💬 Word of Wisdom: Interpretations

Estimated time to read: 23 minutes

This page will describe how some subjective applications and interpretations of the Word of Wisdom have been observed over years and decades. It grew too big to be an afterthought on another page, so here it is, standing on its lonesome.

 

I'll cite some odd, isolated cases of what is or is not compliant with the Word of Wisdom; mainly ones that no self-respecting Mormon would call doctrinal. My point is not to enumerate outliers to say "look how doctrine has changed." Instead, my point is to observe that the doctrine is so poorly defined that there's this much room for isolated, fringe interpretations.

But... we shouldn't have any isolated, fringe interpretations.

The whole value proposition of a modern church led by a modern prophet is that, through modern revelation, there will be no ambiguity about God's will. That's part of the problem that the Restoration of the Gospel is meant to address. If Joseph Smith is a prophet and this revelation truly is from God, then the recorded revelation should be clear and unambiguous with no room for misinterpretation. No one should be able to read this text and understand it any differently than you or me, your stake president, Elder Cannon, or Susan Bednar's husband. We should never have any church authority with a position greater than Bishop saying anything to even loosely imply that the Word of Wisdom says X, Y, or Z. If the point of having a prophet is to clarify what God means, then adherents to that prophet should clearly understand what God means. If we don't understand it clearly, then we didn't have a prophet disseminate God's will to us.

 

soup, lol

I'm sure glad that no church authority had ever extended "hot drinks" to also include soup. That'd just be ridiculous. Fortunately, no apostle has ever been recorded saying that, especially not on April 7, 1868 at the New Tabernacle in Salt Lake City; nope, something so specific has definitely never happened.

We have heard considerable of late, especially since twelve months today, on the subject of the Word of Wisdom. ... We are told, and very plainly too, that hot drinks—tea, coffee, chocolate, cocoa, and all drinks of this kind are not good for man. We are also told that alcoholic drinks are not good, and that tobacco when either smoked or chewed is an evil. ... My theory is, that if we wish to raise a healthy, noble looking, intellectual and perfect race of men and women we must feed our children properly. We must prevent the use by them of every article that is hurtful or noxious in its nature. We must not permit them to drink liquor or hot drinks, or hot soups or to use tobacco or other articles that are injurious.

...

But whilst I speak in this strain about a variety of food, I am opposed in my own feelings, to a great variety of food at one meal. ... We sit down to table and, especially if we have friends, our tables are covered with every delicacy and variety that we can think of. I believe in variety at different meals, but not at one meal. I do not believe in mixing up our food. This is hurtful. It destroys the stomach by overtaxing the digestive powers[.]

— Word of Wisdom—Fish Culture—Dietetics; George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses 12:221

In the above quote, you may find a qualifier that undermines how ridiculous this sounds. Before he outlines how soup will condemn you for eternity, Apostle Cannon did say "my theory is..." To which I might retort that it is irresponsible of anyone in a position of authority or influence to offer conjecture. Apostle Cannon is an apostle. We could also argue that the Journal of Discourses isn't a reliable source, to which I might also retort that it sure does get used as a cited source of information by church leaders for being so untrustworthy and apocryphal.

The only context I really have for this address is "delivered in the New Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, April 7th 1868." That's the right time of year for the semi-annual general conference. It certainly reads like a conference address. But, because it's inconvenient to try and fit into today's understanding of doctrine, folks at Saints Unscripted write, concerning soup, "that interpretation has never been upheld by other leaders or incorporated into the policy of the Church" (emphasis added.) Saints Unscripted is the first result I found while searching out defenses of this statement, though I'm confident that they're not the only ones to feel that way.

I dunno, man... using that metric, no other church leader to my knowledge has called the word Mormon a victory for Satan. Maybe we should throw out that "one single solitary discourse" as well?

How would we know if something had been "incorporated into the policy of the Church?" The line between policy and doctrine seems awfully malleable, letting us re-categorize something that a church leader says depending on your conversation partner.

 

Apostolic Apocrypha

We could discount Elder Cannon's entire discourse as being non-doctrinal since it's an anomaly, and not even a "real" a general conference address. As I read through the speech, I don't think it's an off-handed remark. It sure looks to me like he's speaking in an official capacity, meaning that the gathered audience wouldn't be listening to him if he wasn't an apostle.

