Talk:Word of Wisdom (Latter Day Saints)

Seems like a debate
As a member of the church, I thought that the article was true to the Word of Wisdom, however, I felt like I was reading a debate. Shouldn't an encyclopedia article contain information about the topic, rather than a discussion of the pro's and con's? I suppose it is trying to view both sides of the issue, but I would have preferred an article that stuck with information from our prophets and more in-depth about the blessings promised and background information of the church.

The article is confusing, and certain statements (i.e., paragraph about Joseph Smith having wine in prison) makes it sound like it is a trivial commandment that is not taken seriously. Although, I do agree that we, as LDS people, should be more observant of the directions towards meat (I thought the part about meat being served at church functions regardless of the weather or temperature was actually amusing).

I wish this could be re-written as a more informative document, rather than a debate or pro vs. con.


 * As another member of the church, I did not feel like it was a debate (although it seems the article has been revised a great deal since the above comment was written). One of the most interesting things about the Word of Wisdom is that the facts show it has been interpreted and applied in various ways over the past 150 years. It always will be important for LDS and non-LDS researchers to understand that churchwide adherence was not seriously demanded until Heber J. Grant. With the purported health benefits, it is also more of a 20th century development to focus on the health outcomes of the Word of Wisdom than social and economic outcomes. In Brigham Young's day, for example, he focused on the economic problems caused by coffee and tea addiction because they had to be imported (i.e., cash was going out instead of coming in). The colonization of the St. George area was in part an attempt to found a farming community where tobacco and other hot-climate crops could be produced without the need to import. The debate about caffeine is an interesting topic under popular application, because it represents the conflict among church members regarding caffeinated beverages that are not tea and coffee, while still providing the church's official statement. Jerekson (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Ideas
Looks like it's been a while since there's been discussion here. I have a few initial comments/suggestions. First, why not include the full text of D&C 89 in the article? Is there a copyright issue? Or is something that old in the public domain by now? It's not very long, and surely the original text is highly relevant. Also needs NPOV in places. And, why are we debating the health risks of coffee in this article? It's already covered in Coffee. Not sure about the entire last part of the article, in fact. Is it appropriate to debate this here, or does that merely amount to collaborative original research? Is it an artifact of pro and anti LDS people fighting in the past? Friday 7 July 2005 03:00 (UTC)

The more I read it, the more I don't like this bit, near the beginning: It contains health guidelines intended "[t]o be sent [to the church] not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom." The guidelines were given as a voluntary "principle with [a] promise", in order to combat the perceived "evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days". The interspersed quotations make for a bumpy read. If quotations are desires, why not quote the entire intro from D&C? I'll try that and see how it goes. Friday 7 July 2005 07:04 (UTC)


 * The health code and modern medicine section is here because the Word of Wisdom claims that it is a health code. There needs to be an analysis about the evidence of real health effects of the practices included in the Word of Wisdom. The risks and benefits are an abbreviated form of the information which appears elsewhere, hence the links to the main articles.  This is common throughout the wikipedia. Nevertheless, the information needs to be here.  The health risks of coffee is not being debated, but the benefits and risks are listed.  I'm willing to discuss the change, but I won't allow the deletion without a good argument. Nereocystis 7 July 2005 17:14 (UTC)


 * Section 89 is in the public domain, but it is long enough (21 verses), and in sufficiently archaic language, that it probably wouldn't be a good idea to just quote the whole thing verbatim, without interspersing commentary. As to the "modern medicine" section, I don't think it should be an opinionated medical debate on the effects of alcohol or caffeine. Rather, it should be a factual discussion about how and why Mormons began in the 20th Century to look toward modern medicine (and/or pseudomedicine) to justify the revelation. The question of whether or not caffeine is good or bad can be left to the caffeine page. CO GDEN  July 7, 2005 17:42 (UTC)


