Word of Wisdom Reading

Steph has been sick for a week or so now so I thought I'd jump in and contribute something to the blog.

I thought I had read most of the key articles on the Word of Wisdom, but this last week someone I know linked to one I had missed. Before getting to that, if you ever get bored and decide it would be fun to read about the Word of Widsom (hereafter WoW), here are some places to get started:

Peterson, Paul H. "An Historical Analysis of the Word of Wisdom." Master's thesis, Brigham Young University, 1972

This thesis provides a great overview of the history of the WoW from its inception to the modern (1972) day. Here you will get an taste for how attitudes have varied among members and changed over time. Although there have always been people who took the WoW seriously an urged observance, the first thirty years emphasized moderation over abstinence. During the 1860s, Brigham Young ramped up the emphasis on the WoW for largely economic reasons, because he was appalled at how much money the Saints were sending out of the state to import items prohibited by the Word of Wisdom. Observance was still tremendously lax by today's standards and people were encouraged from the pulpit to grow their own tobacco rather than importing it. There was another revival about the WoW in the 1880s in which the leadership got serious about requiring observance among the leadership for the first time. With the early 1990s came prohibition and the WoW became intertwined with national politics. Pres. Grant was a big supporter of prohibition and after becoming President in 1919 he quickly moved to make WoW observance a requirement for temple and mission service. His time as prophet lasted until 1945 during which time the WoW took its place in Mormon orthodoxy as one of our most distinguishing practices.

Lester Bush, The Word of Wisdom in Early Nineteenth-Century Perspective, Dialogue 14:3
We often talk about how amazing it is that the WoW was revealed back when science had no idea about the effects of alcohol and tobacco. While it is true that "science" in the 1830s couldn't tell a remedy from the whole in the ground, there were some widespread theories about the underlying causes of disease and the WoW fits very well with those theories. That is to say, they had totally wrong ideas about why alcohol and tobacco are bad for you, but their wrong ideas still said that they were bad. The WoW reflects in many ways the scientific understanding of the time. In fact, the prohibition against “hot” drinks makes good sense in the context of nineteenth century theories of disease even though it seems strange by today’s understanding. There is a great quote from a Dr Caleb Ticknor talking about how hot water is even more dangerous than tea because the medicinal properties of tea offset the dangers of the hot water. (It was literally the temperature of the drink that was considered to be harmful.)

In any case, having an idea about nineteenth century theories of disease brings some parts of the WoW into focus. Most of the prohibited items were also used medicinally in the 1800s and it appears that during the lives of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, the WoW was not understood to prohibit those items when taken for medicinal purposes.

Thomas Alexander, The Word of Wisdom: From Principle to Requirement, Dialogue 14:3

The title of this one sums it up well. The journey from principle to requirement is examined in a bit more detail than in Peterson’s Master’s thesis.

Leonard Arrington, An Economic Interpretation of the “Word of Widsom”

Robert McCue, Did the Word of Wisdom Become a Commandment in 1851?, Dialogue 14:3

The content of these two papers is summarized pretty well in Peterson’s thesis, so you only need to go read these ones if you want more details.

Finally, here is the paper which I missed until it was pointed out to me last week, although I had heard bits of the theory previously.

Clyde Ford, The Origin of the Word of Wisdom, Journal of Mormon History 24:2

Ford makes a very interesting case for the WoW being a composite of three different revelations, given at different times, for different reasons, and to different audiences. There is a fair bit of conjecture in the article, but also lots of good information, and plenty of food for thought. Go read it and feel free to share your thoughts in the comments below.