Rich Brown is a member of the Community of Christ (formerly known as RLDS) and gives his perspective on a recent change in their church with regards to Word of Wisdom observance.
What is it about us Latter Day Saints (no matter which branch) that we get so obsessed with booze, particularly the banning of it? Sooner or later, of course, the Word of Wisdom is invoked in some way.
At the end of August, the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS) First Presidency issued its long-awaited official policy, “Consumption of Intoxicants by Priesthood,” along with a pastoral letter, lengthy scriptural and historical interpretation, and a reaffirmation of the existing policy banning consumption of intoxicants at church-sponsored events or on church-owned property. All together the statements take up 12 full pages in the September 2017 issue of the church’s official magazine, the Herald. The church’s 2013 World Conference had requested counsel from the Presidency.
For those who love long reads produced by top church leaders, here’s a link to the documents (a pdf of the Herald pages) : http://www.cofchrist.org/Common/Cms/resources/Documents/WEB-Official-Intoxicants-Policy2017.pdf
For the rest of us, the policy is boiled down to this one sentence: “For the well-being of individuals and the church community, especially the most vulnerable, disciples and priesthood members are urged to refrain from drinking intoxicants.” (A couple definitions: “Intoxicant” means any beverage that contains an intoxicating element such as alcohol; “The most vulnerable” includes children, youth, and those prone to addictions or recovering from addictions who are influenced by priesthood member behavior.)
Our two churches take rather different approached to alcohol use, of course. But LDS members might find interesting the approach taken with the Word of Wisdom (Section 86 in the CofC Doctrine and Covenants; Section 89 in the LDS version).
As noted in the new report, the Word of Wisdom generally was understood in the early church period (1830 to 1844) as wise counsel and not strict commandment to be applied literally in all instances. Abstinence from alcohol was not expected during this period.
Here’s what the historical/scriptural background document has to say about the WoW:
Section 86 was brought by Joseph Smith Jr. in 1833 in Kirtland, Ohio. It commonly is known as the “Word of Wisdom.” The historical setting in which Section 86 was introduced included an intensifying temperance movement in the USA. One segment of the temperance movement focused on abstinence from intoxicating beverages; another focused on moderation and self-control and distinguished distilled spirits from other alcoholic beverages.
The preface to the “Word of Wisdom,” while identifying the document as a revelation, tempers its standing by referring to it as “wisdom” and “a principle, with promise” to be “adapted to the capacity of the weak…” It seems the “Word of Wisdom” was not meant as a rigid requirement for all members, but as wise guidance based on principles for healthy living.
Section 86 became the church’s chief instruction on healthy eating and drinking. Other churches in the area, such as Methodists, Presbyterians, and Unitarians, held similar views on tobacco and “strong drinks.” Section 86 incorporates language similar to Owenite and Shaker communitarians and members of the Stone-Campbell movement, some of whom aligned with the Restoration in Kirtland.
There’s nothing in those three paragraphs that should surprise anybody familiar with the WoW’s historical background. But the report continues with historical research from CofC Apostle Lach Mackay, who in addition to his Council of 12 duties also serves as director of Historic Sites and leader of the Church History and Sacred Story Ministries Team:
The temperance movement of the late 1820s and early 1830s was not initially an abstinence movement. The focus was on moderation. The medical community believed stimulants, especially strong stimulants, disrupted the internal workings of the body. As a result, distilled spirits were discouraged unless consumed for medicinal purposes. The use of milder stimulants like wine, cider, and beer generally was not the focus of temperance societies, although by the later 1830s some societies began to lift up prohibition.
“Strong drinks” meant distilled liquors and not fermented drinks. Strong drink “is not good” and “not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies” (Section 86:1b–c). Cinnamon whisky was used in Kirtland by 1836 for the ritual washings associated with preparation for spiritual empowerment.
Wine was to be drunk “only in assembling yourselves together, to offer up your sacraments before him” and should be “pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make.” The reference to “pure” was likely to guard against adulteration. Despite the reference to “the grape of the vine,” the wine used at times during the earliest years of the church, including at the dedication of Kirtland Temple, was made by Elizabeth Whitney from red currants. Some argue the wine would have been “new,” which they interpret as nonalcoholic. However, it was not until after 1869, when a former Methodist preacher, Dr. Thomas B. Welch, adapted pasteurization to grape juice that unfermented juice was available beyond the harvest season. In addition to the use of wine for the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, the drinking of wine occurred during the 1830s and 1840s following the sacrament of marriage.
Beer was understood to be “good” as a “mild drink.” “All grain is good for the food of man…and barley…for mild drinks and also other grain.
It would appear that the original concern about alcoholic drinks, then, was addiction rather than casual use.
This was reinforced in the Reorganized Church in April 1887 when President Joseph Smith III presented an inspired document at a General Conference in Kirtland, Ohio, which was subsequently included in the church’s Doctrine and Covenants as Section 119. It included various counsel on a similar theme: Priesthood should “lay aside lightness of speech and lightness of manner when standing to declare the word…”; “…they must be without blame in word and deed”; “…not seemly that they indulge in loud and boisterous speech, or in the relating of coarse and vulgar stories, or those in which the names of their God and their Redeemer are blasphemed.” All that makes me wonder just what was going on to warrant such counsel, of course.
