Usage of wine in sacrament

[Damasta]

What if you went to another planet where they used wine for the sacrament? That could be an awkward situation.

Why?

D&C 89 allows for use of wine in the sacrament: "That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him." (emphasis mine)

And D&C 27:2 says: "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." (emphasis mine)

The current practice of using water is a policy, not a commandment. Nowhere in the Standard Works are we explicitly required to use water for the sacrament or restricted from using wine.

So I'd say that if you found yourself on such a planet, you should partake of the sacrament and rejoice in the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

[vorpal blade]

I don't see it the same way, Damasta.

In D&C 89 verse 5 says what you have quoted, but verse 6 goes on to qualify that verse "And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make." I've always understood this to mean the juice of the grape before it has fermented, or turned alcoholic. In other words grape juice is okay, but not alcoholic wine.

D&C 27 was given as Joseph Smith set out to purchase some wine. He was met by a heavenly messenger who gave him this revelation. The intent of the revelation seems to be to stop Joseph from purchasing wine. The scripture goes on to say (verses 3 and 4), "Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, that you shall not purchase wine neither strong drink of your enemies; Wherefore, you shall partake of none except it is made new among you; yea, in this my Father’s kingdom which shall be built up on the earth." Again, it is to be wine "made new among you" which I believe refers to grape juice.

I've tried to make grape juice from my grapes. It is surprising how quickly (a day or two) it turns to wine without the proper refrigeration and processes. In Joseph Smith's time grape juice would have quickly turned to strong drink unless made new among them.

I conclude that sections 89 and 27 are commandments not to use alcoholic wine in the sacrament, or elsewhere.

And even if it were merely "policy," that "policy" should apply to you wherever you live, even if you live among those who don't have the policy, in my opinion. You aren't excused unless explicitly excused by the prophet, or God.

[Damasta]

I've heard that opinion, before. But I can't find any good support for it. Let's start by cycling through a few definitions to see if any allow for "wine" to include non-alcoholic grape juice:

Wine is an alcoholic beverage, typically made of fermented grape juice.

An alcoholic beverage made by fermenting juice of grapes.

The fermented juice of grapes, made in many varieties, such as red, white, sweet, dry, still, and sparkling, for use as a beverage, in cooking, in religious rites, etc., and usually having an alcoholic content of 14 percent or less.

A beverage made of the fermented juice of any of various kinds of grapes, usually containing from 10 to 15 percent alcohol by volume.

Fermented grape juice containing varying percentages of alcohol together with ethers and esters that give it bouquet and flavor.

The alcoholic fermented juice of fresh grapes used as a beverage.

An alcoholic drink produced by the fermenting of grapes with water and sugar.

An alcoholic drink which is usually made from grapes, but can also be made from other fruits or flowers. It is made by fermenting the fruit with water and sugar.

The fermented juice of the grape used as a beverage.

The fermented juice of grapes; as the wine of the Madeira grape; the wine of Burgundy or Oporto.

You see that the common denominator is that it is fermented grape juice. And note that the last one is probably the closest you'll find to what the word "wine" would mean to Joseph Smith. I checked Robert Cawdrey's Table Alphabeticall, which was written in the year 1604 (the same year the KJV translation was initiated), but "wine" was not included in it. All online sources that claim to be dictionaries of King James English actually use the 1828 Webster dictionary cited above. Unfortunately, the LDS Bible Dictionary and online Guide to the Scriptures don't address the term.

So where else can we turn for clues as to what "wine" (or, in the case of D&C 89:6, "pure wine") means? How about the Hebrew and Greek terms used in the Bible. Since there are many terms, I'll try to stick to the most relevant ones. (You can learn more at Strong's Concordance, here. Just click on the number next to a word to learn about the word in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek.) First, Hebrew:

יַיִן — yayin: the most common word for "wine" in the Old Testament (138 times). It comes from a Hebrew root which means "to bubble" or "to effervesce", due to the effect of fermentation.
עָסִיס — asiys: this word is more germane to our discussion because the KJV translators rendered it "sweet wine" (Isa. 49:26; Amos 9:13) and "new wine" (Joel 1:5; 3:18 ). You'll note that in Isa. 49:26 it is associated with drunkenness, so it cannot be unfermented grape juice or must, as some claim.
חָמַר — chemer: translated once as the "pure blood of the grape" (Deut. 32:14) and once as "red wine" (Isa. 27:2). It comes from a Hebrew root which means "to foam", "to boil up", or "to ferment". It does not refer to unfermented grape juice.
תִּירוֹשׁ — tiyrōsh: translated as "wine" 26 times, "new wine" 11 times (Neh. 10:39; 13:5, 12; Prov. 3:10; Isa. 24:7; 65:8; Hosea 4:11; 9:2; Joel 1:10; Haggai 1:11; Zech. 9:17), and "sweet wine" once (Micah 6:15). You'll note that in Hosea 4:11 it is associated with drunkenness. It comes from a Hebrew root which means "to seize" or "to take possession of", implying the effects of intoxication.

