Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101/Chapter 14

Chapter 13: Communion and Baptism

A FAIR Analysis of: Criticism of Mormonism/Books A work by author: Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson

Chapter 15: The Temple

Index of Claims made in Chapter 14: The Word of Wisdom

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. (Ecclesiastes 1:9)

It was déjà vu all over again!
—Yogi Berra

∗       ∗       ∗

Note

The chapter is little more than a rehash of an essay that appeared in Chapter 20 of the Tanners' anti-Mormon opus ’’Mormonism: Shadow or Reality?’’.1 It would seem that the authors essentially edited the Tanner's work to make it shorter then simply stuck their names on it. Their footnotes give the Tanner's no credit for their work whatsoever.

The authors’ objections to the Word of Wisdom take three major forms: • Modern Mormons do not follow the Word of Wisdom • Early Mormon Leaders were hypocritical in following the Word of Wisdom • The Word of Wisdom is not a revelation; rather Joseph Smith simply stole the concepts from the prevalent temperance movement of his day

Claim

• The authors claim that “few (if any) Mormons try to keep the Word of Wisdom as it was said to be given to Smith in 1833.”
• The authors claim that “important Mormon leaders” broke the Word of Wisdom themselves.

Response

• For a detailed response, see: Word of Wisdom

Claim

• The authors claim that if the Word of Wisdom “was such an important teaching,” why wasn’t it made a “command” until 1851 by Brigham Young?
• The authors quote the introduction to Section 89 thusly:

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Kirtland, Ohio, February 27, 1833. HC 1: 327–329. As a consequence of the early brethren using tobacco in their meetings, the Prophet was led to ponder upon the matter; consequently he inquired of the Lord concerning it. This revelation, known as the Word of Wisdom, was the result.

Author's source(s)

• Brigham Young n1

Response

• The authors fail to quote the whole introduction. The final sentence of the introduction is omitted. It reads: "The first three verses were originally written as an inspired introduction and description by the Prophet." In other words, the first three verses of this revelation were not a part of the original revelation. They were added in 1835 when the revelation was added to the Doctrine and Covenants. The first three verses are:

A Word of Wisdom, for the benefit of the council of high priests, assembled in Kirtland, and the church, and also the saints in Zion— 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 in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days— Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.5

Rather than quoting the first three verses in their entirety, the authors instead write:

According to D&C 89:3, the Word of Wisdom is "a principle with [a] promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak." This did not become a "command" for eighteen years, until President Brigham Young proposed it in 1851. If this was such an important teaching, it seems strange that it was not a command from God when this revelation was first given.

• One must ask why the authors find this so strange when the second verse of the revelation clearly says that it was not a commandment.
• In answer to the author's query regarding how strange it was that this "important teaching" was not delivered as a command at first, the answer was right in front of them. It was not considered a command at first because the Lord specifically dictated otherwise. That being the case, the historical record clearly shows that the early Saints interpreted the revelation in light of this verse and also in light of another revelation that the Prophet had received earlier.6
• We should also to draw attention to the author's omission of not only the majority of verse three but also the complete text of verse four. The omissions are highly suspect because in both cases they omit the Lord's explanation of the reason for the revelation. The third verse says the purpose of the revelation was to show the "will of God in the temporal salvation" of the Saints. The fact is that obedience to the principles of the Word of Wisdom actually did lead to the temporal salvation of the Church. The forth verse continues:

Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation.7

• The authors therefore chose to ignore two of the most important verses in the revelation. These are the two verses that essentially validate the prophetic nature of the revelation and the man who received it. Both of these verses contain prophecies and both of these prophecies have vividly come to pass.
• For a detailed response, see: Word of Wisdom and Word of Wisdom/Temporal salvation of the early Saints

Claim

• The authors note that the Word of Wisdom makes an exception that the use of wine is permitted in order “to offer up your sacraments,” yet Latter-day Saints now use water instead of wine for the Sacrament.

Author's source(s)

• n2

Response

Claim

• George q. Cannon “included chocolate, cocoa, and even soup” on the list of items prohibited by the Word of Wisdom.

