Beer or Family?
Posted by Connor on April 5th, 2007My mother posed an interesting question to me this morning. I’d like to hear how you would answer:
If a madman broke into your house and held your wife and children hostage with a gun, and he found out your were Mormon.
So he says to you, “Here, you have to drink this beer or else I will shoot your family.”
What would you do?
What say ye?
No question: Chug! Chug! Chug!
Comment # 1 left by Tom on April 5th, 2007
WWJD? I’d drink it, but I’d turn the beer to wine…?
Comment # 2 left by Matt W. on April 5th, 2007
I’d say that God would understand. Definitely. In that case, your responsibilities and covenants with your family trump the Word of Wisdom.
Besides, you can repent for breaking the Word of Wisdom. I don’t know how you could recover from watching someone kill your family.
Comment # 3 left by Proud Daughter of Eve on April 5th, 2007
I’d shoot him between the eyes. Maybe he wouldn’t even flinch.
There would be no reason to believe that he would let your family go after you drank it. He likely will kill them anyway if he were allowed to.
Comment # 4 left by Eric Nielson on April 5th, 2007
I answered that, like all of you, I would drink the beer. To further the conversation (playing devil’s advocate) she asked why I would choose such a course of action, when we’re taught that “if it’s gray, stay away”.
My response (before composing this post here) was:
She agrees with the positions that have been stated here, but offered the question for the sake of debate, I believe.
I’m wondering if there is anybody who thinks that drinking the beer would be the wrong choice? I’d love to hear an argument for this decision if anybody out there feels this way.
Comment # 5 left by Connor on April 5th, 2007
The thing is, WoW compliance is only a moral issue in that it is a binding commitment in Church orthodoxy. The similar thing would be to ask a Jew to eat bacon or have his family killed. Answer: Eat the freaking bacon - even if the chances are small the the perpetrator will keep his word.
Now, if the perpetrator were requiring you to do something really immoral, like killing someone else, then that is something else completely.
Comment # 6 left by J. Stapley on April 5th, 2007
Drink it. This isn’t even a question.
Comment # 7 left by Liz Muir on April 5th, 2007
This isn’t even a question.
It has a question mark, does it not?
Comment # 8 left by Connor on April 5th, 2007
So Connor:
Are you assuming that after you drank, that this mad man who broke into your house, with a gun, and is holding your family hostage - he would just shrug his shoulders, say ‘have a nice day’, and walk home?
If this is the case then it is so hypathetical that it is hardly worth talking about.
Comment # 9 left by Eric Nielson on April 5th, 2007
Drink it slowly.
Comment # 10 left by danithew on April 5th, 2007
Besides, it’s not as if there’s anything intrinsically evil about beer. The Word of Wisdom is given in warning of evil men and evil intentions.
Comment # 11 left by Proud Daughter of Eve on April 5th, 2007
Are you assuming that after you drank, that this mad man who broke into your house, with a gun, and is holding your family hostage - he would just shrug his shoulders, say ‘have a nice day’, and walk home?
It’s my mom’s question, not mine.
But I do agree that were this to happen in real life, the madman wouldn’t just up and walk away.
…and that’s why I own a shotgun and pistol.
Comment # 12 left by Connor on April 5th, 2007
The Word of Wisdom is given in warning of evil men and evil intentions.
This struck me as funny, given the hypothetical of an evil man with evil intentions….
Comment # 13 left by Michelle on April 5th, 2007
The best part about this hypothetical is that a madman broke into your house at gun point, and he just so happened to bring a beer with him and he knew enough about mormonism to know that mormons don’t drink beer, and then this madman wants you to drink the beer.
I can only imagine something this funny happening in Texas.
Comment # 14 left by Matt W. on April 5th, 2007
Well…
because I am the way that I am, I had to think..
There is so MUCH MORE to think about!
1. Who would ever pose such a question with such an ultimatum?…(except as a joke..?)
2. If you even did drink the beer, who’s to say that he wouldn’t shoot your family anyways?
3. If you really are considering weighing those two alternatives, then perhaps you are an alcoholic…then it probably wouldn’t be so funny. (that was a joke!)
4. IF this question was a seriously posed question, it probably would be a part of some scene that only a Mormon screenwriter would conjure up and of course it would be some nightmare that a staunch Mormon guy would have before waking up. (Of course again, the film would be a comedic one.)
5. IF the guy is really asking you this question in a real life scenario (lets imagine IF for a second..),then chances are that he’s really drunk and you probably can figure a way out to push him over …okay maybe…and flee the scene.