Now Greek:

οἶνος — oinos: the most common word for "wine" in the New Testament (32 times). Occasionally it appears as οἶνος νέος oinos neos, which is translated as "new wine" and Gesenius, Grimm, and Thayer all take this to mean "newly made wine". This is evidenced by the fact that the "new wine" will continue to ferment and burst an "old bottle" (Mt. 9:17; Mk. 2:22; Lk. 5:37).
γλεῦκος — gleukos: translated once as "new wine" (Acts 2:13). You'll note that in this passage, it is associated with drunkenness. It comes from a Greek root which means "sweet" (hence our word "glucose"). It cannot be unfermented grape juice or must, as some claim.

Thus it appears that all Scriptural accounts of "wine", "new wine", and "sweet wine" refer to a fermented, alcoholic beverage. The only instance of "pure wine" is in the passage in question (D&C 89:6). So let us examine that. In A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants, Vol. 3, H. Dean Garrett and Stephen E. Robinson observe:

This does not indicate that the wine used in the sacrament was merely fresh grape juice. The wine commonly used for the sacrament in the nineteenth century Church was fermented and contained alcohol [...]. If the reference to wine here, or "pure wine of the grape," were understood to mean unfermented wine, then verses 5–6 would constitute a prohibition against the use of grape juice, except for the sacrament—and this is clearly not the case. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, the uniform practice of the Church has been to use water for the sacrament. (commentary on D&C 89:6)

And:

This has reference to Joseph making sure the wine was pure and not tampered with by the enemies of the Church. Some have interpreted this as a commandment to use only grape juice rather than fermented wine for the sacrament, but this cannot be correct, because the Church continued to use fermented sacramental wine both in Kirtland and in Nauvoo. (commentary on D&C 27:4)

Admittedly, there are many Church scholars (including John A. Widtsoe) who side with you in maintaining that the "pure wine" must refer to grape juice. However, Elder Widtsoe cites his source for this claim as an addendum in Smith's Bible Dictionary written in by Frederic William Farrar, viz.:

The simple wines of antiquity were incomparably less deadly than the stupefying and ardent beverages of our western nations. The wines of antiquity were more like sirups [sic]; many of them were not intoxicant; many more intoxicant in a small degree; and all of them, as a rule, taken only when largely diluted with water. They contained, even undiluted, but 4 or 5 percent of alcohol. (The entire entry, with Farrar's addendum at the bottom, can be seen here.)

Farrar (a staunch advocate of the temperance movement) offers no basis for his claims (or for his alteration of Dr. William Smith's manuscript, for that matter). Many later scholars cite Elder Widtsoe, so they essentially all derive from the same (seemingly erroneous) source. Other, more recent, scholars claim that asiys, tiyrōsh, or gleukos refer to "must" or "grape juice" and weren't fermented; but the etymology and/or scriptural context of these words (see above) don't support such a claim.

As you point out, grape juice ferments very quickly. And it also does so naturally—you don't have actually have to add any fermenting yeast or sugar (though many do). So in antiquity it was very difficult (and thus uncommon) to preserve grape juice in an unfermented state. It wasn't until Thomas Bramwell Welch began pasteurizing grape juice in 1869 that preserving grape juice in its unfermented state became a reality. In fact, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve used wine for their sacrament meetings until July 5, 1906, when they switched to water. (source) So, it seems that the Lord's concern was that they not purchase wine from others since there was a risk of poisoning (D&C 27:3; 89:4), not the alcoholic nature of the beverage (in reference to its use for the sacrament). Let's not confound the worldly and secular ideal of teetotalism with the commandments and instructions of the Lord.

As for the nature of the current practice, I'm not sure whether it's an official policy spelled out in the Handbook of Instructions or whether it's just a de facto policy. But I still feel that compliance with the Lord's statements in the scriptures ("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" (D&C 27:3)) would override compliance with the inspired-but-written-by-man policy in the Handbook, in this case. I wouldn't advocate exchanging wine for water in your home ward, however, unless there were unusual circumstances.

(Edited once to remove an unintentional emoticon.)

[bismark]

good.

[vorpal blade]

Interesting, Damasta. And it looks like you have done a lot of research.

[vorpal blade]

I think I’ll just add a few comments for your consideration.

I don’t suppose it makes a great deal of difference whether we are talking about a Church policy or a commandment given by the Lord for our day and age. Either way we are obligated to obey it just like it was a commandment. But it may be instructive to talk about it.

The Church Handbook of Instructions specifies the use of water. No exceptions to these rules are mentioned.

During this holy ordinance, they partake of bread and water in remembrance of the Savior's flesh and blood and to renew their baptismal covenants (see Matthew 26:26-28; Joseph Smith Translation, Mark 14:20-25; Luke 22:15-20; 3 Nephi 18; Moroni 6:6).
….
Before the meeting begins, those who prepare the sacrament should make sure that bread trays with unbroken bread, water trays with cups filled with fresh water, and clean tablecloths are in place.
….
When brethren finish passing the bread, they return the trays to the sacrament table. Those officiating at the sacrament table replace the cloth over the bread trays and uncover the water trays. The person who blesses the water kneels and offers the sacrament prayer for the water (see D&C 20:79), substituting the word water for wine.

So, clearly from the Handbook the use of water is Church policy, and perhaps more. The possible use of wine is not discussed.

