunday School lesson for the next day. Nobody dances. Little sense of “celebration”. Blah.
This is what Joseph meant and felt when he said, “Our hearts were made merry by the fruit of the vine.” It is likely that some Mormon weddings, some temple experiences in Kirtland and Nauvoo, were improved, and I believe made more spiritual, by the presence of wine. (Do you think Joseph, Brigham, et al danced late into the night in the Nauvoo temple sober?) The reason is that it helps people open their hearts to each other, to feel more magnanimous, to unlock the love the sits within our hearts, love that is often locked behind walls of self-consciousness, fear, anger, grief, especially in social situations. I’m not saying this cannot happen in sober situations. I just think there is room in God’s religion for sober, quiet, reflective, meditative, solemn worship, AND open, enthusiastic, and spiritual celebration. The latter need not always be accompanied by drinking, but sometimes it might be nice.
Johnna,
Yes, LofC = Law of Chastity, gf = girl friend and LIIT = Long Island Ice Tea. After my fall from grace at BYU, the cliques I hanged with and most gals I dated had little aversion to alcohol, but I confess to experimenting with stealthy mixed drinks on with-the-program LDS women before graduating. The only LDS gal I slept with post BYU became my wife, and I don’t believe she’s ever had a drink.
I shall just take a moment to point out that Biblibal prophets and Jesus drank wine because the water of the time was unsafe. The Romans had a habit of watering down their wine, so the alcoholic content of their wine was much less that it is today. One cannot rationalize one’s drinking practices — or anything else, for that matter — based purely on what previous generations did. That’s what we have a Prophet and continuing revelation for.
Proud Daughter said, “One cannot rationalize one’s drinking practices — or anything else, for that matter — based purely on what previous generations did.”
Well said. Couldn’t agree more.
As for the safety of water or the alcohol content of wine during Jesus’s time, I’m not sure what your point is…
Jesus and Biblical prophets drank wine because the water wasn’t safe? Are you saying they would have followed our modern day Word of Wisdom had the water been safe? You seem to suggest this was the only reason they drank wine? I’m sure there were many other reasons. For example, maybe they liked it. Maybe it was an integral part of their culture and custom. Maybe it wasn’t considered a sin to drink alcohol in and of itself, but the sin was the abuse of alcohol and its ramifications.
As for the alcholic content of wine during Jesus’s day… are you suggesting Jesus and the apostles didn’t really “drink” by today’s standards? I think this is probably a stretch. I’m guessing they probably drank watered-down wine ANDnot-so-watered down wine, depending on the situation — quenching thirst, accompanying meals, celebrations, etc.
In any case, I would never suggest someone “rationalize” anything (for example, sleeping with the maid because the Old Testament prophets practiced polygamy), let alone drinking. You seem to think that was what I meant when I brought up Jesus and the early leaders of the Church. I guess I didn’t communicate clearly enough. I think some Mormons demonize drinking (and therefore drinkers) out of proportion. I brought up Jesus, Joseph Smith, etc. to illustrate that many holy men drank and somehow still managed to be holy.
If you believe God thinks drinking is wrong, then don’t drink. I don’t believe God thinks that; I haven’t rationalized anything.
Well, I’m going to quit beating myself up over this thing and have a beer if I want one. I agree with you, drinker, in that I don’t think God thinks drinking (in moderation) is wrong and I’ll further state that Proud Daughter’s comments are pure revisionist poppycock. Come temple recommend interview time I’ll answer “yes” to whether or not I keep the WOW because I’ll know that by drinking in moderation I’m keeping the spirit of the WOW (and plus, if beer doesn’t count as a mild barley drink then I don’t know what does!!!).
Guys, my past drinking problem aside, I too think it’s unfortunet what Heber J Grant did to the WofW. But the temple recommend question refers to HJG’s WofW (no booze, tabaco, coffee or tea). It doesn’t mean section 89 which, yes, clearly allows beer. In effect we have two WofWs, but they’re asking about HJG’s version in the recommend interview. Only a beer drinker ignorant about the two WofWs could honestly answer they keep the WofW. I think Mormon Drinker’s approach to decline temple attendance and participate as he can makes more sense. My beef with HJG’s WofW is it’s a modern circumcision imposed on the church when we’re not supposed to have such barriers to entry into the kingdom. But plenty of church presidents have had the chance to reverse HJG, and have choosen not to. In short, my opinion aside, we don’t run the church.
I think Mormon Drinker’s approach to decline temple attendance and participate as he can makes more sense.
