“In what ways was the Word of Wisdom far ahead of its time?â€
Answer: It wasn’t. The Word of Wisdom was not ahead of its time in any way whatsoever. Of course, longtime readers of the Bloggernacle already knew this (given prior discussions of the topic here and at T&S). But I’m actually not interested in revisiting this issue in excruciating historical detail. Instead, I want to point out something I learned in Church today, that came as a bit of a shock: It turns out that the title of this post is — rather than being the query of a jaded blogger, waiting to pounce on the ignorance of his co-religionists — the first "suggestion for study and discussion" at the end of Chapter 11 in the David O. McKay manual.
I found this rather surprising. Maybe it shouldn’t have been, but I’ve always assumed the writers of Church manuals bend over backwards to avoid raising “controversial†issues. And surely the claim that the Word of Wisdom was “far ahead of its time†qualifies. To put things more starkly: I am aware of no other teaching, belief or claim with such broad-based currency among modern Mormons that is as demonstrably false as this one is. Can anyone else think of one?
For those unfamiliar with this matter, let me briefly summarize things: Many members of the Church are fond of claiming that the Word of Wisdom was some sort of health anachronism in the early 19th Century. This claim can be articulated in a number of different ways. Perhaps the most common is to say that Joseph Smith gave us the Word of Wisdom at a time when modern medicine/science had no explanation for why various prohibited substances (alcohol, tobacco, etc.) were “bad†for us. The clear conclusion to be reached (sometimes implied, sometimes stated directly) is that early 19th Century American health practitioners would have been bewildered by Mormon health claims at the time, but now — 175 years later — we Mormons have been vindicated, as modern scientific authority has finally caught up with the Prophet’s prescient truth claims. True objective evidence of Joseph Smith’s prophetic powers, apparently.
But this is all patent nonsense. Early 19th Century health reformers all over the country were teaching the exact same things the Word of Wisdom teaches, and most particularly in New England. Even if one doesn’t want to use this fact as a springboard for naturalistic theories on the origins of Smith’s revelation, the fact is still there. The claim that early 19th Century medicine had no scientific explanation for the dangers of alcohol and tobacco is true only in the most technical, narrow and meaningless sense. Since there was no such thing as a “scientific explanation†of most subjects in the modern sense, of course such “explanations†didn’t exist. But Smith didn’t provide a modern, scientific explanation either. So the relevant inquiry (assuming one is interested in demonstrating Smith’s "prophetic" skills) would be to show that Smith was teaching something unusual or non-obvious to others around him that we now know to be true by independent means. Yet the Word of Wisdom reads as a codified version of the conventional health wisdom of its day. So Joseph’s giving us the Word of Wisdom clearly does not meet this standard.
In my experience, those confronted with this fact for the first time react in a number of ways. Some become dogmatic and hide behind pious pronouncements in support of their prior understandings. Others become merely disconcerted, given the clear importance (if not centrality) of this claim to their image of Joseph Smith and his prophetic abilities. Still others try to wiggle out of the claim, redefining the nature of what they are saying, so as to inoculate the claim from the indisputable historical evidence that refutes it. But these redefinitions, inevitably, render the claim completely uninteresting. If all that Church members were really trying to say was that [insert watered-down truth claim here], then there’s no reason why anyone would bother to make it. It would cease to be significant or novel in any way, and we’d all stop saying it.
Having said all this, let me return to the question I think is raised by the “suggested question†in the manual. It is often said that Church classes are not the time or place to raise controversial issues or raise the hackles of the faithful who attend Church to be spiritually nourished. And the manual’s injunction not to utilize sources outside of the approved materials, whatever else its merits or purpose, is surely designed to minimize the chance of Church classes getting out of control. But what should one do when the manual literally invites the class to discuss an issue like this? Does one pretend to be uninformed on the issue, for the sake of not ruffling feathers? Can one legitimately and honestly discuss the issue without fear of being inappropriate or causing problems? (In case you were wondering … Yes, the claim came up in both the Elders Quorum lesson and Gospel Doctrine class today …. No, I didn’t say anything).
Finally, was it naïve of me to be surprised this question was in the manual in the first place? The question strikes me as a real “hot potato†that Church curriculum writers would want to avoid, but maybe I’m forgetting that “hot†issues in the Bloggernacle aren’t even necessarily on the radar at CES. In other words, maybe this is only a troubling issue for boring Mormon historians, Sunstone groupies and various Mormon blog geeks.
So much for my linking to Chapter 11 of the manual. Why in the world can’t I do it. So frustrating. That’s it. I’m going inactive.
Also, Steve, please fix the margins for me since, as usual, I seem completely unable to function without your guidance. (I swear I’m about to hurl this stupid computer out the window.)
Aaron B
Comment by Aaron Brown — June 13, 2005 @ 1:44 am
Church curriculum materials seem to be written by people who feel it is their right, even their duty, to rewrite history whenever necessary to put the Church and its claims in a good light. There’s really not much you can do about that problem as long as honest history takes a backseat to faithful history in official circles.
As to the 19th-century connection, my admittedly heterodox understanding is that modern Mormon dietary laws have little to do with either D&C 89 or the 19th century. The push for strict adherence dates to the early 20th-century campaign for prohibition. It was politics and bad social effects, not health concerns, that motivated LDS leaders to make the WoW a central tenet of LDS practice. Which is not to say those concerns were illegitimate — after the LDS experience in the 19th century, making political friends was particularly important for the LDS community.
Comment by Dave — June 13, 2005 @ 2:06 am
That struck me when it came up in both Gospel Doctrine and Relief Society today, Aaron.
I did, in fact, raise the point that the WoW was not exactly groundbreaking for it’s time, but my comment was somewhat lost in the gist of the Sunday School lesson (”If we’re obedient and act on blind faith, not trying to understand the commandments that God gives, we’ll get more blessings.” — no, I’m not exaggerating, the teacher actually said this) and I didn’t make a big issue out of it.
Comment by Arwyn — June 13, 2005 @ 3:05 am
Our Gospel Esentials teacher said pretty much the same thing as Arwyn’s teacher. According to him, we are supposed to follow the rules, not ask questions, otherwise, blessings will be not be forthcoming.
This is something that has bothered me. Why the prohibition, historically, against the drinking of tea and coffee? As a person of Asian descent, in our communities, drinking of tea is an important part of our culture. And when people like me join our Church, it always causes problems, becasue, in a sense, family members are hurt and feel insulted, becasue it seems that the said Asian convert is turning his/her back on their own family and culture. And , I really havent seen any evidence that says that coffee and tea consumption cause the kind of health problems, or social problems that result from smoking or drinking alcohol.
Comment by ronin — June 13, 2005 @ 7:39 am
The much-worried-about flip side of the issue is also somewhat of interest. The Word of Wisdom is of course not anachronistic in a 19th-century context. However, “ahead of its time” also implies that it matches quite well with modern medical understandings, which is beginning to be untrue.
Red wine, for example, is apparently excluded in Joseph Smith’s Word of Wisdom revelation (although beer is not). Yet moderate consumption of red wine now appears to have some health benefits. Likewise, green tea is evidently a great source of antioxidants.
This doesn’t make the Word of Wisdom <>, because the WoW, for faithful believers, was never about medical outcomes in the first place. It’s just about obedience. But the manual question does raise the issue at both ends of the historical process.
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — June 13, 2005 @ 8:18 am
Aaron said:
This is the sort of thing that gets the “intellectuals” in hot water. Presentation and tone is everything, especially in the 2D world of the internet. People who think they know everything and go around telling everyone else they are ignoramuses get the response they deserve. Anyone self-conscious enough to realize what they are doing is anti-social is smart enough to couch things in terms that are not pompous and condescending.
Anyway, the Word of Wisdom was ahead of its time. If one can get past the Sunstone and Dialogue articles which attempt to cut Smith down to our size, and actually sit down and read the text yourself, one would note before the prohibitions there is a warning, in v. 4, which says:
There is the social context of this revelation, there is the reason for its existence. That is why this revelation was ahead of its time. Smith wasnt plagiarizing other health afficionados of his time in an effort to prove he was a Prophet. The Lord was warning His people of what was to come, for their own benefit.
What are the top three most abused drugs in American society? Alcohol, nicotene, caffeine. Why are they so heavily and persistently abused? Marketing. What is it all about? Money.
The Lord, and Smith, nailed this one on the head.
Comment by Kurt — June 13, 2005 @ 8:40 am
All I can say is get your food storage ready — the end of the world is night when AB has two posts IN A ROW!!
Comment by Steve Evans — June 13, 2005 @ 8:49 am
Aaron: FWIW, I did raise this issue in a very, very muted way in Elders Quorum yesterday, stating that I have always thought that the health rationale for the WofW was secondary to its community building powers and the spiritual promises contained in section 89 (I am always interested in hidden treasures of knowledge). This, of course, led naturally into a discussion of the destroying angel, the link of the Word of Wisdom to the passover, and the sacrament. We ended with one brother — a Jewish convert — explaining in great detail that the only thing that really bothers him about the Church is that we don’t use wine for the sacrament, since, he insists, under Jewish law water was the drink of slaves and inappropriate for a religious ritual. Good times.
“Church curriculum materials seem to be written by people who feel it is their right, even their duty, to rewrite history whenever necessary to put the Church and its claims in a good light. There’s really not much you can do about that problem as long as honest history takes a backseat to faithful history in official circles.”
Dave: While I think that there is some truth to this, I think that you are overestimating the influence of the impulse to whitewash, and underestimating the influence of simple ignorance.
Comment by Nate Oman — June 13, 2005 @ 10:18 am
I would like to say that it wasn’t ahead of its time, but not because of what 19th century health reformers were saying in New England. Rather it wasn’t ahead of its time because the Word of Wisdom says nothing of the heath effects of the condemned substances.
Comment by Kim Siever — June 13, 2005 @ 11:34 am
Nate: ..underestimating the influence of simple ignorance.