Author's source(s)

• n3

Response
 FAIR WIKI EDITORS: Check sources

Claim

• The authors note that,

While most Mormons say caffeine is their reason not to drink coffee and tea, an article in the Salt Lake Tribune states that 90 percent of adults in North America consume caffeine on a regular basis through other products.

Author's source(s)

• n4

Response

• That 90 percent of adult in North America consume caffeine on a regular basis is totally irrelevant. It does not address the percentage of Mormons who consume caffeine on a regular basis, neither does it describe what some of these other sources may be. Many common headache medications contain the drug because it enhances the effectiveness of the pain killing properties of the medicine. Anyone taking this medication could be classified as partaking caffeine, however the Mormons have always recognized that the "abuse" of certain drugs is different that using those drugs for legitimate medical reasons. Without further information or clarification, therefore, the "90 percent" figure is totally useless.
• The statement is also irrelevant what "most Mormons" claim as their reason for avoiding coffee and tea. The Word of Wisdom itself gives no indication of the reasons these substances are to be avoided—it only states that they should be. While avoiding caffeine is a legitimate reason for avoiding coffee and tea, it is not the only reason nor is it necessarily the reason the Lord had in mind in giving the revelation.
• A study printed in the International Journal of Cancer recently reported these startling findings: Drinking very hot beverages appears to raise the risk of esophageal cancer by as much as four times. The researchers analyzed results from five studies involving nearly three thousand people. The study found that hot beverages did increase the cancer risk. The study provided evidence of a link between esophageal cancer induced by the consumption of very hot drinks.2 Another report by Swiss researchers found that a component in coffee (chlorogenic acid) actually destroyed much of the body's thiamin after one quart of coffee was consumed in three hours.3 Other reported effects of drinking coffee are more controversial and have yet to be firmly proven.4 At any rate, it is clear that just because "most Mormons" avoid coffee and tea due to concerns about caffeine, the presence of the stimulant is not the only reason the Lord may have invoked a prohibition against these substances.
• For a detailed response, see: Word of Wisdom/Cola drinks

Claim

• ”Mormon writer John J. Stewart” is claimed to “admit” that “The admonition to eat little meat is largely ignored, as are some other points of the revelation.”

Author's source(s)

• n5

Response
 FAIR WIKI EDITORS: Check sources

Claim

• According to the authors, Joseph Smith “often used tobacco and liquor.”

Author's source(s)

• n7
• n8

Response

Claim

• The authors claim that history was “sanitized” to remove references to Word of Wisdom violations.

Author's source(s)

• n9
• n10

Response
 FAIR WIKI EDITORS: Check sources

Claim

• Brigham Young reported that a store in Utah “was doing a great business in tea, coffee and tobacco.”

Author's source(s)

• n11

Response
 FAIR WIKI EDITORS: Check sources

Claim

• Brigham “rebuked LDS men for chewing tobacco in the semiannual conference and spitting it on the floor but came short of calling their habit ‘sin’.”

Author's source(s)

• n12
• n13

Response

Claim

• Brigham states that the Saint “spend considerably more” on tobacco than before, and that they should raise their own tobacco or quit using it.

Author's source(s)

• n14

Response

Claim

• The ideas being promoted in the Word of Wisdom “were being advocated by others during the time of Joseph Smith.”

Author's source(s)

• n16
• ’’Wayne Sentinel’’, 6 November 1829.