No way, I would never do that…Evverything I’ve learned in the last year tells me that the temple is the pinnacle of LDS worship. Why be a part of something if you can only participate in half of it? In the interview does the bishop specifically ask if one follows the “HJG WoW”? He certainly didn’t in my Melchezidek Priesthood interview, only if I keep the WoW.
I used to have a lot of trouble with my non-member family over my observance of the WofW. I defended myself with scientic evidence and family history (alcoholics, diabetics, heart and lung problems, etc). It wasn’t until I finally said to them, “I follow the Word of Wisdom because I believe it is a commandment from God” that they finally decided to leave me alone and respect my convictions.
The bottom line is whether or not we will show God that we are willing to be obediant even if we don’t fully understand or agree with the prophet’s interpretation of the commandment.
I can’t tell if A Non Amous is being sarcastic or not. I’m leaning 80% towards sarcastic… but on the 20% chance he is serious, I’ve gotta go with Steve EM on this one… drinking beer violates both the letter and the spirit of the current Word of Wisdom.
A Non Amous, are you legit, or are you just playing around with me?
For those interested in the history of the WoW, “An Historical Analysis of the Word of Wisdom” by Paul H. Peterson is still the gold standard. It was originally a thesis for BYU. I think it can even be found online. You can also buy a copy from Benchmark for $20.
Steve EM said, “plenty of church presidents have had the chance to reverse HJG, and have choosen not to.”
Yeah, I don’t see that happening. Ever. In fact, I see Coke being added to the WoW before Beer, or better yet Coffee and Tea, are subtracted from the WoW. Doesn’t matter if aspects of the WoW really make sense or not, it has become ingrained in Mormon Culture.
To most TBM’s, the Word of Wisdom is a beloved commandment. And it is by far the most identifiable aspect of “popular” Mormonism. To reverse the WofW is akin to stealing Mormons of a significant part of their identity. Yes, other policies have been reversed. Polygamy was reversed, as was priesthood for Blacks, but the pressure for the reverse was very intense from the outside (and in the case of Blacks/Priesthood, from the inside as well). I don’t see that kind of pressure coming from the outside (or inside) in the case of the Word of Wisdom. No scientific evidence will ever overcome tobacco. Alcohol, despite its few aforementioned benefits, will always have enough deleterious costs to keep it on the banned list. And coffee and tea? Who cares? Even if unsubstantiated (by Science, Medicine, etc.), commandments or beliefs can be easily written off as commandments “for a wise purpose”, known only to the Lord. TBM’s have been able to reconcile far more controversial issues than coffee and tea “on faith”.
Bottom line: I just don’t hear a hue and cry for a reversal of the Word of Wisdom from within the Church or from without. Much to my chagrin 🙂 !!!
Despite the current hard line from the Brethren on Gay Marriage, I think you’ll see a reversal on the Church’s stance on homosexuals *before* you see any kind of reversal or amendment to the Word of Wisdom. It is the very hue and cry on Gay Marriage from outside (and inside) that precedes these kind of monumental changes, as it did for Polygamy and Blacks/Priesthood. The first response from the Church is always to circle the wagons, proclaim scriptural and prophetic justifications (as Young, Taylor, and Woodruff did for polygamy, and BRM, JFS, HBL, DOM, etc. did for Blacks/Priesthood), and to fight back. Eventually, outside and inside pressure, and the dying off of the old guard, bring to pass a change/reversal in policy. Years and decades later this political process is hailed as “revelation from God” and further proof that “our Church is true.”
I just don’t see that happening with the Word of Wisdom.
Steve EM: I think I read somewhere that you attended BYU? What years were you there?
Drinker, I am legit and 100% serious.
I’ve been a member for almost a year, haven’t had drink in over a year (by choice), but I’m beginning to resent that I can’t have a beer once in a very blue moon if I want one. Maybe I’ll go to the temple once, take out my endowments and be sealed to my wife and children, and then never go back. That way I won’t have to worry about recommend interviews, prying questions and the like.
I accept the gospel and the restoration but I’m beginning to question my conversion (not because of beer, though, that is an infinitesimal issue in the grand scheme of things)to the Church proper. Maybe I just need to have a personal relationship with our Heavenly Father armed with my new knowledge and leave it at that. I dunno, we’ll see.