Very much agreed.
Comment by J. Stapley — June 13, 2005 @ 11:59 am
I taught the Sunday School lesson yesterday (as a substitute). I did not ask whether the Word of Wisdom was ahead of its time. Instead, I noted that we often point to developments and time lines with respect to family history/genealogy being related to the return of Elijah. I asked whether it was possible that God was sending inspiration on health subjects to other groups at the same time he revealed the Word of Wisdom to Joseph Smith. Had some interesting discussion regarding other religious traditions and temperance movements.
Comment by DavidH — June 13, 2005 @ 12:21 pm
We seem to have pretty low predictive power where scientific issues are concerned. Are our expectations that it should be otherwise misplaced? Or is it otherwise and my statement is premature?
Comment by Jared — June 13, 2005 @ 12:22 pm
The particular phrasing of the question may be simplistic and historically uninformed, but I think Aaron is a bit too vehement in dismissing the sentiment [a blogger being vehement -- unprecendented!!:)]. Even if some others were expressing the same views in 1833, few other groups were as consistently diligent in trying to actually practice prohibitions on tobacco and cafeinated drinks as the Mormons. Even if it took a hundred years to finally fully take hold, I think that we can say that the Mormon people were ahead of the larger society in broadly practicing health recommendations only later supported by general medical concensus.
I also agree with Kurt in comment #6 — even if the specific health recommendations were not unique to Joseph in 1833, the predictions that they would be blocked by the “evils and designs” of men does look prescient in light of the conduct of the tobacco companies as disclosed only in the last two decades.
I do think that focusing on recent medical support for some of the counsel in the WoW (as the referenced questions does) in some ways detracts from the import of what is, in the end, still a revelation from God even if it does share some substance with the views of some of Joseph’s contemporaries. The last verses of Sec. 89 makes it clear that the WoW is about more than physical health. Verse 21 espcially ties the revelation to God’s covenant with ancient Israel. It is telling that in giving the Mosaic dietary laws
God always states that the purpose is to make Israel a holy people, set apart to Him (see Exodus 22:31, Leviticus 11:44-45, Deuteronomy 14:21). The WoW has certainly performed this function for God’s modern Israel as well.
Thus, I would also not be as critical of those who follow the WoW out of “blind faith” as Arwyn in comment #3. By prohibiting at least one substance commonly used in social interactions in virtually every culture, the WoW requires Latter-day Saints to outwardly acknowledge and profess their covenant relationship with God in everyday activities, and in that simple act then remember all of the other more ’spiritual’ covenants they have made. The health benefits are just a bonus.
Comment by JWL — June 13, 2005 @ 12:34 pm
I taught the Elder’s lesson yesterday. The thing that I found interesting was how well Pres. McKay’s comments dovetailed with the lesson I last taught in Elder’s Quorum (Lesson 9, Overcoming Temptation). In particular, the last section of the lesson discusses this.
Comment by John C. — June 13, 2005 @ 12:43 pm
Also, please forgive my wayward apostrophes. I must have been drunk when I typed that.
Comment by John C. — June 13, 2005 @ 12:44 pm
Kurt,
That verse is really interesting in that it gives us the reason for the revelation. I just wrote about this last night here.
Nate,
Chris Williams (Outer Boroughs) in my ward yesterday made that exact same point, that the health rationale is secondary to the community-building powers. Hmmmm, there must be something to that (unless you wrote a post about that a while ago and he’s just plagiarizing you…)
Kim,
Amen.
Comment by Rusty — June 13, 2005 @ 1:01 pm
Would we be considered ahead of our time if as a people, we obeyed the Word of Wisdom? Even if it was old news, how many other Christian religions had a law like that, and gave it importance, and had a by-and-large majority of members obeying it?
Comment by annegb — June 13, 2005 @ 1:03 pm
Rusty:
Maybe Nate got the idea from me. Ever think of that, huh? Huh?
Comment by Chris Williams — June 13, 2005 @ 1:31 pm
I always get nervious when people try to emphasize the ’science’ behind the word of wisdom. If we get too excited about how science is confirming that these things are good for us, then doing things which are good for us becomes the whole purpose of the revelation. This is when we start saying that exercise is also part of the WoW as well as good sleep, things which aren’t even hinted at in sec. 89
What happens when science says that 1 glass of wine a day is good for us? Does the WoW say that we should follow? What about is there are other drugs in common food which is far worse for us than caffeine? Do we not eat them either?
But wait, science has said this! So does science confirm or contradict the WoW? Given the complexity of this question, I think saying that it was ahead of it’s time is premature to say the least.
Comment by Jeffrey G. — June 13, 2005 @ 2:27 pm
My understanding is that Seventh Day Adventists have, and abide by, similar health prescriptions, as well as being vegetarian or near vegetarian. I also understand that their life expectancies are as long or longer than LDS life expectancies.
“SDA’s believe the human body to be a temple of God and, hence, observe practices that modern science has proven to be healthy. Much of their practices have their foundations in the writings of Ellen White, who was remarkably beyond her contemporaries in the area of nutrition and preventive medicine. A professor of nutrition at Cornell University, Clive McCay, PhD, wrote, “in spite of the fact that the works of Mrs. White were written long before the advent of modern scientific nutrition, no better over-all guide is available today.” 59 SDA’s practice abstinence from smoking, alcohol, drugs, and a large proportion practice vegetarianism. More generally, they believe in creating a lifestyle that is health-giving 60.” http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/sevn.html
Comment by DavidH — June 13, 2005 @ 2:28 pm
RoastedTomatoes, the health benefits of red wine can be obtained from drinking unfermented red or purple grape juice. No wine necessary. There are plenty of naturally occuring anti-oxidants available in products other than green tea, bluberries are loaded as are various fish oils. Any other “evidence” that the WofW is contradicted by modern medical understanding? The idea the consumption of beer was permitted after the WofW is not substantiated. It was no more permitted as a “mild drink” made from barley than was anything else fermented. I find it interesting the history mavens havent noted this.
Kim Siever, expecting the Lord to reveal some kind of specific health-related details in the WofW is unreasonable, especially considering the state of the medical art at the time. How is the Lord going to explain the anti-microbial properties of alcohol to people who have no idea what bacteria or viruses are? Louis Pasteur post-dated the WofW. Or the cancer-causing effects of smoking? How do you explain cancer to people who thought a mosquito borne parasite that was plaguing the land was caused by stinky air? The medical arts were rudimentary, so the Lord’s comments on the health effects were equally blunt statements like “not good for man” and “not for the body”.
annegb, while the Seventh Day Adventists don’t require it to be a member of their congregation, they very definitely encourage something quite close to the WofW, with vegetarianism included. JWs apparently discourage excessive use of alcohol, but its use is not prohibited.
Rusty, saw your post after I made mine, otherwise would have linked you.
Nate Oman and J.Stapley, the Church isnt around to forward an intellectual ascent, its there to help people change their lives and lead a more godly walk. While whitewashing history does nothing to promote a godly walk, casting aspersions of ignorance on people who dont read Sunstone and Dialog articles on the history of the WofW similarly does nothing. Keeping the WofW does promote a godly walk, and that is what the Church is trying to get people to do.
Comment by Kurt — June 13, 2005 @ 3:18 pm
A recent frustration of mine is that we talk about Section 89 all the time, but Sec 89 is NOT the WoW as we currently live it. What we live as the WoW is different enough from the text of 89 that it is hard to say that Section 89 is what we live, and hard to make statements about Section 89 being “ahead of its time” since we don’t have experience living that.
Comment by a random John — June 13, 2005 @ 4:10 pm
random John,
I think you raise an excellent point. I’ve actually thought about teaching a lesson where I ask people what the WofW says, in practice, without looking at the text for guidance, and then ask people to read the text, with an eye for the 19th Century meanings, and take note of the differences. There would be a lot to talk about in a lesson like this.
Alas, I’ve now moved to a new ward, where I have no calling, and thus no audience to subject to my pedagogical machinations.
Aaron B
Comment by Aaron Brown — June 13, 2005 @ 4:18 pm
Kurt,
I just wondered how you distinguished an intellectual ascent from a non-intellectual one. I suspect that it could be calculated by adding the IQ of each of the climbers, dividing by their number and then somehow factoring in the length of the rope and the number of pitons, screws, nuts and other hardware left behind when the ascent is completed.
Your suggestion that Nate or J. were casting aspersions on people who are ignorant about the history of the Word of Wisdom shows that you haven’t read enough of either of them to understand them and that you haven’t yet come to understand that ignorant isn’t necessarily pejorative.
It is ahistorical to suggest that the Word of Wisdom was understood in the 19th century as a prohibition on the use of coffee, tea, tobacco or alcohol. (I’ll leave opium and its derivatives to you–I must confess I am ignorant of any evidence of their use by church members in good standing.) When Brigham Young smoked a peace pipe with the Indians, what do you suppose was in the pipe? Lettuce? When a gallon of whiskey was accepted as payment by one church member for labor performed for another, what do you suppose he did with the booze? Washed himself?
I agree that the keeping of the Word of Wisdom does promote a godly walk, for those of us who have covenanted to keep it. In the 19th century Church, the Word of Wisdom was understood differently, and the use those saints made of substances that are now prohibited was not a breach of their covenant.
This does raise the question whether the overeating of meat (and I can hear Peter Luger’s Steakhouse calling), overeating generally, not eating enough vegetables, etc. etc. detracts from our attempts to walk the godly walk.
Comment by Mark B. — June 13, 2005 @ 4:33 pm
If it was ignorance (which I would prefer to an intentional whitewash), what does that say about those that prepared the manual? These are paid professionals after all (not highly paid, but paid just the same).
Who drafted the question? Who reviewed it? The bottom line is that we don’t know–and that is an intentional part of the church publication process. The questions would be different if the writers and editors’ names were on the book.
