vorpal blade wrote:I don’t put much stock in the scriptural commentaries, preferring to “drink upstream before the cows have stepped in it.†Nevertheless Damasta has given us references to at least six doctrinal commentaries on the Doctrine and Covenants, and five out of six support the position of the Church, which I am supporting. Damasta dismisses these commentaries with these words:
Damasta wrote: Your linked commentary was written by Matthew Faulconer. Who is he? Not a scholar nor a General Authority. He works at Wells Fargo. Since he has no more authority than you or I, I won't bother rebutting him. Hyrum M. Smith and Janne M. Sjodahl, in Doctrine and Covenants Commentary, essentially make the same arguments as you have and regard the large number of words translated as wine as evidence that "pure wine" must be unfermented (non sequitur); and they quote Canon Farrar. Daniel H. Ludlow, in Companion to Your Study of the Doctrine and Covenants, vol. 1, cites Smith and Sjodahl verbatim. Hoyt W. Brewster, in Doctrine and Covenants Encyclopedia cites Smith and Sjodahl verbatim. Roy W. Doxey, in Doctrine and Covenants Speaks, vol. 1 cites Smith and Sjodahl. So it seems that it was Smith and Sjodahl who first cited Canon Farrar, and I incorrectly remembered it to be Elder Widtsoe. Again, I apologize. Other than these, all other interpretations of the matter (including one by Hugh Nibley, but only in passing) that I found, claimed that one or more Hebrew words indicated unfermented grape juice (which I've already addressed).
Only one of the six commentaries, by Garrett and Robinson, supports the point of view of Damasta. My point of view is that nothing in Damasta’s arguments points to the commentaries being wrong, contrary to Damasta’s assertion (“Besides, I've already addressed why I believe that they, collectively, are wrongâ€), merely possibility based in part on a source which might be biased.
Given that three of the five commentaries (I assume that the fifth is Elder Widtsoe) which support your position just quote Smith and Sjodahl verbatim, they hardly qualify as independent authorities on the matter. Even so, let us consider who they are.
Hyrum M. Smith was the eldest son of President Joseph F. Smith. He was called as an apostle in 1901, two years before Frederic William Farrar died. He had no formal training in ancient Hebrew or Greek.
Janne M. Sjodahl was originally a Swedish Baptist minister. He was excommunicated from that church on charges of adultery (I have no idea whether he was guilty or not). His scholarship focused on the Book of Mormon. He had no formal training in ancient Hebrew or Greek.
Daniel H. Ludlow was a BYU professor, was the main editor for
The Encyclopedia of Mormonism, was director of the Correlation Committee for 15 years, and was instrumental in helping prepare the 1980 edition of the Standard Works. His scholarship focused on the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. He had no formal training in ancient Hebrew or Greek. His only commentary on the matter at hand is to quote Smith and Sjodahl verbatim.
Hoyt W. Brewster was a BYU professor and a seminary teacher. His scholarship focused on the Doctrine and Covenants and on Church history. He had no formal training in ancient Hebrew or Greek. His only commentary on the matter at hand is to quote Smith and Sjodahl verbatim.
Roy W. Doxey was a BYU professor and served on the General Young Men Board. His scholarship focused on the Doctrine and Covenants. He had no formal training in ancient Hebrew or Greek. His only commentary on the matter at hand is to quote Smith and Sjodahl verbatim.
H. Dean Garrett was a BYU professor. His scholarship focused on the Doctrine and Covenants and on the history of the Church. He had no formal training in ancient Hebrew or Greek.
Stephen E. Robinson is a BYU professor and chairman of the Department of Ancient Scripture. His scholarship focuses on the New Testament. He has had extensive formal training in ancient Hebrew and Greek.
To add to this list,
Revelations of the Restoration, by Craig J. Ostler and Joseph Fielding McConkie:
89:6 Pure wine. Convincing arguments can be presented to sustain the idea that the phrase "pure wine" refers simply to grape juice or to a wine with a low level of intoxicant in it. The language of this revelation leaves the impression that a wine with a low level of intoxicant is intended.
89:7 Strong drinks are not for the belly. "Strong drink" is a biblical phrase used to mean intoxicating drinks (Leviticus 10:9; Numbers 6:3; Deuteronomy 14:26; 29:6). It is not simply drunkenness that is prohibited here, but indulgence in any drink that has the capacity to intoxicate—regardless of how moderate that use may be—with the exception of the sacrament.
Craig J. Ostler is a BYU professor. His scholarship focuses on the Doctrine and Covenants. He has no formal training in ancient Hebrew or Greek.
