Skip to content

🍂 Word of Wisdom: Changes

Estimated time to read: 27 minutes

Early Latter-day Saints were not under the same requirements for the Word of Wisdom as today's Saints are.

The Word of Wisdom was enforced differently in the 19th century than today. Observance of the Word of Wisdom has changed over time, due to on-going revelation from modern-day prophets, who put greater emphasis on certain elements of the revelation originally given to Joseph Smith. Early Latter-day Saints were not under the same requirements as today's Saints are.

— Joseph Smith never interpreted the Word of Wisdom revelation as demanding total abstinence, In what way did Joseph Smith implement the Word of Wisdom during his lifetime?, FAIR

If you're unfamiliar with FAIR, I've got some notes on who they are, and [Sources and Links#Favorable sites|using them as a source on another page. I'll be quoting them several times on this page.

 

Really, though. It's not cute to just leave it at "yeeeaah the rules on the [docs/Doctrines/Word of Wisdom/Word-of-Wisdom|Word of Wisdom were a lot more lax before, and our dispensation's earliest leadership kinda sorta didn't follow it at all? There's a passage in Isaiah that says 'line upon line,' so we can change the rules whenever we want without telling you. Anyway, you will go to hell if you drink coffee."

rage-asdf.png

This is not trivial. Adherence to this commandment affects your eternal wellbeing. Obedience to this commandment is one of many deciding factors for temple worthiness, and consequently exaltation. It is the responsibility of church leaders to ensure that we lay people understand God's will, requirements, and stipulations (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) and they are failing to communicate the requirements of this commandment. If God's chosen, authoritative spokespersons cannot be relied upon to teach this commandment, how can we rely on them to teach about any other commandment to God's satisfaction?

The notion of doctrine changing isn't the issue here. Joseph had enough foresight to account for scenarios where the rules would need to change, and so rules can change. The problem here is that, as a full-time missionary, I had been instructed to teach this doctrine as it was presented and canonized in D&C 89, and that's as complicated as it ever got. The doctrine of the Word of Wisdom is not a mosaic enumeration of parameters, but it is a divinely appointed set of principles that haven't changed. How should I react, then, when ten years after serving a mission for the LDS church, I find that the doctrine actually did change, nobody had told me that it changed, nor will any authoritative voice explain when, how, what, or why?

 

I see no clear articulation of changes to the Word of Wisdom. Big, important doctrines such as polygamy get an official declaration and two manifestos when they get changed. Yes, we've had some prophets who have insisted that it's eternal, unchanging, and immutable, but God seems to fold under pressure rather quickly once tax-exempt statuses become threatened. My point in comparing it to polygamy is that the Word of Wisdom—explicitly outlined as "[docs/Doctrines/Word of Wisdom/Word-of-Wisdom#Commandment|not a commandment"—can at some non-specific time become a commandment, and so that change should be abundantly clear and obvious to both an insider and an outsider.

Searching through contemporary documents, however, only demonstrates to me that it simply is not clear. To date the only sources I've found are "this changed at some point in time," as I will demonstrate below with some cited quotes. I've seen mentions of documentation, but they're really vague. My concern remains, though: if Joseph Smith didn't have to follow it, why should anyone have to follow it?

 

Became a Commandment

Going over my notes and the church's source materials, I think I've concluded that this is an anomaly. I can think of no other time when God gave a revelation to His prophet containing a commandment that is not meant to be followed right away. Could you identify any? Are there other commandments given with the stipulation that you don't have to obey when it is given, but you must get ready to obey it later?

 

The reason undoubtedly why the Word of Wisdom was given as not by "commandment or restraint" was that at that time, at least, if it had been given as a commandment it would have brought every man, addicted to the use of these noxious things, under condemnation; so the Lord was merciful and gave them a chance to overcome, before He brought them under the law. Later on, it was announced from this stand, by President Brigham Young, that the Word of Wisdom was a revelation and a command of the Lord. I desire to mention that fact, because I do not want you to feel that are under no restraint. We do not want to come under condemnation.