Response

The Word of Wisdom Early Mormon Leaders and the Word of Wisdom The issue of interpretation brings us to McKeever and Johnson's second major argument—the fact that early Mormon leaders didn't follow the teachings of the Word of Wisdom as strictly as do modern members of the faith. Why this fact should bother them is unclear, especially in light of the aforementioned verse three which clearly states that the World of Wisdom was not, at that point in time, a commandment. Thus, willfully ignoring the answer that was right in front of them, McKeever and Johnson take Joseph Smith and Brigham Young to task for their apparent non-compliance with the precepts of the revelation. They point to several events as "proof" of their accusations. Among these accusations are: • Joseph Smith said that he, Orson Hyde, Luke Johnson and Warren Parrish occasionally drank wine • The fact that Smith attempted to run a tavern from his home • An alleged story that Smith counseled a man to get drunk else he die • The fact that the Church-owned cooperative store in Utah sold tea, coffee and tobacco • A quote from Brigham Young rebuking the elders for spitting tobacco but refusing to qualify it as a sin The third item is based only a third party allegation and is completely hearsay. There is no evidence that Smith said such a thing or that the man who was thus counseled actually died. Ergo, it is an inane and utterly useless example, typical of an argument desperate to score points at any cost. The reasonable question is not, "did early Mormon leaders obey the Word of Wisdom as it is understood today." The reasonable question is, "did early Mormon leaders obey the Word of Wisdom as they understood it in their day?" The answer to that question is a resounding yes. Again, I wish to point out that this line of argumentation is not unique. McKeever and Johnson are not covering new ground with their arguments. They are simply parroting the very same accusations that Jerald and Sandra Tanner first made years ago. It is most interesting that while accusing Smith and other LDS leaders of the bygone era with blatant hypocrisy, neither the Tanners nor their imitators McKeever and Johnson seem able to address the glaring inconsistency inherent within their argument. How were Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and other leaders able to indulge themselves, in public, using substances forbidden by the Word of Wisdom, without any apparent criticism from the members, if the understanding of the Word of Wisdom in that time was that of complete abstinence as it is today? The answer is quite simple but will not make McKeever and Johnson (or the Tanners for that matter) happy: The early Mormons and their leaders did not interpret the Word of Wisdom in the same way as it now interpreted. In order to maintain their claims of hypocrisy, McKeever and Johnson must maintain that the Word of Wisdom was understood and interpreted the same when it was revealed as it is now. However, they undermine their own premise when the quote the Encyclopedia of Mormonism to the effect that John Taylor, Joseph F. Smith and Heber J. Grant promoted adherence to the Word of Wisdom as a precondition for entering the temple. If these three men (all of who eventually became Prophets of the Church) were promoting this point of view, it must be understood that this was not the prevailing point of view at that time. Nevertheless, the suggestion was never made by these men that non-adherence to the precepts of the revelation was recognized at that time as being grounds for losing temple privileges. Therefore, charges of hypocrisy against early Church leaders are misguided and false because the authors hold Smith and Young to a standard that did not exist in their day. Early LDS records suggest that "adherence to at least some portions of the revelation was mandatory and necessary for Church fellowship" but there "was no consistent pattern or interpretation or application of the Word of Wisdom between the time it was given and the middle 1840's."16 Why would the interpretation of the teaching differ? A few years earlier, on August 7, 1831, Joseph received what is now section fifty-nine of the Doctrine and Covenants. In this section the Lord revealed that "all things which come of the earth, in the season thereof, are made for the benefit and the use of man, both to please the eye and to gladden the heart; Yea, for food and for raiment, for taste and for smell, to strengthen the body and to enliven the soul. And it pleaseth God that he hath given all these things unto man; for unto this end were they made to be used, with judgment, not to excess, neither by extortion." (D&C 59:18-20.) When these verses are applied to the Word of Wisdom, they suggest moderation rather than abstinence.17 This fact, combined with the aforementioned fact that verse three of the revelation specifically states that it was not a commandment, virtually ensured wildly varying interpretations of the revelation. This fluid interpretation can be seen in the comments of early leaders. Hyrum Smith for example, possibly concerned over the rigors associated with the trip to Missouri, told the members of the Kirtland Camp "not to be too particular in regard to the Word of Wisdom."18 Even Joseph Smith, who in 1838 urged Word of Wisdom observance, "never interpreted the revelation as demanding total abstinence, but stressed moderation and self-control."19 Peterson observes: Joseph's approach to the Word of Wisdom, when viewed in historical perspective seems sensible and rational. In the late 1830's, the Kirtland Stake had dissolved due to apostasy, the Missouri Saints were being driven from the state with accompanying hardships, and Joseph himself was imprisoned. At a time when the Church was struggling for mere existence, it would seem small and petty to quibble about a drink of tea or coffee. Similarly, after a comparatively comfortable initial existence in Nauvoo, Mormon society was torn apart by internal dissension