When I began (in 2025 February) examining this discourse from Elder Cannon, the top of churchofjesuschrist.org is a banner announcing a Young Adults devotional with Elder & Sister Uchtdorf. Neat. I haven't read or listened to anything further on this devotional itself, but this is noteworthy because no one would attend this devotional if the keynote speaker wasn't an apostle of God, Elder Silver Fox Uchtdorf himself. What he says in this devotional might not be strictly "doctrinal" with big ol' air quotes around it, but he is speaking to an audience who has gathered to hear an apostle speak to them.

It would be irresponsible of Uchtdorf if, hypothetically, he were to use that opportunity to offer conjecture or theory. If Uchtdorf had said "In the same way that hot soup is a poor substitute for naptha-kerosine jet fuel, it can also prevent you from ascending to the celestial kingdom!" That hypothetical statement would be taken at face value because of who he is, speaking to an audience that has gathered because of who he is.

 

I'm worried I've belabored that point more than is necessary, and I hope that it is clear that I recognize the difference between a church leader grilling hotdogs at his family reunion versus a church leader standing behind a podium. They can do both! ... Maybe not at the same time, but they are humans with families. In the case of Elder Cannon's discourse, I'd incline to saying that he's speaking as an apostle.

 

pork, lol

This claim is a bit dubious. I can find multiple sources, although they all seem to be pointing back to the same isolated incident, and none of the sources are satisfyingly "primary."

That said, I did lots of internet searching to hunt them down, so I'm going to talk about them anyway.

 

[January 9, 1901; Wednesday.] Meeting commenced at 10 oclock. 1 Apostles present. Prayer by Geo Teasdale. The first speaker was Bro Teasdale who felt happy. He thought that tithing was more important than the Word of Wisdom. We have a nation against us. They call our doctrines pernicious and will do what they can to destroy it. He thought Pork was more against the Word of Wisdom than tea and coffee. Why prevent a man from working in the Sunday School because he drinks tea? Mentioned the case of a splendid man who was exemplary in every other way but drinking tea.

— Danish Apostle: The Diaries of Anthon H. Lund, 1890–1921, p181

 

Elder George Teasdale agreed with President Woodruff and thought that no one ought to be kept from working in the Sunday School because he drank tea and that eating pork was a more serious problem than drinking tea or coffee.

— Mormonism in Transition: A History of Latter-day Saints, 1890-1930, 3rd ed

 

Apostle George Teasdale, agreeing with President Woodruff, thought that no one ought to be kept from working in the Sunday School because he drank tea and that eating pork was a more serious breach than drinking tea or coffee.

— The Word of Wisdom: From Principle to Requirement, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 14:3 (1981) pp. 78–88. (pdf)(Archive)

 

This is good evidence that such a conversation happened, and that it was Elder Teasdale's opinion.

It is not good evidence to prove anything, other than three independent contemporary sources claiming witness of Elder Teasdale's opinion. Comparing this to the above segment on soup, this conversation is in the context of a private meeting rather than standing at a podium before an audience.

So... I suppose we relegate it to the category of "fun fact." An apostle in 1901 believed it, but he doesn't appear to have presented that disposition outside of a private meeting.

 

flour, lol

Forbidding the use of refined flour comes from similarly dubious sources as the above mentions of pork, and so I'd call this non-doctrinal. The only basis one might really focus on this is that it's in a publication by an acting apostle of the church. It'd be awkward if modern times were analogous to the church publishing books by church leaders as a side-hustle.

 

In addition, some scientists and health food faddists insisted that the Word of Wisdom included much more than the church leadership generally supported. In 1930, for instance, John A. Widtsoe published a tract entitled The Word of Wisdom which interdicted the use of refined flour and foods and "all drinks containing substances that are unnaturally stimulating."

— The Word of Wisdom: From Principle to Requirement, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 14:3 (1981) pp. 78–88. (pdf)(Archive)

 

In a pamphlet written in 1930 called The Word of Wisdom, LDS Church apostle John A. Widtsoe taught that refined flour was contrary to the Word of Wisdom. The church, however, has never prohibited the use of refined flour.

— Word of Wisdom (Latter Day Saints), Wikipedia

 

Wikipedia references that Dialogue journal as a source. I guess I ought to track down the original pamphlet?

