(disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer, but I play one on the internet!)
When a secular law needs interpreting, a court will apply what is called “Statutory Construction”. By applying a set of rules, the court tries to determine what a statute really means. I thought it would be fun to apply these rules to the Word of Wisdom as dictated by the Lord to Joseph Smith in D&C 89
First lets look at the rules. There is not a exact set of rules, but some that are commonly accepted and could be applyed to the D&C are
Statutes should be internally consistent. A particular section of the rules should not be inconsistent with the rest of the statute.
When the legislature enumerates an exception to a rule, one can infer that there are no other exceptions.
The legislature is presumed to act intentionally and purposely when it includes language in one section but omits it in another.
The Rule of Lenity: in construing an ambiguous rule, a court should resolve the ambiguity in favor of the defendant.
A court may also look at: the common usage of a word, case law, dictionaries, parallel reasoning, punctuation.
For the above rules, replace legislator with Lord, because D&C 89 is given in the first person “verily, thus saith the Lord unto you” tense (see verse 4), and replace court with Church Leadership (FP down to bishop as the case may be).
The first rule is internal consistency. The one that jumps out at me are found in D&C 89
16 All grain is good for the food of man; as also the fruit of the vine; that which yieldeth fruit, whether in the ground or above the ground—
17 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.
Verse 16 says all grain is good for man, yet 17 says wheat for man, corn for the ox, etc. Which is it?
Next is the exceptions clause. For the meat section there is an exception. Meat is only to be used in time of cold, famine, winter. So there is only one exception, and no one should infer other exceptions. Well, seems like the LDS church has broken this rule of construction, and decided that there are other exceptions, like pretty much any time you want to eat meat is an exception!
The Rule of Lenity. If there is a question about guilt because of ambiguity, the court (bishops counsel) should rule for the defendant. Not sure how that would play out in a church setting, but when I was Bishop, my rule was to always error on the side of compassion. If I was anything, I was too lenient, not too hard. Leaders would try to scare us that if we didn’t punish members, their sins would fall to us. So be it, I have a lot of my ward’s sins on my back.
Here are some of the ambiguous words and phrases in the section that could cause confusion to members
hot drinks
strong drinks
mild drinks
pure wine of the grape
herb
The last rule says we should look at the language in the law, common word usage common at the time, the intent of the writer (Lord).
What is a hot drink? Is it the temperature? Is it the actual drink? The court will then look into the history of the words used to see if they can tease out the intent of the law. In this case, the court (Leadership of the current church) have defined the intent of hot drinks as coffee and tea, regardless of the temperature.
Mild and strong drinks. The language is ambiguous, as what might be strong to one person might not be strong to another. So then a court would look at the history of the phrase strong drink. They would decide that it meant alcoholic drinks, except for beer which at the time was a mild barley drink. But the court (First Pres) has ruled that mild drinks from barley are no longer allowed. If we follow the rules, a new canonized revelation would be needed to enforce this, but the church instead has chosen to add beer to the prohibited list via policy from the handbook.
Wine is not to be used per verse 5, with an exception that if it is “pure wine of the grape” then it is OK to use for sacrament. Some courts (apologists) have interpreted “pure wine” as grape juice, but most acknowledge that wine means fermented grapes with alcohol. But like the beer above, the church has created a policy to block the exception for sacrament, without any canonized revelation to remove it.
Lastly we have herbs. The current definition which I believe would have applied in Joseph Smith’s time is “any plant with leaves, seeds, or flowers used for flavoring, food, medicine, or perfume”. There are no exceptions to this verse, “every herb” is good, yet in the church today makes an exception for cannabis. Now the court could argue that cannabis was not know in the 1800’s, but it was know at that time, and if we believe that the Lord actually dictated this to Joseph, then maybe He just forgot to make an exception?
Now obviously we can’t apply secular law to religious law, especially one give directly from the mouth of the Lord. But it does make one wonder how the Lord would do in in a court of law trying to defend his words.
And again, apologies to the real lawyers that are reading this, and jump in please to correct me where I have fallen short in the interpretation of these rules of construction.
Wheat & Tares 
This is a good statutory analysis! Section 89 lends itself well to ambiguity.
A textualist would ad another argument: we should interpet the WoW ONLY as it would have been interpreted when it was received. The problen with our modern interpretaion is that we are trying to use an 1830s document to apply to modern issues such as green tea and marijuana, neither of which were considerations for the Saints in the 1830s. We really need a modern revelation to address modern problems.