 * The downside of inserting commentary is that you're now presenting some particular person or group's interpretation of the text. Altho, maybe it's appropriate to do this, but only with the official LDS interpretation, since they're by far the largest and best known group.  Would it be considered anti-Mormon POV though, to show for example the "hot drinks" verse side by the side with the modern interpretation that says "hot drinks" does not mean "hot drinks"?  I'm a newbie so I don't know what to think about issues like that.  I will say I do agree with COgden's remarks about the modern medicine section tho.  I don't think the question of whether or not caffience or alcohol is good or bad should be addressed on this page.  We're not here to determine whether the Wow makes sense from a medical point of view, we're here to document it as a religious text.  We can point out that the church teaches that it makes you healthier, without getting into whether this would be considered objectively true by the medical community. Friday 7 July 2005 18:01 (UTC)


 * I'm confused by COGDEN's comments. Does s/he think that the current section should be changed?  If so, what should be changed?  The current modern medicine section is not an opiniated debate, it is a list of a few studies which have examined health and items listed in the Word of Wisdom, with citations.  Because the Word of Wisdom is listed as a health code, it is extremely reasonable to determine whether the Word of Wisdom modifies health.  If the Word of Wisdom were listed as arbitrary required behavior which has no claims of influencing health, then listing medical studies may not be appropriate.  Allowing claims of health benefits without pointing out the truthfulness of these claims is extremely POV, effectively limiting the commentary to only the official LDS POV.


 * However, I agree about including the entire text of the Word of Wisdom. It is probably too long to be useful.  There is a link to the entire text under references, though it can be a challenge to determine which link includes the entire text.  Try it.  I suggest modifying the references so that the link is more obvious, but I don't have the solution yet.Nereocystis 7 July 2005 18:08 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I agree that the full text is too long to be included. The article as it stands right now is far, far longer than the complete text of Section 89.  And, the current version contains things that are (IMO) far less relevant to the topic than would be the actual text of the revelation.  Friday 7 July 2005 18:30 (UTC)


 * I'm not completely against including the entire text. The WoW is fairly short.  However, I would not want to drop sections of the current text to make room the WoW, since there is a link to the complete text. I revised the link in the references section.  Is it any clearer? Nereocystis 7 July 2005 18:40 (UTC)

I think it would be highly appropriate to add a paragraph about "In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation." President Hinckley has given fairly well-quoted discourse about this specific verse. In this light, the difference between alcoholic beverages, for example, in Paul's time and today is simply how and why it is produced, and how it is advertised and sold. This could be viewed as a primary cause for the existence of the doctrine altogether. Bruce 05:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Could you give a few references on this interpretation. I don't know as much about modern Mormon stuff in the last 20 years or so. This Paul's time argument sounds odd. Cigarettes changed tobacco, of course. Read the Lester Bush article for a description of dietary restrictions in the 19th century; it's quite interesting. If it belongs in the article, I would tend to put it in Word_of_Wisdom, since it is a recent interpretation. Nereocystis 21:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The most famous is probably this: "What are these evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men? It must be the tremendous amount of money the Lord saw they would spend in the last days in advertising to induce his children to use these things which are not good for men. Many millions of dollars are spent annually in the United States and other countries of the world to advertise cigarettes and other tobacco products, wine, beer, and other liquors, and coffee and tea, all of which have been proven to be injurious to the body and all of which the Lord indicated are not good for men." (LeGrand Richards, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, p.353) Looking up all citations to this verse (v4) in the LDSCL 2005, I have come up with about 230 references, most of which emphasize that it was created "in consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days. Thus, it would have had no application in the New Testament Church, but has specific application today. Bruce 03:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

One example is good. Of course, the original WofW allows beer, non-hot coffee and tea, which aren't injurious to most people. Wasn't Joseph Smith's time considered the last days? I'm not sure about that. Nereocystis 06:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The entire text should not be included. See Don%27t_include_copies_of_primary_sources. Nereocystis 06:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

There is a fairly clear historical line showing that the Word of Wisdom was used in accountability interviews (in the Brigham Young SLC group) only for church leadership until the 1930s. If someone out there has these dates and is poised to add them, then it would be very useful. If not, I would like to work on that, if folks feel it is appropriate. Few people understand that nearly 100 years passed before general membership were asked to account for how they accepted the WoW. It was used in leadership interviews, then moved to all who were going to serve missions, and finally to general membership. What do people think? Jerekson 02:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to edit notes, but number 21 should refer to D&C 89:2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.55.108 (talk) 22:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Tobacco smoking recognized as health threat
The caption on the cigarette smoking photo says:
 * Tobacco smoking is one of the activities the Word of Wisdom advised against years before it was recognized as a health threat by the medical community.