You’ve given a definition of “wine” from a number of sources. I don’t doubt that this is the most common definition of “wine.” As you know, words often have more than one definition. Consider the last dictionary source you gave, Noah Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language (1828). This dictionary was printed just before Joseph Smith’s revelations (resulting in the Doctrine and Covenants), so it might be instructive.

1. The fermented juice of grapes; as the wine of the Madeira grape; the wine of Burgundy or Oporto.
2. The juice of certain fruits, prepared with sugar, spirits, &c.; as currant wine; gooseberry wine.
3. Intoxication.
Noah awoke from his wine. Genesis 9.
4. Drinking.
They that tarry long at the wine. Proverbs 23.
Corn and wine, in Scripture, are put for all kinds of necessaries for subsistence. Psalm.
Bread and wine, in the Lords supper, are symbols of the body and blood of Christ.

You see the first definition, as you gave it, but what about the other definitions? In particular the second definition shows us that wine can also be the juice of certain fruits prepared with sugar, spirits, &c. Well, if it has been adulterated with spirits it is going to be alcoholic. But “pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make” would indicate to me that nothing has been added to the fruit juice. Pure wine, by the second definition of wine in Webster’s 1828 dictionary, may indeed be unfermented and nonalcoholic if pure.

I think the 1913 edition of Webster’s dictionary makes this point clearer. http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEB ... ?WORD=wine

The expressed juice of grapes, esp. when fermented; a beverage or liquor prepared from grapes by squeezing out their juice, and (usually) allowing it to ferment.

Note that wine may or may not be fermented, though it usually is. I looked this up in several old dictionaries and found the same result. Wine by definition is usually fermented, but the word “wine” can also refer to unfermented fruit drinks.

The interpretation and etymology of the words translated as “wine” in the Bible is still being disputed. Not all experts agree that every use of the word wine refers to the fermented, alcoholic version of wine, though that is very likely the usual use of the word. The experts often admit they are guessing when they state the origin of the words used for wine.

You have quoted from a commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants that supports your point of view. I could quote from several other commentaries that support my point of view. For example this one, http://feastupontheword.org/D%26C_27:1-5

In verse 2 the Lord says it doesn't matter what we drink when we take the sacrament as long as we partake of the sacrament in the right way. This instruction prepares the way for verse 3 and 4 where the saints are told not to use alcoholic wine for the sacrament.

In the commentary you gave of Garrett and Robinson they claim that if “pure wine of the grape” were understood to mean unfermented wine, then verses 5-6 would constitute a prohibition against the use of grape juice. This argument falls apart when we consider that there are at least two definitions of “wine.” In verse 5 we are told not to drink “wine or strong drink,” but then goes on to say that it is okay to use wine in the sacrament as long as it is “pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make.” This makes perfect sense and is consistent if we consider the prohibition of “wine or strong drink” as the fermented definition, but the approved “pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make” is unfermented with no spirits added.

You state, but do not show evidence, that John A. Widsoe cites an addendum in Smith’s Bible Dictionary written by Frederic William Farrar. Can you show me that this is the sole reason, or even a reason, Elder Widtsoe believes that “pure wine” must refer to grape juice? And what would be wrong with citing Canon Farrar, a theologian and Biblical scholar as a source? Does his advocacy of the temperance movement disqualify him as a scholar? You question his motives, but I don’t see how this makes his comments “seemingly erroneous.”

When I look up what Elder Widtsoe wrote I do not see that he cited Canon Farrar. Consider this quote (which I have taken from the LDS Institute Manual http://www.ldsces.org/inst_manuals/dc-i ... lindex.asp )

The “pure wine” in Doctrine and Covenants 89:6 “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 . . . 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.’ [D&C 27:2].” (Widtsoe, Word of Wisdom, pp. 60–61.)

It would appear from this that Elder Widstoe cited the Word of Wisdom for his source, and reinforced it by Church history.

In summary, one valid definition of “wine,” found in several dictionaries including the 1828 Webster dictionary, refers to a beverage which may be nonalcoholic and unfermented. The use of the term “wine” in the Bible is not relevant to this discussion, and in any event is in much dispute among scholars. For every Doctrine and Covenants commentary that supports your point of view I can give you one or two which do not. I conclude that we are commanded not to use alcoholic wine in the sacrament.

[NerdGirl]

Actually, they might not even have wine on other planets. They might not have grapes. Maybe they use non-alcoholic Romulan Ale.

[ahem.]

Actually, they might not even have wine on other planets. They might not have grapes. Maybe they use non-alcoholic Romulan Ale.

That's... I don't even... WHAT?

The defining characteristics of Romulan Ale are that it's (a) highly intoxicating and (b) illegal. AND THAT'S WHY IT'S SO APPEALING! Why would anyone go to the trouble of creating a version of the drink that strips away its defining characteristics? Why not just make it green instead of blue, while you're at it!

[NerdGirl]

Mormon aliens would totally try to make non-alcoholic Romulan ale. It would really just be blue Kool-Aid, but they would serve it at youth dances and the guys would pretend to be drunk and the girls would be all offended and not dance with them. Non-alcoholic Romulan Ale is to Mormon Romulans as edited movies are to Mormon Earthlings.

[vorpal blade]

I've never understood what the appeal is in getting intoxicated. Anyway, it makes me think of this Groucho Marx line from A Night at the Opera. "Well, you should of come to the first party. We didn't get home 'til around four in the morning. I was blind for three days!"

