Ask whether Latter-day Saints can drink caffeine and the current answer is yes. The Church’s own historical summary says caffeine has been “left to the judgment of individual Saints” and is not prohibited as a condition for receiving a temple recommend.[3]
That answer is clearer today than it was for much of the twentieth century. Church leaders and publications repeatedly discussed caffeine as a drug, a poison, a potentially habit-forming substance, and at times as the apparent reason coffee and tea were objectionable. Some leaders extended that reasoning directly to cola drinks. In 1965, the First Presidency even told a bishop that decaffeinated coffee did not violate the Word of Wisdom and should not disqualify an otherwise worthy member from a temple recommend.[5]
The result was a long period in which formal policy, medical explanation, and everyday Mormon culture did not always point in exactly the same direction. That history helps explain why older and younger Latter-day Saints can remember very different answers to a seemingly simple question.
The original revelation said nothing about caffeine
Joseph Smith dictated the revelation now known as Doctrine and Covenants 89 on February 27, 1833. The earliest text describes it as a “word of wisdom” given “not by commandment or Constraint.” It warns against wine, strong drink, tobacco, and “hot drinks.” Caffeine does not appear in the revelation. Neither do the words coffee or tea.[1]
That left an obvious question: what were “hot drinks”? In 1842, the Times and Seasons published Hyrum Smith’s answer:
“I say it does refer to tea, and coffee.”[2]
The Joseph Smith Papers also notes a later recollection placing the same interpretation in 1833, when Joseph and Hyrum Smith reportedly identified coffee and tea as the “hot drinks” meant by the revelation.[1]
The early interpretation identified two beverages. It did not identify caffeine as the substance that made them forbidden.
The Church’s own historical account says leaders tolerated a variety of views on how strictly it should be observed, and many members continued to drink coffee and tea. Enforcement became more rigorous over time. In 1921, Heber J. Grant required abstinence from alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and tea for a temple recommend.[3]
By the twentieth century, coffee and tea had become clear markers of Latter-day Saint observance. The harder question was why those drinks were prohibited, and whether the same reasoning applied to other products.
In a 1945 article titled “What is the Meaning of ‘Hot Drinks’?” Apostle John A. Widtsoe tried to explain the prohibition in medical terms. Widtsoe described caffeine as a “white silky substance,” then said, “It was found to be a poison.” He repeatedly referred to caffeine as a drug and portrayed it as habit-forming. He argued that the same objection followed caffeine wherever it appeared. He called the use of caffeine in cola a “more evil use of caffeine” and specifically discussed Coca-Cola and other cola drinks.[4]
That language matters because it shows that the later Mormon suspicion of Coke did not simply arise from family folklore. A member of the Quorum of the Twelve was publicly giving a medical and religious explanation in which caffeine itself was the objectionable substance.
Widtsoe’s medical claims should be read as claims from 1945, not as current medical guidance. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration now says caffeine can be part of a healthy diet for most people and cites 400 milligrams per day for most adults as an amount not generally associated with negative effects, while warning that individual sensitivity varies and excessive caffeine can be harmful.[13]
On November 22, 1965, the First Presidency wrote to Bishop Farrel T. Miles of the Hollywood Ward in the Los Angeles Stake. The issue was whether drinking Sanka, a brand of decaffeinated coffee, could justify denying a temple recommend. The answer was explicit:
The Church History Library now independently acknowledges this historical policy. Its researchers note that surviving letters from Church leaders show that, at the time they were written, Sanka was not considered a Word of Wisdom violation and temple recommends were not to be withheld from members who drank it. The library cautions that those letters do not necessarily reflect current Church teaching.[6]
In February 1972, the First Presidency addressed cola drinks in the Priesthood Bulletin. The statement began with a qualification that would echo through later debates: “the Church has never officially taken a position on this matter.” It then advised members against drinks containing harmful, habit-forming drugs when their use could lead to a habit.[7]
That wording could be read in two ways. A member could focus on the fact that cola had never been officially prohibited. Another could focus on the warning about habit-forming substances and conclude that caffeinated cola fell within the counsel.
Vaughn J. Featherstone of the Presiding Bishopric demonstrated the second interpretation in April 1975 general conference. He recalled discussing the 1972 statement with an English bishop who did not think it meant cola. Featherstone replied that, to him, “there is no question,” then criticized attempts to find loopholes in Church rules.[8]
So by the mid-1970s, an unusual situation existed. The formal statement said the Church had never officially taken a position on cola, while a General Authority publicly treated the same counsel as clearly applying to it.
