Below are common questions about the Word of Wisdom with answers from Church history, scriptures, and prophetic teachings, excerpted from the book, The Word of Wisdom: Hope, Healing, and the Destroying Angel.
In the first-ever General Conference talk dedicated to the Word of Wisdom, Joseph Smith clearly explained that the term hot drinks was specifically referring to tea and coffee. Hyrum Smith echoed those words in his 1842 Conference sermon dedicated to the Word of Wisdom. The Church has reiterated this position over and over again, most recently included in the August 2019 official statement on the Word of Wisdom.
Though it is clear that coffee and tea are two of the primary substances that are to be avoided, many are shocked to learn that the word “hot” could cover many other beverages as well. The word “hot” could refer to the actual temperature of the drink, as hot drinks have negative impacts on the esophagus and on digestion, in which case any kind of hot drink such as cider, chocolate, or even herbal tea would be out of the question if consumed while hot. However, one of the most important things to keep in mind when it comes to studying the scriptures is to take into account what the words meant when they were written. Language changes over time and words often lose meaning. By looking at scriptural definitions rather than modern definitions, we can better understand what the Lord means. In 1828, Noah Webster published the American Dictionary of the English Language, considered by many to be the most authoritative dictionary concerning the King James Bible and early 19th century America. In this dictionary, “hot” could be defined as relating to temperature, but it could also be defined as: “stimulating; or pungent.” The word stimulating serves as a springboard from which we can begin to understand what the Lord intended with this specific directive. Related to this very definition, George Q. Cannon remarked that chocolate, cocoa, and all drinks of that kind are considered “hot drinks” and should be avoided.
If we consider the definition of “hot” from 1828, a frozen can of “Monster Energy Drink” would be much more of a “hot” drink than a freshly-made, hot cup of coffee, as it is far more stimulating.
Many may assume that because tea has historically been singled out, that all tea–including herbal tea–should be avoided. However, there are important nuances to consider. The tea referred to in the Word of Wisdom (as specified by modern prophets) is derived from the leaves of a single plant–the tea bush, also called Camellia sinensis. Green tea, black tea, white tea, and oolong tea are the teas that come from this plant. The only difference is how they are processed. Herbal teas, as the name implies, are produced from any number of different herbs. Herbal teas are not even tea at all. Technically, they are either an infusion or decoction, depending on how they are prepared. Unlike real tea (which can only be brewed from leaves of the tea bush), herbal teas are prepared from steeping the leaves, stems, flowers, roots, bark, or rhizomes of herbs. Therefore, the admonition to avoid tea refers only to green tea, black tea, white tea, and oolong tea. Herbal infusions (better known as herbal tea) are different products altogether.
In the 1922 General Conference, President Heber J. Grant said, referring to the Saints having sung “We Thank Thee O God For a Prophet” at the conference: “Now, if you mean it–I am not going to give any command, but I will ask it as a personal, individual favor to me, to let coca-cola alone. There are plenty of other things you can get at the soda fountains without drinking that which is injurious. The Lord does not want you to use any drug that creates an appetite for itself.“
Another similar admonition came from President Spencer W. Kimball who taught: “I never drink any of the cola drinks and my personal hope would be that no one would.” Yet another prophet, namely Howard W. Hunter, added similar counsel in conjunction with striving to live the spirit of the law rather than only the letter: “Live the spirit of the Word of Wisdom. We complicate the simplicity of the Word of Wisdom. The Lord said don’t drink tea, coffee, or use tobacco or liquor and that admonition is simple. But we confuse it by asking if cola drinks are against the Word of Wisdom. The 89th Section of the Doctrine and Covenants doesn’t say anything about cola drinks, but we ask questions that go beyond the simplicity of the lesson that has been taught. We know that caffeine is taken out of coffee and used as an ingredient of cola drinks. It seems to me that if we probably want to live the spirit of the law we probably wouldn’t partake of that which had been taken from what we were told not to drink.”
Yes it is!