and by the controversy and persecution which resulted from the promulgation and practice of peculiar religious doctrines. Emphasis on a rigid interpretation of a health code during such a period of turmoil would seem ill-timed and inappropriate. Moreover, there is some evidence that Joseph sought to avoid needless dissension among the Saints by urging moderation and charity. It would appear that some Mormons had been influenced by the fanaticism that characterized sermons of some of the radical temperance reformers, and tended to be intolerant of those with professed Word of Wisdom weaknesses. The Prophet, recognizing that the revelation must be seen in perspective with other matters and doctrines pertaining to the growth of the "Kingdom," urged them to be slow to judge or condemn others. Joseph's rather curt reaction to a talk advocating "temperance in the extreme" was illustrative of his desire to teach the Saints to be charitable and merciful, rather than vindictive and unforgiving.20 It is unfortunate that our critics cannot seem to muster the same degree of charity and mercy. "It appears that, to the early Saints, Word of Wisdom observance was recommended with the perception that observance meant moderation."21 As is the case with modern Mormons, they relied on their own judgement and current medical practices. The Latter-day Saints of the 1830's, like the Latter-day Saints in every decade since, have interpreted the Word of Wisdom according to the medical knowledge of the day. "In Joseph's day there were a variety of differing medical 'systems' each with its own popularity and none with the allegiance of the majority. Herbal medicine was very popular among the Saints, whereas homeopathic medicine … was just gaining a foothold."22 "The Saints, like their contemporaries, practiced many of these systems to various degrees. The Word of Wisdom was not received in a cultural vacuum."23 Then as now, the members of the Church were highly influenced by the prevailing medical wisdom of the day in regards to how they interpreted the revelation. Medical sentiments of the 1830's suggested that each of the four proscribed Word of Wisdom stimulants (alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and tea) offered some redeeming therapeutic value. That is not to say that the belief in medicinal value was the only reason the Saints consumed these stimulants. Sometimes they were consumed for the relief of stress, mental anguish, or simply to liven the spirits. For many of the early Saints these circumstances presented justifiable grounds for nonobservance or fell within the tolerances of moderation.24 An example of this can be seen in the early Church's view regarding wine. "Evidence suggests that many Church Authorities did not consider moderate wine drinking in the same category as the use of strong drinks."25 This view was completely in line with the medical knowledge and opinion of the day. Many early Saints believed that there were medical benefits for the consumption of alcohol, including tonic or restorative properties,26 as well as relief from fatigue and sore throats.27 At other times alcohol was consumed to lift their spirits in times of turmoil.28 The Saints didn't believe that ingestion under these conditions was in violation of the Word of Wisdom.29 In the final days of Brigham Young's illness in 1877, he received regular doses of brandy—the single most widely used drug of that time.30 In a like manner, modern Latter-day Saints use medicines that contain alcohol and other narcotics, such as cough medicines and allergy suppressants, and it is not considered a violation of the Word of Wisdom. Receiving morphine while in the hospital to kill pain or raise blood pressure is not considered a violation either. Why? Because as was previously stated, the LDS have always interpreted the Word of Wisdom based on current medical knowledge, not on fallacious assertions based on the shallow research of professional anti-Mormons. Smith and Young did not view the Word of Wisdom in the same perspective and light as Mormons do today. Observance meant moderation. It really doesn't matter that Joseph drank on occasion—he lived the Word of Wisdom according to his understanding of the revelation based on the newness of the concept and his cultural understanding of health and medicine.31 The Revelatory Status of the Word of Wisdom The final nail in Joseph Smith's coffin, according to McKeever and Johnson, is the fact that, despite Joseph's claims that the Word of Wisdom was a revelation, there were in that time, temperance societies that also advocated the abolition of alcohol. In fact, this movement successfully engineered the closing of a distillery in Kirtland, just a few weeks before Smith received the Word of Wisdom. The authors also quote a newspaper article that appeared in the Wayne Sentinel, published in the area where Joseph was reared, that called tobacco "an absolute poison." They conclude their brief review with this conclusion: "It is extremely possible that Smith picked up his ideas from these other sources." With that, they turn their attention to other matters. Personally, if I were them, I'd run and hide too, because the truth of the matter is more complicated than they let on with their flip dismissal of the Word of Wisdom. The authors are correct in stating that the temperance movement of the day was instrumental in raising awareness to the evils of alcohol. They are also correct in stating that several of these groups also held disparaging views of tobacco. However, what they do not tell us is that many of these groups also held some rather unorthodox beliefs. For example, other health reform campaigns of Joseph's day did recommend abstinence from tobacco, coffee and tea, but some of these same health reformers also recommended abstinence from pepper, mustard,32 white bread, salt, ultimately all condiments, and even sex.33 Many members of the medical community in that day also believed in varying degrees of "stimulation