The cultural rule did not come from nowhere. Church publications had described caffeine as a drug and warned about its habit-forming effects. Leaders had applied that reasoning to cola. BYU reinforced the stricter understanding by going about sixty years without selling caffeinated soft drinks on campus. When BYU Dining Services began selling them on September 21, 2017, contemporary reporting described the move as ending a campus practice that dated to the mid-1950s.[11]
Students had not been forbidden from possessing or drinking caffeinated soda. The campus sales policy was not the same thing as a Church-wide worthiness rule. Still, it helped make caffeine avoidance look like an institutional expectation rather than merely a private preference.
An April 2008 New Era article addressed the question directly. It repeated that “hot drinks” meant coffee and tea, then stated: “Caffeine is not specifically mentioned as the reason not to drink these drinks.”[9]
The article still warned readers about addictive and habit-forming substances. What it did not do was declare caffeine itself prohibited. The distinction between a health caution and a formal Word of Wisdom ban was becoming easier to see.
The issue became unusually public in August 2012 after an NBC program about Mormonism gave viewers the impression that Latter-day Saints were prohibited from using caffeine. The Church’s Newsroom corrected that characterization: “the Church revelation spelling out health practices (Doctrine and Covenants 89) does not mention the use of caffeine.” The same statement identified “hot drinks” specifically as tea and coffee.[10]
For members who had been taught to avoid Coke, that clarification could sound like a change. The documentary record shows something subtler. Church leaders had spent decades warning about caffeine, sometimes very strongly, without consistently making caffeine itself a formal temple-worthiness prohibition.
In 2019, Church material aimed at young people explained the modern boundary in terms of the identity of the beverage. Coffee drinks remained prohibited even when the product name did not simply say coffee. Green tea and black tea were both identified as tea and therefore against the Word of Wisdom.[12]
The modern logic is different from the reasoning visible in the 1965 Sanka letter. In that letter, removing caffeine and other unwanted substances could make coffee acceptable. Under current Church teaching, coffee remains coffee, even when the caffeine has been removed. At the same time, caffeine in another product does not automatically make that product a Word of Wisdom violation.[3]
The complicated part is how the Church arrived there. The original revelation never mentioned caffeine. Hyrum Smith identified coffee and tea as the relevant “hot drinks.” Twentieth-century leaders then used caffeine as part of the explanation for why those drinks were harmful. Widtsoe extended that reasoning to cola. The First Presidency later allowed decaffeinated coffee, while separately counseling caution about habit-forming drinks. Church publications eventually clarified that caffeine itself was not prohibited, and the Church now says the matter is left to individual judgment.
Sources
1. Joseph Smith Papers, “Revelation, 27 February 1833 [D&C 89].”
2. Hyrum Smith, “The Word of Wisdom,” Times and Seasons, June 1, 1842, p. 800.
3. Church History Topics, “Word of Wisdom (D&C 89).”
4. John A. Widtsoe, “What is the Meaning of ‘Hot Drinks’?” Cumorah’s Southern Messenger, February 1945, pp. 17–19.
5. First Presidency to Bishop Farrel T. Miles, November 22, 1965.
6. Church History Library, “Ask Us: Top Reference Questions about the Word of Wisdom.”
7. First Presidency, “Cola Drinks,” Priesthood Bulletin, February 1972, reproduced in the Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual.
8. Vaughn J. Featherstone, “A Self-Inflicted Purging,” April 1975 general conference.
9. “Is there anything wrong with drinking sodas with caffeine in them?” New Era, April 2008, p. 41.
10. Church Newsroom, “Mormonism in the News: Getting It Right,” August 29, 2012.
11. Deseret News, “BYU selling caffeinated soft drinks on campus,” September 21, 2017.
12. “Vaping, Coffee, Tea, and Marijuana,” New Era, August 2019, p. 28.
13. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Spilling the Beans: How Much Caffeine is Too Much?”
