Cooking with wine

[Imogen]

There are some foods that have so much alcohol in them that you can get "pretty well hammered" by eating them. Mainly desserts.

As long as "modicum of alcohol" doesn't result in "pretty well hammered", it doesn't matter that there's a little bit there.

um...like what? now, i like a good drink. my friends and i have a weekly wine night (wine and whine wednesdays!). and i looooove vodka. however, i'm a serious lightweight so i have to be careful, and i have never had a dessert that got me drunk or even slightly buzzed. certainly nowhere NEAR hammered, and i've been hammered a few times. so what desserts are these?

[Imogen]

also, i don't always drink just to get drunk. wine enhances the taste of many dishes, even when drunk. do i drink to get drunk sometimes? sure. i'm a little crazy sometimes. but mostly it's because the drink is tasty, and i like tasty drinks.

[ahem.]

I've observed a lot of recipes that have quite a bit of liqueur or rum or whatever, enough that I would be uncomfortable eating it. These often have cautions about not allowing the kiddies to partake, because they can get you a little tipsy, especially if you are small of stature.

I've never really seen anything that could get you hammered. C is For might have some examples, or may have been exaggerating a bit.

[Marduk]

intoxicated =/= drunk. Sometimes I think people do drink because they enjoy the flavor, but if it is solely for that reason, there are a number of cheaper alternatives. Even a single glass of wine can perk up the spirits (or so I'm told). Yes, it can enhance the flavor of some foods, and there are social aspects to it as well. But all of these would disappear without the feelings of euphoria associated.

[Laser Jock]

unless I'm actually DRINKING alcohol, then I am in line with church standards.

Jello shots?

I don't think it's quite that easy to pin down. I still haven't come to a solid decision about cooking with alcohol, because to me it's not a clear-cut issue. I think the average LDS person would be fine with the amount of alcohol in something made with 1/2 teaspoon of extract, but many would hesitate about putting a couple of cups of wine in a dish. The line, to me, doesn't seem very clear. (The number of posts here and the number of questions in the archives about this further support its controversial nature. )

[NerdGirl]

In our family we avoid all alcohol in our food or drink. We had a question as to whether we should use the kind of vanilla with alcohol and decided against it. I was unaware that any soft drinks properly labeled with their ingredients contain any alcohol. It is my understanding that much alcohol remains even after cooking for hours.

The alcohol content in a cooked item ranges between 5 and 75%. 75% would be for flamed items, if something is allowed to cook between 2-5 hours, it will have around 5%. Cooking things much longer will reduce the alcohol even further, but by such a small amount as to be negligible.

As far as alcohol content in soft drinks, the alcohol content is so low (it is only in the extracts used) that they are not required to label it.

I think what Marduk meant was that 5-75% of the original alcohol content remains, not that the food is necessarily 5-75% alcohol. If I make a huge pan of roasted vegetables with 3 tablespoons of white wine in the sauce, there's maybe 1% alcohol content in the entire dish before I put it in the oven. When it comes out two or three hours later, if there's 5% of that 1% left, that makes 0.05% in my veggies. That's not very much. There's probably that much alcohol in juice that's gotten a bit old.

Some desserts do have quite a bit of alcohol in them, but I can't eat them anyway because they also usually have gluten in them so they're not even on my radar screen.

[Imogen]

tiramisu doesn't even make you remotely buzzed...just saying.

[krebscout]

I had a bishop who would watch rated R movies. So does that make it okay for everyone in his ward to watch them? NO. It's still their individual decision to make. For some people, it is okay. For some people it is not okay.

I'm friends with a bishop/Humanities professor who offered to check out R rated movies for me from the BYU Library.

[krebscout]

Oh, and this is Sauron, not Krebscout. Didn't realize it was the wrong login....

[FauxRaiden]

The way I've always understood it is cooking with alcohol's mostly burns off the actual alcoholic portion of the food barring pastry type things.

My dad and myself have cooked with numerous beers, wines, tequilas, etc. I can honestly say I've never been tipsy or hammered from anything I've ever cooked. I certainly could never taste the alcohol. In any case, I think it does taste different as I've never found a suitable alternative for wine and the like for certain recipes.

To each his own, but let's not blow this out of proportion.

[Craig Jessop]

President McKay was once offered a rum cake at a luncheon and he accepted and enthusiastically ate it. When a horrified person standing to the side told him that it was rum cake, he said that the prohibition was against drinking alcohol. He also told John A. Widstoe not to take the joy out of life when he suggested the Church officially prohibit caffeine, even down to chocolate. While my own interpretation of the WoW isn't quite so liberal (about alcohol -- I could care less about caffeine; even if I don't drink it, my reasons have nothing to do with the WoW and I'll defend our right to drink it and remain worthy as long as I live), I do think that cooking with alcohol is a little bit less radical than the interpretation a prophet of God gave.

If you want the reference ask me. I'd have it in a heartbeat from legitimate scholarship.