In my mind, a pamphlet is a wimpy little publication; perhaps a standalone issue, only a few pages long. So imagine my surprise when I find, from the only source of the document I can find, that The Word of Wisdom by Elder Widstoe is 272 pages long including its own index. Maybe a pamphlet meant something else back in 1930.

 

The Word of Wisdom: A Modern Interpretation via archive.org shows limited access without being formally "borrowed" from its lending library. You can use the web-app's search feature for this book for "flour" and find 24 matches. I haven't taken the time to read all 272 pages, but I have perused the pages containing the 24 matches for "flour". What I've found looks like nonspecific health advice. I didn't see any formal condemnation of refined flour. There are some hyperbolic statements about it giving you constipation, but I haven't yet found the connection between God's revelation and refined flour.

Doesn't seem doctrinally sound to me.

 

Mormon Doctrine

If we don't feel satisfied with a book published by someone who happens to also be actively serving as an apostle in the LDS church, then perhaps we'll be satisfied with a different book published by someone else who, at the time of publication, had not yet been called to serve as an apostle in the LDS church?

Some unstable people become cranks with reference to this law of health. It should be understood that the Word of Wisdom is not the gospel, and the gospel is not the Word of Wisdom. ...

There is no prohibition in Section 89, for instance, as to the eating of white bread, using white flour, white sugar, cocoa, chocolate, eggs, milk, meat, or anything else, except items classified under the headings, tea, coffee, tobacco, and liquor. As a matter of fact those who command that men should not eat meat, are not ordained of God, such counsel being listed by Paul as an evidence of apostasy."

— Mormon Doctrine, First Edition, Word of Wisdom

Cool, that settles it, then. Please don't examine other segments of that book, because Bruce R. McConkie says some very uncomfortable things about race. Is it doctrine? 🤷 Only if it's convenient. Sometimes it is.

 

Soda

I was over in England a while back and a bishop asked me, “What is the Church’s stand on cola drinks?” I said, “Well, I can’t remember the exact wording of the bulletin, but I remember seeing the bulletin when I was a stake president. The Church, of course, advises against them.”

He said, “Well, I have read the Priesthood Bulletin, but that isn’t what it says to me.”

And I said, “Would you get your Priesthood Bulletin? Let’s read it together.” And so we found under the heading “Cola Drinks”: “… the leaders of the Church have advised, and we do now specifically advise, against use of any drink containing harmful habit-forming drugs. …” (The Priesthood Bulletin, Feb. 1972, p. 4.)

He said, “Well, you see, that doesn’t mean cola.”

I said, “Well, I guess you will have to come to your own grips with that, but to me, there is no question.” You see, there can’t be the slightest particle of rebellion, and in him there is. We can find loopholes in a lot of things if we want to bend the rules of the Church.

— A Self-Inflicted Purging, Bishop Vaughn J. Featherstone Second Counselor in the Presiding Bishopric, General Conference 1975 April

 

You absolute clown.

I can't find a primary source anywhere for that cited bulletin. I shouldn't expect the church to provide a link to something incriminating, after all. But I did find an expanded quote from the bulletin, including what the above ellipsis omitted:

"With reference to cola drinks, the Church has never officially taken a position on this matter, but the leaders of the Church have advised, and we do now specifically advise, against the use of any drink containing harmful habit-forming drugs under circumstances that would result in acquiring the habit. Any beverage that contains ingredients harmful to the body should be avoided."

— Section 89: The Word of Wisdom, Seminaries and Institutes, Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual; Are Other Drinks Forbidden by the Word of Wisdom?

 

That's such a vague, cowardly way to say "I dunno. We won't comment on cola under the heading 'cola,' but if something is bad, then it's bad. Hope that helps." It doesn't tell us anything.

In the above example from Bishop Featherstone, two interpretations came from the same source material. Featherstone gets to talk about it in general conference, though, and he outranks some plebeian ward bishop. The bulletin itself will confirm your bias that "cola is bad," or it will confirm your bias that "there is no official position." Clear and decisive, just how God intended His prophetic spokesman to be. 👍

Featherstone omitted the only part of the bulletin that I would call useful: "Any beverage that contains ingredients harmful to the body should be avoided." I'm not sure this was different in 1975, but today's 20oz Coke bottle has 65 grams of sugar. I suppose that's not the issue, though; cola is a hot drink because it has caffeine, and caffeine is in coffee, therefore sugary cold soda is a hot drink.