My guess (and this is necessarily just speculation) is that the original writer of the question probably was ignorant, and that among the reviewers there may have been those that were also ignorant, those that were careless, those that knew better and didn’t want to challenge original writer, and maybe even one or two who thought, well, these are only questions, not answers, let’s leave the question in and hope someone speaks up in quorum meeting or relief society and answers: “It wasn’t.”
The church is never going to publish a book debunking the myths from prior manuals. The best we can hope for is that through the discussion process good information will drive out the bad.
I think Nate and Chris’s approach is the right thing to do: say something intelligent and uplifting that reflects the true state of the historical record as you understand it.
Comment by mj pritchett — June 13, 2005 @ 5:30 pm
So, Kurt, what IS a mild drink made from barley? (please don’t say postum, or its ‘ancestors’)
Comment by XON — June 13, 2005 @ 5:41 pm
For the record, though Nate Oman and I married into the same extended family, we really don’t know each other, so there is only one conclusion that can be drawn here: great minds think alike.
Comment by Chris Williams — June 13, 2005 @ 5:52 pm
I still maintain that teh supposed ill-effects of caffein consumption, done by drinking tea or coffee is vastly overstated in our Church. If that was the case, a lot of people in no-LDS cultures would showing evidence of problems casued bu long-term tea and coffee consumption. And the secular, non-LDS world and activists would be crying up a storm about why tea and coffee ought to be strictly controlled like tobacco products and alchol are at bothe the state and federal level. The CDC would be issuing papers o n the risks to public health etc.
BTW, a friedn who is a Uthan, and a direct descendent of Brigham Young tells me that his families journals from the days of the handcart companies clearly indicate that Saints then were issued coffee as part of their rations.
Comment by dannyboy — June 13, 2005 @ 6:01 pm
Kurt,
“The idea the consumption of beer was permitted after the WofW is not substantiated.”
Fine, let’s have it your way, just for fun. Beer was not allowed after the WoW. Unfortunately, Joseph Smith continued to drink his barley brewed beers years after it’s reception. He didn’t try to hide it and even wrote about it in his diary. Now did Joseph not understand his own revelation and go out and sin on numerous occasions, or could it be your interpretation which is wrong?
Comment by Jeffrey G. — June 13, 2005 @ 6:15 pm
hear, hear Danny Boy!
Comment by Jeffrey G. — June 13, 2005 @ 6:50 pm
An amazingly important subject. Thanks a bunch.
Comment by Lowell Brown — June 13, 2005 @ 8:20 pm
Is that the pipes I hear calling?
Comment by J. Stapley — June 13, 2005 @ 8:30 pm
Well, the question was the church ahead of its time. Were we ahead of those other religions (Seventh Day Adventist, and JW)? Maybe Joseph Smith wasn’t ahead of science, but he seems to be in religious issues.
Although, you know, I do crave a nice glass of red wine at times. With spaghetti.
Comment by annegb — June 13, 2005 @ 8:48 pm
Here is how the Word of Wisdom was far ahead of its time:
Although it was revealed in the 1830s and largely ignored until the 20th century (even Brigham Young chewed tobacco when he was prophet and dannyboy is correct to point out that pioneers received coffee rations when crossing the plains), when polygamy was a dead issue and Mormons were beginning to assimilate into the larger American culture, the Word of Wisdom gave Heber J. Grant something that he could draw upon to turn into a commandment and thereby set apart Mormons once again as a peculiar people.
So there you have it: Joseph Smith received the Word of Wisdom as a revelation so that 100 years later another prophet could institute it as a commandment. Talk about foresight—this practically proves that Joseph was inspired!
Comment by David King Landrith — June 13, 2005 @ 9:53 pm
It’s true — the WoW really did do the trick to make us freaky once polygamy had gone its way. Better focus on WoW as a public peculiarity than the temple ceremony, I guess…
Comment by Steve Evans — June 13, 2005 @ 10:10 pm
I concur with DKL and Steve here. Having said that — I think the WoW as now constituted will be binding on us living today. I think that God honors the rules set by his current leaders (the topic I have been tinkering with lately at my blog).
Comment by Geoff J — June 13, 2005 @ 10:48 pm
I agree, Geoff. Whether or not it was a commandment then, it is now, and we’re stuck with it.
I mostly wanted to show how Aaron Brown’s claim (at the start of his post) that the Word of Wisdom was not ahead of its time “in any way whatsoever” is demonstrably false.
Comment by David King Landrith — June 14, 2005 @ 12:20 am
Mark B, I am not trying to differentiate between non-intellectual and intellectual ascent. My point is the gospel is about what you are doing, not what you are academically knowing. Being aware of the minutiae of the the history of the WofW, or any other point of ancient or modern revelation, isnt a requirement. Living it is, and thats what the Church’s responsability is, to get the members to live it, not get a PhD in History. And, yes, I am well aware of the ignominious history of the early church’s inability to observe the WofW. That doesnt change anything, and it doesnt excuse any individual from observing it. I am a vegetarian, so flailing me with meat isnt going to work. Besides, meat consumption is not among the explicit prohibitions.
mj pritchet, what exactly is “the true state of the historical record as you understand it”? The historical record can be distorted just like statistics. Take a look at the posts in this thread where people cite the transgressions of the early saint’s inability to observe the WofW. Not one person has pointed out the historical fact that the early Church leaders, especially Young and then Grant, frequently hammered on the saints to get them observe the WofW. Oh, OK, well, that doesnt fit the model of excusing my sins with the sins of others, so we’ll omit those historical details. I havent seen much out of Nate or Chris that does anything to address the gap in historical understanding. All I have see thus far is complaining and labeling of “ignorant”, which implies they arent “ignorant”, only those not as educated as them.
XON, OK, go ahead and build your logical argument that all barley-derived drinks consumed by colonial americans were necessarily fermented. While youre at it, talk about apple cider too, and the whitewashed history of Johnny Appleseed.
dannyboy, some of the early saints commited fornications and adultery, so obviously, the way we observe the Law of Chastity today isnt historically accurate and there was more lattitude back then so we should be allowed greater lattitude. It is well documented that the provisions lists for handcart companies included coffee, annecdotal evidence from direct descendants of Young is not required.
Jeffery G, it is well documented, take a look at History of the Church, that Smith occasionally imbibed drinks that contained alcohol. Nothing new there. How does that justify breaking the WofW? If Smith did X sin, does that mean you can do X sin? If Moses sinned X sin, can all Jews sin X sin? This is what it boils down to, people looking to excuse themselves. This isnt about getting the history right in order to be abstemious, its about seeing how far you can bend the rules and what you can get away with.
David King Landrith, nothing like omitting lots of historical facts, that I am confidant you are well aware of, in order to make your point. The WofW was strictly imposed on the GAs very early, the trickle down was made broader and broader until Grant forced it to be universal. The push on the membership by the leadership in the interim was persistent, there was no gap between Smith’s receipt and Grant’s enforcement as your comment suggests. It was not “largely ignored”. And it certainly wasnt selected as something just to make us different. Your supposition, like Aaron’s, is demonstrably false.
Comment by Kurt — June 14, 2005 @ 7:25 am
Can I ask a historical question? When I was looking at early- and mid-nineteenth century temperance movements, I noticed that they mostly focused on alcohol, sometimes on tobacco, but I never found any specific reference to “hot drinks” of any kind. Does anyone have any specific historical reference to temperance movements advocating a prohibition of hot drinks? Additionally, if we explain the WoW in terms of temperance movements, what do we do with the stuff about grains and meat?
Comment by taylor — June 14, 2005 @ 8:26 am
Kurt, you have an interesting outlook on these issues. Might I suggest that you look up Aaron Cox over at Banner of Heaven. The two of you should go bowling.
Comment by David King Landrith — June 14, 2005 @ 8:38 am
Kurt,
I’ll be just as blunt. You’re position is that of the traditional church apologist, besides being arrogant and faulty. Are you related to BKP or BRM? I gag every time some leader repeats the official BS explanation of the WofW becoming a requirement; it’s total rubbish. At the time it became a requirement, citing some past event of Brigham Young once challenging the people present at a conference to pledge to live the WofW as the time it became a commandment was completely bogus and intellectually dishonest. We’ve turned what was clearly meant to be a good practice and made it an arbitrary barrier to entry into the Kingdom. That was not the original intent and it’s stupid and dishonest to argue otherwise. It’s become our circumcision, you know that thing Paul had to reformed in the ancient church. We need a modern Paul to do the same w/ the WofW. Moreover, we’ve only arbitrarily chosen to enforce certain parts of the WofW and treat other parts as good practice. What about the encouraged use of mild drinks made from barley and other grains, aka beer? Kurt, I want my beer.
On the lighter side, Charles Didier said missionaries cannot turn down a kirsch-drenched cake, but cannot ask for seconds, and cannot enjoy it. I like his interpretation of the WofW.
Comment by Steve (FSF) — June 14, 2005 @ 9:13 am
Why, if the strict observance of the Word of Wisdom was not required of the saints in the 19th century, was their failure to observe it as we do “ignominious”? It’s like calling the saints practice of plural marriage ignominious, because plural marriage is prohibited today.
I think that the more serious problem with your post, Kurt, is that you confuse a desire to know the history of the Word of Wisdom with a search for justification for bending the rules and getting away with whatever one can. You seriously misread the posters here if you think that’s their motivation.
Besides, how can anyone take you seriously if you still can’t figure out the difference between “assent” and “ascent”?
Comment by Mark B. — June 14, 2005 @ 9:14 am
For completeness, it should also be remembered that the High Council in Missouri disciplined members for lack of observance of the Word of Wisdom. I think that was one charge against Oliver Cowdery, for instance. Joseph Smith said the High Council was being overzealous. I won’t be able to look up the relevant material on this until next week (Vacation starts today!), but there are no doubt many of you who already know the events I am referring to and can fill out any needed facts.