— General Conference, 1913 October, President Joseph F. Smith (remember the F); See also a D&C Seminary Teacher Manual citing this as an explanation

So was Joseph's revelation not a "revelation" before Brigham called it a revelation? Can we get a citation for when Brigham made this into doctrine? Or why, nearly 200 years later, the canon source document still says "this isn't a commandment" after we've been told that it is?

You can follow that link and see the preceding address given by President Anthon H Lund, who says, in so many words, "yeah, it says it isn't a commandment, but that doesn't mean it's optional!" It appears that President Smith wanted to interject, and so he delivers the above quote to expound on what Lund had said.

Note that this is a formally recorded General Conference session in 1913, rather than those uncomfortable, sometimes-apocryphal [Sources and Links#Journal of Discourses|Journal of Discourses entries. This one is for real, where the standing prophet of the Lord unambiguously reminds us that the Word of Wisdom is definitely a commandment, because Brigham Young said so... at some nonspecific point in time.

Was his formal declaration recorded? Did we write down when he said this? No? Well, good thing we have prophets today who will simply point to the gap in record-keeping and say "it was revealed during this span of time when we didn't write anything down." Bold and declarative, just as God wants 👍

 

Institute Manuals

Teacher Manual

Point out the phrase “not by commandment or constraint” in verse 2, and explain that the Lord did not initially give the Word of Wisdom to the Saints as a commandment. Eventually, after the Saints had many years to practice obeying the principles in the Word of Wisdom, the Lord’s prophets began teaching that the Word of Wisdom was now to be considered a commandment (see the student manual commentary for D&C 89:1–2).

— Lesson 35: Doctrine and Covenants 89–92, Teacher's Manual

Cool of God to give us "many years to practice" following God before we're actually required to follow God. Nothing problematic or uncharacteristic going on here, definitely not something made up, nope

 

Student Manual

Many of the revelations received by the Prophet Joseph Smith came to the Saints as commandments from the Lord. ... Although Church members were not required to live the Word of Wisdom immediately after it was given, Church leaders gradually invited the Saints to more fully live the Word of Wisdom throughout the early history of the Church.

During the fall general conference of 1851, President Brigham Young proposed that all Saints formally covenant to abstain from tea, coffee, tobacco, and whiskey. On October 13, 1882, the Lord revealed to President John Taylor that the Word of Wisdom was to be considered a commandment. In 1919 the First Presidency, under President Heber J. Grant, made the observance of the Word of Wisdom a requirement for receiving a temple recommend.

The Word of Wisdom continues to be an important commandment today, and obeying it is a prerequisite for baptism, temple attendance, missionary service, and other worthy service in the Church.

— Chapter 35: Doctrine and Covenants 89–92, Student Manual; line breaks added

 

What I read from all of this is an unprecedented soft rollout of God's will with an (1919 - 1833) = 86 year lead time before God decides to actually enforce what He told us six prophets ago. I don't know how else to quantify that, Heber J. Grant was the seventh one, right?

The Word of Wisdom evidently wasn't a capital-C Commandment until decades after Joseph Smith Jr. had been killed in Carthage Jail. It seems to have been formally canonized under Brigham Young's rule, but... Young didn't really follow it, either, perhaps because he simply "proposed that all Saints formally covenant" as this Student Manual states. Is this the formal, authoritative declaration that Joseph F Smith had mentioned in #Became a Commandment?

Well, the commandment didn't stick when Brigham declared or proposed it, so God tells John Taylor that it's a for-realsies commandment, but no one would really follow up on if this commandment was followed or not, so Heber J. Grant had to gatekeep temple attendance contingent on obedience. Ongoing restoration, I guess.

So... why did God reveal it to Joseph Smith, then? Why wouldn't it have been revealed directly to Young or Taylor to be enacted then and there? What does this imply about the value proposition of a contemporary, living prophet?