Some Latter-day Saints in recent years have suggested that the Word of Wisdom was initially more of a set of guidelines rather than governing principles of health for Church members. This is because of the language in the text saying it was given “not by commandment.” However, on September 9, 1851, President Brigham Young made a significant declaration and invitation to all Saints. President Young proposed that all Saints formally covenant to abstain from tea, coffee, tobacco, whiskey, and adhere to “all things mentioned in the Word of Wisdom.”
Many years later, President Spencer W. Kimball emphasized the fact that President Young gave the Word of Wisdom as a commandment when he said: “The Word of Wisdom is a commandment. In 1851 President Brigham Young gave to this Church the Word of Wisdom as a final and definite commandment. . . From 1851 until this day it is a commandment to all the members of the Church of Jesus Christ.”
Even President Ezra Taft Benson taught, “At first the revelation was not given as a commandment. It was given as ‘a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.’ This allowed time for the Saints to adjust to the principles contained in the revelation. In 1851, President Brigham Young proposed to the general conference of the Church that all Saints formally covenant to keep the Word of Wisdom. This proposal was unanimously upheld by the membership of the Church. Since that day, the revelation has been a binding commandment on all Church members.”
Doctrine and Covenants 89:12 reads, “Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;”
Often when we discuss our use of meat we stop at saying that it should be used sparingly. This word has numerous meanings to different members. Some believe it means once a meal, others believe it means once a week. Yet others believe that it means just having gratitude when you eat meat. According to one gospel scholar, it simply means sparing God’s creatures. Similarly, if we were to employ the aid of the first edition of the Webster’s Dictionary published in 1828, sparingly would be defined as “not abundantly,” “frugally,” “abstinently,” “seldom,” and “cautiously.” From these definitions, we can get a pretty good idea of what this passage meant in the time it was given. However, interpretations aside, we often miss the very next verse where the Lord continues the thought and defines what He means by sparingly:
“And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.” Which aligns perfectly with that President Lorenzo Snow taught that, “Unless famine or extreme cold is upon us we should refrain from the use of meat.”
The Lord believed that this information was so important, He put it in the revelation twice. In verse 15 we read, “And these [beasts and fowls] hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger.” Again, the Lord reiterates that only when it is absolutely needful should we turn to the consuming of animal flesh. Now, some may argue that this verse is referring to grains because in verse 14, the Lord talks about grain and its use for man and beast. However, this interpretation doesn’t make sense, as the footnote on the word “these” in verse 15 directs the reader back to verse 13 where the Lord refers to the use of animal flesh. Perhaps then Elder Joseph Fielding Smith summarized it best:
“Neither is it the intent of this revelation to include grains and fruits in the restriction placed upon meats, that they should be used only in famine or excess of hunger. The antecedent of “these” in verse 15, may not be clear, but common sense teaches us that it does not refer to grain in the preceding verse.”
Many of the early Church brethren taught this principle plainly and consistently. The first recorded talk entirely dedicated to the Word of Wisdom was in the 1842 General Conference. Hyrum Smith, brother of the prophet Joseph Smith and Church Patriarch, spoke in-depth on the blessings, promises, and commands in the Word of Wisdom, giving the most beautiful sermon. He exclaimed:
“Let men attend to these instructions, let them use the things ordained of God; let them be sparing of the life of animals; it is pleasing saith the Lord that flesh be used only in times of winter, or of famine.”
Section 49:18 reads: “And whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God[.]” Many people believe that here the Lord says that if you forbid someone to eat meat, it is not of God. The implication is that a literal reading of God’s instruction concerning the flesh of beasts in Section 89 is incorrect. However, this argument does not stand scrutiny.
The idea that one verse would be enough evidence to overturn a multitude of other scriptures and prophetic quotes is rather weak. What we should look for instead is how this verse can work together with other scripture and prophetic teachings that appear to be contradictory. This can reasonably be done by turning to the definitions found in the Webster 1828 Dictionary. The word ‘forbiddeth’ is pretty straightforward and means “to prohibit;” the word ‘abstain’ meant “to forbear, or refrain from, voluntarily,” and finally the word ‘meat’ meant “food in general; any thing eaten for nourishment.” When we compile these definitions, the phrase “forbiddeth to abstain from meats” could be re-written in our modern English to read: “whoever prohibits someone to voluntarily refrain from any food.” With this interpretation in mind, the verse would suggest that anyone who prohibits another person from refraining from a food of their own free will and choice is not of God.