[Damasta]

Thanks for citing the Handbook, Vorpal. I knew you had access, so I was hoping you'd share. That establishes that it's official, not de facto, policy. My point about Handbook policy (use water) vs. Scriptural commandment ("it mattereth not...what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament") is that policies are changed frequently and commandments are changed rarely, so were the two to come into conflict, commandment would take precedence.

You’ve given a definition of “wine” from a number of sources. I don’t doubt that this is the most common definition of “wine.” As you know, words often have more than one definition. Consider the last dictionary source you gave, Noah Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language (1828). This dictionary was printed just before Joseph Smith’s revelations (resulting in the Doctrine and Covenants), so it might be instructive.

1. The fermented juice of grapes; as the wine of the Madeira grape; the wine of Burgundy or Oporto.
2. The juice of certain fruits, prepared with sugar, spirits, &c.; as currant wine; gooseberry wine.
3. Intoxication.
Noah awoke from his wine. Genesis 9.
4. Drinking.
They that tarry long at the wine. Proverbs 23.
Corn and wine, in Scripture, are put for all kinds of necessaries for subsistence. Psalm.
Bread and wine, in the Lords supper, are symbols of the body and blood of Christ.

You see the first definition, as you gave it, but what about the other definitions? In particular the second definition shows us that wine can also be the juice of certain fruits prepared with sugar, spirits, &c. Well, if it has been adulterated with spirits it is going to be alcoholic. But “pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make” would indicate to me that nothing has been added to the fruit juice. Pure wine, by the second definition of wine in Webster’s 1828 dictionary, may indeed be unfermented and nonalcoholic if pure.

Definition #2 insists that the spirits (=alchohol) and sugar have to be added for it to qualify as "wine". Otherwise, it would just say, "The juice of certain fruits." And, as has been pointed out before, grape juice ferments without having anything added to it, so it would still be "pure" even by your forced definition. Webster's 1828 dictionary does not support your "nonalcoholic wine" hypothesis.

Perhaps the most pressing concern is why didn't the Lord ever use the word "juice" in the revelations? The word has been in use since the 13th Century, AD (source). Are we to suppose that he tried to find sneaky, ambiguous ways to say things when there were simple, straight-forward ways to say them? Or is it safe to assume that when he said "wine" he meant the generally understood meaning of the word ("fermented grape juice")?

I think the 1913 edition of Webster’s dictionary makes this point clearer. http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEB ... ?WORD=wine

The expressed juice of grapes, esp. when fermented; a beverage or liquor prepared from grapes by squeezing out their juice, and (usually) allowing it to ferment.

Note that wine may or may not be fermented, though it usually is. I looked this up in several old dictionaries and found the same result. Wine by definition is usually fermented, but the word “wine” can also refer to unfermented fruit drinks.

You left out the rest of the definition:

Wine is essentially a dilute solution of ethyl alcohol, containing also certain small quantities of ethers and ethereal salts which give character and bouquet. According to their color, strength, taste, etc., wines are called red, white, spirituous, dry, light, still, etc.

The rest of the definition clarifies that while a "non-fermented" definition of wine did exist by 1913, it wasn't the prevailing understanding of the word. Furthermore, this is a definition written nearly 100 years after Joseph Smith was born. It is uncertain whether this represents are more accurate definition over the 1828 version, or an updated definition to reflect contemporary (i.e. 1913) usage.

1. The fermented juice of grapes.
2. Hence, a liquor or beverage resembling that prepared from grapes, yielded from other kinds of fruit.
3. Intoxication.

However, based on intermediate definitions, it seems that the latter is more likely. But if you have any definitions from dictionaries that are closer to Joseph Smith's lifetime, I'd love to see them.

The interpretation and etymology of the words translated as “wine” in the Bible is still being disputed. Not all experts agree that every use of the word wine refers to the fermented, alcoholic version of wine, though that is very likely the usual use of the word. The experts often admit they are guessing when they state the origin of the words used for wine.

I haven't seen any particular prevarication about the etymology of words translated as "wine" except from laypeople who try to argue that it could mean anything other than fermented grape juice. To add to the problem, there are words which do designate "unfermented grape juice". In Hebrew:

מִשְׁרָה — mishrah: "the juice squeezed out of a fruit". It comes from a Hebrew root which means "to squeeze" or "to press". Only used once, in Num. 6:3, when proscribing Nazarites from partaking of wine (yayin), strong drink (shekar, which indicates alcohol made from any other source, such as dates, honey, barley, &c.), vinegar from wine, vinegar from shekar, juice mishrah of the grape (`enab ), fresh grapes, or raisins. The KJV translators render it "liquor" (but see "liquor" in Webster's 1828 dictionary). Most modern translations render it "grape juice" (source).

In Greek:

χυμός — khumos: "juice". It comes from a Greek root meaning "to pour". It never indicates a fermented drink.
χυλός — khulos: "juice". It is a variant of khumos (above).
ἔαρ — ear: "juice" or "blood". It never indicates a fermented drink.

I'll also mention:

τρύξ — trux: "lees". Some people take this to mean "unfermented grape juice" but I'm not convinced.