 

To contrast this, I can point to a divine imperative where Joseph's life was in immediate peril at the hands of an "angel with a drawn sword, threatening Joseph with destruction unless he went forward and obeyed the commandment fully" by engaging in plural marriage. 🤷 God clearly just isn't that worried about drinking coffee if this is the benchmark for urgency. I don't remember reading about any manifestos from church presidents formally denouncing the devil's lettuce.

Imagine if the scenarios were reversed: "You're going to have to claim exclusive partnership with around thirty women... but not right now. Drinking tea, on the other hand, you stop that shit immediately."
What the hell, God?

 

I suppose that, despite reminders spanning from 1853 to 1919, those circuitous saints were still rationalizing temperatures of drinks, or perhaps eating meat outside of times of famine, even though God said in no uncertain terms that His revelation was not a commandment. By golly, we can't have that, so we've now got to deny people access to saving ordinances if they [docs/Doctrines/Word of Wisdom/Word-of-Wisdom#Beer|give oats to a cow. Maybe if God hadn't put the qualifying stipulation "[docs/Doctrines/Word of Wisdom/Word-of-Wisdom#Commandment|this isn't a commandment" when revealing it, it wouldn't be so troublesome decades down the road.

Was it by divine revelation and design that one cannot enter the temple without strictly following the "principle with a promise?" ... I don't know. The way I would find out is by obtaining the Conference Reports of October 1851, October 1882, and the authoritative proclamation from the First Presidency some time in 1919. I'm not clear if that was disseminated in General Conference. Conveniently, the year 1882 is missing from the church's Conference Report catalog. In the event that I find the remaining discourses (BY in 1851 and HJG in 1919,) I'll put some links here.

 

School of the Prophets

The revelation had been declared not as a commandment but as a caution. Many people would find it hard to give up using these powerful substances, and Joseph did not insist on strict conformity. He continued to drink alcohol occasionally, and he and Emma sometimes drank coffee and tea.

Still, after Joseph read the words to the School of the Prophets, the men in the room tossed their pipes and plugs of chewing tobacco into the fire to show their willingness to obey the Lord’s counsel.

— Chapter 15: Holy Places, Saints, Volume 1; See also the 2017 Institute Teacher's manual again

 

This is also recounted in the Come, Follow Me: Doctrine and Covenants 2025 curriculum. I'll emphasize this one for some of its discussion prompts for what else we can learn from the revelation. Maybe I'm a grumpy apostate, but what I see in this story is an unquestioning willingness to immediately obey what the prophet says, even with two bizarre qualifiers: the prophet himself says that it isn't a commandment from God, and the prophet himself isn't even following it. So then what was the point of telling anyone?

We're left with an anecdote of the school's attendees immediately destroying their tobacco in the above quoted excerpt. Why would that be written and shared in church curriculum if not to illustrate obedience from the faithful? I'm not challenging the veracity or truthfulness of this story, I'll assume that it's true until I find information that demonstrates otherwise. The story describes Brother Joseph not obeying the Word of Wisdom, and it stands among myriad other examples of Saints not following the Word of Wisdom because it wasn't a commandment.

So what is the Word of Wisdom, then? If it was not a commandment, why did some nonspecific number of attendees immediately throw out their tobacco pipes? Did "the men in the room" continue to abstain indefinitely, or did they just have to hold off until they got back to their supply of chewing tobacco back home? Joseph certainly didn't abstain. Were they so spiritually attuned that they were naturally inclined to obey to the Lord's counsel? It wasn't the Lord's counsel, it was a revelation to be kept on the back burner for 86 years! You know, the pattern that God has been infamous for: giving one prophet a commandment that is not meant to be obeyed nor followed, but to be written down for the sixth succession to the title to announce "okay, now you have to follow it."

 

Medicinal Use

Many church members, for instance, apparently felt that it was acceptable for tea or alcohol to be taken medicinally. Emma may have offered tea and coffee to new arrivals with this idea in mind; JS’s administering whiskey in June 1834 to George A. Smith, who was suffering from cholera, almost certainly reflected such an interpretation.