Comment by John Mansfield — June 14, 2005 @ 9:41 am
Kurt wrote: I havent seen much out of Nate or Chris that does anything to address the gap in historical understanding. All I have see thus far is complaining and labeling of “ignorant”, which implies they arent “ignorant”, only those not as educated as them.
Please, don’t drag me into your rant or put words in my mouth. You are atributing to me an attitude I do not have and a position I did not take.
But that said, I will add an “amen” to what Mark B. wrote. You have confused a desire to understand the WoW as it has been practiced over time with a desire to violate it today. One does not follow from the other. And since we believe in work for the dead, I’ll be presumptuous and say that all of the departed saints who lived the Word of Wisdom as they understood it and as it was taught to them don’t appreicate the aspersions you’ve cast their way.
Comment by Chris Williams — June 14, 2005 @ 9:59 am
taylor, I have never seen anything, or read anything, to suggest there was any kind of temperance movement aimed at “hot drinks”.
David King Landrith, you have an interesting way of changing the subject and resorting to ad hominems when you are shown to be in error. Lets keep on topic shall we? I dont bowl.
Steve (FSF), if you had bothered to read my comments on D&C 89 you would see that I do not forward any of the standard apologist positions you attribute to me. Save your righteous indignation for a situation that fits. If you want a beer, then go and freakin drink one and then lie to you Bishop at the next Temple Recommend interview. Sheesh. I do not see how your desire to drink beer has any bearing on history. ANyone who has spent any time talking to me at all knows that I am not a McConkie head. And if you bothered to even read the posts in the threads you and I have both participated in, you would see plainly that I am not a standard Church apologist. Take the endowment ceremony thread on MStar for example.
Mark B, forgive me for being cynical, but I have rarely met people who are genuinely interested in the bare naked truth of history, without any agenda motivating them. Take Steve (FSF) as a prime example. How am I misreading people’s motives when you have people sitting here saying they want their beer and wine? Faulting me for typos? Come on.
Chris Williams, dont fault me. It was mj pritchet who put you together with Nate. I assumed there was some offline conversation she was privy to. Again, I am cynical and believe people have motives underlying their actions. If you and Mark are so interested in exposing to light the truth of history, then how about the two of you collaborate on a comprehensive post that outlines the historical timeline of LDS Church leadership statement and actions pertaining to the WofW. I’ve already started one, albeit incomplete, in my comments on D&C 89, why dont you take it from there and use your motivation as fuel to finish the job? I am sure DKL/AT will lend a hand.
Comment by Kurt — June 14, 2005 @ 10:31 am
Kurt,
Typos are one thing. Ignoring I just wondered how you distinguished an intellectual ascent from a non-intellectual one. I suspect that it could be calculated by adding the IQ of each of the climbers, dividing by their number and then somehow factoring in the length of the rope and the number of pitons, screws, nuts and other hardware left behind when the ascent is completed.(from comment #24) is quite another. It suggests that you’re not reading very carefully.
Comment by Mark B. — June 14, 2005 @ 10:58 am
Kurt: you have an interesting way of changing the subject and resorting to ad hominems when you are shown to be in error. Lets keep on topic shall we? I dont bowl.
Wrong on all counts, Kurt. First: You didn’t show anyone to be in error. Your one stop apology shop is trying to sell us a bill of goods. Second: I didn’t resort to ad hominems. I was merely playing matchmaker. Third: You do, in fact, bowl. And frankly, I find that your willingness to lie about this little piece of biographical information to be disturbing. (Well, OK. I’m just kidding about the bowling…)
Comment by David King Landrith — June 14, 2005 @ 11:00 am
Kurt: Again, I am cynical and believe people have motives underlying their actions.
Clearly.
If you and Mark are so interested in exposing to light the truth of history, then how about the two of you collaborate on a comprehensive post that outlines the historical timeline of LDS Church leadership statement and actions pertaining to the WofW.
So the options here for Mark and me are to 1) collaborate on a comprehensive post on the history of the WoW or 2) keep quiet?
Besides, Mark’s a busy guy.
Comment by Chris Williams — June 14, 2005 @ 11:13 am
I do not understand the need by some to assert that the WoW has remained essentially unchanged from when it was given in section 89 until today–in fact doing so to the extent of claiming that J. Smith was a sinful prophet for imbibing the occassional drink now and again. I guess better to have a sinning prophet than a prophetic and revelatory change. However, if we believe that continuing revelation is a cornerstone to our religion why would we have any problem with the continued revelatory changes to the WoW. It is my understanding that the claim that the Wow was always taught as a complete ban on alcohol to be “demonstrably false”. For one, as I understand it, the 12 used wine in their thursday sacrament meetings until the early 1900s, Lorenzo Snow pushed the limitation on meat far more than the element of alcohol consumption (encouraging young men to head out to salt air for the occassional drink). True, Pres. Grant enforced the liquor ban but he was a well known beer drinker in his early days. It seems to me the best explanation from the historical evidence and a belief in the revelatory truth of the WoW is the belief that through revelation the Lord has taken the WoW from what it was to what it is today (A clearly delineated prohibition on drinking alcohol, coffee, and of smoking–along with a weaker plea to eat and live healthy). Why it should be of anymore than passing historical curiosity of what the WoW was is beyond me. The important point is what the prophets today say that it is.
Comment by HL Rogers — June 14, 2005 @ 11:21 am
“the Lord’s comments on the health effects were equally blunt statements like ‘not good for man’ and ‘not for the body’”
Tell me then why in verse 16 of D&C 89 it says “all grain is good for the food of man; as also the fruit of the vine; that which yieldeth fruit, whether in the ground or above the ground”.
Why would the Lord specify some things to be good for our consumption, yet of the things we presume to be bad for our health, He does not say a single one of them is not for our consumption?
The closest He comes is in verse five when He states that it is not good to drink wine or strong drink. Yet why it is not good is unclear. Is it not good for our health? Does it give us a bad image? Some other reason?
Comment by Kim Siever — June 14, 2005 @ 11:50 am
Kurt,
Wow. You really need to lighten up bro. “I want my beer” was a joke. You also need to read the WofW. Since the temple recommend question is “do you follow the WofW” (although they mean do you avoid coffee, tea, booze and tobacco, that’s not what’s asked.), I could drink beer in moderation and honestly reply that, yes, I follow the WofW.
HL Rogers,
I respect your point, but I think the GA’s are just locked into the WofW as we know it because of past errors (apostate drift to be blunt). And it’s just too low on the totem pole for a modern Paul to emerge and reform the church on this. It’s ironic that orthodoxy always leads apostasy by locking in inevitable mistakes and not allowing periodic reform to clean up the occasional mess.
Comment by Steve (FSF) — June 14, 2005 @ 11:51 am
Steve(FSF), your point about the apostate drift away from the WoW seems predicated on strict adherence to section 89. Yet I don’t see any reason why we need to be wed or even should be wed to section 89 in such a strict way.
Our theology on continuing revelation has brought about changes in many canonical teachings. Would you also assert that using water instead of wine is apostate, that the changes in the temple ceremony are apostate (and not just modern changes but changes from temple ceremonies in OT times to how they were restored by JS),how about changes in the setup of stakes and wards or changes in church government from presiding elders, to a prophet, to a propeht with counselors, to co-presients, to a quorum of the 12 with changing responsibilities and authority(all being much different now than how it is discussed in the D&C).
It seems that while we put a lot of emphasis on cannonical teachings (and rightly so) they are not stand alone doctrines but instead open to further revelation.
Comment by HL Rogers — June 14, 2005 @ 12:34 pm
Kurt,
You missed the point of my comment way back in 29, although I must say it came as no surprise. My point isn’t “Joseph Smith sinned after it was given, so in order to face him face let’s admit that it wasn’t a commandment.” My point was that “Joseph didn’t consider it a sin at all, so you are really claiming to interpret the revelation better than the actual person who received the revelation.”
Comment by Jeffrey G. — June 14, 2005 @ 12:44 pm
Can we get back to the inital discussion please?
I taught the Gospel Doctrine lesson last week and spent an lot of time researching this topic. I ended up with a weaker testmony of the WoW, and many unanswered questions. I think my lesson must have been somewhat unsatisfying . . .
Perhaps some of you smart people can shed some light on my questions.
1. If our HF wanted this to be a commandment why didn’t it start out that way? Since when do we have doctrines that evolve over time as the WoW has?
2. Why do members of the church inflate the importantce of the WoW in the context of our theology?
3. Why is it part of the temple recommend interview? The doctrine itself says it is for our “temporal salvation” only. (BTW, it there any person in the whole church that can honesly answer “yes” to that question?– I doubt it.)
4. Why doesn’t our living prophet give us an update, or at least some clarification on what is and is not OK? Thats why we have prophets! Is it left vague on purpose?
One person in our class stated that she believed the WoW was essentially an “obedience test” and not much more. I don’t beleive that my HF gives me commandments without a purpose.
Perhaps I should be the one writing those questions for the manual. Perhaps not.
Comment by Porter — June 14, 2005 @ 1:05 pm
Mark B., yes, I am either not reading carefully, or I am ignoring your tongue-in-cheek comment. One or the either. Your choice.
David King Landrith, um, yes, Arturo, I did show your baised presentation in comment 34 to be factually incorrect by presenting substantive data contradicting your position. Your failure to address the data and pretending it doesnt exist does not qualify as a substantive rebuttal. And, yes, you are resorting to ad hominems when you address my person, rather than the subject. Thats what “ad hominem” means. You dont have to directly insult my person to be guilty of “ad hominem” arguments. But, alas, it seems likely you are being deliberately obtuse in an effort to make sport of me. How cheeky for such a clever philosopher as you. Thanks for retracting that little fib about the bowling, I would hate people to think I sport a mullet.