Not only is Featherstone's interaction 150 years after the initial revelation, but over those decades the issue has not been clarified at all. It almost feels as if we had to defend the indefensible, after the church's founder called it divine revelation.

 

"Caffeine and controversy"

Then one day, my mom sat us around the kitchen bar. She told us a story of a family who used to buy non-alcoholic beer to take with them on vacations. She said that while they were members of the church, they were not appearing to live the standards we are taught. Then she pulled out the caffeine-free Coca-Cola. She said she wanted us to do what we thought was right, but that she didn’t want to buy the soda for our home anymore. She said she wanted us to avoid “even the appearance of evil” and then walked over to the sink and dumped a brand-new bottle down the drain. ... My mom always said, “If ever there’s a question, err on the safe side.” Even if it’s the extremely safe side.

...

For me, obeying what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints calls the Word of Wisdom has never been a trial or struggle. I’ve never felt I’ve missed out on anything. I’ve been the better for it. And even now that a church website has re-clarified the letter of the Word of Wisdom, it won’t change my choice of beverage when out to eat.

Root beer, as usual.

— Caffeine and Controversy, Deseret News, Sept 7, 2012 (archive) (several paragraphs omitted; see original for full context)

if only we had a ✨𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝ℎ𝑒𝑡✨ who could tell us where the boundary is

No, this tale isn't doctrinal in any way, but it resonates with me because it's so reminiscent of the environment that I grew up in. My family is absolutely the sort who would angrily dump out caffeine-free versions of beverages that normally have caffeine, citing avoidance of "even the appearance of evil." Evil. It's a goddamned soda.

To me, this story is an indicator for the practical application of the Word of Wisdom. If you find yourself in a lifestyle where you feel the need to watch your back in case someone sees you imbibing a sugary drink, because it could be interpreted as evil, you might be in a cult.

 

Under the previous heading, I had observed that a 20oz Coke has 65g sugar. Part of why this article hits home for me is that, while growing up, my household was staunchly opposed to Coke, but instead inclined toward root beer, which... uh... has ~77g sugar per 20oz bottle. But it's fine because there's no caffeine, and it's not Coke because Coke is bad, wrong, and evil.

To be clear, I'm not trying to talk smack on the author of this article for sharing her experience, nor her choice of beverage. In the mid-2000's, I was in this exact same mindset.

My point in bringing this up is that the idea of one variety of sugary drink is somehow morally superior to another sugary drink, when both options exceed one's "recommended" sugar intake. Neither of them are good, but more importantly, neither of them are evil. Preferring one over the other solely for the sake of avoiding "the appearance of evil" is so absurd to me, yet so familiar having heard it so often as a child and teenager.

 

And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly.

— D&C 89:9, the entire pretense upon which this conundrum stems from

 

Improvement Era

1918

At noon recess of a recent general conference of the Church, while waiting by appointment for a friend at one of the city's principal drug stores, the writer became very much astonished to witness a large number of brethren and sisters step up to the soda water counter, drink a class of coca-cola, and then walk away as if it were a regular practice.

— Should Latter-Day Saints Drink Coca-Cola?, Improvement Era 1918 March; Dr. Frederick J. Pack

"You'll never believe this... People would go to where soda is served, drink soda, and then just walk away! Astonishing! What is this world coming to?"

\??? I think we'd find this observation more astonishing if they did anything other than 'walk away.' Imagine in a parallel universe where Dr. Pack saw folks drink a soda, then squat down and drop a big ol' dookie right then and there. Or, if these brethren and sisters had consumed a specific brand if energy drink, they grew wings and flew away. I would consider those outcomes much more remarkable, or even astonishing.

 

I'd call this article meandering and long-winded to just make the point "coke contains caffeine, and caffeine is bad for everyone." It certainly is a product of its time. This conclusion was reached by a study with a sample size of 17 people. Read it for yourself! Link above.

 

1966

If members of the Church would take the time to read carefully what the Lord has said to them in the Word of Wisdom, Section 89, in the Doctrine and Covenants, and then would heed these sayings, they would be greatly benefited. This revelation was given as a warning to the Latter-day Saints. In it tea and coffee are not mentioned, but evidently these stimulants were meant among others. In a revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith it was made known in his day that these two stimulants were included but that the revelation was not confined in this counsel just to these two beverages. Today many other drinks and beverages have come into general use. Some of these are just as harmful—perhaps more so—than are tea and coffee. Nevertheless, members of the Church should seek for wisdom, and if they will follow the teachings that have come to us through revelation, they will learn to avoid many other things that today are offered to an unsuspecting public. The fact is beyond successful dispute or contradiction that some stimulants are being offered to the public that are detrimental to health.