A. Non Amous,
Whatever our disagreements, you’re on sound footing to take your journey in faith one step at a time and see where the cards fall. However, when you go to the temple, you and your wife really need to go several times after your own endowments and sealing to become familiar/comfortable with the mechanical aspects of temple worship before you can assess if regular temple attendance is your thing or not. There’s much symbolism and deeper meaning that just can’t be grasped until you’re comfortable enough with the mechanics to look past the superficial stuff in temple worship. The whole temple instruction needs to be updated for the times, and periodically is, but as you’re finding out, our church is typically about 50 years behind the times at any given moment because we lack a retirement tradition for apostles. It doesn’t mean the church isn’t Christ’s restored church, just that we still have much to learn and improve upon as an organization. Periodic reform is essential to an organization just as repentance is to the individual. The irony is that orthodoxy always leads to apostasy, because the inevitable mistakes become entrenched and the organization loses its footing.
Drinker,
I’m an old fart with two grown kids (some would say three, but that’s another story) and three still at home. I started at BYU in the late 70’s, served a mission in the South of France and graduated in one of the physical sciences in the early 80’s. I met my active LDS wife at Univ. of Michigan, and although she eventually replaced the live-in gf who introduce us, she dragged me back to church when I asked her to marry me.
I think that many things regarding observance of church “rules” are open for some personal interpretation. That is why they ask in the inteview, “do you faithfully observe the WOW” instead of asking specific questions, “did you drink a coke? No? Not even a sip? What about smoking? Do you purposfully expose yourself to second hand smoke???” Alot of it has to do if YOU feel you are obeying the commandments and standards. That being said, I don’t think there is any give and take on the no alcohol standard. Either you obey it or you don’t, and if you say that you drink but still feel worthy, I honestly (not trying to be mean) think you are lying to me and yourself. This is the beautiful part of prayer, if you aren’t sure if you are being faithful to the commandments, go ahead and ask. Then you will know. 🙂
Dear A Non Amous,
I understand the desire to have the beer after not having had one for a year. I also understand how we can rationalize and justify any action.
When I had a craving for a beer after obeying the WoW for a year, I went out and bought a six pack of O’Douls (non-alcoholic). After the first bottle, the craving went away and I felt stupid for even having it. But it also allowed me to eliminate the craving for the taste without drinking the alcohol. Many times your mind will play tricks on you with cravings and your body is just wondering what happened to that taste we used to have with beer. It also happens with various types of food. Place yourself on a no-sugar diet and you will quickly realize what I mean.
I also gave up smoking three years ago and that is much harder to get over than the drinking. Especially when you get in a stressful situation and that nicotine can seem so relaxing.
The WoW is a commandment of God and does bring blessings when obeyed. Don’t give up the chance to be temple-worthy as you will find get spiritual depth and fulfillment from the temple.
Can I just point out the obvious, which is that not drinking alcohol is one of the tests of our times. Reading the scriptures, especially the Old Testament for me, is fascinating, because one of the primary lessons is that each time has its own test. For the Israelites in Moses’ time, it was not pining away for the meat of Egypt (most failed the test). In David’s time it was not committing adultery and killing a loyal servant so you could marry his wife with whom you had a child (failed). In Solomon’s it was not following the false gods of your many wives (failed). In Isaiah’s time it was not going after false idols and not obeying the commandments and not oppressing the poor (failed). Ditto for Jeremiah (failed). In each case, a prophet led them and told them what the Lord required, yet the majority failed (including the kings usually).
Moving on to Jesus’ time, the major test for the Israelites was whether to accept Him as the Son of God. Moving on to our time, the major test is to accept the authority and role of prophets, who have been restored again.
In each of these periods, there were people who came up with all kinds of lawyers’ rationalizations for not following the prophets. And of course the same thing happens today regarding the question of whether or not to drink. I know plenty of very good people who are Mormons and drink. I have no doubt God loves them. But the issue is not whether God loves us. That love is a given. The issue is whether or not we obey the commandments including the WoW or whether we look for justifications not to obey them. I could spend weeks posting all of the reasons why we should question this commandment or that. But, again, that is not the test of our time. There are hundreds of millions of people who question all of the commandments. My job is to try to obey the commandments as best I can. I sometimes fail here or there, but I’m happy to report I haven’t failed on the WoW, so my conscience is clean on that one. And I like it that way.
BroBrandonB (#26): I’m not sure if your remarks were directed at me or A Non Amous. For what its worth, I 100% agree with you.
Even though Mormons refer to the LDS Church as God’s “one true church”, I suspect many still allow for slight imperfections or dilineations between truth as defined by “the Church”, and truth as defined by God. We recognize that even prophets are not perfect and that culture, personal bias, etc. sometimes creep into the practices and beliefs of the Church. But Mormons see these imperfections as insignificant for the most part.