Joseph F. McConkie is a BYU professor. Son of apostle Bruce R. McConkie and grandson of President Joseph Fielding Smith. He has extensive training in ancient Hebrew and Greek.
You'll note that the two men who can actually claim to be experts in the ancient languages of the Bible (Stephen E. Robinson and Joseph F. McConkie, both of whom are excellent apologists for the Church) favor the idea that alcoholic wine was sanctioned for use in the sacrament.
So what exactly do Smith and Sjodahl say?
D&C 27
Except it is made new The Lord, in His infinite wisdom, directed the Saints not to buy wine or any other strong drink, of enemies, and, consequently, not to use wine in the Sacrament, unless they themselves had made it; and then it should be "new wine." Dr. F. W. Farrar says that "new wine" (Luke 5:37) means unfermented wine, or "must"—a beverage which can be kept for years and which improves with age; it is "a rich and refreshing, but non-intoxicating beverage".
...
There has also been contention concerning the contents of the Cup. In the early churches the wine was mixed with water, as was the custom of the Jews, for their wine, as an ancient writer, quoted by Lightfoot, says, "was very strong, and not fit to drinking, unless water was mixed with it." In most churches the wine used for the Sacrament is diluted with water, and at one time clergymen were instructed to mix the wine with "a little pure and clean water." In the early centuries of our era some converts demanded that water be used instead of wine. From one of their leaders, Tatian, they are called Tatiani. They are also known as Hydroparastatē, or Aquarii. They were centuries ahead of their time and therefore condemned as heretics."
D&C 89
Pure wine The use of "pure wine" in the Sacrament is permitted. But what is "pure wine" if not the pure juice of the grape, before it has been adulterated by the process of fermentation? No fewer than thirteen Hebrew and Greek terms are rendered in our Bible by the word "wine." There is the pure grape juice, and a kind of grape syrup, the thickness of which made it necessary to mingle water with it previously to drinking (Prov. 9:2, 5). There was a wine made strong and inebriating by the addition of drugs, such as myrrh, mandragora, and opiates (Prov. 23:30; Isa. 5:22). Of the pure wine which was diluted with water, or milk, Wisdom invites her friends to drink freely (Prov. 9:2, 5). There was also "wine on the lees," which is supposed to have been "preserves" or "jellies" (Isa. 25:6). The "pure wine" is not an intoxicating, but a harmless liquid.
It turns out that I erred again. Smith and Sjodahl didn't cite Farrar's addendum to
Smith's Bible Dictionary, they cited his commentary on the Book of Luke (which can be seen
here, p. 376). However, I find his argument to be more than a stretch. The points that I will make here are that Smith and Sjodahl acknowledge a source (Rev. Lightfoot quotes a rabbi in the Babylonian Talmud) which attributes a potent degree of alcohol in the wines used in Old and New Testament times; the Farrar commentary that they cite is more than a bit of a stretch; and the argument they make in the D&C 89 commentary is a
non sequitur (the existence of many Biblical terms for wine does not,
per se, mean that "new wine" either in the Bible or in the Doctrine and Covenants means "nonalcoholic wine"). So I find their commentary lacking in rigor. And the fact that later authors cite them does not, in any way, improve their rigor (nor the rigor of the authors citing them).
Moving on. Here is the entirety of what Elder Widtsoe wrote on the subject:
Wine for the Sacrament. The Word of Wisdom provides that wine used for the Sacrament, should be "pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make." This statement is understood to mean new or unfermented grape juice, since the Word of Wisdom declares unequivocally against the internal use of alcohol in any form.
This interpretation is reinforced by the fact that under divine command, water was early in the history of the Church substituted for wine, for sacramental purposes. The revelation reads:
"For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins." (Doctrine and Covenants 27:2)
Water is always used by the Church in partaking of the sacrament.
Reference is often made to the supposed use of wine by the Savior at the last supper. It is well known, however, that the words "the fruit of the vine" have been translated as "wine". It is equally well known that in the Old Testament, three different words are translated "wine", two of which, used most commonly, refer clearly to unfermented grape juice. In the New Testament two Greek words, not necessarily representing fermented grape juice, are translated "wine". Intoxicating wine was not a common beverage among ancient Israel. (Gall, An Interpreting Concordance of the New Testament, 1863; Ritchie, Wm., Scripture Wines, 1870; Emerson, R. E., A Lay Thesis on Bible Wines, 1902.)