This is not true. The article by Bush in Dialogue compares the Word of Wisdom to 19th century practices. Tobacco smoking was disliked by many doctors at the time the Word of Wisdom was issue, and for two centuries before then. See page 56. I plan on deleting this claim. Nereocystis 22:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Rather than deleting, how about placing into better context - that it wasn't generally accepted by most smokers. Doesn't Bush's argument state that the medical community has basically always been against smoking as a health threat? But popular opinion was that it was not neccessarily unhealthy. That popular opinion only swayed in the mid 20th century. In addition, anyone who smokes would realize that a smoker's cough or smoker's weeze was caused by smoking, but although evidence was there to support, people rejected it. Context is better than deletion in this case. Thoughts? -Visorstuff 23:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Not all doctors agreed in the 19th century. I would like this text from the caption. There's too much which would need to be explained. I would like to put the Word of Wisdom in historical context, but that will take an additional section, and a bit of writing, perhaps summarizing Bush's statements. Nereocystis 23:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think I reverted a clip of the caption. If it happens again, I won't revert it.  I didn't realize it was so controversal. :-S   &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 01:53, September 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as I remember, the Word of Wisdom doesn't have anything to say about "smoking". However, it does proscribe the use of tobacco.  What about if the caption is changed to, "Tobacco use is one of the activities the Word of Wisdom advises against."  Val42 03:24, September 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * That'd be fine with me, for one.  &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 14:17, September 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * I noticed the caption that says "all alcoholic beverages.. are prohibited". This could lead to disagreement.  The problem with saying "The Word of Wisdom says..." is that it's ambiguous.  The "WoW" could be referring to D&C 89, or to the current mandatory health code of the LDS church, which are two different things, unfortunately referred to by the same name.  This double meaning is explained nicely in the article intro, but as mentioned above it might be too complicated to be explained well in a short caption.  Would something like All alcoholic beverages, such as the Margarita, are prohibited by LDS doctrine be an acceptable replacement for the current All alcoholic beverages, such as the Margarita, are prohibited by the Word of Wisdom?  Friday (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure, great, sounds good.  &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 16:15, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Beer allowed, and other illicit drugs
An anonymous user claimed that beer was not allowed in early WofW. This is wrong. Beer was allowed. The changes also claim that other illicit drugs weren't known or invented at the time. Perhaps the user has not heard of opium, marijuana, betel nut, coca, etc. Nereocystis 05:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Martini picture and 'effects of Coffee'
The section on the health effects of alcohol is good, it relates to the rest of the article, but the effects coffee seems to be something that could have been directly cut from a different article without connection to WoW. Does anybody know enough to make a more direct link? I admit to being amused by the '...such as this martini' picture, but are we sure that we should be putting jokes in the articles? Or is it just me? MilesVorkosigan 19:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

