The Word of Wisdom — Is It Really Revelation?
Critics argue the Word of Wisdom wasn’t unique — similar health codes existed before 1833, Joseph Smith drank alcohol, and Brigham Young owned a distillery. Each of these arguments deserves careful examination.
The Specific Claims
Before answering, it is worth stating the objections clearly and charitably:
- Similar health reforms existed before 1833 (Sylvester Graham, the Temperance Movement)
- Joseph Smith drank wine and beer, and was connected to a tavern
- Brigham Young operated a distillery in Utah Territory
- The revelation was not enforced as a temple requirement until 1921 — 88 years after it was given
- D&C 89 says “eat meat sparingly,” but the Church does not emphasize this
- Economic motive: keeping Utah cash from flowing to saloons
These are the actual charges. Now examine each one.
1. Non-Uniqueness Does Not Equal Non-Revelation
The existence of similar health reforms before D&C 89 does not disprove its revelation status. The moral law against murder existed in every culture before Moses — yet few argue this disproves the divine origin of the Ten Commandments. The question is not whether the information was new to humanity, but whether God revealed it to a prophet.
God works with human understanding and builds on what is already known. The Temperance Movement and Sylvester Graham had identified real health principles. Revelation confirming and expanding what humans had begun to discover is entirely consistent with how the Gospel has always operated.
“For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little.”
Progressive revelation building on partial human knowledge is the scriptural pattern, not evidence against revelation.
2. Joseph Smith and Alcohol — The Historical Reality
D&C 89 was given in February 1833. Read the revelation itself before judging Joseph’s behavior by a later standard:
“…inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good… And, again, strong drinks are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies.”
The early revelation distinguished between “strong drinks” (to be avoided) and mild fermented beverages. Wine for the sacrament was explicitly permitted (v.6). Joseph Smith’s occasional use of wine and mild beer was consistent with the revelation as originally given. The strict all-alcohol prohibition interpretation developed through later prophetic application, not the original text.
Judging Joseph Smith by a 1921 enforcement standard and applying it to 1833 behavior is anachronism. It is not a legitimate historical argument.
3. The 88-Year Enforcement Gap
Critics argue: if this were divine revelation, it would have been immediately binding. The answer to this objection is in the revelation itself:
“To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God… Adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints.”
The Lord himself said it was “not by commandment.” The gradual elevation to a temple requirement reflects exactly what the revelation described — a law given as counsel first, adapted to human capacity, elevated to requirement as the Church matured. Progressive implementation is not inconsistency; it is the Lord’s stated method.
The critic who uses the 88-year gap as an argument has not read D&C 89:2. The text anticipates the objection and answers it directly.
4. “Eat Meat Sparingly” — The Revelation’s Own Design
Critics point out that the meat counsel is not enforced the way alcohol, tobacco, tea, and coffee are, and conclude that the Church applies its own revelation inconsistently. The objection collapses once the revelation is read on its own terms.
“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.”
The premise behind the objection is mistaken. D&C 89:12–13 does counsel eating meat sparingly — and that counsel still stands. The Church has never rescinded it; it continues to teach moderation, gratitude, and care for the body. What the critic mistakes for inconsistency is in fact the structure the revelation set for itself from the first verse.
“…not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom…”
By its own terms the Word of Wisdom is divine counsel and wisdom, not a uniform list of identically binding rules. The Lord deliberately left it to living prophets to specify which portions would serve as the binding test of temple worthiness — alcohol, tobacco, tea, and coffee — while the remaining counsel, including eating meat sparingly, continues as inspired guidance for every Saint to apply. Determining which portions are made commandments is the Lord’s prerogative, exercised through His living prophets.
There is therefore no inconsistency and no institutional error to concede. The distinction between the binding requirements and the broader counsel is not something the Church imposed against the revelation — it is the revelation’s own design, declared in verse 2. This is prophetic administration of a divine law, not the failure to apply one. A Saint who eats meat sparingly is honoring the revelation; the Church that does not make it a worthiness test is honoring it as well.
5. The Purpose and the Fruit
Whatever one thinks of the Word of Wisdom’s origins, its practice produces measurable outcomes. Studies consistently show that observant Latter-day Saints have lower rates of cancer, heart disease, and substance-abuse-related mortality than comparable populations. The health benefits of avoiding tobacco, alcohol, coffee, and tea are extensively documented in peer-reviewed literature — literature that did not exist in 1833.
“And all saints who remember to keep and do these sayings, walking in obedience to the commandments, shall receive health in their navel and marrow to their bones; And shall find wisdom and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures; And shall run and not be weary, and shall walk and not faint. And I, the Lord, give unto them a promise, that the destroying angel shall pass by them, as the children of Israel, and not slay them.”
A sociological argument can explain why a reform movement produced health guidelines. It cannot explain why those guidelines have been confirmed by over a century of medical research, published decades and generations after the revelation was given.
The Verdict
The Word of Wisdom’s origins in a health-reform era do not disprove its revelation status — God has always built on human understanding. Joseph Smith’s personal alcohol use was consistent with the revelation as actually written, not as later interpreted. The gradual enforcement gap was anticipated and explained by the revelation’s own text. The economic motive argument proves nothing; motives and truth are separate questions.
The supposed inconsistency over meat dissolves under the same scrutiny: the revelation declared itself “not by commandment” in verse 2, leaving it to living prophets to specify which portions would become the binding test of worthiness. The meat counsel was never rescinded and remains in force as guidance — it was simply never made a commandment. That is prophetic administration of a divine law, not institutional failure.
The broader evidence remains: a revelation given in 1833 counseled against substances whose harm was not scientifically understood for another century. The critics have a sociological observation about context. The Gospel of Jesus Christ provides a health law with documented, measurable, modern confirmation.
That is the fruit by which it is known.