One of the greatest threats to real and meaningful religious practice is legalism. We do not want legalism, canon lawyers, and so forth — and we don’t want endless debates tossing to and fro on every wind of doctrine — and we don’t want dogmatism (closely related to legalism by still different). You might find heat with your line of questioning, but you probably won’t find light. But still, best wishes…
Still, to play in the game… In modern US administrative law, the Chevron principle is very important. Under this principle, a court must give deference to an agency’s interpretation and application of statutes that it (the agency) is responsible for administering. So if we look at the church as the agency responsible for administering D&C 89, including writing regulations that carry the force of law, a court would give deference to the agency’s interpretations as long as they are reasonable — that it, the court would not second-guess the agency, and would not do its own legal analysis de novo. This legal doctrine is very real (but of course, is not unlimited) and usually works in the favor of the agency when disputes arise. A citizen seeking to prevail against an agency must almost always overcome the Chevron deference.
This is an interesting exercise. As the OP points out, the WoW has been inconsistently applied, parts are completely ignored, and others have become, over time, criteria for earning a ticket to the church’s highest ordinances and rituals. As a whole, the WoW is a bit of a hot mess. And a boundary maintenance tool.
Full disclosure: I have never used tobacco, alcohol, or illegal drugs. Don’t intend to (drugs and tobacco are stupid and alcohol is expensive). After leaving the church, I was tempted by sweet tea on a hot day and found it very desirable. I also have a cup of caramel maci-something from my grocer’s refrigerator case in the morning.
And I eat corn like an ox and oats like a horse.
I remember laying in bed as an 11 year-old and thinking about how I would change the rules when I became a god and created by own universe (yes, my ambitions surpassed just a world of my own). I can’ recall any specifics, but I definitely had the notion that many of “the rules” were arbitrary and were more about conforming than providing a definite benefit.
Terryl Givens says that it’s OK for God to give us a random commandment that serves no purpose beyond a test of faith. Maybe. I think there are enough real things for our benefit or protection that God doesn’t need to throw in a “trick question” to prove that we really, really love Him. Once we hit that point, I think we are talking about commandments of men and not of God. Paul’s “bishops shouldn’t be drunks” is good advice. Never having a mild barley drink or fermented fruit of the vine serves no real purpose.
If we can dismiss past church leaders’ racism as a product of their times, we can certainly view the WoW as a product of its time (raging temperance movements, etc.) and drop the notion that a cup of coffee should keep you out of the temple and all the best heavens.
It seems to me that an analysis of the WoW should include statements about the WoW made by representatives of the appropriate governing authority (General Authorities) or the institution itself (the Church and its publications and official communications). And once you do that, we are all over the place.
Just this year on Mormon Newsroom the WoW was called a “law of health”. Oh, that’s what it is? Because I could find various statements by GAs that indicate the WoW isn’t about health, it’s about obedience.
Also, the original intent of the WoW seems to be a recommendation (“not by way of commandment”). But this has evolved into a virtual commandment. Eventually (1920?) it became a ticket to punch in order to get into the temple.
I think a clarification is in order: is the WoW about health, or is it a virtue / obedience test for members? And is it a commandment, or just a recommendation?
ji, excellent point on the “Chevron Deference”! Yes, the church, as the governing agency tasked with enforcing those statues (WofW), is given latitude for those part that are ambiguous. So interpreting “hot drinks” (ambiguous) should be left to the church, and coffee/tea are perfectly reasonable interpretations of that phrase. Where it does not apply is to the whole ignoring of other parts of the WofW, that are un-ambiguous, like the meat verse. This should require a new law (revelation put to a vote) to replace this section.
But, you are right, we don’t want legalism to govern our religious practice. My post was just a fun exercise in comparing apples to oranges. Thanks for your comments.
To me it seems like the Word of Wisdom as originally written, specifically NOT by way of commandment, would be treated in similar manner to the food pyramid rather than as a legal requirement. Still, the legal analysis is interesting. It is interesting to see the parts that have apparent contradictions.