I believe the dilineation between truth as defined by “the Church”, and truth as defined by God is wider than temple-going Mormons. I guess I’m either an Agnostic or a Universalist. My beliefs have been shaped the same way my previously-held TBM beliefs were shaped: study, ponder, pray. Actually, I’ve studied, pondered, prayed, and fasted ten times as much and ten times as fervently as I did to acquire my original TBM testimony which was largely inherited from my parents and culture. I now know what “wrestling with the Lord” means.
Even though my personal beliefs regarding truth and worthiness have changed, I still recognize and respect the authority of the Church to define its rules and regulations. For example, I would never answer that I obey the WoW based on my standards, just so I could attend the temple. I recognize the Church’s standards. In the eyes of the Church I am unworthy to attend the temple. That’s fine. Yes, I’m saddened that I cannot fully participate in all Church functions; but I’m not saddened about being “unworthy” because I don’t feel I am unworthy in the eyes of the Lord.
So that leaves me where I am today, a Jack/New Order/Cultural/Sunstone Mormon. I continue to attend Church for a variety of reasons, not least among them being that I still believe in a “purpose of life” which includes, among other things, serving our fellow man. I also believe spiritual growth requires both solo and communal venues. In other words, organized religion accomplishes many important functions I/we cannot accomplish alone. Because of family connections, because of my heritage, because of my fondness for my fellow Mormons, because of good memories/experiences growing up in the Church, etc… the Mormon Church remains my designated “vehicle” for accomplishing these tasks.
The question I sometimes wrestle with today is this: Would it be better to follow rules for which I have absolutely NO TESTIMONY — i.e. the WoW, wearing Garments, etc. — and fully participate in the Church; or continue to follow the faith muse, wherever it takes me? I would make such a sacrifice “on faith” (as many Mormons do) if I believed this was the “one true Church”… but since I don’t, is such a sacrifice worth it? Will the benefits of full membership outweigh the costs of sacrifice? And even if I did follow the “rules”, would I still be able to fully participate in the Church? Could I pass the temple recommend interview when I don’t believe this is the “one true Church”, when I don’t necessarily believe Joseph Smith ushered in the Restoration? What kind of mental gymnastics and (carefully chosen) words, to pass the TR interview, would that require?
Geoff B (#28):
Why would God require tests of his children which are nonsensical? This idea of testing people just to see if they’ll follow drives me crazy. I would never do that to my children, and I’d have a hard time following a parent, religious leader, government leader, or boss if they required it of me. What skill can we learn from blindly following rules that will benefit us in the next life? I just don’t see it. However, I can see unlimited merit in teaching children correct principles and requiring them to use their conscience, their intellect, their hearts, their spirits to solve life’s problems. Such experience yields real skills that would seem to be of some use in the next life.
I’m glad you brought up the Old Testament. I teach Sunday School and I have had to use a tremendous amount of creativity to find anything I can embrace, and therefore teach, in the Old Testament this year. These examples you cite make no sense. And I can’t believe any of them really happened. I’m a firm believer that God (and people!) were/are the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. The world as defined in the Old Testament is so black and white. These people are good; these people are bad. These people are chosen. Is that how we see the world today? If I don’t see the world today reflected in stories of yesterday, I have a very hard time believing it. (Much of the Book of Mormon suffers from this same black/white simplicity.)
A far more common sense explanation is to look at the human mind and its ability and need to create “Stories”, mythology, symbolism, history, etc. to make sense of the world. Humans have been doing this since the beginning and we continue to do this today. The Old Testament tells me a lot of how people viewed the world “back then”, but it tells me very little about God’s ways. Yes, we can learn a lot about “us” (and by extension, God) by reading those stories. But we don’t do that. We study them ad nauseum as literal blueprints from God, and we therefore repeat the mistakes of Men from the past.
Geoff B. also said, “My job is to try to obey the commandments as best I can. I sometimes fail here or there, but I’m happy to report I haven’t failed on the WoW, so my conscience is clean on that one. And I like it that way.”
Of course you do. Whether the rule makes sense or not, we feel good when we follow it. Do the Amish feel good when they don’t use electricity? Do Hindus feel good when they don’t eat meat? Do Catholic Priests feel good when the keep their vow of celibacy? Do FLDS feel good when they take a second wife? I forget, which religion doesn’t believe in dancing? The examples are endless…
Does God care about any of these? Maybe he does, maybe he doesn’t, but their adherents feel good, they have clean consciences when the follow the rules. Did the good feeling come from God, or from within themselves? If they came from God, can we really believe in absolute truth as defined by the LDS Church? If we believe in absolute truth, then the good feelings we feel when we observe the WoW is confirmation from God. But how do you explain the good feelings of the Amish? Not from God? Can you have it both ways?
