The Most Iconoclastic WoW General Conference Talk Ever
The well known Mormon proscriptions against alcohol, tobacco and coffee, classified under the “Word of Wisdom” appellation, have not always figured prominently in Mormon practice. Brigham Young’s 1851 April Conference address underscores this antecedent to our modern zeal.
Apparently, early Mormons enjoyed their tobacco. Brigham Young estimates that in the previous year they spent approximately $60,000 (~$1.4 MM in today’s dollars) for the herbaceous vice, not to mention the cost of that which is consumed by the “keg and half keg.” He based his calculation on information from prominent individuals involved in sales.
Always the pragmatic, Brigham exhorts:
Tobacco can be raised here as well as it can be raised in any other place. It wants attention and care. If we use it, let us raise it here. I recommend for some man to go to raising tobacco. One man, who came here last fall, is going to do so; and if he is diligent, he will raise quite a quantity. I want to see some man go to and make a business of raising tobacco and stop sending money out of the Territory for that article.
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 that I shall do so. I have never done so. We annually expend only $60,000 to break the “Word of Wisdom,” and we can save the money and still break it, if we will break it. Some would ask brother Brigham whether he keeps the “Word of Wisdom.” No: and I can say still further, as I told one of the teachers in Nauvoo, I come as near doing so as any man in this generation. (JD vol. 9 pg. 35-36
To his credit, Brigham did go on to say how filthy a habit tobacco use in any form is.
Remember, this was a time when BY was trying hard to establish Utah as self-sufficient, and given the state of the Word of Wisdom at that time (it wasn’t enforced much until the early 20th Century), its no surprise that he emphasized self sufficiency over the Word of Wisdom.
Comment by Kent Larsen — 9/15/2005 @ 4:30 pm
Cool! Proof that Brigham was a prophet. He knew about the “Fellowship,” [of the Ring (and longbottom leaf!)] and the testing of all fellowships long before Tolkein even wrote the works. Neat!
Comment by lyle — 9/15/2005 @ 4:33 pm
At another time, however, Brigham Young made the Word of Wisdom a commandment during General Conference. Hopefully it was after he made this statement. Anyway, it goes to show how important it is to remember to take a prophets statements in their totality and not piecemeal.
Comment by Carl Youngblood — 9/16/2005 @ 12:16 pm
As I live near and work in Jackson County, Missouri, it does my heart good to know that a large percentage of the billions of dollars spent annually on methamphetamines stays within the local economy. In keeping in harmony with Brother Brigham’s instruction, Independence, MO is upholding it’s namesake and is the meth lab capitol of the US. No need to ship our hard-earned income to foreign drug cartels when the local white trash can benefit and pay for their next tooth extractions and nascar tatoos. I’m sure in the basements of some enterprising saints in Independence, next to the cans of wheat and water, is the anhydrous ammonia and pseudoephedrine.
Comment by Chris S — 9/16/2005 @ 1:14 pm
Chris S., that was quite possibly the funniest thing I have ever read.
Comment by J. Stapley — 9/16/2005 @ 1:21 pm
in contrast, suggesting that saints are making meth is downright insulting.
Comment by lyle — 9/16/2005 @ 3:38 pm
Carl, the incident you’re referring to occurred later that same year. And I agree with your approach of taking prophets’ words in their totality. If you take Brigham Young’s words in their totality, it’s clear that he didn’t regard the WoW as a binding commandment.
Comment by will — 9/16/2005 @ 3:48 pm
Every year at Thanksgiving, my great uncle Alton would get hammered and stumble into my grandmothers fern and knock it over. It was an event that could be counted on like old-faithful erupting, and is a beloved story in our family history. I suppose he pioneered modern-day self sufficiency by keeping a stil in Sanpete County, Utah during prohibition.
Comment by Chris S — 9/16/2005 @ 4:21 pm
You don’t honestly think there are no LDS members making or selling meth do you?
Comment by jjohnsen — 9/17/2005 @ 9:32 am
My daughter is a Mormon and she did meth.
Comment by annegb — 9/17/2005 @ 10:23 am
I’m sorry, annegb.
Comment by J. Stapley — 9/17/2005 @ 10:25 am
and she made it, too.
But not now. I know other Mormons do, too. Kids, mostly. But, still.
Comment by annegb — 9/17/2005 @ 10:30 am
OK folks, I need to clarify things here. Although Independence, Missouri is indeed the meth capitol of the US (a proud statistic that we all cherish) I don’t really think that any saint who is faithful enough to keep food storage would also cook meth. What I wrote above is what is commonly known as a joke. That someone would be insulted by it was a little bit of a surprise, but I suppose I should have expected it because I am a firm believer in a lesser known beattitude: “blessed needs be the poor in intelect, for they don’t get sarcasm.”
Now for those who have loved ones who have been tangled up in the stuff, it is a real tragedy, and for them I have empathy. That said, it wasn’t my intent, nor do I think it was the intent of this topic, to launch a discussion around LDS drug use. If you want to blog about the Amish selling marijuana I’m all ears.
Comment by Chris S. — 9/17/2005 @ 7:48 pm
Chris,
What ward are you in? I’m from Lee’s Summit (which, like our neighbor Independence, also has its share of meth.)