In spite of JS’s acquiescence with this practice, not everyone agreed with it. On 4 December 1836, for example, at the instigation of Sidney Rigdon, a meeting of church members in Kirtland voted unanimously to “discountenance the use intirely of all liquors from the Church in Sickness & in health.” Over the ensuing years, nevertheless, various church members, including JS, continued to allow for the use of these drinks in cases of sickness.

Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, in a reminiscent account, reported that JS told church members suffering from malaria in early Nauvoo to “make tea and drink it” when the river water was unsuitable for drinking and that he “often made tea and administered it with his own hands.”

— Historical introduction, Revelation, 27 February 1833 [D&C 89], Joseph Smith Papers Project

 

The women of Winter Quarters immediately surrounded Louisa, anxious to help her. They gave her brandy and sugar as medicine, which at first made her feel better. But soon her fever worsened, and she began to shake violently. Afraid she was dying, she cried to the Lord for mercy.

— Chapter 3: Word and Will of the Lord, Saints, Volume 2

 

I'm not trying to make the case that things like alcohol can't be used medicinally. Truth be told, I didn't pay close enough attention in biology class to understand why, exactly, is it that alcohol and bacteria do not get along with each other. They don't. Someone who understands chemistry could probably tell you more about it.

The case I'm making is that alcohol as a (valid) medical treatment seems to upset God, thus saith His special boy Joseph Smith.

 

420

The Church opposes the use of marijuana for non-medical purposes. However, marijuana may be used for medicinal purposes when conditions are met: [...]

The Church does not approve of smoking marijuana, including for medical purposes.

— § 38.7.9, Medical Marijuana, General Handbook

"We oppose its use, unless it's approved. Also, we don't approve." (Follow the link for omitted conditions)

 

This doesn't fit neatly into the context of 19th century alcohol consumption, but any page with Word of Wisdom in the title and a sub-heading of Medicinal Use warrants at least a brief mention. There it is.

 

FAIR

But, many of the events described are actually concerned about medical practice, not the social or recreational use of these substances.

— The Word of Wisdom was enforced differently in the 19th century than today, Did Joseph Smith violate the Word of Wisdom by drinking tea?; FAIR

 

Critics Gerald and Sandra Tanner make a great deal of Joseph asking for a "pipe and tobacco" for Willard Richards. However, when we understand the circumstances, this action makes sense, and it has nothing to do with the Word of Wisdom. ...

But, this misses the point in a spectacular way—tobacco was considered a medicine at the time! ... The issue only becomes important, after all, when one is unfamiliar with early nineteenth century medicine.

Since neither the wine nor the tobacco was, for members at the time, seen as a violation of the Word of Wisdom. Leaders would not include this information if it made Joseph look bad. This should be our first clue that something else is going on. Some critics, however, have not sought to understand, but merely to condemn by trusting that their audience will not understand the fine points of early nineteenth century frontier medicine.

— Tobacco for Willard Richards, Did Willard Richards violate the Word of Wisdom by using tobacco at Carthage Jail? FAIR

 

"The fine points of early nineteenth century frontier medicine" makes it sound like some subcategory of philosophy or theoretical physics. I will concede that I am no historian, so I couldn't speak authoritatively or definitively about the topic. However, based on what material I have consumed by reading and listening, it looks to me like frontiersmen found a pattern that drinking whisky dulls the pain of your rotting teeth. Stronger drinks distract your mind from agonizing over an infection. They didn't have pepto-bismol, they had coffee to regulate bowel movements. I don't know how deep or profound this topic is, but my estimation is that frontiersmen had yet to identify washing one's hands as a good hygienic practice. How much nuance is there to be found?

Lest we lose sight of why we're even examining the possibility that "early nineteenth century American frontier medicine" could even contain "fine points," the whole premise here is deciding whether or not God revealed something to Joseph Smith that wasn't even a commandment, and whether or not infringing that non-commandment counts as disobeying God's discretionary recommendation, and whether that's a problem or not. Very normal, rational conversation.