BYU Banned Caffeine?
I just thought I would ask about it here first, but the following comment seems a little incorrect: "on the campus of Church-sponsored Brigham Young University, caffeinated drinks of any kind are banned." It seems apparent to me (a current BYU student) that the university doesn't "ban" these drinks, but that they are simply not sold on campus. I would rather that the word be editted to read "not sold" instead of "banned." I've walked around on campus drinking Mountain Dew often and nothing's happened to me. Also, I think that introducing the phrase with "Interestingly" is a little POV, but I might be wrong about that; perhaps it is interesting, just not to me. (Actually, I find it slightly annoying more than interesting.) Comments? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NoCoolName Tom (talk • contribs).
 * I agree with both points, thanks for clearing it up. Go ahead and make the changes.  Tijuana Brass ¡Épa! - E@ 04:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "Interestingly, caffeinated drinks are not sold on the campus of Church-sponsored Brigham Young University." I've removed this whole line, because BYU has sold them in the past.  It's simply discussions like this that cause them to stay clear of controversy.  But I was just in Deseret Book headquarters a few weeks ago, and the Coke distributor rolled on by with cases of caffeinated coke.  Maybe he was going elsewhere, but that makes no sense whatsoever.  The only reasonable explanation is that they sell caffeinated drinks at Deseret Book (church owned, church run; and 30 feet off of, and overlooking, Temple Square), so whether they sell them at BYU must be moot.--Mrcolj 22:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Deseret Book is very different from BYU. BYU is different from a lot of things in the church. One of those things is that they don't sell caffeinated soda on campus. The only other places like that are the MTC and Temple cafeterias. Maybe they were sold in the past, but that is not what the statement is saying, it's talking about the present. Wrad 22:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But I believe the point of the statement in the article was that BYU not selling caffeine was on some level a tacit endorsement of that interpretation of the word of wisdom, which it is not because BYU only quit selling caffeine 15 years ago... And if someone is tempted to take BYU's selling as a tacit endorsement, then the church's selling caffeine through one of its other official arms negates that assumption and bears being said aloud.  If BYU, the MTC and the temple cafeterias are the only church owned food dispensaries that don't sell coke, what's the point of the statement in the first place?  --Mrcolj 02:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right, shouldn't be used to endorse, but may be good as a fact in a simple sentence. The only reason these three places would be this way is because of the issues surrounding the subject. They're easily the three strictest foci of mormonism. This, I think, makes it a notable fact about the subject, if presented right. Wrad 03:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I got a copy of the BYU catalog and admissions packet back in 1997. I distinctly recall some of the material containing language to the effect that you could get kicked out of school for as little as having a tea bag in your dorm room (assuming that it was caffeine-containing rather than herbal tea).  Unless the policy has been changed, it ought to be in materials that BYU makes available online.  I'd look for it myself but don't have time right now; just wanted to mention that this is not a misconception or urban legend.  I also recall it stating that male students were not permitted to wear a beard (that is, Brigham Young couldn't attend Brigham Young University because of the way that he looked).  Heather (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, then, that would be BYU banning "hot drinks" which means tea and coffee, which is completely consistent with the Word of Wisdom, which all students have to abide by, church membership notwithstanding. It doesn't have anything to do with other caffeinated beverages, such as Coke.  You can possess such on the campus as a student, you just can't buy it there. &mdash; Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added a cited statement from the NY Times from 2004 that states that only caffeine-free beverages are sold on BYU campus. This is somewhat more limited (and neutral) than saying caffeine has been "banned". Obviously, you can probably still buy medications that contain caffeine. I don't see anything in the above discussion that indicates this 2004 statement is not true when strictly limited to the sale of beverages on campus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

