Gramps,

When I joined the Church 15 years ago, I quit smoking, drinking alcohol, tea, and coffee. Could you explain about eating meat sparingly, as it seems most eat a lot of it–even at the Church linger longers.

Bruce

Answer

Bruce,

Walk into any Latter-day Saint potluck or social event, and you’ll likely encounter a spread of dishes featuring beef, chicken, or turkey. For a faith known for its commitment to health codes—particularly the well-known avoidance of alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and tea—some are surprised that meat is frequently on the menu. After all, the Word of Wisdom, a revelation from God to Joseph Smith in 1833, found in Doctrine and Covenants section 89, clearly advises that the flesh of beasts and fowls “are to be used sparingly” and, arguably, “only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.”

So why does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints serve meat in temples, at church socials, and as part of its welfare program? Why is meat consumption not as strictly monitored as substances like alcohol or coffee? And what does “sparingly” really mean?

The Word of Wisdom, contained in Doctrine and Covenants section 89, is the Latter-day Saint health code. It’s best known for prohibiting alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and tea, but its counsel on diet is broader and notably nuanced regarding meat.

Section 89:12-13 states:

Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly.

 

And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.

There’s immediate vagueness in the language. Grammatically, the phrase “should not be used, only in times of winter…”—especially with questionable punctuation—has led to centuries of commentary and debate. The early editions of Doctrine and Covenants did not include a comma after “used,” which can drastically change the sense of the verse. Without the comma, it may be interpreted as a general permission to eat meat in any season, not just in emergencies; with the comma, it implies that meat should only be used during times of need.

This vagueness is mirrored in subsequent verses discussing grains, fruits, and what “these” should refer to—further mixing directions on meat, grain, and wild animals.

Thus, from the scriptural text alone, we know:
– Meat is permitted, but the command is to consume it “sparingly.”
– Certain conditions (winter, cold, famine) might warrant more meat consumption.
– The clearest standard is moderation, not elimination.

If the scriptural guidance is vague, what have Church leaders said? And why isn’t meat restriction enforced with the same rigor as abstaining from alcohol or coffee?

After the 1833 revelation, compliance was slow and incomplete. It was not until after 1851, under President Brigham Young, that the health code became a commandment for all members, and even then, the focus was largely on abstaining from tobacco, alcohol, coffee, and tea. The Jewish law, for example, was highly prescriptive, but the Word of Wisdom was described as a “principle with promise,” leaving members considerable responsibility to interpret wisely and individually.

President Ezra Taft Benson, in a 1983 address, emphasized the caution against indiscriminate killing of animals and the importance of consuming meat sparingly. He echoed scriptural warnings: “Wo be unto man that sheddeth blood or that wasteth flesh and hath no need.”

Elder Boyd K. Packer, in an oft-referenced 1996 talk, noted:

The Word of Wisdom was ‘given for a principle with promise’ (D&C 89:3). That word principle in the revelation is a very important one. A principle is an enduring truth, a law, a rule you can adopt to guide you in making decisions. Generally, principles are not spelled out in detail. That leaves you free to find your way with an enduring truth, a principle, as your anchor…learn to use moderation and common sense in matters of health and nutrition, and particularly in medication. Avoid being extreme or fanatical or becoming a faddist. For example, the Word of Wisdom counsels us to eat meat sparingly (see D&C 89:12). Lest someone become extreme, we are told in another revelation that ‘whoso forbiddeth to [eat meat] is not ordained of God’ (D&C 49:18)” [5].

Thus, modern prophets and apostles have repeatedly warned against extremes—both excessive meat eating and outright prohibitions on its consumption.

Again and again, official and unofficial Church sources have affirmed that “sparingly” is intentionally undefined. It is left to individual and family interpretation, considering climate, culture, health needs, and available food sources. The Church has no official policy giving a quantitative limit on meat consumption—once a week, twice a month, or any similar standard.

These leadership teachings also counsel against imposing one’s personal revelation or interpretation on others, highlighting the principle of agency and seeking revelation for oneself.

Members often wonder why meat is served so liberally at Church functions, temples, and in welfare distributions if the Word of Wisdom teaches sparing use. The institutional answer is twofold: first, the Church does not mandate vegetarianism, nor does it prohibit all meat. Second, organizational decisions follow prophetic leadership, not individual member opinions. The interpretation of “sparingly” varies by individual, but the standard is directed by those sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators.

The historical context of the Word of Wisdom was a world where food preservation was limited, winters could be deadly, and plant-based foods were harder to store. In the present day, with global food supply chains, refrigeration, and year-round access to fruits and grains, does this advice still apply as it did in 1833?

Many modern studies—both within and outside the Church community—highlight the health benefits of a plant-based diet. High meat consumption, especially red and processed meat, has been linked with increased risks of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and obesity. Indeed, Joseph F. Merrill, an apostle in 1948, noted:

Americans eat too much meat, a non-essential in the human diet, because all the proteins needed are available in… eggs, milk, cheese, beans, nuts, wheat, and more or less in other cereals, vegetables, and fruits.