Chris, no, I am not asking you to be quiet. I am asking you to back up your assertion that you, and ostensibly Mark and the other participants here, have a genuine interest in the bare historical facts. I realize you, and others, are busy. I am a patient cynic. You suggested one point of view, I suggested another. There is evidence supporting mine, and no evidence supporting yours. It seems unlikely any evidence supporting your view point will be forthcoming from SFSF or DKL/AT, so you will probably have to generate it yourself, or tacitly admit there is merit to my cynical POV.
HL Rogers, ah, but there is the rub. For people who are willing to keep the WofW, then its simply a matter of following the living prophets. For people like SFSF, its a matter of the prophets being ignorant of the facts and needing to be brought into line.
Kim Siever OK, I see what youre driving at. The general context of the revelation is physical and spiritual health, per v. 18-21. The Lord doesnt explicitly say “dont drink wine because its bad for your health”, however, He does say “If you do all these things you will have good health”. By inference it is plain the prohibitions deal with things that would jeopardize the benefits detailed in v. 18-21.
Steve (FSF), I need to lighten up? Sure. You go around making rediculous accusations that are more science fiction than reality, and I need to lighten up. Got it. How can it be “honest” when you know precisely what the question means, and you answer disingenuously?
Jeffery G, I did not miss your point, I addressed the underlying motivation people have for attempting to fault Smith’s personal actions. How can you infer Smith’s interpretation of a revelation any better than anyone else? You cannot, so whats the point? There is none. Speculating endlessly about possibilities does nothing to come to a conclusion. Are you going to next point out that Smith Sr. brewed and drank his own birch beer? So what? Can we infer from that that Smith Jr. would never account sin to his beloved father? So then Smith must not have viewed it as a sin, since he did it himself and/or permitted his father to do it? Nonsense. Aside from that, it is pretty easy to discern why people want to question Smith’s actions, so they can excuse their own, which contradict what modern prophets say on the subject. But, hey, what difference does that make, right? Thats what I commented on. Did you miss that point? Sorry I had to waste the time and electrons to spell it out, but based on our previous exchanges I thought you would remeber that I am not interested in playing endless questions with you.
Porter
1) Because of the reasons spelled out in v. 3. What would have happened to the Church if there had been mass excomminications as a result of a full-stop enforcement?
2) Dietary codes have always been a part of religion, from day one. Why should now be any different? The Lord expects us to be deliberate about what we put in our mouth, and we are to take meaning away from that, cf. Dt. 8:3.
3) The reason it is there is because people have difficulty, and have historically had difficulty, observing it. If it wasnt a problem, it wouldnt be there. Just like when the whole abuse thing was added. If no guys abused their wife/kids then it wouldnt be there. It is not there only for our temporal salvation only, see v. 19 and note v. 20 is a direct quotation of Isa. 40:31, which clearly is a spiritual reference, not a physical one.
4) They do give us updates, which is why Church policy prohibits drugs as well. But, I suppose if you ask SFSF, he could snort methamphetamine and say he was honestly observing the WofW because its doesnt say anything about cocaine/meth/oxycontin/whatever.
Comment by Kurt — June 14, 2005 @ 1:42 pm
Kurt, you really do need to lighten up.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 14, 2005 @ 1:53 pm
Porter: On your question 2 — back in the prehistoric era of the bloggernacle, I posted on why we “fetishize” the WoW, and there were several interesting comments. The discussion touches on some of your other points as well.
Don’t Drink, Don’t Smoke
Comment by Greg Call — June 14, 2005 @ 1:55 pm
I’ll take door number 3.
Comment by Mark B. — June 14, 2005 @ 2:00 pm
Kurt,
An epiphany, you’re not getting enough.
BTW, I don’t need an extrapolation of the WofW to avoid recreation drugs. If good common sense wasn’t sufficient, the recreational drugs are prohibited under other scriptures calling the drunkard to repentance.
Chill, and good luck with your woman.
Comment by Steve (FSF) — June 14, 2005 @ 2:04 pm
Kurt,
“I did not miss your point, I addressed the underlying motivation people have for attempting to fault Smith’s personal actions.”
This only shows that you are not getting the point. I’m not faulting anyone. I’m only pointing out that you are implicitly faulting him if anyone is.
“How can you infer Smith’s interpretation of a revelation any better than anyone else?”
By his actions. He drank on occasion and in public. He made no attempt to hide, nor was he ever criticized for it. Not only did Smith not think it a sin, nobody appears to have thought it was. Also, doesn’t your statement work against you are well? By your own logic, how can you be sure that drinking beer WAS a sin? I’ll give you your own answer: “You cannot, so whats the point? There is none. Speculating endlessly about possibilities does nothing to come to a conclusion.”
I would also be curious to know what your interpretation of there being tabacco spittoons in the SLC temple. To say that it was decoration it a little outrageous don’t you think?
I have no clue why you are bringing JS sr. into the discussion, so I won’t respond to that.
“Aside from that, it is pretty easy to discern why people want to question Smith’s actions, so they can excuse their own, which contradict what modern prophets say on the subject.”
I hate to break it to you, but I am one of the few that has never had a sip of beer in my life, yet I strongly disagree with the traditional interpretation of the WoW. Nor do I ever want to try beer. Maybe it’s not so obvious after all.
“But, hey, what difference does that make, right? Thats what I commented on. Did you miss that point? Sorry I had to waste the time and electrons to spell it out, but based on our previous exchanges I thought you would remeber that I am not interested in playing endless questions with you.”
I had to leave that in for good measure.
Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — June 14, 2005 @ 2:13 pm
Oh Kurt… I just don’t think I care enough. Your cynicism isn’t a big enough concern for me that I feel compelled to justify to you, someone I’ve never met, my interest in the historical evolution of the Word of Wisdom. Maybe someday, but not today, especially since others far more capable and learned than me in Mormon history have already done a lot of work on this particular question.
You’ll probably think this is a cop out. Can you see my shoulders shrugging?
You know, sometimes people just like history because it’s interesting.
Comment by Chris Williams — June 14, 2005 @ 2:14 pm
Porter,
My post today was on the subject of temporary commandments/rules (like the WoW as we currently live it) and why they are probably binding on us in earth and in heaven despite their non-eternal nature… You may find some interesting comments there as well.
Comment by Geoff J — June 14, 2005 @ 2:32 pm
Kurt, I can’t resist, I guess…
You wrote: You suggested one point of view, I suggested another. There is evidence supporting mine, and no evidence supporting yours.
What’s the point of view that I have offered without evidence? I’ve put forward an “amen” here and there, but the substance of my contribution to this discussion is a refernce to a comment I made in Church on Sunday that the Word of Wisdom serves as an important community building tool. You need evidence for that?
Also, I’m wondering what you think the motivation is here for those who disagree with you. Do you think we’re all planning to meet for Happy Hour later today and we need some moral justification?
Finally, I recommend for your reading the 1972 Master’s Thesis of Paul H. Peterson, now Chair of the Dept. of Church History and Doctrine, BYU College of Religious Education. It’s an extensive look at the history and evolution of the Word of Wisdom.
Some highlights:
Large numbers of Americans belonged to temperance movements at the time the WoW was received:
Peterson p. 8
The creation of the American Temperance Society in 1826 marked the beginning of organized temperance groups, and inaugurated a movement which had far-reaching consequences. Almost immediately hundreds of state and local auxiliaries sprang into existence, and within a year after the organization of the American Temperance Society, 222 local groups had been formed in sixteen states. By 1831, state organizations had been established in all but five states, and 2,200 local societies had been organized with a membership approximated 170,000. Two years later the number of local organizations had increased to 5,000 with a total membership of 1,250,000. [Roughly 10% of the U.S. Population]
The temperance movement was known to the Latter-day Saints:
Peterson p. 12-13
Newspapers helped to spread temperance reform by publishing long articles and providing editorial comment on the movement. The Painesville Telegraph, a Gaeuga County publication that was probably read by many of the Saints, proved no exception, as it frequently issued warnings against intemperance. In November of 1832, the Telegraph noted that several leading citizens were indifferent to the movement because it was associated with sectarianism and urged all individuals, sects, and groups to unite in the temperance cause.
Temperance agitation was apparently strong in the Mormon settlements of Kirtland and Mentor. On October 6, 1830, the Kirtland Temperance Society was organized. … The Kirtland distillery which had existed since 1819 was closed for want of patronage by February 1, 1833, approximately four weeks before Smith announced the revelation [of the Word of Wisdom].
Peterson p. 14
Certainly, while the Mormon Prophet was in all likelihood not associated with any temperance organization, it seems highly improbable that he would not have been sensitive to the prevailing public sentiment.
The temperance movement was concerned about more than just alcohol:
Peterson p. 14-15
The physiological health reform movement was another product of nineteenth century religious fervor. This movement was characterized by a preoccupation with the effects of various substances upon the human body. Sylvester Graham, former agent of the Pennsylvania Temperance Society, was a significant force in this crusade. Graham recommended abstinence from “distilled spirits, wine, beer, cider, tobacco, opium, coffee, tea, pepper, mustard, and every other kind of artificial stimulants and narcotics. Graham was not the only one to condemn the use of alcohol, tobacco, tea, and coffee. There is evidence that medical opinion supported some of his views. A contemporary medical journal, The Journal of Health, condemned the use of these four items and also advised against excessive meat eating.
Joseph was not a strict WoW observer:
Peterson p. 25
Joseph Smith and other prisoners drank liquor and whiskey in the Liberty Jail [1839] in token of friendship, while references to wine-drinking are commonplace. Excessive drinking, however, was not tolerated, and some Mormons were threatened with loss of membership for failure to curb drunkenness.