That answer is clearer today than it was for much of the twentieth century. Church leaders and publications repeatedly discussed caffeine as a drug, a poison, a potentially habit-forming substance, and at times as the apparent reason coffee and tea were objectionable. Some leaders extended that reasoning directly to cola drinks. In 1965, the First Presidency even told a bishop that decaffeinated coffee did not violate the Word of Wisdom and should not disqualify an otherwise worthy member from a temple recommend.[5]
The result was a long period in which formal policy, medical explanation, and everyday Mormon culture did not always point in exactly the same direction. That history helps explain why older and younger Latter-day Saints can remember very different answers to a seemingly simple question.
The original revelation said nothing about caffeine
Joseph Smith dictated the revelation now known as Doctrine and Covenants 89 on February 27, 1833. The earliest text describes it as a “word of wisdom” given “not by commandment or Constraint.” It warns against wine, strong drink, tobacco, and “hot drinks.” Caffeine does not appear in the revelation. Neither do the words coffee or tea.[1]
That left an obvious question: what were “hot drinks”? In 1842, the Times and Seasons published Hyrum Smith’s answer:
“I say it does refer to tea, and coffee.”[2]
The Joseph Smith Papers also notes a later recollection placing the same interpretation in 1833, when Joseph and Hyrum Smith reportedly identified coffee and tea as the “hot drinks” meant by the revelation.[1]
The early interpretation identified two beverages. It did not identify caffeine as the substance that made them forbidden.
The Church’s own historical account says leaders tolerated a variety of views on how strictly it should be observed, and many members continued to drink coffee and tea. Enforcement became more rigorous over time. In 1921, Heber J. Grant required abstinence from alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and tea for a temple recommend.[3]
By the twentieth century, coffee and tea had become clear markers of Latter-day Saint observance. The harder question was why those drinks were prohibited, and whether the same reasoning applied to other products.
John A. Widtsoe made caffeine the problem
In a 1945 article titled “What is the Meaning of ‘Hot Drinks’?” Apostle John A. Widtsoe tried to explain the prohibition in medical terms. Widtsoe described caffeine as a “white silky substance,” then said, “It was found to be a poison.” He repeatedly referred to caffeine as a drug and portrayed it as habit-forming. He argued that the same objection followed caffeine wherever it appeared. He called the use of caffeine in cola a “more evil use of caffeine” and specifically discussed Coca-Cola and other cola drinks.[4]
That language matters because it shows that the later Mormon suspicion of Coke did not simply arise from family folklore. A member of the Quorum of the Twelve was publicly giving a medical and religious explanation in which caffeine itself was the objectionable substance.
Widtsoe’s medical claims should be read as claims from 1945, not as current medical guidance. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration now says caffeine can be part of a healthy diet for most people and cites 400 milligrams per day for most adults as an amount not generally associated with negative effects, while warning that individual sensitivity varies and excessive caffeine can be harmful.[13]
Twenty years later, the relationship between coffee and caffeine became even more complicated.
On November 22, 1965, the First Presidency wrote to Bishop Farrel T. Miles of the Hollywood Ward in the Los Angeles Stake. The issue was whether drinking Sanka, a brand of decaffeinated coffee, could justify denying a temple recommend. The answer was explicit:
“For your information please be advised that the drinking of a beverage made from the coffee bean, from which the caffeine and deleterious drugs have been removed, is not a violation of the Word of Wisdom, and the drinking of Sanka is not a justifiable reason for denying a temple recommend to one who is otherwise worthy.”[5]
 |
| First Presidency letter to Bishop Farrel T. Miles, November 22, 1965. |
The Church History Library now independently acknowledges this historical policy. Its researchers note that surviving letters from Church leaders show that, at the time they were written, Sanka was not considered a Word of Wisdom violation and temple recommends were not to be withheld from members who drank it. The library cautions that those letters do not necessarily reflect current Church teaching.[6]
The Church still stopped short of banning Coke
In February 1972, the First Presidency addressed cola drinks in the Priesthood Bulletin. The statement began with a qualification that would echo through later debates: “the Church has never officially taken a position on this matter.” It then advised members against drinks containing harmful, habit-forming drugs when their use could lead to a habit.[7]
That wording could be read in two ways. A member could focus on the fact that cola had never been officially prohibited. Another could focus on the warning about habit-forming substances and conclude that caffeinated cola fell within the counsel.