'Covenants'?
Why are all the Doctrine and Covenants refered to by 'Covenants' and then the chapter and verse? The chapter and verse is standard, but I've never seen the book refered to as 'Covenants' and can't see any possible reason for labeling it that way. The proper way to label it is 'Doctrine and Covenants' or 'D & C'. Sorry if I'm missing something obvious; I'm new to Wikipedia and a lot of things seem strange to me. Sergeanthowarth 06:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right in pointing out that it is not the standard (or accepted) manner of referring to the D&C. However, the only instance I noticed was the first reference, which read "Covenant 89". It's now fixed. Were there others that I've missed? Feel free to correct them yourself if you see any.  Tijuana Brass E@ 07:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I corrected all the references, on 27 August 2006, to say "D&C 89" instead of "Covenant 89". For chapter-only references, either "D&C 89" or "Section 89" would be acceptable — but no one in the LDS Church ever uses a cite like "Covenant 89".  Richwales 07:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Meat?
I'm not sure I agree with taking out the paragraph about current LDS practice with regard to eating meat. I think it would still be appropriate to include something mentioning that LDS do not generally avoid meat nowadays, even though D&C 89 does seem to suggest that this ought to be done. Richwales 07:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I just revised it. See if you can stomach it's current wording. :-S &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 15:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Caffine
I, for one, can confirm the statements about caffine. I and most people around me make that disticntion, so we do eat chocolate, but do not drink coca cola unless it is caffine free. I know that it's not enough to have some people who do, but I'm just putting in my two cents about that citation needed tag. Silverfireshadow (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hot drinks confusion
(That's me who's confused, incidentally!) There's no explanation in the article as to why church members generally feel that, say, hot chocolate isn't covered by the prohibition. I looked up the reference in the footnotes, and found that the relevant passage says "And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly." It doesn't say "And again, hot drinks, except for chocolate and a few others, are not for the body or belly". Please understand that I am absolutely not interested in a religious argument here, since that would have nothing to do with the article. My point is that there is no explanation as to why, when, and how, the likes of chocolate, Ovaltine etc came to be thought of as not "hot drinks" within the meaning of the phrase. It's very far from obvious. 86.132.140.45 (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's in the section titled "Application by Joseph Smith, Jr.". It explains there that Hyrum Smith interpreted "hot drinks" as meaning tea and coffee, and that Joseph Smith, Jr. confirmed this interpretation. You have to read the article as a whole, including the historical sections; then it makes sense. Zoporific 22:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Speculative sections
There seems to be a proliferation of speculation in this article and the tendency to add more and more such information. I suggest that these sections/speculations should not be included unless they can be adequately referenced with some sign that someone apart from WP editors are doing the speculating. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Tea
I notice on the general Wikipedia entry for the Church, in the part on the Word of Wisdom is lists black tea, but not green tea, as being covered by "hot drinks." My understanding has always been that green tea is not permitted by the Word of Widsom because it is made from tea leaves rather than other fruits or plants, which are herbal teas.

This was certainly what was taught to new members in my mission in the former USSR 10 years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.184.20 (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Something I've noticed lately is that friends of mine who live in Salt Lake county and are active, devout, temple-going LDS church members in all other respects, have taken to drinking green tea, drinking it cold or iced, justifying it by pointing to all the recent scientific research on its great health benefits, it has less caffeine than chocolate or cola, and the fact that they're drinking it cold, and some sense of a common understanding that it's therefore not against the Word of Wisdom. I've heard second-hand reports of LDS bishops, a mission president, and a general authority endorsing this view, and of the First Presidency at some point stating that tea is okay if it's taken as a medicine. I haven't found any support for this in print yet though. Anyone? - Reaverdrop ( talk / nl ) 22:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Avoid all habit forming substances. Unless your body needs it, you should be able to do without.  This isn't doctrine, but good advice.  To me, its the purpose of the WofW, avoiding addictions.  Example: Nasal Spray.  If you use it consistently over a long time to get rid of sniffles, you might be hooked.  Although it won't jeopardize your soul, it is a habit that can't be good, and sort of shows a small lack of discipline.  If you use it when you get a cold to make it tolerable, but stop after it, then all is well.  I'm not advocating suffering through life, but actively making choices, instead of reactively/reflexively.  TAU Croesus (talk) 07:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Other LDS groups.
There doesn't appear to be any mention of how other LDS groups (RLDS, FLDS, AUB, Strangite, et al.) interpret or apply this teaching. I'm not sure where the best place to put it in the article would be, but perhaps a subsection à la the temple article would work. 66.191.19.68 (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

First vision picture?
It seems odd to include a picture of the First Vision on this article. I realize that finding pictures for the topic is going to be difficult...but a more general picture of Joseph Smith, Jr. should be used, since the First Vision is mostly a disjoint topic to the Word of Wisdom. ...but what do you think? ~B F izz (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Revisions to original text
I made several additions to the article using sources that I cited during the revisions. These were changed without explanation.

