The Word of Wisdom (WofW) is a unique revelation in the sense that we are able to confirm it’s legitimacy with science.  I dare say that 176 years ago when the WofW was given, people had a difficult time seeing the wisdom in it.  To some pioneers living back then, the WofW must have seemed like a rule from heaven without justification (kind of like polygamy).  I imagine some early Latter-day Saints said things like: “Why can’t we smoke?” or “What could possibly be wrong with drinking hot drinks like coffee and tea?” 

But as the faithful know, when God commands, we should not ask “why”; we should go and do.  Today no one is asking “why” questions about the Word of Wisdom.  The answers have been provided in abundance by science.  

The WofW says that drinking wine and strong drink is not good.  Nothing drives this point home more than the fact that alcohol consumption causes about 24,000 deaths per year from alcohol-related car crashes in the US alone, and leaves another 500,000 seriously injured.  Some people get all upset about 4000 US soldiers killed in Iraq – where is the outrage over the approximately 24,000 alcohol-related car crash deaths last year!?  Alcohol consumption also costs about $90 billion in lost production and health care costs in the US.  In short, alcohol consumption has had devastating effects on our modern society.  It has affected us in ways that could not have been predicted 176 years ago.

The WofW says that tobacco is not for the body and is not good for man.  The nicotine in tobacco is very addictive, so many people get hooked on smoking and are unable (or unwilling) to quit.  The CDC’s national center for chronic disease reports that in the 1990s, smoking killed an average of 440,000 people per year in the US.  More-freakin-over, smoking cost the nation about $92,000,000,000 in lost productivity between 1997 and 2001!  Back in the day when the WofW was given, smokers who died of lung cancer just died - nobody knew why (there are few if any references to lung cancer in 19th century medical texts).  However, today we fully understand the devastating cost of tobacco.

The WofW highly recommends herbs (vegetables), fruits, and grains.  It should come as no surprise that vegetables, fruits and grains make up the bottom portions of our food pyramid.  They are at the bottom of the pyramid because science has shown that they are the foods that we should consume the most to ensure good health.  I am certain that early 1800’s science did not have extensive information on healthy eating habits.  I don’t think that people living back then would have claimed that an apple was healthier than salted pork.  In fact, the salted pork would have been more appealing to them because of its greater potential to satisfy hunger.  However, nowadays we understand the importance of healthy eating.

And finally, the WofW counsels us to eat meat sparingly.  The results of a recent research project funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) found that “Americans who ate the most red meat boosted their overall risk of death by 30% during a 10-year period compared to those who ate the least.”  The researchers claimed that “if the heaviest red meat eaters ate as little as the people who consumed the least, they could prevent 11% of deaths among men and 16% of deaths among women.”  Now more than ever before we see the wisdom in the divine counsel to eat meat sparingly.  (Note, neither this study nor the WofW tells us that we should become vegetarians.  Red meat is a good source of iron and fat-soluble vitamins such as A, D, E and K, and antioxidants such as glutathione or carnosine.)

Indeed, as science progresses we are more fully realizing the wisdom in the WofW.  God said that he was warning and forewarning us by giving the WofW – Now we know some of the reasons why.


 


Comments

Bruce Johns

Wed, 25 Mar 2009 4:06:58 pm

There is an ongoing controversy that challenges the complete abstinence from alcohol myth.
Moderation...Yes
Complete abstinence...Not necessarily.

Joseph Smith enjoyed a beer or glass of wine well after the WoW was introduced..apparently realizing that complete abstinence was not required.
Brigham Young enjoyed, and even advocated, a little brandy from time to time.

Certainly if a person has the propensity to not be able to regulate himself, he should abstain. Intemperance is an awful foe. But a person enjoying a beer or glass of wine from time to time should not be considered a WoW violation, despite what the "brethren" have distorted the original meaning to be.

My 2 cents....

 

Wed, 25 Mar 2009 7:33:56 pm

I think you want to be careful not to over-do it. According to Bushman, the WofW "came at a time when temperance and food reforms were flourishing in the United States." Joseph was not the only one saying these kinds of things.

Further, it was not until Joseph F. Smith/Heber J. Grant that it attained its current emphasis. Thomas Alexander's treatment of this is classic.

http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?/dialogue,6589

 

Dave C.

Wed, 25 Mar 2009 9:15:03 pm

Bruce Johns,

IMO, someone who "needs" to consume alcohol might claim that it is not against the WofW to take a little alcohol once and a while. Maybe such a person is more "hooked" on alcohol than he realizes.

 

Dave C.

Wed, 25 Mar 2009 9:18:30 pm

Jared*,

I have not seen one comprehensive food consumption guideline from the early 1800s. If you find a primary source, let me know.
Moreover, when the WoW received its current emphasis in the form of a commandment is interesting, but this in no way diminishes the main claim of the post - there is wisdom in the WofW that was not realized back then.

 

Bruce Johns

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 5:06:06 pm

Dave C.,

I totally agree with your comment that "someone who needs alcohol" might tend to try and justify partaking of it to make themselves feel less guilty.
I'm just looking at the thing objectively and, no, I don't drink.
The WoW is mostly dietary law and I submit that, due to the fact that obesity is the leading cause of death in our culture, it should be treated as such.
In other words: there would be something really messed up with an overweight bishop denying a recommend to someone who has a single beer on Friday afternoon after a hard week's work IMHO.

 

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 6:44:29 pm

You think the WofW is comprehensive? I think it's rather vague. (On giving rye to fowls, see http://bycommonconsent.com/2008/10/24/no-death-before-the-rye/)

To quote Bushman again, "In 1835, Sylvester Graham lectured in New York and Philadelphia against tobacco, tea, coffee, and alcohol, advocating a diet based on whole grains."

For more historical context on the WoW, see http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?/dialogue,6557

I'm not taking issue with your underlying point about the unrecognized wisdom. As I said, I just think we shouldn't over-do it. Would it change anything if it turned out that something prohibited by the WoW was actually good (and the argument can be made in several cases)?

 

Dave C.

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 9:10:23 pm

"there would be something really messed up with an overweight bishop denying a recommend to someone who has a single beer on Friday afternoon after a hard week's work."

--Yes, I agree that there is something wrong with that scenario. There are shades of grey in the WofW, while other issues have been made more black and white, like alcohol consumption.

I think that one of the most common mistake mormons make is to judge other people who have not received the WofW. I do not judge non-members who drink in moderation because they do not have a testimony or knowledge of the WofW like I have. Heck, my grandparents used to smoke and drink in moderation, but I always saw them as very loving and kind people. Now if they smoked like a freight train and drank like a fish I would have viewed them in a slightly different manner. Anyway, I hope I am making sense.

 

Dave C.

Thu, 26 Mar 2009 9:12:59 pm

Jared*,

Thanks for the clarification of your position. I shall check out the web page on the history of the WofW.

 

Comments are closed.



Google Analytics