None of these Greek words appear in the New Testament or the Septuagint, suggesting that in all cases alcoholic wine was intended.

You have quoted from a commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants that supports your point of view. I could quote from several other commentaries that support my point of view. For example this one, http://feastupontheword.org/D%26C_27:1-5

In verse 2 the Lord says it doesn't matter what we drink when we take the sacrament as long as we partake of the sacrament in the right way. This instruction prepares the way for verse 3 and 4 where the saints are told not to use alcoholic wine for the sacrament.

In the commentary you gave of Garrett and Robinson they claim that if “pure wine of the grape” were understood to mean unfermented wine, then verses 5–6 would constitute a prohibition against the use of grape juice. This argument falls apart when we consider that there are at least two definitions of “wine.” In verse 5 we are told not to drink “wine or strong drink,” but then goes on to say that it is okay to use wine in the sacrament as long as it is “pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make.” This makes perfect sense and is consistent if we consider the prohibition of “wine or strong drink” as the fermented definition, but the approved “pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make” is unfermented with no spirits added.

You state, but do not show evidence, that John A. Widsoe cites an addendum in Smith’s Bible Dictionary written by Frederic William Farrar. Can you show me that this is the sole reason, or even a reason, Elder Widtsoe believes that “pure wine” must refer to grape juice? And what would be wrong with citing Canon Farrar, a theologian and Biblical scholar as a source? Does his advocacy of the temperance movement disqualify him as a scholar? You question his motives, but I don’t see how this makes his comments “seemingly erroneous.”

When I look up what Elder Widtsoe wrote I do not see that he cited Canon Farrar. Consider this quote (which I have taken from the LDS Institute Manual http://www.ldsces.org/inst_manuals/dc-i ... lindex.asp )

The “pure wine” in Doctrine and Covenants 89:6 “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 . . . 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.’ [D&C 27:2].” (Widtsoe, Word of Wisdom, pp. 60–61.)

It would appear from this that Elder Widstoe cited the Word of Wisdom for his source, and reinforced it by Church history.

I acknowledged that there were commentaries contrary to my point of view. And I addressed them. And I charged Canon Farrar with supporting the temperance movement to indicate that he had a vested interest in downplaying the instances of alcohol in the Bible. So while I believe he was sincere, he could be wrong. My criticism is that he vandalized Smith's Bible Dictionary and that he provided no scholarship for his claims. He wasn't alive in Biblical times, so how does he know what the alcohol content was of ancient wine? I say "seemingly erroneous" based on my previous exposition on the meanings of Hebrew and Greek words for "wine".

Now I must admit that I searched for Elder Widtsoe citing Canon Farrar and failed. I can only conclude that I mixed up my sources while researching this topic. As far as I can determine, my previous statement was wrong, and Elder Widtsoe never derived his opinions on using water for the sacrament from Canon Farrar. I apologize for the misinformation.

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).

But while I was searching for the quote, I found this little gem:

I anticipate the day when we can have the privilege of using, at our sacraments pure wine, produced within our borders. I do not know that it would injure us to drink wine of our own make, although we would be better without it than to drink it to excess. (Deseret News, July 15, 1863.)

Here President Young uses the term "pure wine". You could try to argue that he worries that the Saints will drink grape juice to excess, but really I think we both know that he's referring to the intoxicating effects of the fermented, alcoholic "pure wine" he wanted to produce. The Saints in southern Utah eventually did plant vineyards, per President Young's wishes, and began selling the wine to miners in Utah and Nevada. But they drank so much of it themselves that the practice was discontinued (Leonard J. Arrington, "An Economic Interpretation of the 'Word of Wisdom.'", BYU Studies, vols. 1–2 (1959–1960)). I reiterate that Garrett and Robinson mentioned that alcoholic wine was used for LDS sacrament meetings until the early 1900s.

In summary, one valid definition of “wine,” found in several dictionaries including the 1828 Webster dictionary, refers to a beverage which may be nonalcoholic and unfermented. The use of the term “wine” in the Bible is not relevant to this discussion, and in any event is in much dispute among scholars. For every Doctrine and Covenants commentary that supports your point of view I can give you one or two which do not. I conclude that we are commanded not to use alcoholic wine in the sacrament.

In summary, the 1828 Webster dictionary does not refer to a nonalcoholic, unfermented beverage—it claims that juice may only be called wine after the addition of "sugar, spirits [=alcohol], &c."; a nonalcoholic, unfermented definition of "wine" may be a more modern one and thus unavailable to Joseph Smith; and the word "juice" did exist during Joseph Smith's time, so why did he never use it?

The use of the term "wine" in the Bible is relevant to this discussion because Joseph used Biblical (KJV) language when translating and when transcribing revelations; I brought it up to see if there were any Biblical precedent for claiming that "pure wine" or "new wine" meant nonalcoholic, unfermented wine; there exist words for unfermented grape juice in both Hebrew and Greek, but either weren't used or weren't translated as "wine"; and there is little debate among scholars (the only exceptions I could find were by Samuele Bacchiocchi in Wine in the Bible: A Biblical Study on the Use of Alcoholic Beverages), only among laypeople.