The key sentence as far as this discussion is concerned is this: “Avoid the use of tobacco and be not addicted to strong drink in any form, that your counsel to be temperate may be made effectual by your example” (D. and C. 119: 3d).
By the end of the 19th century, the Reorganized Church’s General Conference approved a resolution (GCR 463) which began this way: “Whereas, The Lord has spoken against the use of tobacco and strong drink on different occasions….” Regarding that resolution, Apostle Mackay observed, “We seem by the late 19th century to have lost the earlier differentiation between strong drink (distilled liquors), wine, beer, and [hard] cider.”
Over time, the standard for priesthood members became “refraining from the use of alcohol…” as stated in the Church Administrator’s Handbook: 2005 Edition, “Priesthood Standards and Qualifications” (page 89). It wasn’t until 1913 that the following was approved for use in Communion (Lord’s Supper): “That fermented wine should not be used in the Sacrament services of the church, but that either unfermented wine or water should be used, and so be in harmony with the spirit of the revelations” (see D. and C. 26:1; 86:1, 119:5).
Jump ahead about a century to the now-Community of Christ and discover a distinctly different and widespread cultural approach (at least in Western places such as the USA, Canada, Australia, and Europe) to the use of alcohol. Although prohibition has continued as official church policy, a small but significant number of priesthood and members have indulged in beer, wine, and some forms of distilled liquor. Human nature being what it is, others have felt the need to share specific examples on social media. Hence the call for new counsel on the subject.
After reading through the lengthy scriptural and historical document, more than a few CoC members are expressing surprise at the Official Policy, believing it to be almost the opposite from the direction presented in the historical/scriptural background document. Interestingly, there are no directions from the First Presidency regarding the policy’s enforcement.
Some folks have already noted that total abstinence promoted by institutions (whether it be booze or sexual activity, to cite the two obvious examples) rarely results in the desired effect anyway. It appears safe to assume this new intoxicants policy, which takes effect on October 1, is far from a settled matter in the Community of Christ.
- How much weight should any of us give to the historical circumstances of the Word of Wisdom?
- When it comes to “strong drinks,” how much difference is there between beer, wine, and distilled liquors?
- Should the church just get out of the “prohibition business” and leave this matter to an individual’s free agency?
- What do you think of “gatekeeper members” who take to social media to essentially rat-out their fellow members?
Wheat & Tares 
Interesting thoughts on how this impacts the Community of Christ. In the LDS Church, we essentially have two competing Word of Wisdom policies, what is outlined in D&C 89 and our current policy on abstinence from tea, coffee, tobacco and alcohol being a requirement for a temple recommend. Now that historical information on the WOW is being widely read and disseminated, people are asking difficult questions that are exposing our current interpretation as tradition and policy connected with the early 1900s white Protestant temperance movement (and our wanting to fit into respectable American society after polygamy). In the LDS Church, the fall-back position is currently “living the Word of Wisdom is a matter of demonstrating our obedience and commitment to God.” My response is: really? I thought God already told us how to take care of our bodies in D&C 89, which was to live good principles of health, eat fruits and vegetables, whole grains, meat sparingly, drink alcohol moderately and not use tobacco. I don’t think many nutritionists or physicians would disagree with this advice. He also told us these were good principles and not a commandment. Brigham Young said: “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 I shall do so. I have never done so..” Well, we went ahead and made it a test of fellowship anyway. The other common LDS response to such questions is: “But, we believe in continuing revelation.” Really? In 2007 an official Church statement said “doctrine resides in the four ‘standard works’ of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith”. If there is a revelation that indicates that our current policy is binding, it would essentially have to override D&C 89, because it contradicts much of it. If there is a revelation overriding D&C 89, it has not been presented to the Church or made canon. The way I see it, D&C 89 remains binding on the Church.
To answer your questions: 1. Both churches should give huge considerations to the historical context of the Word of Wisdom, both in the past implementation as a moderate approach to good health and to the historical ties to the prohibition movement associated with white Protestantism at the turn of the century ; 2. The Church at the time of D&C 89 understood beer to be a mild drink and specifically allowed in verse 17 “mild drinks of barley.” The idea being that there is no harm in an occasional beer (there were lots of breweries in early pioneer Utah and it was a favorite drink of European Mormon immigrants); 3. Absolutely! If the purpose of the gospel is to provide sound principles that may improve one’s life and relationship with God, we need to let people decide what is best for them in this area. Some people cannot handle alcohol and would be much better totally abstaining. Other people can moderately drink alcohol and approach it in a healthy way. 4. Human beings are naturally tribal creatures and impose tribal markers. There is a natural tendency (especially in religious communities) to want to police tribal boundaries, show exceptional compliance with tribal norms and look down on (and rat out) those who do not keep tribal customs. Every HOA has the person obsessed with rules who leaves passive aggressive notes around for those out of compliance.