There is yet another interpretation of this verse from Dr. Loren Spendlove. He makes the compelling case that the phrase “forbiddeth to abstain” was an idiom of the time–that is, a phrase that is not meant to be understood literally. For example, if we were to say that the Word of Wisdom helped us become “fit as a fiddle,” it would be a phrase used to underscore our good health–not a literal commentary on how we look in relation to fiddles. In a similar fashion, Dr. Spendlove shows that this idiom in Section 49 meant “commandeth to abstain.” If we swap this phrase into the verse, it would read: “Whoso commandeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same. . .” The footnote on ‘forbiddeth’ appears to confirm this assertion by Dr. Spendlove by suggesting the phrase could read “biddeth to abstain.” In this interpretation, the Lord would be saying that anyone who commands another person to abstain from a certain food, particularly meat, that action is not sanctioned by Him.
Does this mean that we shouldn’t refrain from eating meat? Of course not. The verse is simply saying that if you command someone or force them not to eat meat, that is not of God. This is because God gave them for the use of man as explained in the very next verse: “For, behold, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which cometh of the earth, is ordained for the use of man for food and for raiment, and that he might have in abundance.” What many people miss, however, is that in verse 21, the Lord reminds His Saints about the sanctity of life by saying, “And wo be unto man that sheddeth blood or that wasteth flesh and hath no need.” This is consistent with the Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis 9 and the circumstances given of the Lord for when to use the flesh of beasts. Thus, when properly understood, the concern over D&C 49:18 should be satisfied.
In 1921, the updated edition of the Doctrine and Covenants included an additional comma in verse 13, which has caused some controversy. The comma was inserted after the word “used” so that it read: “And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.” Some church authors believe that this seemingly insignificant change to the text changed a great deal about the interpretation of the Word of Wisdom.
Though there is much debate about the origin and intention of the comma, LDS linguistics scholar Royal Skousen clears up any possible doubts of the comma’s use when he wrote:
“First, consider the use of the word only in that part of the Word of Wisdom that deals with eating meat: ‘Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly; and it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine’ (D&C 89:12–13, 1921 and 1981 editions). In editions prior to 1921, the comma before only was missing: ‘And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine’ (1879 edition). A reader might interpret this as meaning that meat could be used at any time, not only in times of winter, cold, or famine.
Of course, the real problem here is in the meaning of only. In the last century the word only very often had the meaning ‘except.’ For example, the Oxford English Dictionary quotes a use of ‘only’ that undoubtedly means ‘except’: For many years the following notice was painted up at Bolton railway station: ‘Do not cross the line only by the bridge.’ Clearly, this is the appropriate sense of only in this verse from Section 89. James E. Talmage put the comma in the 1921 edition, but not in order to change the meaning of only. Instead, the meaning of only had changed and the comma was put in so that the modern reader could read the verse and still get out its original meaning.”
In verses 14-17 of the Word of Wisdom the Lord advises on the use of grains. He says:
“All grain is ordained for the use of man and of beasts, to be the staff of life . . . 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.”
That series of verses ought to be enough to shock a Keto dieter right out of Ketosis! It sure shocked us! The Lord here identifies that grains should be a primary source of calories for all of His Saints. Grains are meant to be the staff of life or, in other words, a staple in our diet. Again, this is consistent with the Biblical counsel the Lord gave Adam and Eve when He said it was by the sweat of their brows that they would eat bread.
In the Book of Mormon, there are over 25 mentions of grain. Studying each of these passages reveals an interesting theme. When the Nephites were obedient to God they were described as being successful, and in each case, it was also mentioned that they raised grain abundantly. The use of grains throughout the Book of Mormon is associated with obedience and a flourishing society. On the other hand, when the Lamanites were disobedient and idolatrous, they are described as being “blood thirsty.” Enos even goes as far as to say that they were evil because they fed on the beasts of prey. An interesting juxtaposition for us to consider the relationship of righteousness and the foods we eat. God’s people have always had grains as a staple of their diet, so why would now be any different?