I’m just curious in what context was this question asked to whoever posted it…? Did your mother just call you up and ask you that? Was it a discussion on how much you loved your family or did you love your religion more than them..?
Just….thinking..
Comment # 15 left by thinking on April 6th, 2007
This would be the perfect excuse that I’ve been waiting for all these years. “I HAD to drink it, he was going to kill my family!”
Comment # 16 left by Rusty on April 6th, 2007
[…] post about drinking beer to save your family reminded me of what happened to a friend of […]
Comment # 17 left by Nine Moons » Blog Archive : Medical Beer » Medical Beer on April 6th, 2007
I’m just curious in what context was this question asked to whoever posted it…? Did your mother just call you up and ask you that? Was it a discussion on how much you loved your family or did you love your religion more than them..?
Just….thinking..
As I later discovered, her purpose in asking the question was to relate it to politics. The argument made was that sometimes in life we must make “gray area” choices for the greater good, and so likewise we sometimes must support “gray area” politicians who stand a greater chance of winning, etc.
Naturally, I disagreed.
Comment # 18 left by Connor on April 6th, 2007
Abstaining from beer isn’t even part of the WoW. It’s just a church policy. Buying a Big Mac on Sunday would hold greater eternal condemnation than drinking a beer.
Besides, I’d go Chuck Norris on him and lay on a size 12 to the side of his head before he knew what was happening.
Comment # 19 left by KyleM on April 6th, 2007
Is it draft or bottled? - hopefully not in the can?
Comment # 20 left by Lamonte on April 6th, 2007
Guiness? Yes. Budweiser? No.
Comment # 21 left by cj douglass on April 6th, 2007
Abstaining from beer isn’t even part of the WoW.
How do you figure?
As much as this is a joke, I’d say you’d have to go with the Spirit. There is the chance that this guy would only spare your family if you held to your standards. I’d say let the Spirit guide.
Comment # 22 left by Michelle on April 6th, 2007
This is a question that every girl who considers the possibility of rape has to answer. If someone puts a gun to your head and tells you to do something it is NOT a sin! Church leaders have said that you are not breaking the law of chastity when you are coerced with threats to your life or the lives of others. Even if there is no weapon…..or if you freeze and are unable to put up much of a “fight.”
You do not need to go “repent” of drinking beer in order to possibly save your family. It is your duty to try and protect the lives of your family and your own life.
If I am held hostage by a gun toting psycho, I will do everything in my power to protect my children (if they are there) or to survive the ordeal myself. If I think that drinking the beer is the wisest action, I’ll do it. If I thinking going for the gun is the best thing, I’ll do that. If I think refusing to enter the car in a parking lot (because entering the car means I will probably be taken to a remote location and survival is less likely than my chances against a gun in a public place) I will do that.
Comment # 23 left by JKS on April 6th, 2007
See poll.
Comment # 24 left by Naiah Earhart on April 7th, 2007
I think Eric (#4) is right. Someone who threatens to kill your family if you don’t drink beer is someone who’s likely to kill them and you anyway.
Would you expect someone who threatens to commit murder to keep his word?
Comment # 25 left by Bookslinger on April 7th, 2007
Re: 22
Strong drink (D&C 89:5) refers to liquor rather than all alcohol, else why would wine also be specificaly mentioned. What non-hot drinks (D&C 89:9) are made from grains? (D&C 89:17) It’s not iced Postum.
Comment # 26 left by KyleM on April 7th, 2007
Kyle,
Prophets have further interpreted the WoW for us, so I think you are limiting it just a bit.
Comment # 27 left by Michelle on April 7th, 2007
I know the current policy regarding the WoW. I just disagree that the scriptures actually say what that interpretation says. I abide by the current policy of alcohol abstinance (excepting cough medicine, etc.) because the prophets have asked us to, not because I think it was the actual intent of the WoW.
Comment # 28 left by KyleM on April 7th, 2007
The Lord probably wouldn’t hold us accountable if we drank the beer at gunpoint … unless we enjoyed it. But what if we enjoyed it only because we were too intoxicated to control our response. Would the Atonement cover the transgression in that case? Hmmm….
Comment # 29 left by david on April 8th, 2007
[…] 9th, 2007 by Todd Wood The other day, the Blogger of Jared, instigated my thinking about […]
Comment # 30 left by Beer and bars « Heart Issues for LDS on April 9th, 2007
Great analogy…
Clearly the “beer” Connor is speaking of represents alcohol and the “madman” actually represents a serial killer. The “family” spoken of is really your loved ones and the “gun” is a representation of a crossbow.
