Why did the Church replace sacramental wine with water?

Matthew says fruit of the vine. The risen Christ gave wine to the Nephites, and section 20 names wine in the prayer.

You acknowledge the original emblem and can then address whether Christ authorized a substitute.

Paul only calls it a cup, so we cannot tell whether any of the original accounts refer to wine.

Paul calls it the cup. Matthew names the fruit of the vine, and 3 Nephi explicitly names wine. Read the accounts together.

It says the emblem does not matter if the sacrament is taken with an eye single to Christ’s glory. It warns against buying wine from enemies and says any wine should be made among the Saints.

You distinguish permission to use a different emblem from the instruction about where sacramental wine should come from.

The warning against buying wine is a ban on wine in the sacrament.

The warning concerns where the wine came from. The same revelation allows the Saints to use what they made among themselves.

It says wine is not good except when the Saints assemble to offer the sacrament, and that sacramental wine should be their own make. Read with D&C 27, that preserves wine as an allowed option rather than requiring it.

Good. D&C 89’s exception regulates wine use; D&C 27 says the sacrament’s food and drink can vary.

Yes. “This should be wine” means all congregations had to use homemade wine, so water was disobedient.

The verse permits sacramental wine under a specific condition, but D&C 27 already says the emblem does not matter. Historical use of wine also continued after D&C 89.

The transition was gradual. A 1906 diary records water at a meeting of senior Church leaders. The handbook directs clean water today.

You separate the date of one documented meeting from the change across congregations.

The 1906 diary gives the date every congregation was told to switch.

The diary records one meeting. Church historical sources describe a broader transition that was already underway.