If you want to make changes to the article regarding my changes to the article, please discuss these on the talk page first. Thanks. Jjc16 (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think these changes should be discussed here first before being added to the article. An editor did make comments in his edit summary when removing these additions, and I agree with them:, , . The part about Utah being the highest state for incidents of depression has nothing to do with the Word of Wisdom. No study that was based on Word of Wisdom adherence is cited in the discussion. Adding comments about the health benefits of coffee consumption is interesting, but not really on point, since the Word of Wisdom isn't targeted at caffeine consumption as such. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I will concede the point about the depression article, because it is not specific to Mormon populations. As for the other changes, have you actually read the first article cited? It fully supports the edit I added originally. The addition should be obvious as well because coffee is a caffeinated drink. The difference between "coffee" and "caffeinated drinks" is an artificial one specific to the Mormon culture and not common to the general public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjc16 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As another editor has noted I did give explanations in the edit summaries. I did read the article cited and did not see any text that directly supported those assertions that you added in. Perhaps I missed it though. Can you please quote specific parts or point to specific page/paragraphs that you feel support your edits? --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * In context, it's kind of irrelevant anyway, since by 1842 leaders of the church were explicitly teaching that the Word of Wisdom prohibited specifically tea and coffee. It may be an artificial distinction unique to Mormon culture, but it's well established in Word of Wisdom adherence and practices. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Meat refs
In the text of the meat section, there are at least two statements such as this:


 * "the emphasis on refraining from meat was dropped.[39]"

I think the number in the bracket was meant to refer to a previously used reference. This is not the correct way to refer to do this. However, the numbering of the footnotes has changed since this was originally done. Can someone more familiar with these changes match these up again? Thanks. &mdash; Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | Talk 13:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I second the request to clean up the meat section's references, please? Ryandsmith (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Further discussion of grains (...wheat for man, and corn for the ox...)
In D&C 89:16 it says "All grain is good for the food of man...", and then in D&C 89:16:

"Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain."(here)

What does this mean? Do some people in the LDS movement believe that oats, rye and barley are either undesirable or forbidden for human consumption? Also, what is meant by "mild drinks" -- does anyone believe that includes beer? It appears that barley is meant for "for all useful animals, and for mild drinks" (but that "mild drinks" may be made from "other grain"). Roches (talk) 05:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've never seen anything written on your first questions, about the appropriateness of eating the different kinds of grain. Regarding the "mild drinks" issue, early Latter Day Saint leaders did interpret this as including beer and only strong alcoholic beverages were prohibited. This later evolved (under Heber J. Grant, I believe) into a blanket prohibition on any drink with alcohol in it, whether "mild" or "strong". Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Meat original research
Noble editor and administrator Good Ol’factory removed the following section as original research. While I agree with his edit, is this really the work of a sole editor or does this tidbit have some scholarly backing? The section in question (with my suggested edit):


 * There are contradictory readings of the Word of Wisdom concerning eating meat only in winter, cold or famine. The current version of the text appears to teach this concept, and that is the most common interpretation. However, few people are aware that there was a change in punctuation when converting the text into columns in the year 1920. This simple change in punctuation reverses the meaning of the text in question, and it is unclear whether or not this addition of this comma compared to the original versions of the text was deliberate or accidental. The phrase originally stated that meat "should not be used only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine." This would indicate that, while meat should be consumed sparingly, it should not be eaten only in times of winter, cold or famine. This implies that it should be consumed in other times as well. This is supported by section 49 of the Doctrine and Covenants, verses 18 and 19 (See also 1 Tim. 4:1–3). Also, many scriptures are cited teaching that the beasts of the field should be differentiated from wild animals Therefore, according to this interpretation of verse 15, "these" refers to 'wild beasts' specifically, which should only be consumed during winter, cold or famine, while beasts of the field and fowls of the air may be consumed sparingly all year round.