Your dismissal of Garrett and Robinson relies on a thin assertion that "wine" indicates a fermented, alcoholic beverage while "pure wine" indicates an unfermented, nonalcoholic beverage. However, Brigham Young, a contemporary of Joseph Smith, used "pure wine" to mean a fermented, alcoholic beverage. Incorrect commentaries/interpretations do not become true by virtue of being more popular or more populous (this is a fallacy called argumentum ad populum). Besides, I've already addressed why I believe that they, collectively, are wrong.

I conclude that alcoholic, fermented wine is allowed for use in the sacrament, but current official policy is to use water.

[Marduk]

Poking my head in for a moment to say that I've split the thread; it was getting a bit far afield from the original topic. Or rather, it was getting very specific. At any rate, I felt it deserved its own thread. Carry on.

[Marduk]

Thought I'd let the discussion go on unfettered, but I'm too tempted.

I think that both of these miss the original point, and that is, is it acceptable now? All instances of wine use for sacrament have been discontinued since the word of wisdom was made mandatory, unless I miss my guess. So that would supercede all else.

[bismark]

"Sometime after dinner we sent for some wine. It has been reported by some that this was taken as a sacrament. It was no such thing,; our spirits were generally dull and heavy, and it was sent for to revive us.... I believe we all drank of the wine, and gave some to one or two of the prison guards." (John Taylor, in History of the Church, Vol. 7, page 101)


lalala...

[NerdGirl]

I'm just fascinated that one of my strangest comments has led to so much discussion.

[Damasta]

I think that both of these miss the original point, and that is, is it acceptable now? All instances of wine use for sacrament have been discontinued since the word of wisdom was made mandatory, unless I miss my guess. So that would supercede [sic] all else.

Actually, according to this FAIRwiki page, it's use for the sacrament was discontinued before the Word of Wisdom was made requisite for temple attendance, leadership positions, and reception of the Melchizedek Priesthood. But a commandment banning it's use, as far as I've been able to ascertain, has never been given.

But I don't think we've strayed from the point. My point is that we've never been banned from using alcoholic wine (which, really, is a redundant statement but I have to say it that way for VP's benefit) for the sacrament. The current official policy is to use water, but we're still not prohibited from using alcoholic wine if the need were to arise (such as finding NerdGirl finding herself on a planet where they use alcoholic wine instead of water). The fact that alcoholic wine was used for the sacrament for nearly 100 years after the Word of Wisdom was revealed flies in the fact of VP's assertion that "pure wine" means grape juice. And that's the only leg he's standing on to assert that partaking of alcoholic wine that has been properly blessed for the sacrament would be unacceptable.

[Marduk]

My point is simply that as soon as the word of wisdom was made mandatory, any other previously acceptable uses for alcohol became unacceptable. (Not that this is necessarily my argument, simply that I believe it to be a tenable one.)

[vorpal blade]

I agree with you, Marduk.

Taking a step back for a moment, let me explain what I am trying to do in this forum, other than have a little fun. Time after time I’ve seen statements to the effect that pick and choose among the words of the prophets. The Church takes a stand against homosexual marriage and this is dismissed as the fears of some homophobic old men who are behind the times. The dangers of communism and socialism and the importance of free enterprise are explained away as red fear mongering based on cold war worries of Stalinist communism. The fact that the Church would not permit blacks to hold the priesthood is represented as the product of some racists old guys like Brigham Young who were influenced by the bigoted culture of their time to institute a man-made policy discriminating against black people. And so on, denying the prophets.

And now it appears that the words of our Church leaders and scriptures in regard to the sacrament is to “confound the worldly and secular ideal of teetotalism with the commandments and instructions of the Lord.” Just like all the other arguments “which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel,” this one serves to undermine the Church.

And so, my brothers and sisters in this forum, I’m concerned about you slipping away into apostasy, being quick to find “natural” or “cultural” influences for Church policy or doctrine while skipping over evidence in support of the traditional Church teachings. You seem like nice people, I wouldn’t want that to happen to you.

[vorpal blade]

Definition #2 insists that the spirits (=alchohol) and sugar have to be added for it to qualify as "wine". Otherwise, it would just say, "The juice of certain fruits." And, as has been pointed out before, grape juice ferments without having anything added to it, so it would still be "pure" even by your forced definition. Webster's 1828 dictionary does not support your "nonalcoholic wine" hypothesis.

I’m sorry that we don’t see it the same way, Damasta. Definition #2 does not insist that spirits and sugar have to be added for it to qualify as “wine.” As I read it, and I thought you would to, it states that things like spirits and sugar are usually added. No attempt at giving requirements was intended. I think the use of “&c” indicates a loose “things of that nature,” message for all of the ingredients. If spirits and sugar are requirements, then so must “&c” be a requirement by that logic, and we would need to know exactly what “things of that sort” was in order to know whether or not we really had wine.

I was going to give other examples of the use of this language to mean a list of things which are usually present, but not all of them necessarily present, when I came across a better example from Webster’s 1828 dictionary. Consider the word “must” from that dictionary.

must
MUST, v.i.
1. To be obliged; to be necessitated. It expresses both physical and moral necessity. A man must eat for nourishment, and he must sleep for refreshment. We must submit to the laws or be exposed to punishment. A bill in a legislative body must have three readings before it can pass to be enacted.
2. It expresses moral fitness or propriety, as necessary or essential to the character or end proposed. "Deacons must be grave," "a bishop must have a good report of them that are without." 1 Tim.3.
MUST, n. [L. mustum; Heb. to ferment.]
New wine; wine pressed from the grape but not fermented.
MUST, v.t. To make moldy and sour.
MUST, v.i. To grow moldy and sour; to contract a fetid smell.