The journal of Joseph Smith reveals many instances where Joseph and other Church leaders drank wine and a tolerant attitude towards the consumption of this beverage is particularly noticeable. After a wedding feast in January, 1836, Joseph wrote: “We then partook of some refreshments, and our hearts were made glad with the fruit of the vine.†A week later, at the marriage of John Boynton, Orson Hyde, Luke S. Johnson, and Warren Parrish presented the Presidency with three servers of glasses filled with wine, to bless. Joseph recorded his reaction as follows:
“And it fell to my lot to attend to this duty, which I cheerfully discharged. It was then passed round in order; then the cake in the same order; and suffice it to say, our hearts were made glad while partaking of the bounty of earth which was presented until we had taken our fill; and joy filled every bosum …
In May, 1843, the Prophet drank a glass of wine with Sister Jenetta Richards. Despite the injunction contained in the revelation discouraging the drinking of wine, (except for sacramental purposes) the casual nature of the allusions to this bevereage suggest that many Church Authorities did not consider moderate wine drinking in the same category as the use of strong drinks.
Peterson p. 36-38
Through the years, there have been extremes in evaluating Joseph Smith’s faithfulness regarding Word of Wisdom observance. Many writers have declared that Joseph was not only a non-observer but a flagrant drunkard. John C. Bennett said the Mormon Prophet got “gloriously drunk occasionally,†while Governor Thomas Ford stated that “at times he drank like a sailor.†Henry Caswall accused Joseph of operating a brewery at Nauvoo and mentioned that he was often seen drunk. Most of these authors make no pretensions at objectivity and in truth the majority seem to have an axe to grind. At the other extreme, William Clayton, Smith’s personal secretary, claimed in 1842 that the Prophet did not use intoxicating drinks or tobacco. Such a statement appears to be an exaggeration for it was observed earlier in the chapter that Joseph drank liquor in the Liberty jail and had few qualms about drinking wine. Likewise, shortly before his death the Prophet requested wine to drink. John Taylor described this incident as follows:
“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 guards. We all of us felt unusually dull and languid, with a remarkable depression of spirits.”
Peterson p. 38
In conclusion, it appears clear that Joseph Smith never interpreted the revelation as demanding total abstinence, but stressed moderation and self-control. His opposition to intemperance is evidenced by earlier statements which referred to intemperance as a “monster†and “the bane of humanity.†The Prophet almost never used tobacco, although it is recorded that once at Nauvoo he tried the faith of the Saints by smoking a cigar after having preached a discourse on the Word of Wisdom. He had no objections to using tobacco for medicinal purposes. With regard to wine and “strong drink†possibly the most accurate index to the Prophet’s position was expressed by Benjamin F. Johnson, who personally knew Joseph: “As a companion, socially, he was highly endowed; was kind, generous, mirth loving, and at times even convivial. He was partial to a well supplied table and he did not always refuse the wine that maketh the heart glad.”
Brigham Young also had a liberal attitude toward WoW observance:
Peterson p. 42-43
Brigham Young, successor to Joseph Smith as Mormon Prophet and President, never chose to make obedience to the Word of Wisdom a test of fellowship in the Church. As Nels Anderson has observed:
“For him the test of a man’s faith was his integrity to an assignment given by the church. Could a man take a company of Saints to a dessert and hold them to the task of building a community: then it didn’t matter much to Brother Brigham if he was a user of whiskey and tobacco. Those Word of Wisdom virtues were precious to him but secondary.”
Comment by Chris Williams — June 14, 2005 @ 2:35 pm
I personally think that we like to fetishize the WoW basically out of a sense of self-righteousness. It’s a commandment that isn’t all that hard to keep, so most of us do keep it. It’s also so counter intuitive that nobody outside of our church cares to keep it. Therefore, they are not as righteous as we are in the church as here is proof. The same can be said for our over-emphasis on the law of chastity. If anything separates us from the Godless it’s in these two counterintuitive commandments, therefore we exaggerate them beyond what is justified.
Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — June 14, 2005 @ 2:36 pm
If I can throw another WoW phrase into play, I’d like to add 89:3
“Given for a principle with a promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.”
I’ve always understood this to mean that the revelation was especially for those of us with the compulsive personalities, or otherwise lack of self-control that could potentially lead us into trouble, into the hands of the ‘conspiring men’, into addiction - or proverbially putting ‘another’ god before the LORD. Rather than tell church members ‘if you can’t handle it, don’t do it’, a general warning was given to ALL members, which later evolved into the WoW as proscribed today. Is that forward thinking and ahead of its time? Yes. Original? No. Prophetic? Of course.
Subsequently, I have always felt frustration when hearing other members judge Mormons and non-Mormons alike who do use alcohol, tobacco, etc. - I am not aware of scripture that specifically designates alcohol and/or tobacco as inherently EVIL substances, only the warnings about their abuse.
Comment by Yeebrah — June 14, 2005 @ 2:36 pm
I’ve always leaned towards Yeebrah’s interpretation of verse 3. Because some people might end up as addicts, everyone agrees to abstain entirely. You can’t get addicted if you never try it.
Comment by Janey — June 14, 2005 @ 2:49 pm
HL Rogers,
To clarify, the apostate drift I refer to is taking what was meant to be a good practice and making it a barrier to entry into the Kingdom, in effect, a modern LDS circumcision. That, in my opinion, is the past mistake the present GA’s are locked into. Under present orthodoxy, things like this only get reformed when there’s a crisis. Look how long it took to fix BY’s Mark of Cain BS. That’s what I meant by the irony that orthodoxy always leads apostasy by locking in inevitable mistakes and not allowing periodic (non-crisis) reform to clean up the occasional mess.
I know you probably disagree, and I respect that.
Comment by Steve (FSF) — June 14, 2005 @ 2:50 pm
Kurt, since my attempt to mate you with your kindred spirit Aaron Cox was in no way an attempt to answer or address your arguments, it cannot possibly be an ad hominem. It is, at worst, a tangent.
You, on the other hand, dismiss Dialogue and Sunstone out of hand, advancing what amounts to basically an ad hominem attack on scholarly assessments of the Word of Wisdom. Given your intransigence on this issue, it will probably do very little good to direct you to the Autumn 1981 edition of Dialogue (14:3), the non-fiction portion of which was almost entirely given over to the discussion of the Word of Wisdom. Thomas Alexander’s article, for example, states (p 78-79):
I’ll let you read the rest of it. Before Heber J. Grant made abstention from tobacco, coffea, tea, and alcohol a temple recommend requirement, the Word of Wisdom never had a status greater than the current status of the commandment to keep a year supply of food. Indeed, the Utah LDS church and its offshoots are to my knowledge the only churches founded by Joseph Smith that accord the Word of Wisdom mandatory commandment status.
I still await your “substantive data” that “contradicted [my] position.” As it is, I consider your position to be utterly ludicrous. You have sensed that I am making sport of you, but it is you who are [insert snarky comment here].
I’m quite heartened to learn that you take me to be “such a clever philosopher.” Since I studied philosophy as an undergraduate student, I have no marketable skills at all. But because I never continued my studies into graduate school, I have no philosophy skills at all. Hence, I consider myself a positivist. Even so, I take some consolation in having made a fan out of you.
Comment by David King Landrith — June 14, 2005 @ 2:56 pm
“Before Heber J. Grant made abstention from tobacco, coffea, tea, and alcohol a temple recommend requirement, the Word of Wisdom never had a status greater than the current status of the commandment to keep a year supply of food.”
I like that.
Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — June 14, 2005 @ 3:02 pm
Indeed, the Utah LDS church and its offshoots are to my knowledge the only churches founded by Joseph Smith that accord the Word of Wisdom mandatory commandment status.
And not even all of the offshoots of the Utah Church accord it this status. The FLDS of Hilldale-Colorado City do not follow the WoW with anywhere near the strictness that we LDS do.
Comment by Chris Williams — June 14, 2005 @ 3:44 pm
I agree with post 64. Many Mormons who grow up keeping the Word of Wisdom, or for whom it’s easy to do so, look down on those who have this “habit”. They also have misconceptions about coffee drinkers, social drinkers, etc. It becomes an “us against them” thing.
Likewise, many married members look at single members as inveterate pervs or sinners-waiting-to-happen, hence the hue and cry over marriage and paranoia over grown adults keeping the Law of Chastity.
Comment by anon, a mouse — June 14, 2005 @ 4:02 pm
Steve Evans, you tolerate the kind of rubbish that SFSF posts, and you tell me to lighten up? OK, this is your sandbox, so whenever you feel like it, just ban me and get it over with.
Jeffery Gillam, if you cannot see the parallels between the Smith Sr. reference, which is precisely the kind of inference you are attempting to make, then this really is pointless. You think that by presenting any logical possibility, that you have present a persuasive argument. You havent. Thats the point with Smith’s father. Just because he didnt censure his father doesnt mean he didnt think it wasnt a sin. Just because he did something himself, doesnt mean he didnt think he shouldnt have done it, or that it is necessarily representative of his exegetical take on a particular passage of Scripture. It is obvious that Smith knew that wine and fermented spirits was at the very least discourage, and yet he occasionally partook of those. So, how do you come up with a logical leap that his brewing and comsuming of said beer must have necessitated an interpretation on the WofW that beer was AOK? Its a non-sequiter. We’re obviously talking past each other, so I will not bother anymore.
Chris Williams, boy for someone feigning apathy, you need to work on the follow through. Glad to see you care about history enough to post something to defend yourself. Now all you have to do is turn back time and discourage SFSF from posting.
David King Landrith, since you obviously hold this person in contempt and are attempting to equate me with him, your defense of your actions are feeble at best. ANd please do explain how you can make ad hominem attacks on things arent people? Sheesh. How is a direct link to 20-30 pages of historical references that contradict your argument “ludicrous”? Sticking your head in the sand and pretending all the GAs all the way through told people to observe the WofW doesnt change anything. The only thing that changes was how vigorously it was enforced, they never stopped trying to get people to observe it, like you suggest. Your assertions are patently false that it was a non-issue before Grant as incoming FT missionaries were required to observe the WofW strictly starting around 1913. If you had bothered to read the historical material that I provided you the link to, you would see numerous references showing your position is “ludicrous”. Oh, and I am such a big fan of your sophistry.