Latter-day Saints who have pursued a “whole food, plant-based” approach often report significant improvements in health and well-being, and interpret this as living the Word of Wisdom more fully. Some, like Jane Birch (author of “Discovering the Word of Wisdom”), also report increased spiritual clarity and peace as a result of following what they see as God’s optimal dietary pattern.

Still, leadership cautions remain against dietary extremism. Church leaders consistently affirm that while plants should form the core of a healthy diet, forbidding meat is not doctrinally supported.

Is being a vegetarian or vegan consistent with membership in the Church? The answer is an unequivocal yes: members are not required to eat meat, and vegetarianism is not a sin. Instead, some have felt cultural or social pressures, but not doctrinal ones.

Doctrine and Covenants 49:18 cautions: “whoso forbiddeth to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God.” This cautions against dogmatically prohibiting meat, not against choosing to eat little or no meat for personal or health reasons.

Unlike abstaining from alcohol or coffee, which are standard for temple recommend interviews, meat consumption is not a quantifiable standard of worthiness in the Church. Historical reasons for this include the difficulties early Saints faced in avoiding meat altogether (like when crossing the plains) and the pragmatic flexibility of principle-based guidelines.

As Paul Hoskisson notes, “the clarity of a standard of abstinence is quantitatively easier to understand and assess as compared to admonitions to use wholesome plants with ‘prudence and thanksgiving,’ make grain the ‘staff of life,’ or eat meat ‘sparingly’ and ‘only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.’ Even so, the process of lifting the general Church membership to even the basic standard of abstinence from alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and tea took almost 100 years, and even now…the task is not complete.”

Both scholarly research and statements by Church leaders draw attention to a curious situation in section 89. In 1921, when the Doctrine and Covenants was divided into columns, a comma was inserted after “used” in verse 13. This seemingly small editorial change led to much debate: does it mean God wanted us to eat meat only in times of winter, cold, or famine—or at all times, but sparingly?

Many leaders before and after 1921, including those old enough to have noticed the change, interpreted the verse the same way: meat is to be eaten sparingly, with extra justification in times of hardship, but not prohibited otherwise. There is no evidence that the addition of the comma fundamentally shifted Church doctrine or common practice.

Ultimately, the Word of Wisdom is a principle—a set of inspired guidelines given by God, leaving specifics to the judgment, inspiration, and agency of individuals.

If you choose to eat meat sparingly—or even abstain entirely for health, ethical, or spiritual reasons—you do so with God’s approval.
If you include moderate portions of meat in your diet, you are not out of step with Church teachings, as long as you avoid excess and wastage.
If you feel spiritually prompted to adjust your diet, you are encouraged to pray, seek personal revelation, and follow the Spirit.
Judgment or condemnation of others for more or less rigid choices is consistently discouraged, as is dogmatism about private dietary decisions.

As one wise Latter-day Saint put it, “It is unwise to cast judgment upon others in matters such as this…Don’t hate me because I sin differently than you. We all have shortcomings and challenges to our faith and obedience to God…Seek first to strengthen yourself and your testimony. Then you can lift others up in humility and love to where you are, just as Christ seeks to do for all of us.”

Gramps

Gramps,

In Leviticus 11 God speaks to Aaron and Moses about unclean and clean food that the Israelites may eat.  Was this a commandment? Is it still to this day after the death of Jesus?

Blaine

Answer

Dear Blaine,

The Law of Moses, received by Moses on Mount Sinai, was more than a legal code—it was a comprehensive guide to living as God’s chosen people. Food laws were a central feature. Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 list which animals, birds, and fish were “clean” or “unclean.” Clean animals included those with cloven hooves that chew the cud (such as oxen, sheep, and goats), and fish with fins and scales. Unclean animals included pigs, camels, shellfish, birds of prey, and many others. These restrictions weren’t arbitrary. They served multiple functions: setting the Israelites apart, promoting spiritual discipline, and—some suggest—fostering health and hygiene in a pre-scientific era.

What was the purpose of these detailed dietary distinctions? They were part of the broader “Law of Holiness,” a set of statutes designed to train Israel in purity and dedication to the Lord. The Law functioned as an instructor or “schoolmaster” to bring the people to Christ, encouraging obedience for the sake of spiritual growth, rather than blind adherence. These rituals and restrictions symbolized spiritual truths and created an external sign of Israel’s unique covenant relationship with God.

For ancient Israelites, these were bona fide commandments with clear consequences for disobedience. Jesus Himself, as a devout Jew, would have observed these food restrictions during His earthly ministry. Yet, the Law of Moses was a preparatory law—intended for a specific covenant people during a particular period in salvation history.

When Jesus Christ came, He repeatedly challenged the prevailing interpretations of Mosaic law, especially those that prioritized outward ritual over inward spirituality. He taught that “it is not that which goes into a person that defiles them but what comes out of them” (see Matthew 15:11). His purpose was not merely to modify the Mosaic code, but to fulfill and transcend it, ushering in a new covenant based on higher spiritual principles rather than strict ceremonial observance.