You will notice that at the time of Joseph Smith “must,” when used as a noun, referred to “new wine; wine pressed from the grape but not fermented.” We see that the word “wine” was used by Webster in this instance to refer to the unfermented pressings of the grape. Also note that “must” is also defined as “new wine,” which is wine before it has begun to ferment.

I would hope this settles the question. To repeat, here is proof that the 1828 dictionary sometimes used the word “wine” to refer to the unfermented beverage made from grapes. But I suspect that there will be those who try to find a way around this.

It is also interesting that the word “must” comes from the Latin “mustum,” meaning “new.” It also comes from, according to Webster, the Hebrew word “to ferment.” Wait a minute, you are probably thinking, how can a word which means “unfermented wine” come from “to ferment?” I noticed another word in Webster’s 1828 dictionary, "Stum":

stum
STUM, n. [G.]
1. Must; wine unfermented.
2. New wine used to raise fermentation in dead or vapid wines.
3. Wine revived by a new fermentation.
STUM, v.t.
1. To renew wine by mixing must with it, and raising a new fermentation.
We stum our wines to renew their spirits.
2. To fume a cask or liquor with burning brimstone. [Local.]

Note that the practice was to renew old wine by mixing it with “new wine,” or “must.” With the fresh, unfermented wine the process of fermentation would be restarted and the wine “revived.” So the unfermented “new wine” was important to ferment old wines. Not that the “must” is in itself fermented, but it has the capacity to ferment old wines.

Does the KJV Bible use the word “must” to refer to wines? It doesn’t use this English word. Instead the Hebrew equivalent (tiyrowsh for Strong’s H8492, or Tirosh in Easton’s Bible dictionary) for “must” was translated in the KJV Bible as “wine,” “new wine,” or “sweet wine.” Easton gave this definition of “tirosh”

Tirosh, properly "must," translated "wine" (Deu 28:51); "new wine" (Pro 3:10); "sweet wine" (Mic 6:15; R.V., "vintage"). This Hebrew word has been traced to a root meaning "to take possession of" and hence it is supposed that tirosh is so designated because in intoxicating it takes possession of the brain. Among the blessings promised to Esau (Gen 27:28) mention is made of "plenty of corn and tirosh." Palestine is called "a land of corn and tirosh" (Deu 33:28; Isa 36:17). See also Deu 28:51; 2Ch 32:28; Joe 2:19; Hsa 4:11, ("wine [yayin] and new wine [tirosh] take away the heart").

Easton says that “it is supposed that tirosh is so designated because in intoxicating it takes possession of the brain.” Well, that is a theory, but note the uncertainty here. Knowing what we know about how “must” is used, it is possible (and I think likely) that what “must” takes possession of is the old wine that is revitalized by the action of the unfermented “must.”

Strong gives the Biblical usage of the word as “wine, fresh or new wine, must, freshly pressed wine.” Notice the usage of the noun “must.” It should be obvious that freshly pressed wine will be unfermented, though it will only be a matter of hours before the fermentation process begins. Even though it will soon become fermented, unless something is done to prevent it, the meaning is clearly "unfermented." Strong gives the etymology as “From יָרַשׁ (H3423) in the sense of expulsion.” In Gensenius’s lexicon the opinion is given that “must” expels reason from the head, but no evidence is given for how this might occur with freshly pressed wine.

Of the 38 instances of the word tirosh or tiyrowsh there are only three that may indicate an intoxicating beverage, and that is debatable. Nevertheless, a lot of scholars put much weight on these scriptures to support their case that tirosh was intoxicating. That is their prime basis for supposing tirosh is intoxicating. The first possibly intoxicating usage is Judges 9:13

And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine, which cheereth God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?

This is a parabolic fable where a vine boasts of its power to what…cheer God and man. Can we trust what the vine says in it’s boast? What does it mean to cheer God and man? Would not a sweet and refreshing nonalcoholic beverage cheer God and man? I’d say this was inconclusive to “prove” intoxicating powers to tirosh.

The second example of a possible intoxicating effect of tirosh or tiyrowsh is

Whoredom and wine and new wine take away the heart.

Is this a comment on drunkenness, as Damasta has said, or something else? Those who wish to label tirosh as alcoholic say drunkenness. However, others, such as this source http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowine.html , agree with Bacchiocchi

It would be argued that "new wine" (tiyrowsh), to take away the heart, must have some alcoholic content. In this case Bacchiocchi's answer is suitable: as "whoredom" signifies fornication with other gods, or idolatry (4:10), so "wine and new wine" signify divine blessings, and these items were also used in idolatrous worship, rather than in the worship of the true God.

I have carefully read chapter 3 and 4 of Hosea, and appears that taken in context Hosea is not talking about fornication with women or becoming intoxicated, but about idolatrous worship. Consider also

. THEN said the LORD unto me, Go yet, love a woman beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress, according to the love of the LORD toward the children of Israel, who look to other gods, and love flagons of wine.

