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
Just for the record, I said that he drank beer well into the Nauvoo period, not that he brewed it. Somebody else, I do remember, did suggest that some church leader (I’m not sure if it was Smith or not) did brew beer, but I don’t know anything about that.
I don’t have time to supply any references right now, but I’ll do my best to scrounge some up for you.
Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — July 8, 2005 @ 11:32 pm
No reference necessary for the drinking of beer, that one is easy to come by. Apologies for the incorrect attribution.
Comment by Administrator — July 9, 2005 @ 2:14 am
“Today, people like to point out that the revelation is not a commandment of the Lord because of v. 1-3. That’s simply not true. It is a commandment. Its just that Smith knew the people couldn’t observe it………………………”
Kurt,
Couldn’t the verses 1-3 added later be a further revelation or a clarification by JS of the original revelation? Since Section 89 including verses 1-3 are canonized and the WofW as presently imposed on us (no coffee, tea, booze or tobacco) isn’t canonized, what’s wrong w/ members who argue that the canonized version, which includes verses 1-3 should be the one we’re held to?
I can’t be the only member that wonders if some of the gifts of the spirit common before the Grant era were withdrawn because Pres Grant imposed the WofW as a barrier to entry into the Kingdom and JC is angry about it.
Comment by Steve (FSF) — July 12, 2005 @ 2:02 am
Steve,
The available history indicated v. 1-3 was not part of the original revelation, and there is nothing to suggest it is. Being part of the Canon doesnt necessarily require it to be authoritative (e.g., Song of Solomon).
Why would the Lord withdraw gifts of the Spirit that are not associated with the WofW if its being observed in the manner that it was originally dictated? What gifts are missing since Grant? We dont have people speaking in tongues in Sacrament Meeting? (maybe its because theyre all sober now…JUST A TOPICAL JOKE THERE per Acts 2:13!)
No, its plain the Lord wants to protect His Children, thats why He gave us the WofW. Assuming the WofW is an “barrier” is like saying the Law of Chastity, the Ten Commandments, Tithing, etc. are all “barriers” too. Shall we drop all barriers and allow anyone to do anything to join the Church and then gently suggest they get with the program as they see fit?
Comment by Kurt — July 12, 2005 @ 10:53 am
Maybe the Community of Christ has some of Smith’s old recipes. Could someone remain a member and market a Joe Smith or Nauvoo Joe brand of beer? A slogan could be “who’d ever thought Mormon Joe Smith could brew something this good”. There could even be an alcohol free line called Holy Joe.
I was in a ward once that had a tobacco farmer and a bartender, so I guess marketing beer would be ok too. The real WofW encourages beer anyway.
Comment by Steve EM — July 25, 2005 @ 11:48 pm
Just love this stuff.
Yes, Joseph did like a taste of the frosty adult beverage from time to time, and yes many prominent members owned breweries and/or bars after the big move to the Salt Lake valley, and no the WofW does’nt include beer as a no-no. It infact supports the making and consumption of beer. However, for whatever reason in these latter days, you as a mormon can’t drink it.
The WofW is pretty blatant about the meat issue, yet mormons certainly consume their share of beef even out of times of famine.
I suspect that with the everchanging church you will probably see some more modifications to the WofW.
I really dont get the hypocrasy. Maybe someone here can come up with something credible to help me understand.
Comment by matthew webster — October 26, 2005 @ 9:55 pm