Modern beer is stronger than wine was before Christ. And we don’t dilute it 4-1 or more with water as they did.
Alcohol’s association with automobile deaths, rape and other events is pretty high.
But the history of Joseph Smith standing for moderation is interesting too
“Although prohibition has continued as official church policy, a small but significant number of priesthood and members have indulged in beer, wine, and some forms of distilled liquor.”
Aren’t these individuals thumbing their noses at the church; disregarding its current policy? Are the priesthood advocating their position to members from the pulpit with no retribution? If he or she used priesthood status to speak in opposition of women’s ordination, disciplinary action would be swift (I know, I saw it happen).
You’re right, Rich. It is far from a settled matter. It may pan out like the issue of allowing infant baptism. There are proponents who call for a change, the 1st Presidency gave an answer they didn’t like, so they will try again.
IMO, it would be easier to enforce “refraining” from intoxicant use than a “moderate” usage. You’ll never get an agreement on how much constitutes moderation; as well as the issue of public vs. private consumption.
That is an interesting history of the WoW in the Community of Christ. Thanks for sharing, Rich.
Personally, I have zero interest in alcohol and am leery of any substance that alters my ability to think clearly; however, I do believe the historical context of the WoW should be considered, and I do not like that it has become an arbitrary obedience test or boundary marker. I wish we would just leave it be and let people use their agency on the matter.
I’m with felixfabulous. Every time a question about doctrine or policy comes up, the obfuscation and hemming and hawing begin. felix is spot on about it never being a commandment and about how section 89 gives us sound advice that also, btw, isn’t a commandment. We need to get away from the kind of prescriptive thinking that Christ himself preached against. Part of this, too, isn’t just about worthiness/boundary maintenance issues, but of bald pragmatism. I once asked a bishop (not mine) why we essentially boil down the word of wisdom to not smoking/using drugs/drinking and why we didn’t specifically ask about diet, blood pressure and BMI (which are much more telling measures of health than whether one drinks wine or coffee) and he said, “because those are easy yes or no questions”, i.e., people can answer the “do I smoke or drink” parts of the W of W with an easy yes or no. If that’s the reason for why the W of W has become both codified and oversimplified, it really needs to go. It’s necessary and right that we be aware of addicts, people with predilections toward overconsuming food or alcohol, etc. and do what we can to help them. On the other hand, many folks who drink alcohol, for example, can do so moderately and with sound judgement.
So to answer question 3, yes, it should get out of this business. I think we should replace the W of W question in the temple recommend interview with the question: What do you do on a daily basis to enact Christ’s love in the world? IMHO, that’s a far better measure of one’s discipleship. As to question 4, I think such gatekeeper members need to get a life and look in the mirror. The problem with these prescriptions is, of course, the rise of self righteous twits who think it’s their job to inform on other members under the guise of “just trying to make sure everyone’s obeying the rules” or “this is how I demonstrate compassion for others”. The church would be far better off without these people though if they left, I suspect we’d lose about 3/4 of our membership. Well, maybe just half.
Former BYU history professor Thomas Alexander did excellent research on this question in a Dialogue article: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V14N03_80.pdf.
Brother Sky’s anecdote about the easy yes/no questions is striking and highly informative of the mindset associated with many questions of “worthiness” in the Church. A temple recommend can be obtained by someone whose attitude and actions would not be consistent with temple attendance simply by answering with the appropriate yes/no response. Alternatively, one could give a “wrong” answer to a question and be denied a temple recommend despite living a life completely consistent with the standards of the temple. This is what happens when we focus on checking boxes and external/outward appearance. And, of course, that is why the Church’s Word of Wisdom policies almost certainly will not change–it has become such a core part of what defines adherence to LDS teachings that to alter that would prove to be highly problematic in terms of both internal and external perceptions of the Church. Pragmatism is obviously a factor, but it also underscores the bureaucratic nature of the Church (vs. the gospel).
In a semi-related note, BYU is going to sell Coke on Campus!!! http://fox13now.com/2017/09/21/byu-to-sell-caffeinated-sodas-on-campus/
About friggin’ time!
Yes, the WoW offers guidance that nutritional experts and physicians promote.
I, too, have zero interest in alcohol and tend to think the negative effects alcohol has on many people’s lives outweigh potential benefits in our society. At a minimum, people with a history of alcoholism in their familiy would be wise to adopt abstinence. A woman I know who is married to an alcoholic sees a difference in his behaivor when he drinks beer vs the “hard” stuff. He becomes more hostile and abusive when drinking distilled liquor vs beer or wine. I wonder if there is any scientific basis for this perceived effect?
So, I guess I would lean toward maintaining the alcohol prohibition–simply because it has probably saved more lives and families.
But I believe the restriction on coffee and tea makes no sense and should be eliminated.
Gatekeeper reminds me of early conditions written about in the southern Utah area where in the “teachers” went around to the member houses and went through their drawers, etc. to make sure all was as it should be??? I can care for my own gate–thank you! What I am not hearing and cling to this day is moderation in all things–left to our judgment–we are our own gatekeepers!