What are flagons of wine? In turns out if you examine the Hebrew words that a flagon was actually a pressed fruit cake, and the word “wine” here is really the word for “grape.” “Flagons of wine” are really raisin cakes. Why did the Lord condemn those who love flagons of wine? If you look at the footnote in the LDS KJV Bible you see the note “OR raisin-cakes (used in fertility rites).” It now makes sense that those “who look to other gods” also loved to participate in the idolatrous practices of fertility rites.

Taken together we see that Hosea is not talking about drunkenness and flagons of wine, but about those who went a whoring after false gods. It is going after the idolatrous gods which takes away their hearts, not drinking wine.

The last instance where “tirosh” might be thought intoxicating, rather than just part of the blessings and bounty of the earth, is in

. For how great is his goodness, and how great is his beauty! corn shall make the young men cheerful, and new wine the maids.

At first glance this looks like intoxicating wine, but then corn is said to make the young men cheerful just as well. Are they talking about corn liquor? I think they are just saying how they will be happy with the bounties the Lord bestows upon them.

My main criticism of the argument used by Garrett and Robinson is not based on the use of the word “pure.” It is based on the misrepresentation Garrett and Robinson give to the other side. No one is saying that all wine is merely nonalcoholic grape juice. Verse 5 in D&C 89 refers to wine or strong drink, and obviously refers to alcoholic wine. The usage in verse 6 is argued to mean nonalcoholic grape juice in reference to what can be used in the sacrament. Their assertion that “If the reference to wine here, or "pure wine of the grape," were understood to mean unfermented wine, then verses 5–6 would constitute a prohibition against the use of grape juice, except for the sacrament—and this is clearly not the case” is silly, or a deliberate misstating the position they oppose.

Well, long enough as is. The Doctrine and Covenants refers to alcoholic and nonalcoholic wine, and the alcoholic variety is forbidden, as shown in the scriptures and using a contemporary dictionary. A word for unfermented wine was used in the Bible (though many scholars may disagree), which is probably why Joseph Smith used the word "wine," rather than the English word "must" which is not in the KJV Bible. I can see other possible interpretations of the facts, but this seems most reasonable to me.

I don’t expect I’ll be posting again for a few days.

[Marduk]

I agree with you, Marduk.

Taking a step back for a moment, let me explain what I am trying to do in this forum, other than have a little fun. Time after time I’ve seen statements to the effect that pick and choose among the words of the prophets. The Church takes a stand against homosexual marriage and this is dismissed as the fears of some homophobic old men who are behind the times. The dangers of communism and socialism and the importance of free enterprise are explained away as red fear mongering based on cold war worries of Stalinist communism. The fact that the Church would not permit blacks to hold the priesthood is represented as the product of some racists old guys like Brigham Young who were influenced by the bigoted culture of their time to institute a man-made policy discriminating against black people. And so on, denying the prophets.

And now it appears that the words of our Church leaders and scriptures in regard to the sacrament is to “confound the worldly and secular ideal of teetotalism with the commandments and instructions of the Lord.” Just like all the other arguments “which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel,” this one serves to undermine the Church.

And so, my brothers and sisters in this forum, I’m concerned about you slipping away into apostasy, being quick to find “natural” or “cultural” influences for Church policy or doctrine while skipping over evidence in support of the traditional Church teachings. You seem like nice people, I wouldn’t want that to happen to you.

There is no question that there is influence of times and cultures into the doctrines and policies of the church at given times. We would be fools not to recognize this. The reason is simple; all laws and policies are made for man, not the other way around. And so there is fluidity in the practices and commandments of any given time. The words of old prophets are useful only inasmuch as they can be applied to current situations and times. I do not hesitate to say that the arguments of Brigham Young as to the reasons individuals of African descent were not allowed to hold the priesthood to be totally and completely worthless today, despite having prophetic authority when they were uttered.

There is one prophet today, and his name is Thomas S. Monson. His words are the critical ones to adhere to. When it comes to other prophets, it is up to understanding current teaching, as well as study and prayer, giving continual heed to the spirit, to understand what is of value and what is not. Certainly we have made many advancements from when Moses first brought the tablets down from the mount, and we will continue to do so. We may see the allowance of the use of contraceptives now as increasing permissiveness to sex that has pervaded even the church, or we may see it as divinely inspired for our day. We may see the church's support of laws protecting homosexual individuals from discrimination in the workplace and housing as a softening of the church's position, or we may see it as better understanding how to love those we find immoral or distasteful in behavior.

The human mind is one continually seeking answers. There will always be those who are willing to give answers. Problems arise when we are prevented from accuracy in those answers, when we are not ready for them. Nevertheless, answers will be there to be had, whether they be accurate or not, and often from reliable sources.

When all is said and done, Vorpal, one thing is needful, and that is to understand that God loveth his children, and our responsibility is to love Him as best we can, and love our brothers and sisters as best we can. Both of us are trying our best to understand the Lord's will, both in this world and in our own lives. Both of us will fail, sometimes spectacularly. I take comfort that at the judgment bar, the question will not be how well I understood the doctrine. The question will be how did I show my love for my God and my brothers and sisters. Have faith my brother. We will soon see the end from the beginning.