— "Does the Church Own Stock in the Coca-Cola Company?", Improvement Era, 1966 September; "Joseph Fielding Smith of the First Presidency and President of the Council of the Twelve answers Your Question"

 

I don't know how much more of a non-answer we could make this. That tells me absolutely nothing.

"The formal revelation from God only said 'hot drinks,' and so you should read that and decide for yourself if sharing a common ingredient of caffeine means that cola might as well be damnation juice. I'm sure not going to tell you."

👏 if only 👏 we had 👏 a prophet 👏 who could 👏 TELL US

 

I want you to remember that there are a great many steps to be taken in this kingdom; and if people will try to do right in all things, the Lord will bless and prosper them; and I feel in my heart to bless all good men, and all that have done good to this people. I bless those that have brought us goods—sugar, tea, coffee, &c.

Now, friends and neighbors—you that have come to bring us goods, you are God's servants, and you shall be blest if you will continue to bring us goods.

— President Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses 7:233; 28 August, 1859

 

Temperature of drinks

Each week Web site administrators compile a list of the top 25 questions submitted to the site. They then check the questions against those currently posted. If a question is frequently asked but not included on the page, the question is posed to the Brethren who decide whether the question and its answer should be added to the site.

The following questions are from the top 10 most frequently asked questions from 2004: “How can I obtain more information about the Mormon faith and beliefs?” “What do you believe about heaven, hell, salvation, and eternal life?” “Please explain the Word of Wisdom. What is it that is bad? Is it caffeine or hot drinks? What about decaf, hot chocolate, iced tea, herbal teas, or caffeinated soft drinks?” ...

— Using Mormon.org to Share the Gospel, Liahona 2005 December

I encountered this page while searching for any clarification on "iced tea" specifically, hoping maybe it'd include guidance on, say, cold brew coffee, or an iced decaf mocha. Instead, I got this acknowledgment of those questions followed by a dead end. I implore you to follow that link and find where they actually answer these questions and the others posed, but omitted in this quote. I would expect that they'd have a link to the answers that they specifically said were available.

Maybe it took them fourteen years to come with a good answer.

 

New Era, 2019

In 2019, before the church-published magazines all rebranded and merged into the Liahona, this blurb from the August Ensign offers this teaser:

Find these and other topics in the August issue of the New Era.

Articles answer:

• Is iced coffee okay?
• Vaping?
• What about marijuana where it’s legal?
• Sexually explicit texts?

Get the facts to help you have the conversations youth need.

— Back cover of the August 2019 Ensign (Does not load in the Gospel Library mobile app; can be read in a web browser)

Well, hot dog, that sounds promising. Let's go find the August 2019 New Era!

 

Look, I already know the answer that I'm looking for, I'm just trying to find it in writing. There are a few candidates for which article will have these answers. To me, this article seems to be the closest match, and it says absolutely fuck-all about iced coffee.

Coffee is bad at any temperature, and don't ask why. Somehow, "hot drinks" includes cold drinks. If we've stretched the word "hot" to span the entire range of temperatures that humans can call palatable for beverages, why did God use temperature as the disqualifying variable? At this point, we may as well just rule out any liquid that isn't parasite-ridden creek water. Why can't we just clarify that the offending factor is coffee beans or tea leaves? It clearly has nothing to do with temperature, since these two drinks are forbidden at any temperature.

 

Right before this one is another article on the Word of Wisdom. It reveals answers to the question that has plagued generations of teenagers: "what actually is food?"

It's a short read, go on and skim through it for your own edification. It later explains what the Word of Wisdom is not, so temper your expectations. Elder Packer is quoted as saying that it isn't a guarantee that you will be healthy. After those short quotes, the article lists "some ways For the Strength of Youth mentions that you could be blessed[,]" including "a healthier body."

 

Not only are the blessings vague, but we've added a qualifier that they might not even happen. You might get blessed, but there's no guarantee. Better follow the 19th century health advice anyway, just to be on the safe side. Yes, iced drinks are hot drinks. Don't think about it.

Comments