 

I really don't know what to think when I read that these substances were considered medicinal, and then God commands the Saints to never use them. What the hell were the early Saints supposed to do, then? Eat meat but only when it's in season? Is that going to help treat dysentery? God didn't outline in the Word of Wisdom what actually is medicinal, but He made it pretty clear that tea isn't it. No part of D&C 89 suggests exceptions for medical purposes for humankind; the closest semantic match I see js tobacco, outlined as being "for bruises and all sick cattle." If you squint your eyes and tilt your head just right, that clearly means that you can drink whisky but only if you have cholera.

elaborate-explanation.gif

FAIR is trying so hard to rationalize why God told us to not cleanse water by boiling it, but instead commands reveals to His special boy Joseph that no one should ever use medicine (tobacco, tea, alcohol) which explains why it was revealed through a prophet but wasn't actually a commandment, so it's fine.

The last of the paragraphs quoted above from FAIR insinuates pretty strongly that anything that makes Joseph Smith look bad must be false. Tell me if you can think of another conclusion to draw from it, because after re-reading it again and again, it sure sounds like Joseph cannot be wrong about anything ever.

No, we're not a cult 😤 stop calling us that

 

Presentism

Joseph Smith is reported as drinking tea on a few occasions. Does this make Joseph Smith a hypocrite for violating the Word of Wisdom?

We are sometimes guilty of "presentism"—judging historical figures by the standards of our day, instead of their day.

— Joseph Smith never interpreted the Word of Wisdom revelation as demanding total abstinence, In what way did Joseph Smith implement the Word of Wisdom during his lifetime?, FAIR

 

... I guess not, it isn't hypocritical to be defying a commandment if we can just move the goalposts: it wasn't a commandment at that time, but it is for you today! You need to stop looking at porn.

 

Is it really "presentism" if I had been taught that the standards of our day and the standards of their day were the same? This wouldn't be a problem if I hadn't been taught that God's laws and commandments are eternal and unchanging. Why is this one an exception? It didn't seem to be related at all to worthiness for baptism, temple attendance, nor garment-donning in "their day," but it is now. Hadn't you been taught that? Is that presentism? If this is part of the restoration of the Gospel, doesn't that imply pretty heavily that the Word of Wisdom had not only existed in the past, but adherence was a requirement for baptism or temple attendance in ancient days?

It is presentism to expect consistent behavior? Are integrity and accountability modern inventions?

 

Attitude toward Infractions

If a man ... be guilty of drinking ardent spirits, instead of being ordained to the priesthood, he should be admonished; and if he should in any case, carry it to drunkenness, he should be strictly dealt with; and if he repent not, he should be excommunicated.

— Ordinations, The Latter-day Saints' Millennial Star, Vol. 12, Issue 3, February 1 1850

It's unclear to me who wrote this, so perhaps it shouldn't be counted as doctrinal canon? I'll include it here to mark one end of the spectrum of dispositions toward those who do not observe the Word of Wisdom.

 

On the other end of the spectrum, I can point to at least three times when President Brigham Young relegated the Word of Wisdom to the jurisprudence of "vibes."

Some of the brethren are very strenuous upon the “Word of Wisdom,” and would like to have me preach upon it, and urge it upon the brethren, and make it a test of fellowship. I do not think that I shall do so. I have never done so. ... Some would ask brother Brigham whether he keeps the “Word of Wisdom.” No: and I can say still further, as I told one of the teachers in Nauvoo, I come as near doing so as any man in this generation. ...

— Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 9:35; 7 April 1861

 

I have my weakness, and you have yours; ... Many of the brethren chew tobacco, and I have advised them to be modest about it. ... If you must use tobacco, put a small portion in your mouth when no person sees you, and be careful that no one sees you chew it. I do not charge you with sin. You have the “Word of Wisdom.” Read it.

— Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 8:361; 10 March 1860

 

Now let us observe the Word of Wisdom. Shall I take a vote on it? Everybody would vote, but who would observe it? A good many, but not all. I can say that a good many do observe their covenants in this thing. But who is it that understands wisdom before God? In some respects we have to define it for ourselves—each for himself—according to our own views, judgment and faith, and the observance of the Word of Wisdom, or the interpretation of God's requirements on this subject, must be left, partially, with the people. We cannot make laws like the Medes and Persians. We cannot say you shall never drink a cup of tea, or you shall never taste of this, or you shall never taste of that[.]

— Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 14:20, 6 May 1870

We somehow changed from "we're not going to tell you that you can't" to "you are disallowed from baptism and salvation if tea leaves are found in your domicile." When did that happen? Where can I read about it?

 

Also, check on those dates from these quotes, and note that if Brigham Young had formally declared this teaching as a commandment, it could not have been earlier than 1860 when he says chewing tobacco is not a sin. That precludes the explicit mention from the Institute Student Manual quoted above, when in 1851 President Brigham Young may or may not have said something that could be construed to mean that the Word of Wisdom is a commandment. Moreover, it would have to be between 1870 and 1877 when he passed away. That is enough time for someone to change their mind, let's not forget that Brigham is the authoritative mouthpiece for God, and Brigham has authoritatively stated that the Word of Wisdom is no big deal.

Is he a prophet or not?

 

Just sell it, bro

Tobacco is just fine so long as you sell it to the heathens instead of smoking it yourself, thus saith the Lord.

 

You know that we all profess to believe the “Word of Wisdom.” There has been a great deal said about it, more in former than in latter years. We, as Latter-day Saints, care but little about tobacco; but, as “Mormons,” we use a vast quantity of it. As Saints, we use but little; as “Mormons,” we use a great deal. How much do you suppose goes annually from this Territory, and has for ten or twelve years past, in gold and silver, to supply the people with tobacco? I will say $60,000.

... It is not using tobacco that particularly breaks the “Word of Wisdom,” nor is that the only bad practice it corrects; but it is profitable in every path of life.

— Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 9:35; 7 April 1861

Note the dates from the past few quotes, compared to the Word of Wisdom's introduction in 1833. God really didn't seem very bothered by this practice. Around 190 years later, though, He'll get really pissy about people [Name Mormon|calling themselves Mormon—and you're not allowed to get baptized or go to the temple if you ever have a cup of tea.

God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) if anyone asks.

 

Brigham Young saying that "it is not using tobacco that particularly breaks the Word of Wisdom" sounds to me like he's delineating between smoking it yourself and other non-consumptive use cases... like selling it to rubes and yokels on their way to California. Partaking in [Meat commerce|commerce is not an infraction of God's non-commandment, unless it's done on Sunday. Sounds to me like tobacco is lucrative, and President Young's audience as Mormons (but not as Saints) should cultivate and grow tobacco, but sell it to passersby rather than consume it yourself. According to one inflation calculator I found online, that $60k in 1861 would be worth $2.2 million in 2026.

Outside of that observation, above is a quote from President Brigham Young straight up saying in 1861, 28 years after the revelation, that he just doesn't follow the Word of Wisdom. Read it for yourself. There's the link to BYU's own Scripture Citation Index. After you read the discourse with your very own eyeballs, scroll up within this very page of notes to the Institute student manuals assuring us that Brigham Young made the Word of Wisdom a divinely appointed capital-C commandment in 1851, and tell me how you will settle the cognitive dissonance.

 

If it is the case that prior prophets haven't really had to follow God's commandments after they are explicitly delineated as commandments... I think that counts as another issue to call his authority into question. Adherence to that law is now required for temple attendance. If President Young were somehow poofed into the present day, he would not be permitted to enter any temple. After all, he is the one who made it into a commandment, isn't he? If the prophet of God and president of His one true, restored church isn't temple worthy, then what are any of us doing?

 

Reading Material

I may or may not dig into these to explore more of how the Word of Wisdom has changed over time:

Comments