A. Non Amous (#24):
I agree with Steve EM: take it slow. (Michael’s [#27] O’Douls advice is also sound.) My own journey of faith has been a roller coaster and I’m glad I did not act rash during the many peaks and valleys. (In other words, I’m glad I didn’t pop open a beer or leave the Church the first time I felt cognitive dissonance or doubt.) I continue to take it slow.
Keep observing the WoW. Check out the temple. Go several times. I’ll be curious about your experience and whether it is the “pinnacle” of Church/spiritual life as you’ve been lead to believe.
Steve EM: I attended BYU in late 80s, then mission, then BYU again during early 90s. I like many of your thoughts and ideas (retirement tradition for apostles, orthodoxy leads to apostacy, etc.). You seem to be an open-minded Mormon, and the Church could use more of you.
AMD, I can see why the OT doesn’t appeal to you. But that does not make its message any less real or timely. Look, my brother, you have made your choice. You have a lot of questions and describe yourself as a “Jack/New Order/Cultural/Sunstone Mormon.” It is possible you will stay that way until you die, or it is possible you may learn more about obedience and change or it is possible you will go a completely different direction. Your decisions are up to you. My message to you is very simple: I have been where you are now, and it was a very dark place for me, with lots of questions and no answers and lots of doubt. I still have doubts about all kinds of things (just the other day I was wondering about why we don’t know more about the Holy Ghost, for example), but I have no doubt that I am on the right path for me and my family. I have no doubt that God lives and that Jesus Christ is his son and that this is his church. I have no doubt about the prophetic role of Joseph Smith and of all of the prophets up to GBH. And I have no doubt that drinking one drink breaks the WoW and that it would be the wrong direction for me and my family and goes against the counsel of our modern-day prophets.
So, go in peace, my brother. I salute you for continuing to go to Church even with all your doubts. Everybody has his own path to follow. I respect your path even though it is not the one I would take.
A Mormon Drinker wrote: “I continue to attend Church for a variety of reasons, not least among them being that I still believe in a ‘purpose of life’ which includes, among other things, serving our fellow man.“
Is it really a service to your Sunday School students to have them taught by a disbeliever?
Thanks, Geoff B. (#32)… agree with everything you said. I fully grant that my life may lead me back to orthodoxy/obedience and it may lead in another direction. That is exciting to me. Unlike you, having doubts or no answers is not a “dark place” for me; on the contrary, having “answers” was a dark place for me, it cut me off from discovery and spiritual growth. It makes more sense to me to pray to know the answer to question “X” than to pray to know if the provided answer to question “X” is true.
It’s strange, but because you have no doubt about what you believe, and you’ve come to those beliefs in part base on trials of doubt, I feel like you are a spiritual brother to me, despite our different conclusions. I fully respect your conclusions for you. I’m a firm believer in the journey, not the mechanics of the journey.
The hard thing for me is your statement, “So, go in peace, my brother.” I’m sure you meant no ill will with such a statement, but it seems to be a similar sentiment held by my fellow Mormon brethren. In other words, “We respect your beliefs, but we have our own… good luck in life,” as I’m gently nudged out some imaginary door. I feel like I’m not wanted. This is human nature to a certain degree, I guess. Still, it bothers me. I wish the Mormon Tent was big enough to welcome and more warmly embrace Cultural Mormons like me, to say nothing of Gays, etc. I want to live in the tent too, but personal integrity/belief insists that it be on my terms. Since Mormons view some of “my terms” as being in opposition to God’s terms, I guess I’ll never fully be embraced.
I’d like to believe that were Jesus here, I’d be as acceptable under his tent as the most orthodox Mormon. That what matters is my heart, my intent, the way I treat my fellow man, my observance of eternal principles like love, charity, forgiveness, hope, faith, repentance, humility, patience, etc… not observance of sometimes pharisaical and sometimes arbitrary rules which have no bearing on love, charity, forgiveness, hope, faith, repentance, humility, patience, serving fellow man, etc.
I apologize if this post sounds like a plea for pity. Or whining.
Chris Grant, quoting A Mormon Drinker wrote: “I continue to attend Church for a variety of reasons, not least among them being that I still believe in a ‘purpose of life’ which includes, among other things, serving our fellow man.”
Chris Grant wrote: “Is it really a service to your Sunday School students to have them taught by a disbeliever?”
