That said, however, I want to say that your post is well argued and the discussion of this overall issue is, for the most part, productive. Well done. And by the way, I agree with Naismith’s comment above (#75).

Fifteen days:

http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2008/07/the-ballard-of-melvin-russell/

Since alcohol can be addictive, it is likely the Church will continue to ask members to abstain.

It is interesting that in the early 1830s, when science had no opinion on the dangers of tobacco, that Joseph Smith would come out against it. Who told him at that time that it was bad?

Agreed that we need to be careful making claims unless we are sure that our position is true and that the science in question is valid. If both are clear, perhaps position statements are in order.

Phillip C. Smith

I totally agree, but I am not sure the Ensign article does that. It merely offers one more reason to feel good about the previously made faith-based decision to live the Word of Wisdom.

I tried in vain to find a good link about post-decision cognitive dissonance reduction to explain this concept better. But it is a very powerful influence in modern marketing. It’s the reason that Saturn invites new owners to barbecues. No one is going to buy a car because of the barbecue, but the barbecue helps them feel better about their decision.

This happens in politics, too. We might decide on a candidate because of their platform, and then think, “and she’s a woman, too.”

When I bought a Prius a few years back, we were thrilled with all the well-designed cabin storage. Finding each new compartment helped us feel better about the decision. Of course we didn’t buy it because of the storage, that feature just helped us feel better about the decision, which at the time Consumer Reports did not think was a wise choice (gas was less than $2.50 per gallon).

I chose to breastfeed because of the bonding with baby. The first time I made that decision was in the 1970s, before studies on the effects of breastfeeding. When I chose to breastfeed our last children born in the 1990s, amid studies about scientific effects, my primary motiivation was still bonding. But the studies helped me feel better about that choice.

That’s the role that I think this article plays.

We probably are looking at approximately the same thing from different perspectives.

From mine, your “medical exception” could engulf the entire rule. If a doctor says the merlot is good for you specifically, I’d guess you’d be ok with drinking it. If a doctor says that merlot is good for everybody, I’d understood from your original post that you wouldn’t allow that scientific/logic-based reasoning to influence your WoW interpretation.

And, fwiw, a close friend of mine was surprised when her M.D. instructed her to consume small, but not insignificant, amounts of alcohol during the middle stages of a very difficult pregnancy involving constant bed rest. She objected on both personal WoW grounds as well as what she’d learned about fetal alcohol syndrome. Her OB told her that even with the constant bed rest, the only way she’d avoid miscarriage was by consuming some sedative a couple of times a day. Of the potential sedatives available at the time (20 years ago), small amounts of alcohol were, in that doctor’s opinion, the least likely to cause significant harm to the fetus.

As it turns out, my friend thought White Russians were the best of the alcohol lot. Perhaps she didn’t try merlot? ;-)