[Laser Jock]

President McKay was once offered a rum cake at a luncheon and he accepted and enthusiastically ate it. When a horrified person standing to the side told him that it was rum cake, he said that the prohibition was against drinking alcohol and not to take the joy out of life. While my own interpretation of the WoW isn't quite so liberal, I do think that cooking with alcohol is a little bit less radical than the interpretation a prophet of God gave.

If you want the reference ask me. I'd have it in a heartbeat from legitimate scholarship.

I'd love to see a legitimate source. (I was about to say [citation needed] until I got to your last line. Random unsourced stories about general authorities bug me! So thank you for offering to provide one.)

(For that matter, any sort of urban legend really bugs me, and most of these unsourced "So and so once said" stories are just LDS-flavored urban legends.)

[Craig Jessop]

I'd love to see a legitimate source. (I was about to say [citation needed] until I got to your last line. Random unsourced stories about general authorities bug me! So thank you for offering to provide one.)

(For that matter, any sort of urban legend really bugs me, and most of these unsourced "So and so once said" stories are just LDS-flavored urban legends.)

Thy wish is my command. It's on page 23 of David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, published by the University of Utah in 2005, written by two faithful members of the Church, and as source the authors cite Leonard J. Arrington, who was the official Church historian for years and years and a BYU professor for even longer.

[Marduk]

my bishop knows I occasionally cook with wine, and has no problem with it

I think this is a valid point. Something I've considered in defining my own standards is the temple recommend interview. If my bishop decides that something makes me unworthy to attend the temple, I should obviously avoid it. If not, it's probably not all that bad.

I think this is a insignificant point. There are things we are allowed/encouraged to make our own decisions about. Using our current bishop's opinion is not the point. Obviously bishops can counsel us, and once we've formed preliminary opinions, they can help us to know we're not crossing important lines.

I had a bishop who would watch rated R movies. So does that make it okay for everyone in his ward to watch them? NO. It's still their individual decision to make. For some people, it is okay. For some people it is not okay.

So all the bishop example demonstrates that it is possible to be a good member of the church and still cook with alcohol. It does NOT mean it is okay for everyone.

PERSONAL DECISIONS, FTW!

Actually, this is not insignificant. I'm not using it to say "the bishop allows it, so it must be ok" what I'm saying is "the bishop allows it, so it cannot be specifically prohibited, therefore it is up to personal interpretation." We would do well not to draw lines for our neighbors where the church has drawn none.

[wired]

I had a bishop who would watch rated R movies. So does that make it okay for everyone in his ward to watch them? NO. It's still their individual decision to make. For some people, it is okay. For some people it is not okay.

I'm friends with a bishop/Humanities professor who offered to check out R rated movies for me from the BYU Library.

My bishop starred in R rated movies and makes all of the new deacons watch them.

(Note really, but I had to do something to one up everyone.)

[ahem.]

Actually, this is not insignificant. I'm not using it to say "the bishop allows it, so it must be ok" what I'm saying is "the bishop allows it, so it cannot be specifically prohibited, therefore it is up to personal interpretation." We would do well not to draw lines for our neighbors where the church has drawn none.

I obviously support the idea of personal interpretation. If something is not specifically prohibited, then people should make their own decisions on the topic. I just think it's sketchy territory to allow the actions/opinions of a single bishop to define what is or is not prohibited.

I find your point to be insignificant because it would not change my stance one bit whether your bishop did or did not share your opinion about wine in cooking.

Does that make sense?

[wired]

I'd love to see a legitimate source. (I was about to say [citation needed] until I got to your last line. Random unsourced stories about general authorities bug me! So thank you for offering to provide one.)

(For that matter, any sort of urban legend really bugs me, and most of these unsourced "So and so once said" stories are just LDS-flavored urban legends.)

Thy wish is my command. It's on page 23 of David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, published by the University of Utah in 2005, written by two faithful members of the Church, and as source the authors cite Leonard J. Arrington, who was the official Church historian for years and years and a BYU professor for even longer.

Eh, as much as I love Arrington, I try to treat all 3rd party anecdotes from a singular source as unsubstantiated rumors. You have Arrington viewing this scene which he will subjectively remember, passing it on to two other individuals who will receive, remember, and write subjectively about it. Even if it is being recounted perfectly, who is to say that makes President McKay's opinion is greater than the other apostles and prophets. I am sure we will find at least one apostle who would not be comfortable with anyone doing that.

In conclusion, unless we sustain that story in General Conference and it becomes D&C 139, it holds about as much authority as as an ice cream man trying to pull me over to give me a ticket.

[wired]

And now, to come back after my very skeptical first post, can you give me the footnote it cites to? I can see the quote on Google Books, but it doesn't have the footnotes available.

[Craig Jessop]

83 or 86, I think. It's from Arrington's memoir. I agree with your point that Pres. McKay's opinion isn't any more special than any other apostle or prophet, and that's the point I'm trying to make: even as high as the general, prophetic leadership of the Church there are disagreements and it's okay to interperet the Word of Wisdom different than the Joneses as long as the big ones are kept, namely avoiding coffee, tea, illegal drugs, and all the rest.

[Imogen]

mmmmmm some tea would be nice right about now....