Why did colonial americans drink tea, coffee, and alcohol in the first place?
Owing to the recent Gospel Doctrine lesson on D&C 89, the Word of Wisdom, there have been various discussions regarding its history and application. Here are a few additional historical points of interest regarding the WofW that didnt end up being discussed.
1) Why did colonial Americans drink tea, coffee, and fermented drinks in the first place? Well, obviously, there were stimulant effects associated with the caffeine or alcohol. But, aside from that, there is a less obvious reason: the water simply wasnt safe to drink. Today, clean water is taken for granted. Back then, clean water was not common. They had no understanding of microbiology, and did not undertand what was making them sick until the 1870’s.
Cholera and typhoid dysentary, as well as other waterborne pathogens, were major killers, and remained so until the early 1900s when municipal water treatment became commonplace.
Boiling the water to make tea or coffee killed waterborne pathogens, and the alcohol in fermented drinks killed waterborne pathogens as well. The colonials knew full well what made them sick and what didnt, and they acted accordingly. It was common practice at the time to mix some fermented drink with water and fruit juice, creating punches or “slings”. This serves to explain why Johnny Appleseed was such a popular guy, as apple cider ferments very easily and the climate and environs of colonial America were particularly well suited to growing apples.
Sure, people could get a kick or a buzz off the stuff if they drank enough, but it was also a simple matter of survival. Dirty water kills people, and boiling it or adding a little alcohol takes care of what was killing people. We know now that boiling water kills the pathogens, but back then people didnt know that, so the only time they boiled it was to put something into it, like coffee or tea.
2) The first three verses of D&C 89 were not part of the original revelation. Note the “Thus saith the Lord…” part starts in v. 4. The preceding verses 1-3 were an introduction, presumably added by Smith, which appeared in the 1835 D&C separately in italics. It was incorporated into the versified text by Orson Pratt for the 1876 edition D&C, nobody is really sure why. It may have been because the heading was concatenated with the text of the revelation in the Kirtland Revelation Book, or it may have been because of the lenient attitude the early Church took towards moderate consumption of the proscribed substances.
As such is the case, it is plain the introductory part of D&C 89:1-3 is in fact NOT part of the revelation, it is a comment by Smith letting early Church members off the hook as far as strict observation of the prohibitions is concerned. The revelation from the Lord is a strict prohibition, it was Smith who moderated that strict prohibition, not the Lord.
Today, people like to point out that the revelation is not a commandment of the Lord because of v. 1-3. Thats simply not true. It is a commandment. Its just that Smith knew the people couldnt observe it so it was “adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints” (v. 3) rather than completely gut the Church of everyone who couldnt observe it, and destroy the Church in the process. There was also the simple practical utility of some of the proscribed substances, as discussed in part 1 above. Now, today, we have no need for this application. Our drinking water is safe, and we understand why it makes us sick.
3) Jeffery Gillam posted some comments on the WofW regarding Smith brewing his own beer as being evidenced in his own diaries or journals. I have not been able to find anything that indicates that is the case. I am presently reading through Faulring’s book, which is supposed to be a comprehensive document with respect to all of Smith’s diaries and journals, and I see nothing to suggest Gillam’s statement is accurate. Granted, I am only about halway though, but I went through the index as well and there is nothing there. If Gillam, or anyone else, would care to provide a citation for the alleged statement on Smith’s part, I would very much appreciate it so as to save me the time of reading through the entire book. Thanks in advance.
Kurt