I’m sure most people feel like you. You might be right. I occaisionally struggle and wonder if I’m the right person for the job. I’d like to think I’m teaching correct principles. I’d like to think I have the spirit with me and that my students can feel that spirit. I would never openly teach any beliefs that would be considered apostate. I would never question the validity of LDS truth claims. There is still much in the Church I believe, and therefore much I feel I can teach. The Old Testament has been more difficult for me than D&C, BoM, or NT, for some reason.
I guess the worst thing I do is selectively not teach certain things in the lesson manual. But don’t all teachers do this, to one degree or another?
But like I said, I share your concern from time to time, especially when certain lessons come up. Rest assured, I will remove myself if I feel I cannot contribute. By the way, one of my students is leaving for his mission in a week, and two others recently left for BYU. Frankly, I couldn’t be more excited for them than I was when I was a True Believer.
AMD, boy, you sure read a lot into my “go in peace, my brother” line. But I understand your larger point, which is that Mormons who don’t accept orthodoxy don’t feel welcome. This is a big issue throughout the Church and especially here on the Bloggernacle. I guess I would look at this in this way: I do all my home teaching, and all the people I home teach are inactives who aren’t orthodox Mormons in many, many ways (too many to get into here). And every month I visit 7 or 8 unorthodox Mormons and beg and plead with them to come to Church. So, is there any remote possibility I don’t want to accept them into my tent? No way. I am desperate for them to come into my tent and I spend every month thinking of new ways to help them, serve them better, etc, etc. I imagine that many other “orthodox Mormons” feel the same way I do.
On the other hand, the Church has to stand for something or it stands for nothing. Do I think child abusers should be excommunicated and stopped for teaching primary? Well, yes, I do. And I have no problem pushing them out of the tent. I am not comparing drinking to child abuse, I am simply pointing out that the Chuch has to have some standards for who it accepts and who it doesn’t. Your standards may be different than others, but you as a Jack/unorthodox Mormon have some standards as well. So, what standards should we use?
Well, I think the standards should be exactly as they are: everybody is welcome unless you’re breaking laws or are a danger to other people in one way or another. Within the Church, if you want to follow the rules set down by the prophets, there is a path for service and going to the temple and advancing. If you don’t want to follow the rules set down by the prophets, nobody is telling you not to come to Church. But at a certain point there will be questions: if you’re teaching Gospel Doctrine and you spend the entire class questioning the Church’s doctrine and teaching something else entirely, then, well, it appears to me you need to have another calling. I’m not saying you do this because your post above sounds like you don’t. But you can understand that there must be some standards, right?
Geoff,
I find myself sympathizing with both you and AMD. I’m not a drinker; I’m a convert of three years and never touched a drop before I converted either. However, I do struggle with understanding why these sorts of commandments are there and understand what AMD is facing.
I think Mormons are probably the best I know at genuinely welcoming people into the fold. However, I think AMD might be talking about something else when he’s talking about the “tent”. I’m sure he can speak for himself, but I would say that Mormons often give the impression that being orthodox is a prerequisite for entering the tent or that those who are not in harmony with the local orthodoxy aren’t really welcome or aren’t really in the tent.
To me, this issue is analogous to our claim that the temple isn’t secret, it’s sacred. We treat the temple in a way that isn’t really secret (we don’t want people to NEVER find out what goes on there, we just want access restricted to those at a certain point), but can’t really be described as open. Similarly, we accept the unorthodox, but not really in a way that can be described as a pure acceptance. Like the temple is a qualified secret, we often treat the unorthodox in a way that is a qualified rejection or acceptance. This isn’t unique to Mormonism at all, but it is there. I think this is more a group thing than an individual thing: most people don’t want to run anyone out, but the group dynamic kind of makes that happen at times.
To clarify: we want people around, but the subtle message that we don’t want the unorthodox as much as the orthodox remains. Maybe that’s good, maybe that’s bad, but I get the feeling that it’s there.
I think two of the easily recognizable facts in this topic is that:
(1) Mormon Drinkers clearly have a personal shortcoming which addressed and corrected, will undoubtly (in my humble opinion) bring them greater blessings
(2) Mormons with less visable spiritual / obedience issues really ought to be more open and loving towards our bros and sisters who visually need assistance – we could need it from those same people someday.