The fact that the temple recommend questions ask about the word of wisdom encourages us to treat it as a legal requirement. In order to answer the question yes or no, each person and bishop must feel they have a common understanding of what it means. There are huge ramifications of a bishop interprets the WoW differently to the extent that a person may not be able to attend a family member’s wedding, or they may not be able to be sealed themselves, their own ordinances, serve a mission or hold certain calling. The temple requirement has elevated the principle in importance to the point it can break up families.
It seems to me that the legalistic treatment of the WoW is derived from the temple recommend process, and not from the WoW itself.
But, there were sources for treating it as a commandment earlier than its incorporation into the temple recommend interview. See https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-89-the-word-of-wisdom?lang=eng :
“Although the Word of Wisdom was received on 27 February 1833, its acceptance by individual members of the Church was gradual. On 9 September 1851, some eighteen years after it was given, the Patriarch to the Church, John Smith, delivered a talk in general conference on the Word of Wisdom. During his address, President Brigham Young arose and proposed that all Saints formally covenant to abstain from tea, coffee, tobacco, whiskey, and “all things mentioned in the Word of Wisdom” (“Minutes of the General Conference,” Millennial Star, 1 Feb. 1852, p. 35). The motion was accepted unanimously and became binding as a commandment for all Church members thereafter.”
But it continued to be treated with some leniency. E.g., in 1870 BY is reported to have said in April 1870 General Conference: “Elders of Israel, if you must chew tobacco, omit it while in meeting, and when you leave, you can take a double portion, if you wish ”
I am not convinced of this: “In order to answer the question yes or no, each person and bishop must feel they have a common understanding of what {keeping the Word of Wisdom] means.” I don’t see any basis for exploring whether there is such a common understanding in the instructions Bishoprics are given about conducting temple recommend interviews. But then, it seems, I miss a lot. 🙂
The problem when discussing the Word of Wisdom, is that it is often considered to be a single set of rules or guidelines when in reality there are two sets of rules both referred to as the Word of Wisdom. First is section 89 of the D&C. This is a set of health guidelines that is not a commandment, is ambiguous in places, and contains not only guidelines but also promises. Section 89 remains today just as it was received. Second is a formalized prohibition policy that is based on but separate from section 89. This prohibition policy is a requirement for members, is specific, and is not connected to any promises. This policy has been updated from time to time and will certainly continue to be updated. When your bishop asks during an interview if you keep the Word of Wisdom, he is referring to the policy, not to section 89. Understanding the revelation and the policy as two distinct Words of Wisdom allows them to make sense. Trying to understand them as a single Word of Wisdom, makes no sense.
Mormon Myth No. 1: The Word of Wisdom is about health. No, hardly at all. There are healthy things (e.g., green tea) that are prohibited. There are harmful things (sugared pop, cheeseburgers) that are no problem at all. It has almost nothing to do with health. Utah has a very high rate of Alzheimer’s Disease. That’s because coffee, for some reason, offers some protection against the disease.
Mormon Myth No. 2: The Word of Wisdom is defined or controlled by D&C 89. No, hardly at all. The vague and ambiguous terms there permit any later leaders to interpret and reinterpret any passage, and add (drugs) or remove (Coke) any particular item. Think of it this way: D&C 89 is written in pencil, not ink, and can be rewritten whenever it is convenient to do so.
The Church claims credit for anything good the LDS food and drink rules can be plausibly connected to, while ignoring or denying any harm the rules inflict on the membership.
I find the meat prohibition particularly interesting in light of all the zoonotic diseases (including Covid) that are becoming more and more common in recent years.
Injecting a bit of science into the argument would be useful, esp if we’re still considering WoW a health guideline. In that case let’s just go all the way and see what the research indicates on each sub-topic.
LOL, Chevron! I love it, Ji.
But doesn’t the Church/WOW fail Chevron step nought (Is this an agency charged with administering this statute?)? Agencies get deference on the understanding that Congress has delegated some rulemaking authority to them by statutue. But for the WOW, isn’t the Church equivalent to Congress? I.e., tomorrow, RMN could wholesale replace, repeal, or modify to any degree the WOW. That broad, absolute legislative power is exactly the kind Congress CAN’T delegate to agencies. Moreover, WOW interpretations in later-published Church materials (gospel topics, curriculum) aren’t authoritative and don’t create binding rules. The temple recommend questions goes straight to the “statute” itself, not an interpretation thereof. So there’s really no delegation to defer to when interpreting the WOW.
I think it’s better interpreted as literature than as law.