Comment by Eric Russell — 9/19/2005 @ 8:54 am
Eric,
I live in Platte County (Platte Woods Ward), but work at Children’s Mercy and Truman Hospitals, so I get to enjoy the cream of the Jerry Springer crowd.
Comment by Chris S. — 9/19/2005 @ 4:43 pm
So when I hear that Brigham said this and then, later that year, instituted the WoW as a commandment, I think, should we take the totality of a prophet’s words and make our own conclusion, or should we see a historical narrative unfolding. I teach literature, so I’m big on narrative. The Brother of Jared forgot to go to the Lord and got chastised. Perhaps Brigham wasn’t preaching the WoW, and God let him know how he felt, so he introduced it in a very official way over the pulpit, a rather humble move if one had recently made statements that would make it seem that he personally believed he shouldn’t emphasize the revelation.
Comment by Steve H — 9/21/2005 @ 1:33 am
Excellent comment Steve H.
Comment by Craig S. — 9/21/2005 @ 11:48 am
Too bad BYU’s scanning of the Deseret News for its online “19th Century Publications” doesn’t extend back to 1870, yet. And I can’t find my notes on the October/November 1870 entries, so I’ll have to do this from memory.
Construction of the balcony in the Tabernacle delayed the October Conference in 1870, and when the new date was announced, Bro. Brigham also directed an admonishment to the priesthood brethren, pleading with them not to spit tobacco in the new balcony (or elsewhere in the Tabernacle). He complained of the unhygienic nature of gobs of tobacco in the building and of the way in which said gobs adhered to the women’s dresses. In effect, he said, any priesthood holder ought to be able to wait until he got outside the building…
Point is, this was not addressed as a doctrinal issue, but one of common courtesy and public health, some 20 years after the purported establishment of the WoW as a commandment. So I guess it wasn’t all that firm a commandment then (or at any other time before the presidency of Joseph F. Smith, when, as Jan Shipps pointed out some years ago, the church needed some mark to replace polygamy as a means of setting the faithful apart from the crowd).
Comment by Hugh — 9/21/2005 @ 1:32 pm
You’re right, Hugh. It was Grant that really layed down the law, requiring local leaders to obey it as a prerequisite. Clark posted Jeff Needle’s Review of Givens’ latest that included a brief, but fair analysis of this period.
Comment by J. Stapley — 9/21/2005 @ 3:21 pm
The interesting thing is that, for old-timers at least, the stringency of the law was abated even as recently as the 1950’s. When I married my former wife in the SL Temple in 1959, her grandfather (who was fond of his cup of coffee and his occasional cigar) was given a recommend to attend our sealing. I don’t think bishops/SPs can exercise that kind of merciful blindness these days.
Comment by Hugh — 9/21/2005 @ 3:32 pm
He must have been from Sanpete.
Comment by J. Stapley — 9/21/2005 @ 3:38 pm
Perhaps strict adherance to the WOW wasnt important until later. i.e. the real danderous substances being marketed and produced in greater quantities until ther later parts of the 20th Century.
Comment by Craig S. — 9/21/2005 @ 3:59 pm
Well, Craig, I believe in public health terms, the two most dangerous substances being marketed today are still alcohol and tobacco. Other stuff gets the occasional headlines, but the big killers are the legal drugs of choice.
Comment by Hugh — 9/22/2005 @ 12:20 pm
The thing that has me confused is the fact that the word of wisdom specifically tells us that grain can be used for “mild drinks” which, as I understand it, is beer or other malt beverages. Why are they off limits then? Why couldn’t we, for example, make our own fruity malt beverages and consume them for our own gratification?
Hugh, I concede that alchohol and tobacco are the most dangerous of drugs. However, it may be that modern advertising and distribution contribute to their danger.
Comment by Craig S. — 9/22/2005 @ 12:54 pm
blessed needs be the poor in intelect, for they don’t get sarcasm.”
That was even funnier than the meth comment.
Comment by Talon — 9/28/2005 @ 3:30 pm
Most of the comments are failing to make a distinction that President Young did not fail to make: There is a difference between a “commandment” and a “test of fellowship.” In other words, there are commandments the violation of which will not result in disfellowshipment, excommunication or other church disciplline, and there are commandments the violation of which will bring on such a result. In President Young’s remarks quoted above, he declined to make the Word of Wisdom a test of fellowship.
Some posters point out that many or most members of the Church continued to violate some provisions of the Word of Wisdom after President Young placed the Church under covenant to observe it as a commandment. They go on to infer that the Word of Wisdom was therefore not yet a “commandment.” That inference is unwarranted.
The Word of Wisdom was given, originally, as compassionate and nonbinding advice. It was adapted to the weakness of the Saints at the time. President Young then told the Church the time had come for the Word of Wisdom to become binding as a commandment on all members of the Church. At that point, it did become a “commandment.” However, he did not make it a “test of fellowship.” Later, President Grant told the Church that the time had come for this commandment to become a test of fellowship only in a very narrow sense–that adherence to its prohibitions should be one of the minimal standards expected of those who enter the temple and those who hold certain offices i the Church.
The Word of Wisdom remains a test of temple worthiness, as the Prophet, acting under the inspiration of God, said it should become. It is not, and has never been, a test of fellowship in the sense that its violations would result in the loss of church fellowship. However, the Prophet is certainly authorized to introduce such a change as the Lord directs.
Comment by ltbugaf — 10/25/2005 @ 11:18 am