It is easy to condemn, yet every one of us sins in some way. I cuss from time to time, but never around church – and it’s easy to hide. I hope that we can all recognize how difficult it must be to discuss a very personal problem that some have. Furthermore, recognize that there are probably more Mormon Drinkers who are reading all this without commenting, to them I want to say, keep strong, pray, and I want to apologize on behalf of anyone in the church who has “pushed you out of the tent”. That is something that they may be accountable for at judgement, and I hope that it doesn’t effect your spiritual path. I hope that if I need help one day, that it will be there for me. That is a reasons I love the church, Heavenly Father, and Jesus Christ.
Geoff B (#36): I should have been more explicit in my “lament” in #34… I didn’t specifically mean “you”, but my feelings re ostracism from fellow Mormons in general. Your “go in peace” comment just reminded me of such feelings.
Your question re standards is a good one. I’m not big on defining black and white standards. I like grey standards — i.e. teach them correct eternal principles and let them govern themselves — with an emphasis on principles that show us how we treat each other. Christ’s teachings in the New Testament are a pretty good blue print. I dislike behavioral standards in terms of dress, grooming, and diet. Such standards lead to pharisaical judgment and self-righteous condemnation; they divide as much as they unite. Furthermore, I fail to see their eternal or God-like purpose. Drinking should not be a “sin”, no not even drunkeness or alchoholism. Instead, the Church should help alchoholics see why their behavior is hurting their relationship with God, family, community, and most of all, themselves. You can extend this general idea to all “standards”, be they moral, behavioral, or otherwise. (No, this does not mean we should allow a pedophile to walk freely in our midst — we have government laws for that.)
To me this is the most Christlike and Godlike and inclusive way to live one’s life, the way to get everyone under one tent. You might see this as “standing for nothing”, as chaos, but I see this very much as “standing for something”, for even more correct and important eternal principles. I see this as taking away the judgment of men in this life, and leaving judgment to God in the next life where it belongs. We should focus instead on serving and helping our fellow man. Were it left to me, I’d throw the doors of the temple open to Gays and Drinkers and Adulterers and all other so-called “Sinners”, and welcome all who seek a relationship with God, all who pine for a healed heart.
Excuse my incoherent ramblings above…
AMD(#40),
I sin is precisely a behavior that hurts one’s relationship with God, family, community, and most of all oneself. Thank you for a fantastic and concise definition. You explained exactly why we should care about sin.
I think what you are trying to get at, and this is a tremendously important concept for the orthodox from the Savior himself, first remove the beam in thine own eye before you try to remove the mote from anothers.
Thanks
BroBrandonB: Your #39, point #1, made me laugh. I’m glad you’ve identified the “easily recognizable fact” that I “clearly” have a “personal shortcoming”. 🙂 I hope that “your humble opinion” caveat applies to everything you say, as that is all it is. You cannot “know” this as a fact, despite what such statements of fact made at LDS meeting houses around the world during fast and testimony meeting each month. You can “hope”, or you can have “faith” in such a proposition, but you cannot “know”.
It may seem like a minor distinction, but believe me, such humility makes all the difference in the world as you relate to God and your fellow men (whether Mormon or otherwise). And it is not just important that you “say” it, for politically correct reasons, but that you really “believe” it, otherwise it will not work on your heart. Mormons “know” too many things, and sure knowledge (especially in the realm of things spiritual or eternal) shuts you off from “further light and knowledge”… It seems the Mormon sentiment is this: “We have the truth. We belong to the one true Church. Our prophet speaks to God. All is well in Zion.” This leads to myopia and spiritual stagnation. What would you say to a Catholic who “knew” his Church was true and refused to the message of the Restored Gospel? I wish I had the time to develop this thought/post a little more eloquently, but it is this “truth conceit/hubris” that is Mormonism’s ultimate achilles heal, and the root cause of the pain I expressed in #34, and the pain felt by millions of others (especially if related to Mormons) who have come to their own spiritual conclusions (faith and hope conclusions, not knowledge) via integrity and sacrifice equal to that of Mormons.
Doc (#41): Was “I sin” to begin your post, as opposed to “A sin”, a Freudian slip?
I don’t like the word “sin” to define that which hurts our relationship with God, family, community. Nevertheless, I agree with your definition (paraphrased from my definition) in theory only. The problem is that what hurts your relationship with God (for example, “drinking”), does not hurt my relationship with God. For you then, drinking is a “sin”. You then impose your definition of sin onto me. I am sinner and unworthy in your eyes. This is problematic when it comes to highly subjective rules or commandments like “drinking is a sin”.
(I’m using “you” and “me” and “I” in the general sense.)