associated with such items … mustard, pepper, and other spices."34 Interestingly enough, none of these elements are found in the Word of Wisdom. In other words, McKeever and Johnson would have us believe that Joseph Smith fashioned the Word of Wisdom using the prevailing theories and ideas on nutrition and health of his day. They would also have us believe that as he was plagiarizing these ideas (and plagiarism is something that McKeever and Johnson should be very keenly aware of) from these various resources, he somehow managed to avoid including even a single bit of the "quackery" that was prevalent in his day. The Word of Wisdom makes no references to bloodletting, leeches, sexual abstinence or any other practice that, by modern standards, would be considered medieval. This reminds me of what one LDS researcher termed the "idiot savant" theory that many anti-Mormons use in conjunction with Joseph Smith. They assert that Smith was so utterly stupid that he would plagiarize ideas from his surrounding environment and pass them off as his own. Nevertheless, his genius was such that he could avoid any fallacy or error when doing so. Such an explanation simply doesn't hold water. It must be recognized that the Word of Wisdom does not represent the first time that the Lord has seen fit to reveal commandments regarding His people's dietary practices. Anciently, the Lord revealed a dietary code to Moses that was incorporated into the Mosaic Law. According to Joseph Fielding McConkie, The Mosaic system consisted of a host of ritualistic reminders to Israel that they were a nation set apart, a nation consecrated to God and his service-and that as such they needed to be pure. Only that which was clean could enter into his presence. This was the purpose of their dietary laws, which delineated at great length between those animals which they were permitted to eat, designated as "clean," and those forbidden to them, designated as "unclean." The Hebrew word for clean used in the dietary law reached far beyond that of physical cleanliness. Synonyms include pure, unadulterated, uncontaminated, innocent, and holy. A Jewish writer explaining these dietary laws observed: A hog could be raised in an incubator on antibiotics, bathed daily, slaughtered in a hospital operating room, and its carcass sterilized by ultra-violet rays, without rendering kosher the pork chops that it yields. "Unclean" in Leviticus is a ceremonial word. That is why the Torah says of camels and rabbits, "They are unclean for you, limiting the definition and the discipline to Israel. Chickens and goats, which we can eat, are scarcely cleaner by nature than eagles and lions, but the latter are in the class of the unclean. (Wouk, This Is My God, pp. 100-101; italics added.) Like the Word of Wisdom, the ancient dietary law was first spiritual and only secondarily a health law. This principle has been overlooked in far too many discourses on the Word of Wisdom. Its primary purpose is to keep modern Israel clean—that is, pure, unadulterated, uncontaminated, innocent, and holy—in order that they might have the Holy Ghost as their constant companion. The health benefits are secondary. Of what particular value is it to live to a great age avoiding cancer if we are unworthy to associate with the Spirit of the Lord? The Mosaic dietary code can only properly be understood when viewed as a symbol of a people consecrated or dedicated to the Lord. Every meal was a reminder to Israel of who they were and what they had covenanted to be. It has been suggested that strength comes from living such a law, vision from understanding it.35 Summary While it is true that many faiths and denominations disagree about what Christian doctrine is, they do not disagree on how a Christian should act and behave. That is why this work by McKeever and Johnson is so disturbing. This single chapter contains blatant misrepresentations of LDS doctrines and fallacious assertions about LDS practices and beliefs. McKeever and Johnson claim to have spent many years studying Mormonism, therefore I can only conclude that such distortions are a deliberate attempt to defame the Church of Jesus Christ. This does not even address the question of the origins of the author's research and their unattributed use of sources. For a person such a Bill McKeever, who holds the title of "Reverend" and who, as such, should uphold the highest standards of Christian conduct, such behavior is deplorable and unacceptable. Looking at the work itself, it seems that McKeever and Johnson's explanation of the less-than-divine origins of the Word of Wisdom are less-than-satisfactory. They attempt to enforce a modern interpretation of the revelation on its nineteenth-century adherents, which is simply unfair. If the same method was used against some deeply held Evangelical beliefs, they would kick and scream about the unfairness of it all.36 They avoid the more difficult parts of the revelation and in fact, have omitted them completely from their work. How can they claim to give an introduction to the Word of Wisdom yet fail to discuss the most pertinent parts of it? The thought boggles the mind! Finally, in a vain attempt to explain away the revelation, McKeever and Johnson simply ascribe it to the existing health theories of the day without realizing how much more complexity this adds to the equations. They fail to explain how it is that every aspect of the revelation is now supported by current science while Smith was able to avoid every bit of nineteenth-century quackery. Finally, it is utterly inexcusable that the authors would not even be aware of the competent scholarship that has dealt with this topic before. It is obvious that McKeever and Johnson's true purpose is to keep their intended audience (Evangelical Christians) in the dark about the true nature of this revelation. McKeever and Johnson's readers would do better to save their money, or at least to purchase the Tanner's work, which at least has the merit of being original research.

