LDS only: Must I quit my job?

[Starfish]

Now I don't want to sound too critical and I am not trying to start an argument here but I have to say that I do see a conflict here. Now I am not a memeber of the LDS Church. As far as I know the LDS Church prohibits the consumption of Alcohol. If that is the case, then I would think that a memeber would have a moral obligation not to be involved in the distribution of such products that its members reject. We have a similar issue among Catholics who work in hospitols and pharmacies which require them to provide certain reproductive health services such as birth control and abortions which the Church rejects. Often these Catholics will quit their jobs or fight for the ability to not be forced to preform or be involved in the distribution of these products and services. And in that light I would think that being in a church that rejected alcohol one would have a moral obligation to not work in a bar.

The philosophy of the LDS Church is that we are taught correct principles, then we govern ourselves. We each have to live with ourselves and with the guidance of the Holy Ghost, hopefully, we will make good decisions.

 

[SoyLeche]

Now I don't want to sound too critical and I am not trying to start an argument here but I have to say that I do see a conflict here. Now I am not a memeber of the LDS Church. As far as I know the LDS Church prohibits the consumption of Alcohol. If that is the case, then I would think that a memeber would have a moral obligation not to be involved in the distribution of such products that its members reject. We have a similar issue among Catholics who work in hospitols and pharmacies which require them to provide certain reproductive health services such as birth control and abortions which the Church rejects. Often these Catholics will quit their jobs or fight for the ability to not be forced to preform or be involved in the distribution of these products and services. And in that light I would think that being in a church that rejected alcohol one would have a moral obligation to not work in a bar.

I agree - but that is a personal decision. I would not personally work in a bar. The church doesn't prohibit it though.

 

[Father Heathen]

So what then is the Mormon take on Jesus' one creating and drinking of alcohol?

 

[SoyLeche]

So what then is the Mormon take on Jesus' one creating and drinking of alcohol?

He created and drank alcohol. The restriction applies to this day and age. It didn't apply then.

 

[Father Heathen]

He created and drank alcohol. The restriction applies to this day and age. It didn't apply then.

Why exactly have the moral standards of God been so inconsistent during the transition from OT, to NT, to BoM? God sure is a fickle and whimsical one.

 

[SoyLeche]

Why exactly have the moral standards of God been so inconsistent during the transition from OT, to NT, to BoM? God sure is a fickle and whimsical one.

Because times change.

BTW - "Transition to BoM" doesn't really make all that much sense. There is nothing about alcohol in the BoM - other than mentioning that they drank wine in it too.

 

[Father Heathen]

Because times change.

But not god and moral absolutes, right?

BTW - "Transition to BoM" doesn't really make all that much sense. There is nothing about alcohol in the BoM - other than mentioning that they drank wine in it too.

Well, you said that alcohol is forbidden by a current restriction that didn't exist during the NT, so I figured it might've been something introduced in the BoM.

 

[SoyLeche]

But not god and moral absolutes, right?

Correct

Well, you said that alcohol is forbidden by a current restriction that didn't exist during the NT, so I figured it might've been something introduced in the BoM.

The BoM is not "current". The last person who wrote in it lived 1600 years ago.

The restriction is in the Doctrine and Covenants - in a revelation received by Joseph Smith.

 

[Father Heathen]

Correct

Then why all the change and inconsistency with religious laws and commandments?

 

[SoyLeche]

Then why all the change and inconsistency with religious laws and commandments?

Times change.

I'm not sure I can give you a better explanation than that. There are multiple theories:

• Back in Christ's day it was possibly safer to drink wine than it was to drink water.
• There is something different about the alcoholic beverages today than there was then (different levels of alcohol maybe?)
• etc

Feel free to come up with your own. At one point God didn't want his people to eat pigs. Now he's okay with it. I'm not sure why that is.

 

[Father Heathen]

Times change.

I'm not sure I can give you a better explanation than that. There are multiple theories:

• Back in Christ's day it was possibly safer to drink wine than it was to drink water.
• There is something different about the alcoholic beverages today than there was then (different levels of alcohol maybe?)
• etc

Feel free to come up with your own. At one point God didn't want his people to eat pigs. Now he's okay with it. I'm not sure why that is.

