Science and the Word of Wisdom

When it comes to scripture being ahead of science, the Word of Wisdom (WofW) (D&C 89) is one of the first examples that comes to mind, in part, because of its iconic status. The ill effects of alcohol and tobacco are well established, and the prescription of grains, fruits, vegetables, and limited meat are in line with modern recommended dietary guidelines. It seems like a slam dunk example of scripture leading science, and it is often touted as such. However, it's a little more complicated than that.

As a historical matter, the Word of Wisdom was not really revolutionary for its time. It came amidst a temperance movement that made similar recommendations. Further, Lester Bush [1] has shown that it also matched the leading medical opinion of the time quite well. This is not because the physicians of the time suspected that, say, tobacco could cause cancer (a claim not made by the WofW either), but because the cause of disease was understood differently and the proscribed substances were thought to be contributing factors.

It might be argued that the endorsement of fruits and vegetables, with moderation in meat, was ahead of its time, but I don't think this is necessarily the case for two reasons. First, this counsel also matched medical opinion of the time (particularly the emphasis on seasons), but for reasons different than one would think today. Second, well, what else were the Saints going to eat? The dietary guidance of the WofW was basically what most of humanity had been doing since its beginning (or at least since the invention of agriculture).

There are also a couple of places where the WofW does not match current science, or does so tenuously. Tobacco is an interesting case. Long used in Native American folk medicine, it became a prominent medicinal treatment in European and colonial American medicine. In fact, it came to be viewed by some as a panacea and the list of ailments that it was alleged to cure--including bruises--was long. Although its use had been controversial for some time, the tide of enthusiasm for it began to turn in earnest in the nineteenth century. Nicotine was chemically isolated by chemists Posselt and Riemann in 1828 (five years before the WofW) and thereafter it's medicinal use came under sustained attack [2].

As for its endorsed uses, a search of Pubmed for references to tobacco and bruises did not turn up any relevant articles. Apparently BYU professor Rulon Francis found that bruises in rats treated with tobacco juice healed 20% faster. This finding was highlighted in the New York Times (Apr 28, 1981), but the story appears to end there. Although Francis published his method for bruising the rats, he does not appear to have published his tobacco findings. Thus the evidence for bruise-healing properties of tobacco is preliminary at best. The WofW also directs the use of tobacco for "all sick cattle," which is quite an inclusive category and recalls the reputation of tobacco as a panacea. Bush found that, historically, the use of tobacco in cattle was much less common than its use in horses. At any rate, whether or not tobacco would effectively treat any cattle ailments, a literal interpretation holding that tobacco is good for all sick cattle just isn't tenable.

Finally, the WofW prescribes various grains for livestock, including "rye for the fowls and for swine." However, as Steve Peck brought to my attention in his post, No death before the rye, chickens do not do well on diets heavy in rye. A little Internet searching turns up the reason: rye contains substances that interfere with digestion. Additionally, both swine and poultry find rye to be less palatable than other grains.

Before ending I should clarify that the question of whether the WofW was scientifically novel is largely a separate question from whether it was inspired. At the time it was given there were already socially and medically-based reasons to think that the proscribed substances were "not for the body, neither for the belly," and that grain and fruit were good. In most of these cases our modern knowledge has added to or replaced the old reasons, magnifying the inspiration in our eyes. Further, the WofW does not spell out any reasons for its recommendations other than that it is given "in consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days."

So to summarize, although portions of the WofW have been borne out by modern science in a dramatic way, the WofW was not scientifically novel for its time and cannot be said to have--to paraphrase John Walton--offered a novel scientific perspective at the time. In coming to this conclusion, it's important to recognize that we are addressing a narrow question that has little to do with its revelatory basis and relevance today.


Notes:

1. Lester Bush (1981), The Word of Wisdom in Early Nineteenth-Century Perspective [PDF].

2. Grace G. Stewart (1967), A history of the medicinal use of tobacco 1492-1860.

See also:

Anne Charlton (2004), Medicinal uses of tobacco in history.

Word of Wisdom in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism

Michael Ash (2000), Up in Smoke: A Response to the Tanners' Criticism of the Word of Wisdom

---