I'll say more below. But here I want to point out that Elder Widtsoe
did cite sources which supported his point of view. But even at his time there were sources (such as
this one, p. 1108), which argued against such an idea.
And one more:
Church History and Modern Revelation, vol. 2 by Joseph Fielding Smith:
The Word of Wisdom does not mention tea and coffee, but does speak of hot drinks. Patriarch Hyrum Smith delivered an address to the Saints in Nauvoo, in 1842, in which he declared that hot drinks include tea and coffee, and this interpretation was accepted by the Church. However, all hot drinks, whether they are stimulants or not are harmful to the body. This discourse, which was published in the "Times and Seasons," Vol., 3:799-801, and in the Era, Vol. 4, should be read by all, for the timely instruction it contains. Thousands of discourses on this question have been preached and many articles written so that we are not ignorant of the will of the Lord. We should remember that the Lord instructed that water could be used for wine in the Sacrament (Sec. 27) so as to avoid the use of wine containing alcohol. We should also remember that this revelation says that wine if used for the sacrament should be made "new" among us and be pure juice of the grape.
This last was published in 1947, when Joseph Fielding Smith was an apostle (since 1910) but not the prophet. Thus, I feel it's safe to say that his statements perhaps carry as much authority as Elder Widtsoe's do, but certainly not as much authority as a revelation presented by the First Presidency and ratified by the Church would. But as long as we're considering the stated opinions of apostles, we have the apostles Brigham Young, Jr. and John Henry Smith who felt that beer was not prohibited by the Word of Wisdom; apostles Anthon H. Lund and Matthias F. Cowley felt that neither beer nor currant wine were against the Word of Wisdom; and apostle Charles W. Penrose felt that wine was still acceptable (at the time wine, cider, and beer were considered "mild drinks", while distilled spirits or hard liquor were considered "strong drinks"). President Lorenzo Snow (both as an apostle and as the President of the Church) also felt that prohibitions should not be made against beer, but
did continuously preach that consumption of meat was against the Word of Wisdom. Joseph Fielding Smith (again, as an apostle) was also adamant about this point (Joseph Fielding Smith,
Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols., (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56), 148), but now we generally disregard it. Apostle George Teasdale and President Wilford Woodruff felt that eating pork was a more serious violation of the Word of Wisdom than drinking tea or coffee. This we also disregard in modern times. In fact, in the very publication cited in the LDS Institute Manual, Elder John A. Widtsoe listed "refined flour" and "chocolate" as being against the Word of Wisdom. However, at one point, President Heber J. Grant said that many of Elder Widtsoe's arguments "might be criticized because the actual teachings in the Word of Wisdom would hardly justify the conclusions drawn." Whether that includes his statements about the use of alcoholic wine for the Sacrament is left unstated. Elder Bruce R. McConkie later wrote a contradiction of several of these ideas in
Mormon Doctrine: "There is no prohibition in Section 89, for instance, as to the eating of white bread, using white flour, white sugar, cocoa, chocolate, eggs, milk, meat, or anything else, except items classified under the headings, tea, coffee, tobacco, and liquor. As a matter of fact those who command that men should not eat meat, are not ordained of God, such counsel being listed by Paul as an evidence of apostasy." You'll also notice that in the Elder Joseph Fielding Smith quote, above, he includes
all hot drinks, not just tea and coffee. In his estimation hot cocoa, hot tang, hot milk, hot water, hot herbal tea, hot postum, &c. should all also be prohibited. This, also, is not currently enforced. (references for all unsourced statements in this paragraph can be found in Alexander, Thomas G. "The Word of Wisdom: From Principle to Requirement."
Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 14:3 (1981) pp. 78–88.)
So the only thing that separates Elder Widtsoe's declaration from the rest is that it is quoted in a correlated manuscript published by the Church. This certainly lends credence to the statement. However, it should be noted that the effect of correlation isn't necessarily the enumeration of correct doctrine, only the achievement of standardization. While I'm sure the men and women who serve on the Correlation Committee are called by inspiration, they are not ordained as prophets, seers, and revelators; in short they are not authorized by God nor by his Church to declare doctrine nor interpret the meaning of Scriptural utterances. So even though I'm sure they do a wonderful job, they are still fallible and can be prone to let some of their own preconceived notions to become standardized. Brother Stephen E. Robinson told us in a New Testament class at BYU that for a while the Correlation Committee tried to curb all use of the term "God" since it was unclear which God it referred to: the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost? Their Pharisaical insistence on this point eventually even caused some of the Twelve to chafe, resulting in the Correlation Committee being put in their place.
I am Ellipsissy...
)