Some definitions of “sin” are universal. Hurting other people (murder, rape, theft, physical abuse, emotional abuse, etc.) is a sin that generally transcends all humanity. I’d be willing to bet that it is also universally believed that abusing drugs or alcohol is harmful to the individual, and sometimes his/her family, friends, community. By your definition, we can call this a “sin”. There are plenty of other examples. They are all obvious, entirely self-evident. How do we know? Call it the Holy Spirit or the Light of Christ or whatever you want, but we all seem to have this sure “knowledge”. Knowledge that drinking “even one drink” is a sin is not obvious or self-evident. We had to be taught that was God’s rule, not by God, but by men. It’s just one more area I think we’ve overstepped the line a bit, just as we did when we denied blacks full fellowship in the Church due to the biases of “men”.
I have a question as a non-mormon. I am just curious why coffee and tea are not allowed but coke is? I can understand why mormons do not drink alcohol, smoke, or do drugs – they alter your behavior. I can even understand if caffeine wouldn’t be allowed since it alters your behavior, but coffee, tea and coke all have caffeine, so why is coke allowed? and why not decaf tea and coffee?
Non-mormon: it’s because caffeine isn’t the reason for the word of wisdom.
See here, for example.
Look, I really don’t care what you’re personal hang-ups with God’s commandments are.
You have yours. I have mine. I’m not ready to say which of us “is the better man.” I don’t even want to make those calculations.
But I don’t try to justify my hang-ups and I expect others to do the same. Humility, not self-esteem, is the primary attitude we are shooting for in this religion.
This religion is geared toward inspiring people to be better than they are. Not toward making them self-satisfied with the status quo.
AMD
Yes, I meant a sin, and yes, I do sin ;). When I read that the word of wisdom is adapted to the capacity of the weakest of all that could be called saints, I take that to mean that there are many, most even, in the Church who could have alcohol and never have it as an issue in their life. The reason for the commandment (granted, initially a warning not given by way of commandment). is for the protection of those who one drink could trigger a lifelong addiction. I look at it as something compassionate.
I don’t disagree at all with your explanation of why labelling a “sin” can be harmful. You are correct. Man is weak. Remember, self righteousness is a sin as well. I would that we could accurately screen that one However, judgement day is ultimately between you and God. Hopefully, we are all doing the best we can.
Thanks all. Enjoyed the exchange of ideas.
I think I’ll relinquish my “A Mormon Drinker” pseudonym and go back to posting using my other name elsewhere on the Bloggernacle.
Non-Mormon (#44), the attached article answers your questions pretty fully, but I would reiterate something I said in the beginning of this post, which is the reason I don’t drink coffee or tea is that I have faith in modern-day prophets and modern-day prophets have told us not to. If you are familiar with the Old Testament, you will see that the vast majority of that collection of books has to do with tests of obedience. We believe that the prophets today are the same as the prophets of the Old Testament. In those days, people were told to do certain things (look at a serpent on a stick, wash in the river Jordan, etc) and they would be blessed. Some people ignored the prophets, others followed the prophets’ teachings. The ones who did were blessed. So, regardless of whether we are hypocrites for eating caffeinated chocolate, the issue is that prophets have told us not to drink coffee and tea, and by gum, I will follow the prophets’ teachings. If they update the WoW and tell us not to eat chocolate, I will give up my beloved chocolate the moment that is announced. But until then, pass the Cadbury’s!!!
A Non — just for the record. I went to the temple the first time fascinated at what i encountered because I had studies a number of very similar ordinances in Jewish, early Christian and other sources. But for years I went to the temple and got NOTHING out of it. I was bored. I was resentful of the time I spent there and I just wanted to get it done and get out so I could get on with something really valuable. Then after twenty years of temple attendance something remarkable happened. I began to have flashes, insights and moments of sheer revelation. I began to ask questions and to see what I had been missing even tho I studied all about it. Now it is one of the most fulfilling and revelation-inducing things I do. Sometimes I’m in awe of what I learn — especially after thinking that I knew it all to begin with. I have learned a great deal — but I wouldn’t attempt to pass it on to you because that would rip you off by attempting to make the meaning that has been given and revealed to me to fit you. It won’t. It is as much an individual journey to go to the temple as a community and familial sharing. You’ll undoubtedly experience some consternation and it may all look very strange — it is precisely that strangeness that allows God to finally get around the head and reach for the heart.
Blake- Regarding comment 50. I think this is how temple attendance is supposed to be, yet is not very often for me. Can you elaborate on how this change came about? I would love to have some insights!
SteveEM – what did you study at U-M? Fellow U-M alum here too.