I'm try trying to create a debate or anything as this isn't the DIR for it, but I'm just trying to get an understanding of the whole thing. I just find it confusing that God and his moral absolutes are supposed to be timeless and unchanging, but laws and commandments which he himself supposedly decreed that continuously changed making something that was acceptable one day evil the next, or something that was evil one day acceptable the next just doesn't make any sense to me. Also, if Christians accept that times change, why the continued opposition to homosexuality and abortion, for example?

 

[SoyLeche]

I'm try trying to create a debate or anything as this isn't the DIR for it, but I'm just trying to get an understanding of the whole thing. I just find it confusing that God and his moral absolutes are supposed to be timeless and unchanging, but laws and commandments which he himself supposedly decreed that continuously changed making something that was acceptable one day evil the next, or something that was evil one day acceptable the next just doesn't make any sense to me. Also, if Christians accept that times change, why the continued opposition to homosexuality and abortion, for example?

That's the thing - I don't believe that alcohol is evil. I don't believe that God has decreed it to be evil. The restriction on alcohol isn't a "moral absolute", it is a "do this for now for your own good".

The other things you mentioned are more closely related to moral absolutes (chastity, murder, etc).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not the way beer is made today, with such an unnaturally high amount of alcohol in it, that's why the Doctrine and Covenants warns against the "evils and designs" of our time.

Beer and wine manufacturers boost alcohol levels to higher than normal amounts.

The Lord okays wine of our own make, since wine made normally, would only have a small amount of natural alcohol levels as would drinks made with grain. These are "mild" drinks, not like the strong beer and wine found in any liquor store. These are harmful and dangerous not only to us and our bodies but to others, if we become intoxicated.

Hopefully you'll excuse me butting into a DIR discussion again, but I have to point out that this is incorrect. No beer manufacturer I know of adds extra alcohol to beer. In fact, most German beers and many "craft-brewed" American beers follow the German tradition of the Reinheitsgebot, a.k.a. the "Bavarian Purity Law" - it made it illegal to brew a beer with any ingredient other than water, malted barley (or malted wheat, if a wheat beer), hops, and yeast.

Commercial brewers will sometimes add extra fermentable materials (called "adjuncts") depending on the style, but the yeast still ferments these in the normal way. For example, Budweiser uses a fair bit of rice in its recipe.

Beer makers that pasteurize their beer add the fizz by injecting CO2, but this is the same process that's used for pop (soda to you Americans ).

I'm a home brewer myself, and I certainly don't add extra alcohol to what I make, but I've made several beers that have alcohol levels higher than "standard" beer. The highest alcohol content I've produced myself was around 17%, which I did with malted barley (though LOTS of malted barley) and champagne yeast.

Also, beer below 2 or 3% alcohol tends to not stay sanitary when stored for long periods of time, so even ancient beer recipes must have been at least that strong, IMO.

Now, I don't what sort of bearing if any this should have on your beliefs as Mormons about alcohol, but I thought I should point out the factual inaccuracy.

 

[madhatter85]

Hopefully you'll excuse me butting into a DIR discussion again, but I have to point out that this is incorrect. No beer manufacturer I know of adds extra alcohol to beer. In fact, most German beers and many "craft-brewed" American beers follow the German tradition of the Reinheitsgebot, a.k.a. the "Bavarian Purity Law" - it made it illegal to brew a beer with any ingredient other than water, malted barley (or malted wheat, if a wheat beer), hops, and yeast.

Commercial brewers will sometimes add extra fermentable materials (called "adjuncts") depending on the style, but the yeast still ferments these in the normal way. For example, Budweiser uses a fair bit of rice in its recipe.

Beer makers that pasteurize their beer add the fizz by injecting CO2, but this is the same process that's used for pop (soda to you Americans ).

I'm a home brewer myself, and I certainly don't add extra alcohol to what I make, but I've made several beers that have alcohol levels higher than "standard" beer. The highest alcohol content I've produced myself was around 17%, which I did with malted barley (though LOTS of malted barley) and champagne yeast.

Also, beer below 2 or 3% alcohol tends to not stay sanitary when stored for long periods of time, so even ancient beer recipes must have been at least that strong, IMO.