&mdash; Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | Talk 15:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't really doubt that what it being written is "true", meaning that it is fully supportable by the primary sources that are cited, but my concern is that nothing in the section is cited to reliable secondary sources that discuss the issue. Has anyone written about the contradictory readings that can exist? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That was exactly my question. I think the primary sources are reliable, but I'm just wondering if anyone has written about the contradictory readings. If they can be cited, this section can go back in, with the sources properly ref'ed. &mdash; Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | Talk 14:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think I slightly misunderstood your previous comment, but I think we're pretty much in agreement here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Word of Wisdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613165449/http://content.lib.utah.edu/u/?%2Fjmh%2C17670 to http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fjmh%2C17670

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thomas G. Alexander
Footnote 40 does not faithfully reflect what Thomas G. Alexander says in the linked essay. Indeed, he says: "An understanding of the way in which the current interpretation of the Word of Wisdom developed is significant because it provides a case study of the usual method of revelation and hence of doctrinal and policy development in the Church. Evidence seems to suggest that change has ordinarily come about through prayerful consideration over time of contemporary problems in the context of tradition (including previous scriptures and statement), immediate conditions (including political, social, and economic problems) and alternative courses of action." The erroneous summary seems to be based on a statement on page 85 that specifically says "contemporary".128.187.112.7 (talk)

Recent lede edits, meat, and grains
I think that there are some advantages with the previous form of the lede for the article. Given that the article does focus on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I do think some of the new text emphasizing the Church are probably warranted. However, I think we lose something by not starting out pointing to the D&C section then getting into the specific interpretation and proscriptions of the Church based on that section

I also again am challenging putting both meat and grains, without any further explanation, in the same sentence as alcohol, tea, coffee, tobacco, and recreational drugs. The proscriptions on the latter set are explicit and mandatory - that's what is required for baptism, missionary service, and temple attendance. The guidance to eat meat sparingly isn't treated the same way in the Church neither culturally nor practically, and not following that guidance would not prevent baptism, missionary service, and temple attendance. I am truly at a loss for why another editor is insistent on adding grains to the list of proscriptions. I do not see anywhere in the cited sources or the rest of the article where grains are prohibited either entirely or in part (like meat). I think this might be a misreading or misunderstanding on their part, but maybe I'm missing something.

Given the above, I'm going to try to re-add some of the material from the previous lede, including separating meat from the explicit proscription list. Again, if someone can explain where the grain thing is coming from, I'd appreciate that because I'm just not seeing it in the sources or the article (or from my own experiences in the Church). --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The verse that had prohibited grain is D&C 89 14-15. Altanner1991 (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No reliable source refutes it therefore we have to include it. Altanner1991 (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The problem with that argument is that it is interpreting a primary source, and I would argue misinterpreting. The "these" in verse 15 is usually taken to refer only to the "beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, and all wild animals that run or creep on the earth". I'm basing this in part on the Church's own summary of the Word of Wisdom here. I have not come across any secondary source or Church publication talking about the Word of Wisdom that agrees with your argument. Do you have a reliable, secondary source that I may have missed that supports that interpretation? --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok thank you. Altanner1991 (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the order of the two paragraphs in the introduction:

I have to say that putting the D&C 89 paragraph first makes no sense compared to the way it is presented in real life: usually the doctrine is first and then the book is given as a support. Is there any way the order of the two paragraphs could be reversed? Altanner1991 (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind: the book going first is also very encyclopedic. Altanner1991 (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Entheogens in the religion
Please provide your input on this material: The Doctrine and Covenants promotes entheogens. Altanner1991 (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * From this rather informative comment on reddit:

"[...] there's a growing body of historians who believe the 'consecration' practice of the anointing oil was used to infuse various psychoactive plant medicines into the topical ointment. Various times throughout the Kirtland years, the brethren are gathered, they partake of 'The Lord's Supper' or 'bless and anoint' each other and immediately experience powerful spiritual experiences, often accompanied by visual hallucinations and 'feeling the spirit poured out' over their bodies, 'a quickening of the spirit,' and those seem purely euphemistic. Corroborating first-hand accounts with these anointing ceremonies yields a plethora of incredible physical symptoms frequently associated with intoxication of multiple candidate entheogens: Datura, amanita muscaria, possibly even peyote, henbane, nightshade, etc. These symptoms include people chasing orbs of light, Harvey Whitlock backflipping off a bench and feeling no pain, hallucinating the feeling of 'a light dragoon' wielded expertly as Ammon cutting off the arms of the robbers, multiple accounts of convulsive episodes, people slipping into a comatose state for 24-72 hours, rolling around in the snow without any clothes on.... the list of these occurrences goes on ad nauseum.

An interesting point here as well is the 'healing' which was experienced by those who were administered anointing oil. Many of these psychoactive plants used in low dosages do have medicinal properties, but it's so often coupled with powerful psychoactivity which can do everything from cause theophany, to energize, to sedate, and many other common effects usually associated with psychedelics.

Somebody sick from malaria, a bad arm, fever, whatever ailed them, a high dose of psilocybin could put them in a state where ailments are no longer felt, just the powerful psychoactive effects of the plant medicine. It's not so much placebo as an actual medicine coupled with a sincere belief that the effect is the power of god causing healing to take place.

I would encourage anybody further interested to look into Fred M. Smith's The Higher Powers of Man https://archive.org/stream/higherpowersofm00smit#page/114/mode/2up

Smith was the 2nd prophet of the RLDS and this book was his psychology Ph.D. dissertation published in 1918, 3 years after he became prophet. He spends the first 4 chapters talking about 'ecstasy' and its various forms then most of the rest of the book is all about the history and usage of peyote. It's a really fascinating read! I know it's not Brighamite, as the Utah Mormons were pretty straight-laced with Joseph F. Smith and Grant, who took over during the prohibition. Their midwest cousins didn't seem to mind talking about psychedelics, albeit not in a religious capacity, while Smith and Grant were simultaneously outlawing dancing on Sunday's, issuing state-wide Mormon curfews, and complaining about how kids these days just ride around the neighborhood in their buggies too fast! Every minute a Mormons spends playing with face cards is a moment they could be preparing for their next Church talk! The Improvement Era is fun to read from 1901-04 when Joseph F. Smith really streamlined Utah with an iron fist.

I could go on but I'll conclude by saying that I've never seen the justification for 'Extra Virgin Olive Oil' in any 19th-century doctrine or teaching. The 'consecrated anointing oil' Joseph Smith originally used wasn't EVOO, but rather, something to truly 'make you feel the spirit'."


 * Altanner1991 (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * To the first point that "The Doctrine and Covenants promotes entheogens" - I think that you need a good source for this. That statement seems far broader than the primary source cited which only talks about wine for the sacrament/Lord's supper/communion and not entheogens in general. I'm pretty sure the LDS Church has made statements regarding entheogens used in native american cultures but I'd need to do a deep dive to confirm. I've also never seen the use of alcohol in the Christian communion/sacrament (or even the Jewish Passover) as an entheogen. Again, a second source for this claim would be helpful.
 * With regards to the reddit post - it's interesting, but doesn't qualify as a reliable source. If we had published work from the "growing body of historians" this post mentions at the start, then we could start looking at incorporation. However, we can't just cite the first-hand accounts (primary sources) and articles on the effects of psychoactives to support the claim of drug use in the early days of the Church since that would be fail WP:SYNTH. --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks as always for the informative replies. Altanner1991 (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "I've also never seen the use of alcohol in the Christian communion/sacrament (or even the Jewish Passover) as an entheogen." Alcohol is an entheogen when used in a religious context. Altanner1991 (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

We need to include the sacramental provision for drugs somewhere in the article; I think the statement I gave would be the best way. Altanner1991 (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC) I would just sneak said statement at the very end of the introduction, as its own "paragraph". Altanner1991 (talk) 07:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC) I will however not push this proposition, if I am the only one promoting it. So if no one answers this talk page section, that's fine. Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 07:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)