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.

The Great Debate

My mom and I were having a discussion last night concerning caffeinated sodas and the Word of Wisdom. I’ve been thinking pretty heavily about the topic since then and felt it worthwhile to share my thoughts.

I was raised to not drink caffeinated beverages. Since getting married I have relaxed that prohibition. I don’t care for any colas really, pepsi is okay, but I do LOVE Mountain Dew. My all time favorite soda is still A&W root beer, but sometimes a Dew really hits the spot.

I believe that while growing up it is important for parents to impart their values and prohibit those things they consider wrong. However, as a child grows and matures it is just as important for them to investigate and determine why they believe what they believe.

A key example is President Hinckley’s prohibition on more than one earring. I had my ears double pierced in college (to my parents chagrin) and had been considering a nose piercing for quite some time. I immediately took my double piercing out, although it pained me to do so. However, the issue of whether or not to get a nose piercing has dogged me over the years. Sometimes I would think, “it is not an actual commandment so why not?”. I finally came to be at peace with my decision a few weeks ago. I began searching the internet for stories from other mormons concerning nose piercing. I found a blog created by an ex-mormon who had a nose ring while still a member. She left the church for good after divorcing her husband and had made some pretty terrible life choices. She was pretty vile in her diatribes against her husband and was about as amoral as it gets. I was pretty repelled by her lifestyle and decided that I do NOT want to be associated with that kind of person.

My job now is to determine if I believe it is wrong to drink caffeinated sodas.

Below are the quotes I considered in my decision:

“Larry King: No to caffeine?
Gordon B. Hinckley: No to caffeine, coffee and tea.”

D&C 89:2 “…showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days”

Church Handbook of Instruction: The only official interpretation of "hot drinks" (D&C 89:9) in the Word of Wisdom is the statement made by early Church leaders that the term "hot drinks" means tea and coffee. Members should not use any substance that contains illegal drugs. Nor should members use harmful or habit-forming substances except under the care of a competent physician.

That’s right, just those three.

I believe it would be folly to take what President Hinckley said as a commandment from God (we could segue here into a debate on when the prophet’s words must be followed). If it is taken in that interpretation then we must no longer eat chocolate as well.

Here are some caffeine amounts to help put chocolate in perspective:

Coffee – generic: 133mg
Mountain Dew: 54mg
Pepsi: 38mg
Hershey’s Special Dark Chocolate Bar: 31mg
Hershey’s Milk Chocolate: 9mg

I guarantee that the amount of dark chocolate I have eaten in my life outweighs the amount of Mountain Dew.

Now, to the topic of substances that are harmful and habit forming: My dad doesn’t drink Pepsi because he felt he had become addicted to it. My friend doesn’t eat chocolate because she felt addicted to it.

There has been a lot of press lately about the glycemic index. The amount and type of carbohydrates we eat plays a pretty big role in how tired we feel in the afternoon. If you eat foods lower on the glycemic index you will not experience a big crash in the afternoon. I would equate this type of physiological reaction with that of caffeine withdrawal. It creates an effect, but no more so that many other substances and foods we already take into our bodies.

Since chocolate is not prohibited by the church I have to conclude that caffeine is either not the problem or it is only a problem in large quantities. If it is the latter then it is safe to say that the amount I am consuming is not harmful. So, yes I do believe caffeinated sodas are okay.

I don’t expect this to convince anyone either way. It was helpful to me in formulating why I think it is okay to drink caffeinated sodas.