Vaughn J. Featherstone of the Presiding Bishopric demonstrated the second interpretation in April 1975 general conference. He recalled discussing the 1972 statement with an English bishop who did not think it meant cola. Featherstone replied that, to him, “there is no question,” then criticized attempts to find loopholes in Church rules.[8]
So by the mid-1970s, an unusual situation existed. The formal statement said the Church had never officially taken a position on cola, while a General Authority publicly treated the same counsel as clearly applying to it.
Why so many Mormons thought caffeine was forbidden
The cultural rule did not come from nowhere. Church publications had described caffeine as a drug and warned about its habit-forming effects. Leaders had applied that reasoning to cola. BYU reinforced the stricter understanding by going about sixty years without selling caffeinated soft drinks on campus. When BYU Dining Services began selling them on September 21, 2017, contemporary reporting described the move as ending a campus practice that dated to the mid-1950s.[11]
Students had not been forbidden from possessing or drinking caffeinated soda. The campus sales policy was not the same thing as a Church-wide worthiness rule. Still, it helped make caffeine avoidance look like an institutional expectation rather than merely a private preference.
By 2008, the distinction was becoming explicit
An April 2008 New Era article addressed the question directly. It repeated that “hot drinks” meant coffee and tea, then stated: “Caffeine is not specifically mentioned as the reason not to drink these drinks.”[9]
The article still warned readers about addictive and habit-forming substances. What it did not do was declare caffeine itself prohibited. The distinction between a health caution and a formal Word of Wisdom ban was becoming easier to see.
In 2012, the Church corrected the caffeine assumption
The issue became unusually public in August 2012 after an NBC program about Mormonism gave viewers the impression that Latter-day Saints were prohibited from using caffeine. The Church’s Newsroom corrected that characterization: “the Church revelation spelling out health practices (Doctrine and Covenants 89) does not mention the use of caffeine.” The same statement identified “hot drinks” specifically as tea and coffee.[10]
For members who had been taught to avoid Coke, that clarification could sound like a change. The documentary record shows something subtler. Church leaders had spent decades warning about caffeine, sometimes very strongly, without consistently making caffeine itself a formal temple-worthiness prohibition.
In 2019, Church material aimed at young people explained the modern boundary in terms of the identity of the beverage. Coffee drinks remained prohibited even when the product name did not simply say coffee. Green tea and black tea were both identified as tea and therefore against the Word of Wisdom.[12]
The modern logic is different from the reasoning visible in the 1965 Sanka letter. In that letter, removing caffeine and other unwanted substances could make coffee acceptable. Under current Church teaching, coffee remains coffee, even when the caffeine has been removed. At the same time, caffeine in another product does not automatically make that product a Word of Wisdom violation.[3]
The complicated part is how the Church arrived there. The original revelation never mentioned caffeine. Hyrum Smith identified coffee and tea as the relevant “hot drinks.” Twentieth-century leaders then used caffeine as part of the explanation for why those drinks were harmful. Widtsoe extended that reasoning to cola. The First Presidency later allowed decaffeinated coffee, while separately counseling caution about habit-forming drinks. Church publications eventually clarified that caffeine itself was not prohibited, and the Church now says the matter is left to individual judgment.
Sources
1. Joseph Smith Papers, “Revelation, 27 February 1833 [D&C 89].”
2. Hyrum Smith, “The Word of Wisdom,” Times and Seasons, June 1, 1842, p. 800.
3. Church History Topics, “Word of Wisdom (D&C 89).”
4. John A. Widtsoe, “What is the Meaning of ‘Hot Drinks’?” Cumorah’s Southern Messenger, February 1945, pp. 17–19.
5. First Presidency to Bishop Farrel T. Miles, November 22, 1965.
6. Church History Library, “Ask Us: Top Reference Questions about the Word of Wisdom.”
7. First Presidency, “Cola Drinks,” Priesthood Bulletin, February 1972, reproduced in the Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual.
8. Vaughn J. Featherstone, “A Self-Inflicted Purging,” April 1975 general conference.
9. “Is there anything wrong with drinking sodas with caffeine in them?” New Era, April 2008, p. 41.
10. Church Newsroom, “Mormonism in the News: Getting It Right,” August 29, 2012.
11. Deseret News, “BYU selling caffeinated soft drinks on campus,” September 21, 2017.
12. “Vaping, Coffee, Tea, and Marijuana,” New Era, August 2019, p. 28.
13. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Spilling the Beans: How Much Caffeine is Too Much?”
Comments
Post a Comment