Jefferey Gillam you like it? Too bad its not true.
Comment by Kurt — June 14, 2005 @ 4:17 pm
Kurt - your arguing here makes me wish that I never end up in a Ward with you. You seem to be much like the leaders of the FLDS and other such LDS offshoots. I get the feeling that you consider folks like me who do not take the position of total and absolute obedience tobe some kind of a pervert that needs to be excommunicate. Dude, you gotta realise that we are living in 21st century America, not in 18th century Utah, where dissent wasnt allowed.
Like someone else posted earlier, I do think that the WOW as it stands today, is nothing more than a cultural artefice, that people adhere to so as to maintain our seperate Mormon identity. And as a means to ensure obedience. Hence the question is asked when one goes in for the Temple recommend interview.
BTW, doesnt the WOW also say that we are to eat food in moderation and take care of our health, and imply that we ougght to work out, and stay fit in order too? But, as I look around i n my Ward, a good 90% of the men and women over the age of 40 are obese, and everyweek or so, we hear about another Brother or Sister who suffered a heart attack or some other other condition following from living a totally unhealthy lifestyle. Sure they dont drink coffee, tea or any alcoholic beverages, but, hey, what’s 2 large Dominoes pizzas at a sitting, eh? pizzas are not mentioned in Section 89, so the sin of gluttony and excess is ok, right, Kurt?
Comment by dannyboy — June 14, 2005 @ 4:21 pm
“you tolerate the kind of rubbish that SFSF posts, and you tell me to lighten up?”
yep. Steve FSF is crazy, IMHO, but he doesn’t have a bug up his bum the way you seem to. This is just a discussion man — take it easy. Why would I ban you? For getting uppity?
Comment by Steve Evans — June 14, 2005 @ 4:26 pm
Forgive me if this is a threadjack, but I’ve wondered if the current push against p0rnography, though triggered primarily by the new technology of the internet, plays somewhat the same role in today’s chuch as the push to enforce the word of wisdom did in Heber J. Grant’s day (see comment #34 above).
Comment by mj pritchett — June 14, 2005 @ 4:27 pm
Is anybody else curious as to why Kurt is so willing to swap insults with pretty much anybody but me? What gives? He certainly doesn’t seem to hesitate much in going to visit the Angry Mormon or have extended back-and-forths here. Why as I being singled out? Would it help if I tried harder to make fun of you like everybody else? Should I change my name? What gives?
Anyway, my point in not addressing your JS. sr. material was because, once again, I’m not accusing anybody of sin, you are. I don’t care whether JS jr. called out his father on any sin at all. This entire train of thought is completely irrelevant to what I saying. What I was saying was better articulated in the extended quote that Chris posted. Maybe if you address that content instead of talking about us in your posts we would get some where.
I REPEAT, don’t talk about us or our styles of writing. Address the issue, specifically the quote that Chris provided.
Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — June 14, 2005 @ 4:29 pm
Kurt,
It is obvious that Smith knew that wine and fermented spirits was at the very least discourage, and yet he occasionally partook of those. So, how do you come up with a logical leap that his brewing and comsuming of said beer must have necessitated an interpretation on the WofW that beer was AOK?
Is it your claim that the text of Section 89 forbids drinking all forms of alcoholic beverage? Or that it merely discourages it?
I have never drank, and have no desire to do so, but I don’t see how Section 89 forbids it. To assert that the interpretation and enforcement of Section 89 haven’t changed over time seems to require not reading it.
Our current WoW has its origin in Section 89 but it is obvious that it has become something else. This is fine with me. It would also be fine with me if the GBH has a revelation and the situation changes tomorrow.
Comment by a random John — June 14, 2005 @ 5:11 pm
Kurt, your 20 to 30 pages of “data” mostly takes things out of context. It’s also correct on several issues. For example, your polemic against the tobacco industry is wildly exxagerated. You could scour through conference talks over the past 50 years to show the topics that people addressed (including such things as organic evolution, feminism, and unnecessary truths). That doesn’t make them mandatory for worthiness or even the celestial Kingdom. Just the same you’re a lunatic and a riot all packaged up into one non-mullet wearing, bowling-ball hating bloggernacle guy! Keep up the good work. I’ll read as long as you comment.
Comment by David King Landrith — June 14, 2005 @ 5:15 pm
My comments are rubbish? I’m crazy?
Now that hurts.
Well, I may be inarticulate and insane, but thanks to the increased libido which I attribute in part to the WofW, I’m extremely happy. If life is like a poker game, I wouldn’t trade the cards I’ve got.
Comment by Steve (FSF) — June 14, 2005 @ 5:45 pm
Wow! I am sure that Kurt’s buckshot attacks on everyone have done wonders for BCC’s traffic. Fess up, Steve. You have paid Kurt to make all of these attacks haven’t you? I thought so.
Way, way, way, way, way back in the distant past, Kurt took me to task for suggesting that ignorance of historical facts rather than some sort of ideological urge to supress history may be a better explanation for many of the historical inaccuracies one sees in Church curriculum. According to Kurt this betrayed my misunderstanding of the true nature of the Godly life, which is unrelated to reading articles on Sunstone and Dialogue.
To which I reply, slow down partner. First, I have gone out of my way to say all sorts of gratuitously and unfairly mean and critical things about Sunstone and Dialogue in the past. In part this was out of a perfectly innocent desire to bait John H. and Kristing Haglund, but I also, as it happens, have a number of axes of my own to grind against those publications. As it happens, all things considered, I agree with Kurt that Church curriculum is not primarily about teaching history. On the other hand, to the extent that we are going to use history to illustrate those things that ARE being taught, it makes sense — to me at least — to use accurate rather than inaccurate history. On the other hand, the folks who write church curriculum are busy, and the materials are produced by a committee, which means that I suspect that more often than not the final product results from random group dynamics (”It isn’t worth fighting brother so-and-so on this won.”) rather than the more sinister agendas imputed to correlation by Dave and his ilk. I think that such conspiracy theories tend to wildly over-estimate the competence of what is, after all, a large (and therefore) inefficient bureacracy. In other words, my ignorance comment was a defense of the Church rather than a criticism of it. (OK, so there was a little criticism ;->)
It is worth remembering, however, that the Church doesn’t have to be perfect. It just has to be good enough to accomplish its purposes. Prophets don’t have to be perfectly inspired, only inspired enough.
Comment by Nate Oman — June 14, 2005 @ 5:46 pm
Steve FSF, I figured the crazy thing was actually a compliment.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 14, 2005 @ 6:40 pm
And to think that we’re wasting time on this issue when we could be discussing Michael Jackson!!
Comment by Mark B. — June 14, 2005 @ 6:53 pm
Nate, I guess I should say a word in defense of me and my ilk. First, I wouldn’t object to the notion that a fair amount of historical misstatement in LDS curriculum material stems from ignorance rather than malice. Second, I don’t think I’ve ever argued for a vast anti-historical conspiracy, just that some semi-official LDS feel comfortable with selective omission or creative fact-finding on those occasions when it is particularly convenient. Third, ignorance of history is not really a good excuse given the extent to which LDS faith claims and doctrine rest on historical events and narrative. Leaders and curriculum people ought to recognize that getting the historical facts right matters for the material they are producing.
I should add that I have noticed that LDS authors of GA speeches and Conference talks have been much more careful the last few years in using footnotes to carefully cite sources for quotes and claims. I think it is Paul Dunn’s legacy to the Church.
Comment by Dave — June 14, 2005 @ 8:41 pm
Do you think we’re all planning to meet for Happy Hour later today and we need some moral justification?
Oooh! Oooh! Can I come?
If you’re looking to break the WofW, I recommend Bailey’s and Coffee. It’s two…two…two sins in one!
Comment by Ann — June 14, 2005 @ 9:49 pm
Third, ignorance of history is not really a good excuse given the extent to which LDS faith claims and doctrine rest on historical events and narrative.
What? Where were you while I was getting all pissy saying a similar thing yesterday over at the historicity thread Dave?
Comment by Geoff J — June 15, 2005 @ 1:01 am
dannyboy, whatever character you have imagined up for me is about as accurate as SFSF’s straw man BRM BKP zombie. There is a big difference between explicit prohibitions and plain admonitions. It took a long time to enforce the explicit prohibitions, how long will it take for the Church to encourage people to observe the admonitions? I can count the number of mormon vegetarians I have met on one hand, that doesnt change what D&C 89 says.
Jeffery Gillam if you want to trade insults, then all you have to do is draw first blood, and I will be happy to oblige. Jeffery, I am not addressing the accusation of sin, I am addressing your attempt to create logical arguments by inference. Which inferences are weak. The Smith Sr. case has nothing to do with sinning, it has to do with whether or not someone committed act X and what Smith Jr. said about it. You are trying, by inference, to conclude that Smith approved of beer consumption because he never explicitly commented on it and did it himself. I drew a parallel to that by drawing a similar inference that he must have also approved of the consumption of birch beer since he didnt explicitly comment on it or overtly prevent his father from doing so. Is that clear enough? Your attempts to license beer consumption in Smith’s mind are feeble attempts, because it is plain he also occasionally partook of wine and “hard drinks” after the WofW. And, thus, since the WofW explicitly prohibits those two things, you cannot therefore conclude, by inference, that Smith’s attitude towards beer was something different. Does that make sense? You are using inference and the ambiguity of the term “mild drinks” to attempt to discern the mind of a man, and it doesnt work because the other evidence shows your inference to be fauty. Got it? If thats not plain enough for you, let me know. I am addressing the issue. Youre the one bringing up irrelevant material in an attempt to impugn my character. If you want to duke it out, take the first swing. My tiger style will defeat your crane style.
a random John, yes, interpretation and application of the WofW has changed over time. Nobody is saying it hasnt.