Put it all together: What do you do if a serial killer tells you to drink alcohol or he will shoot your loved ones with a crossbow.
Hopefully this analysis more clearly reveals the complexities of the proposed situation.
(Sorry for wasting your time just now with this comment. It’s late, I’m feeling goofy and I haven’t stopped by BoJ for quite a while. Had to come back with a bang you know?)
Comment # 31 left by Ryan on April 11th, 2007
Hypothetical questions can only be anwered the same way. Hypothetically. I don’t know what I would do. I would hope that I had lived my life to that point in such a manner that it would be given me what to do. I would like to think that the guy would hand me a bottle of beer then glance at my family to see their reaction. I would then smash it over his head, thereby saving my family, keep the word of wisdom, and provide a newsclip for the evening news.
Comment # 32 left by John on April 13th, 2007
An interesting post with very entertaining answers (I’m not being sarcastic…I really mean that. I’ve enjoyed everyone’s comments.)
I’m truly amazed at the veracity with which LDS folk stress the importance of the WoW. As a former Mormon, I’m certainly aware of the origins and implications of this teaching, but I just don’t understand what all the fuss is about.
Just out of curiosity, does anyone on this blog believe that the consumption of alcohol (any amount) will condemn them to hell? Or at the very least, bar their entrance to the highest degree of “glory”?
I just don’t accept the idea that drinking a beer is something damning. Or something you have to “repent” for either.
Or is it something else? Is adherence to the WoW based solely on being “obedient” to church teachings? Is that it? I’d really like to solicit your opinions on this.
Sorry to bring this up, but I think it’s relevant in some way:
I’m reminded of the “two earring” policy that was introduced to the LDS church by GBH a few years back and a subsequent talk given by a GA (Bednar???) who justified the actions of a young man who broke off an engagement (or some kind of relationship) with a young woman who refused to remove her second pair of earrings, noting that “the young man was quick to observe that the young woman was not quick to observe.”
So I’m wondering if it’s not so much the issue of alcohol itself, but strict obedience to church policy.
Would anyone care to comment?
I thank you in advance.
Comment # 33 left by AJ on April 14th, 2007
I have two thoughts concerning your post, AJ.
#1- I think that sometimes we overanalyze, overrationalize, or overthink how we approach certain commandments. The word of wisdom is a good example of this. Certainly, one beer isn’t going to condemn us to a hereafter of strumming on our harps. I don’t think one hundred beers, or shots, or cigarettes, etc. will either. In and of themselves substances frowned on in the WofW have no power over our soul. The issue here is obedience. Does the WofW always make sense? No. But that’s not the point. The point again is obedience. Saul thought it made sense to go ahead and offer sacrifices rather than sit around and wait for Samuel to show up. After all, the same animals were killed, the same prayers offered, etc. Yet, Samuel showed up and said in effect that obedience to God is the sacrifice that God is looking for, even when, to our minds, we can propose a better, or just as good as , solution. (Sorry for the run-on sentence.)
#2- Re your last comment on “church policy”. I think there’s a difference between church policy and gospel doctrine. Admittedly the line is blurry at times.
Comment # 34 left by John on April 15th, 2007
AJ,
I see it not simply as obedience but also a law of protection for other associated problems. Alcohol for some on first sip can become an addiction. The weakest of us all in this regard (see v. 3), even those with the highest potential for addiction, can avoid such a prison. Secondly, alcohol is often associated with impaired judgment, which puts ones life potentially in danger. It can also create less of a realization of what is wrong and right. The use of alcohol is often associated with breaking the law of chastity and also abuse.
Lastly, the Word of Wisdom sets us apart. It is one of the things that makes us a “peculiar people.” That’s just a thought. It’s a way for people to know who we are, and it’s something that defines us as a people.
Comment # 35 left by Michelle on April 15th, 2007
AJ,
I’ve found the WoW interesting in how it’s been interpreted throughout the years. A quick check into the contemporary thoughts on the relationship of health and diet prevalent at the time of the revelation shed allot of light on what some of the seemingly ambiguous verbiage means. I’ve come to determine that the original intent of the WoW is pretty straight forward in the text and that moderation was the key to almost everything, including alcohol. Historical evidence shows that this was the interpretation of the early church leadership as well. The switch to an outright ban on specific substances as church policy coincided with the national temperance movement gaining momentum.