Now, I don't what sort of bearing if any this should have on your beliefs as Mormons about alcohol, but I thought I should point out the factual inaccuracy.

The point FFH was trying to make is that the process they use to brew causes more alchohol to be produced by firmentation than old processes.

i don't think he meant adding more straight alchohol to the brew, but by definition increasing the amount of alchohol naturally produced by latering the method used to create it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The point FFH was trying to make is that the process they use to brew causes more alchohol to be produced by firmentation than old processes.

The "old process" and the "new process" for brewing beer are the same process:

- malt the barley (i.e. let it germinate, and then dry it in a low-temperature oven)
- "mash" the barley (i.e. soak the grains in warm water to let the naturally-occurring enzymes in the barley convert the starch into sugar)
- boil the "mash" (now called "wort") and add hops
- cool the wort and add the yeast
- let the wort sit for weeks or days to ferment into beer
- bottle or keg the beer and carbonate it

The process has stayed basically the same since beer was invented. There have been some technological improvements that have affected brewing, but they don't affect the alcohol content:

- temperature-controlled ovens and cooking vessels allow better control of the temperatures in the various processes
- mechanical heating and refrigeration allows the brewing of all styles of beer at all times of the year (fermentation temperature has a big impact on the taste of the beer, so before fermentation, certain beers were only made at specific times of the year)
- pasteurized beers are force-carbonated with CO2 (as opposed to not pasteurizing the beer and instead adding "carbonation sugar" to let the yeast produce the CO2 naturally)
- in some beers, additives are used for things like taste or clarity

i don't think he meant adding more straight alchohol to the brew, but by definition increasing the amount of alchohol naturally produced by latering the method used to create it.

That's the thing, though: no change in processes increase the amount of alcohol. Different styles do have different alcohol contents, but this is based on the choice of (and quantity of) ingredients, and there would certainly have been many high-alcohol styles of beer available in Joseph Smith's lifetime.

 

[Runlikethewind]

The philosophy of the LDS Church is that we are taught correct principles, then we govern ourselves. We each have to live with ourselves and with the guidance of the Holy Ghost, hopefully, we will make good decisions.

I agree - but that is a personal decision. I would not personally work in a bar. The church doesn't prohibit it though.

Good answers thanks that answers my question/comment. Its really does boil down to a personal decision, there may be no prohibition against serving alcohol but since the LDS Church does prohibit its consumption a person has to decide for themselves whether they feel serving it is ok or not. And personaly if I where in that situation I don't think I could serve alcohol without at least feeling very guilty about doing so.

 

[Aqualung]

If I joined the LDS church would I have to quit my job working in a bar. Ive made a career out of working in bars and make very good money doing it. I dont have a problem not drinking myself. It would be hard for me to just quit the industry and start anew.

I've always thought working in a bar would be fun.

 

[FFH]

The point FFH was trying to make is that the process they use to brew causes more alchohol to be produced by firmentation than old processes.

i don't think he meant adding more straight alchohol to the brew, but by definition increasing the amount of alchohol naturally produced by latering the method used to create it.

Right, other ingredients are introduced to boost alcohol content to harmful and dangerous levels.

Doctrine and Covenants 89: 6 (section 89 is our LDS health code)
And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make.

"Pure wine" has less than 1 percent alcohol content, I've seen it sold here locally, in an area that prohibits the sale of alcohol, because "pure wine" is considered a "non-alcoholic" drink and is labeled as such.

 

[McBell]

Um...
Did Jesus avoid the bars?
Did Jesus avoid the prostitutes.
Did Jesus avoid the sinners?
Nope.
Jesus went to places that the sinners were.
He did not wait for the sinners to come to him.

So my question is, are the LDS suppose to strive to be like Jesus or are they supposed to run and hide from sin?

 

[madhatter85]

Um...
Did Jesus avoid the bars?
Did Jesus avoid the prostitutes.
Did Jesus avoid the sinners?
Nope.
Jesus went to places that the sinners were.
He did not wait for the sinners to come to him.

So my question is, are the LDS suppose to strive to be like Jesus or are they supposed to run and hide from sin?

We are to be in the World but not OF the world.