David King Landrith, your rediculous ad hominems aside, I find it entertaining that you are now side-stepping the issue of being proven entirely incorrect in your supposition. The various historical references you seek to dismiss with a wave of your acontenxtual hand prove unquivocally that there was no lapse in WofW interest (e.g., FP statements telling Church local leaders to step down if they are not strictly observing the WofW, prohibiting FT missionaries from serving if they are not strictly observing the WofW, and prohibiting mission presidents from issuing temple recommends to inobservant missionaries) prior to Grant. Both you and that Dialogue article are flat wrong. Keep up the hubris. I’ll keep reading you too, someone has to pull the rug out from under your sophistry. And, thanks for making it so fun and easy. Cheerio.
Nate, buckshot attacks? Hey, if you have some buckshot in your kiester, be relieved to know that I switched over from lead to steel years ago. The leaps you make in the position I allegedly attribute to you over a cascade of posts are not entirely correct. I also believe history should be used to illuminate the meaning of the Sciptures, which is why I include as much relevant historical material as possible into my comments on them. FWIW, I think a lot of the CES material stinks too, but thats irrelevant. In the end its the teacher’s responsability to stand up and present, not the CES’s. You can hand some people a silk purse and they will make a sow’s ear out of it, and you can also do the reverse with some people. Its the teacher’s responsability to make a good presentation. There is plenty of good material available to them, complete canned lessons plans, if they dont use it thats their fault.
Ann, you can make it a trifecta if you have a dip in while drinking.
Comment by Kurt — June 15, 2005 @ 6:54 am
Kurt - you must be one angry po-mo!!!While, I adhere to the WOW since I have to be internally consistent if I am to be a faithful member, I still hold that the WOW is nothing but a means to make us different from the larger society, and more importantly, a means to ensure total obedience. And it does work with a lot of people. A lot of LDS folks I know ( they kind who assume that this blog and T&S are rabidly “anti-Mormon” screeds) have so bought into the reigning Mormon orthodoxy, so much so that they have become militant know-nothings. A 62 year old dumbass I met at Church last sunday , had never heard of D-day and Iwo Jima. Becasue, this very ‘faithful” brother has taken things too far - he, like a lot of others are ofthe opinion that reading anything other than the Book of Mormon and the D&C and the PGP is wrong. The Bible is anti-mormon according to folks like him!!!!!
Comment by dannyboy — June 15, 2005 @ 8:12 am
Kurt,
You are extreme on this. BKP and BRM are/were extreme on stuff like this. Ergo, Kurt = BKP and BRM. Get it now?
Obviously you haven’t gotten lucky since yesterday, and I can give you some pointers in that department too if you want.
Comment by Steve (FSF) — June 15, 2005 @ 9:06 am
dannyboy “po-mo”? Post modern? Um, not sure what that is intended to mean. I am a deconstructionist, but I do not make camp with post-modernists, in the academic sense anyway. Am I angry? I dont think so, havent ever put my fist through a wall or literally kicked anyones head in. But, when punks come around looking for a scrap, lets get it on. My view of the WofW is obviously different from yours. The Bible is certainly not anti-mormon, and people who think it is havent spent much time with it. I would venture to guess they havent spent much time in their Triple Combination either. There is no shortage of “dumbass[es]“, as you put it, in and out of the Church, and on all sides of orthodoxy. Orthodoxy doesnt breed it, it only shelters it. Cliques on non-orthodoxy also shelter it. People tend to pick a view a priori, then look for data to fit that pre-concieved view, and congregate with like-minded individuals. Its just natural human behavior. Its the same with the WofW, or anything else. Look at the posts in this thread. People have decided what their views are irrespective of easily-established historical facts, and then they go and find data to support those views, and then they go ballistic when you point out to them they are ignoring the easily-established historical facts. The most important thing to remember in all of this is that all that really matters is the person’s walk. If a person espouses estoteric doctrine X and you hate esoteric doctrine X, it doesnt make him bad. He is only bad if he does evil, not if he believes wierd/different/controversial things. If youre keeping the WofW, for whatever reason, then thats a good thing. We may disagree on the reasons why, but thats really irrelevant when the rubber meets the road.
Steve (FSF), wow, now there is some powerful logic. I suppose I can also be equated with Extreme Doritos, skateboarders, and overclocking geeks using the same logic. Your definition of “extreme” is self-serving as you would label anyone who actually keeps or encourages others to keep the WofW as being “extreme”. So, I am in good company. Now, in reality, an “extreme” position would be someone who insists the admonitions be enforced the same as the prohibitions. But, nobody here has done that. May the Lord bless you with impotence as persistent as your juvenile insanity. And, thanks for keeping up the self-depricating nonsense, it just makes it all that much easier for people to discern the contents of your head.
Comment by Kurt — June 15, 2005 @ 9:42 am
Which brings to mind the words of Tennyson:
Ring out wild bells, and let him die.
Comment by Mark B. — June 15, 2005 @ 10:49 am
“He does say “If you do all these things you will have good health”. By inference it is plain the prohibitions deal with things that would jeopardize the benefits detailed in v. 18-21.”
Kurt, what He actually says is “all saints who remember to keep and do these sayings, walking in obedience to the commandments“. It’s not just obedience to the Word of Wisdom on which those blessings are predicated, yet when was the last time you heard someone say we should pay our tithing for the health benefits.
Comment by Kim Siever — June 15, 2005 @ 10:59 am
Kurt,
Okay. I agree with you that using JS sr. combined with JS jr. not chastizing him wouldn’t be very presuasive. Putting that example aside (for good I hope) I think you are trivializing JS jr.’s use of beer. He was very casual about it and never even tried to justify it or confess it as a sin. Usually when he did something scandelous in open public he either stated that it was a test of some sort or he openly confessed his sin in partaking. In this case he did neither.
I’m also waiting to hear your interpretation of the spittoons in the SLC temple all the way til the turn of the century. This doesn’t say anything about the use of beer directly, and I know that you admit that the WoW has been interpreted differently over the years, but this does say something about the WoW in general, namely that it wasn’t very strict.
We can also take the example of BH Roberts who struggled with alcoholism all his life. Now his behavior certainly wasn’t acceptable to either the leadership or himself (which is why I’m not to thrilled about bringing up his sins), but he DID become a G.A. and one or the greatest minds the church has ever produced.
Now if we combine the over all laxity of the commandment, the acceptance in the revelation of “mild drinks made from barley” which would have obviously been interpreted as beer in somebody in those days, and Joseph’s extraordinarily casual use of beer through out his life, I don’t think it illogical at all to say that beer was originally allowed in the WoW. While I can understand if this doesn’t convince somebody (actually, I really can’t), I have seen no arguments to the contrary at all.
Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — June 15, 2005 @ 11:51 am
Kim Siever, well, my reading on that passage you quoted wouldnt be quite so broad as yours. I would read the “these things” to be narrowing things down to the health-related commandments encapsulated within D&C 89, and not a broad-brushed inclusion of all the commandments as you appear to read it.
Jeffrey Giliam, I dont intend to trivialize his use of beer. I just dont find it persuasive in the light of his other uses of alcohol containing beverages, which he knew to be prohibited, and never apologized for either. I dont care about spitoons in the Temple, their intended use was obvious, to keep tobacco spittle off the Temple floor. OK, so what are we to infer from that? How about that the people who were tasked with keeping the place clean realized that some slobs would spit anywhere? Young repeatedly yelled at members in the Tabernacle who showed up for General Conference and spat on the floors. He told them to swallow it or get out and spit. So what do we infer from that? Young was tacitly approving the chewing of tobacco? Nope, not by a long shot. Its simply addressing the reality of the situation. What is the point of the Roberts example, that even GAs can have shortcomings? So what? Roberts was tortured by it and struggled with it. He wasnt unapolagetic. The overall laxity of the commandment was because the people couldnt live it, so it was adapted to the weakest of them, as it says so itself. What, you want Smith to excommunicate 99% of the Church in 1833? Theres a recipe for success. You cannot understand why Smith’s similar imbibing of explicitly prohibited drinks doesnt undermine your inferential argument? You cannot logically understand it, or you cannot practically understand it? No, forget it. Either way, it doesnt matter. I dont need to present an argument to the contrary if I can undermine yours, which I have.
Comment by Kurt — June 15, 2005 @ 1:48 pm
Kim Siever, well, my reading on that passage you quoted wouldnt be quite so broad as yours. I would read the “these things” to be narrowing things down to the health-related commandments encapsulated within D&C 89, and not a broad-brushed inclusion of all the commandments as you appear to read it.
Interesting. The text of that section is explicit that dietary guidelines are not commandments.
Comment by J. Stapley — June 15, 2005 @ 1:53 pm
Kurt,
Yeah, my brain is between my legs, but at least I’m using it. You’ve got a bone to pick w/ almost every commenter, and you’re most unpleasant about it. Doesn’t that tell you my epiphany might just be correct? Trust me on this, it helps. It helps a lot.
Comment by Steve (FSF) — June 15, 2005 @ 2:08 pm
Kurt,
Forgive me for butting in, but I am at a serious loss to understand your point in all of your posts. The more I read you, the more confused I become. From what I can tell, you concede all of the historical arguments that the general populace of the church and many General Authorities have not followed the WoW in the 19th century. Yet you disagree with the inference that the 19th c. examples indicate that the WoW has not always held the same cultural/doctrinal importance in the Church as it has since the early 20th century. Is this correct? If so, your argument makes no sense to me. Please explain what you are trying to say in a concise paragraph so that I can understand.
Thanks.
Comment by Taylor — June 15, 2005 @ 2:10 pm
I’d like to stop this from continuing as The Kurt Show. Please, everyone, quit your bickering.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 15, 2005 @ 2:12 pm
Dear brothers and sisters of the thread –
I would just like to take this opportunity to say how thankful I am and how much I appreciate the