Endnotes

1 As I read this rather short chapter in McKeever and Johnson's book, I was struck by the many similarities between this chapter and chapter 29 from Jerald and Sandra Tanner's book Mormonism: Shadow or Reality. My curiosity was sufficiently peaked that I obtained a copy of the Tanner's book and did a comparison of the two. I found the following: McKeever and Johnson cite a quote from George Q. Cannon. The same exact quote, including starting and ending points, is also found in the Tanner's book. McKeever and Johnson make the same assertion, claiming that members of the Church avoid coffee and tea due to caffeine content. McKeever and Johnson cite a quote from John J. Stewart. The same quote is found in the Tanner's work. McKeever and Johnson cite a quote from Dean P. McBrian. The same quote is found in the Tanner's work. McKeever and Johnson cite a quote by Joseph Fielding Smith from his book Doctrines of Salvation. The same quote appears in the Tanner's work. McKeever and Johnson cite a quote regarding Elders Hyde, Johnson and Parrish. The same exact quote is found in the Tanner's work. McKeever and Johnson cite an alleged story about Joseph Smith giving some men money to replenish their supply of whisky. The same story is cited in the Tanner's work. Mormonism 101 quotes a story of an alleged encounter between Smith and one Robert Thompson as told by Oliver Huntington. The Tanners quote the same story. McKeever and Johnson cite a story about Brigham Young chastising the elders for chewing tobacco but refusing to call it a sin. The Tanners cite the same exact story. McKeever and Johnson quote Brigham Young regarding the amount of money the Saints were spending on tobacco ($100,000). The Tanners also cite this quotation. Finally, McKeever and Johnson quote an article in the Wayne Sentinel that called tobacco "an absolute poison." The exact same quotation appears in the Tanner's work. In a chapter only six pages in length, this seems to be more than a mere coincidence. In fact, it would seem that McKeever and Johnson essentially edited the Tanner's work to make it shorter then simply stuck their names on it. Their footnotes give the Tanner's no credit for their work whatsoever.

2 International Journal of Cancer, 88 (15 November 2000): 658–664.

3 International Journal of Vitamin and Nutritional Research, 46 (1976).

4 An example of this is a study by Dr. Hershel Jick of Boston University Medical School. He found that drinking one to five cups of coffee per day raises the risk of heart attack by as much as 60 percent and drinking more than six cups per day raises the risk by 120 percent. However, other studies have failed to find a connection between heart attack and coffee intake. Other ongoing studies indicate a possible connection between coffee intake and bladder cancer. Coffee has also been tentatively linked to a rise in blood fats, increased adrenal activity, and blood cholesterol and heart action irregularity. Nevertheless, these studies are not conclusive and as such, cannot be authoritatively cited as evidence against coffee drinking.

5 D&C 89: 1–3, emphasis added.

6 See D&C 59.

7 D&C 89:4.

16 Paul H. Peterson, "An Historical Analysis of the Word of Wisdom," M.A. Thesis, Brigham Young University (1972).

17 Ash, "Up in Smoke," 30.

18 History of the Church, vol. 3 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1978), 95, as quoted in Ash, "Up in Smoke," 33.