I also don’t believe that alcohol is inherently evil. The wine Jesus drank wasn’t grape juice like your primary teacher said it was. When used in excess, alcohol can cause people to do stupid things. I suggest, though, that alcohol doesn’t cause the stupidity. It merely reduces the inhibitions that stiffle the stupid already in the person. I personally don’t have a problem with a church policy prohibiting consumption of alcohol. There’s a whole lot of stupid in people that doesn’t need to come out.
What I don’t like about having the WoW boiled down to how the temple recommend question is asked is that church members tend to focus on the abstinence of the “taboo” items. When you set a minimum requirement, most people will aim for that minimum. The moderation spoken of in the WoW is wise counsel, but we focus on coffee and tea. We won’t let a person with a nicotine addiction enter the temple, but the 400 pound man who eats a side of beef for a midmorning snack is welcomed as a brother in the gospel. We make consuming a beer on par with having improper feelings towards family members. I hope someday that the WoW will go back to moderation and being guided by the spirit, and not because I want to have a cigar while knocking down a cold one. I hope we get to the point where, like Paul and the early Jewish converts, we can move beyond the silly prohibitions and focus on the real power than can be found in the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Comment # 36 left by KyleM on April 17th, 2007
The Word of Wisdom is selectively enforced. The interview never asks about eating primarily grain, agriculturally produced goods, and very little meat. The interview never asks about eating the flesh of wild beasts (ususally acquired by “sport” hunting). Since fat people and hunters filled with the visceral emotions of the natural man are considered worthy, the Word of Wisdom has been rendered meaningless and is no longer a way to acheive a higher state of spirituality.
With regard to the beer, I would regurgitate the filthy swill in his face, take his gun away, force him to listen to the first discussion, and call my Bishop to arrange his baptismal date.
Comment # 37 left by DaddyO on April 17th, 2007
DaddyO,
On the mission, one of my companions and I called that “compelling them to be humble by the laying on of hands.”
Comment # 38 left by KyleM on April 17th, 2007
I hope someday that the WoW will go back to moderation and being guided by the spirit,
I think it already is that kind of principle. It’s up to each individual to figure out how to best live according to the spirit of the law. But I find it pretty awesome that the Lord is willing to let us into His house by abiding by at least the minimum. He gives us room to grow and strength to do it by allowing us into His house.
We ought to give each other room to grow spiritually as well.
Comment # 39 left by Michelle on April 18th, 2007
Michelle,
What people in the church now see as the spirit of the law IS the law. The minimum was arbitrarily set based on the prevailing thought of the day, and in my opinion set with the wronge emphasis. The current policy has no scriptural basis other than the tabacco ban and part of the alcohol ban. I still follow the policy. I would most likely still abstain from the prohibited items if the policy changed. I don’t, however, have to like that the 400 pound twinkie eatter gets to go to the temple and have “room to grow and strength to do it”, but the recent convert who struggles with coffee can’t.
Comment # 40 left by KyleM on April 19th, 2007
The WoW in its present interpretation was not enforced as a requirement for temple worthiness until the 1930s. For nearly 100 years, the WoW was used for exactly it’s stated purpose (verse 2-3) “To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint…adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.” Adaptable…not by commandment…
Never mind the fact that verse 16-17 explicitly says beer is an acceptable beverage unto the Lord: “All grain is good for the food of man…and barley for … mild drinks, as also other grain.” What kind of barley drinks have you had lately? What kind of barley drinks are there, other than beer?
Joseph Smith had a bar that he operated in the Nauvoo House. Brigham Young owned and operated a still in Salt Lake City. The Saints who crossed the plains received “supply lists” much like we might make in advance of a scout camping trip, and their supply lists expected each family to bring a certain amount of coffee (I believe it was 10 or 20 lb. per adult).
The modern interpretation of the WoW, while it may be church policy, is in no wise sripturally commanded nor a real expectation of the Lord. The Lord already gave the revelation and it is recorded for us in the D&C. If the Lord felt the need to change his revelation, he could inspire a new one and have the old one taken out of D&C.
The WoW become prominent as a way of testing obedience to church leaders, and as a means of separating the saints from the world at large, seeing as how they had (at that time) only recently completely discontinued the practice of plural marriage, which was the big “separateness” factor of the church over the prior 70 years. Needing something to be a peculiar people, the modern interpretation of the WoW became the “test”.
Oh and to answer the original question: I’d drink the beer. Its not a sin, never has been, and until a “thus saith the Lord” revelation comes out that says so, it will never be.
Blind obedience to the changing policies of church leaders does not necessarily ensure exaltation.
Comment # 41 left by Ben There on May 10th, 2007