19 Ibid.

20 Peterson, "Historical Analysis," 39–40; see also History of the Church, vol. 4 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1978), 445.

21 Peterson, "Historical Analysis," 27, as quoted in Ash, "Up in Smoke," 35.

22 Lester E. Bush, Jr., "Brigham Young in Life and Death: A Medical Overview," Journal of Mormon History (May 1978), 48, as quoted in Ash, "Up in Smoke," 35.

23 Thomas G. Alexander, "The Word of Wisdom: From Principle to Requirement," Dialogue 14:3 (Fall 1981), 87, as quoted in Ash, "Up in Smoke," 35.

24 Peterson, "Historical Analysis," 24, as quoted in Ash, "Up in Smoke," 40.

25 Peterson, "Historical Analysis," 26; 104–105, as quoted in Ash, "Up in Smoke," 40.

26 Bush (1981), 51, as quoted in Ash, "Up in Smoke," 40.

27 Pickard and Buley, 92, as quoted in Ash, "Up in Smoke," 40.

28 History of the Church, vol. 7 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company), 101, as quoted in Ash, "Up in Smoke," 40.

29 "Memoirs of George Albert Smith," entry under 1834, and Elden J. Watson, (ed.), Manuscript History of Brigham Young 1801–1844 (Salt Lake City: Utah Secretarial Service, 1968), 50–52, as quoted in Ash, "Up in Smoke," 40.

30 Lester E. Bush, "Brigham Young in Life and Death: A Medical Overview," Journal of Mormon History (May, 1978), 97–98; Bush (1981), 58, as quoted in Ash, "Up in Smoke," 40.

31 Ash, "Up in Smoke," 42. Emphasis mine.

32 Peterson, "Historical Analysis," 14–15.

33 Bush, 52.

34 Bush, 49; Nissenbaum, 86–104.

35 Joseph Fielding McConkie, Gospel Symbolism (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1985), 91–92. Emphasis added.

36 An example of an "orthodox" Christian doctrine that was understood differently from time period to time period is that of the Trinity. Previous to the Nicene Council of the mid-third century, there was no "standardized" understanding of the nature of the Godhead. In fact, it appears from the ancient documents that various theories abounded. It is clear that many of the Christians from the first and second centuries believed in an anthropomorphic version of God. It is also clear that the doctrine of subordinationism was also widely held at that time. (See Barry R. Bickmore, Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity [FAIR: 1999], 75–136, for an excellent treatment of the development of the doctrine of the Trinity.) It wasn't until after the mid-third century that a "standardized" explanation of the nature of the Godhead appeared and was published as the Nicene Creed. Even then the controversy remained unsettled and a second creed, the Anathanasian Creed was created to further clarify points from the Nicene Creed. Even to this day, some aspects of the Trinity and the creeds that explain it are hotly debated in some circles. Despite the fact that prior to formulation of the creeds there was no formal understanding of the nature of the Godhead, it is apparent that for some, belief in the current understanding of the Trinity is a prerequisite to be considered a Christian. In fact, in personal correspondence that this reviewer had with an Evangelical pastor, I was told that Mormons do not qualify as Christians because they fail what he termed the "Nicene Test." This makes it abundantly apparent that the doctrine of the Trinity has evolved from a point where there was no standard doctrine to a modern interpretation that "requires" belief in a standardized version of the doctrine to be considered a Christian!

That being the case, it is unclear why McKeever and Johnson make such a fuss over the fact that the understanding of the doctrines taught in the Word of Wisdom have evolved over the years. This is exactly what Isaiah taught when he said: "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little" (Isaiah 28:10). In the Latter-day Saint view, the Lord introduced the doctrine but refrained from making it a commandment at first because at the time the majority of the Saints were not living according to the principles found therein. Making it a commandment at that time would have placed many members under condemnation. Instead, the Lord showed a measure of mercy, phasing in the principle. This action also has a prototype in the Children of Israel whom Moses led out of the wilderness. The older generation, too tainted by all their years in captivity, were forced to wander for 40 years until a new generation could be reared that was unencumbered by the same baggage their parents brought with them.