During His ministry, Christ did not always observe the Pharisees’ interpretation of laws concerning food and cleanliness. He ate with publicans, neglected certain ritual washings, and healed on the Sabbath, drawing sharp criticism from religious authorities. These actions highlighted that the spirit and purpose of the law outweighed its letter.

After Christ’s resurrection, His apostles faced a crucial question: Should Gentile converts observe Jewish dietary restrictions? The watershed moment came at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), where it was revealed to the apostles that Gentiles did not need to observe the entire Mosaic Law to be part of the covenant community. Instead, they were instructed only to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, blood, and from things strangled—drastically simplifying the list of prohibitions. This shift marked a decisive break from the old system and affirmed that salvation came through Christ, not the Law.

With Christ’s atonement, the “law of carnal commandments,” as Paul called them, were ended. This fulfillment was explicit in both the New Testament (see 3 Nephi 15:1–9) and the teachings of early Christian leaders. While the spirit of the Law—its moral and spiritual truths—persisted (as seen in the continued relevance of the Ten Commandments), the outward rituals, including dietary codes, were no longer binding. Christians were to live by a higher law of inner purity and continuous discipleship.

His law is anew with each dispensation. Adam, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus each taught the people according to God’s current requirements. In recent times, following the restoration of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints through Joseph Smith, this pattern has continued. The Lord outlined for His people a new “Law of Holiness” suited to modern needs and circumstances.

For members of the Church, the dietary code is found in the Word of Wisdom—a revelation given by Joseph Smith in 1833. Unlike the Law of Moses, the Word of Wisdom outlines restrictions and counsel appropriate for the “last days,” prohibiting the use of alcohol, coffee, tea, tobacco, and illicit drugs, and encouraging the consumption of wholesome foods with wisdom. The emphasis is less on ritual purity and more on spiritual discipline and physical health—“a principle with promise” (Doctrine & Covenants 89:18–21).

Some Christians today—such as those who identify as Messianic or “Christian Hebrews”—seek to keep the old Mosaic dietary restrictions. Yet, the Church understands, both from New Testament revelation and modern scriptures, that Jesus ended the need for those specific laws. Modern revelation supersedes old commandments, and Church members look to the counsel given to Joseph Smith and subsequent prophets to know what is required now.

The Church’s stance is not arbitrary; it is consistent with God’s pattern of teaching His people according to their time, place, and readiness. We draw the line at what the Lord commanded us to do through the Prophet Joseph Smith and the prophets that the Lord chose to follow Him.

Some specific food questions persist: Why do Church members eat pork and shellfish if the Old Testament forbids them? What about eating animal blood?

The answer is consistent: these proscriptions were part of the Law of Moses, and, as explained in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, were nullified by Christ. The Savior explained to the Nephites that the law was fulfilled in Him, stating, “old things had passed away, and… all things had become new… the law which was given unto Moses hath an end in me” (3 Nephi 15:1-9).

Regarding animal blood, the apostles initially continued this specific restriction for Gentile converts (Acts 15:20, 21:25). Today, the Law of Moses and its dietary ordinances have been superseded by the Word of Wisdom and the principle of seeking the Lord and using wisdom in all things. Members of the Church are encouraged to prayerfully consider such questions and follow the counsel of modern prophets.

Gramps

Gramps,

Where can I find a list of everything that would be against the Word of Wisdom?

Rick

Answer

Rick,

Several questions have been asked as to what is forbidden by the Word of Wisdom and whether a specific drink or substance is contrary to the Word of Wisdom.  This revelation “The Word of Wisdom” was given in 1833 as a word of wisdom for the benefit of the Church.  It was sent by “greeting” not by commandment.  It forbids the use of strong drinks, defined as drinks containing alcohol;  hot drinks, which later were defined as tea and coffee; and the use of tobacco.  It also stated that herbs, grains, fruits which would include vegetables; and the flesh of beasts and fowls, to be used sparingly, were ordained for the use of man.  In 1851 President Brigham Young gave to the Church the World of Wisdom as a “final and definitive commandment.”  (President Kimball, BYU Stake Conference, 1/13/1957)

There are many drinks, drugs and other dangerous substances that we have in the world today that did not exist when this revelation was given nor when President Young gave it to us as a commandment.  Concerning the use of  items that are not good for the body and not mentioned in the Word of Wisdom, President Kimball stated:

“Wisdom goes beyond the letter of the law.  Generally when we speak of the Word of Wisdom, we are talking about tea, coffee, tobacco and liquor.  All of the fringe things, even though they might be detrimental are not included in the technical interpretation of the Word of Wisdom.  I never drink any of the cola drinks and my personal hope would be that no one would.  However, they are not included in the Word of Wisdom in its technical application.  I quote from a letter from the secretary to the First Presidency, “But the spirit of the Word of Wisdom would be violated by the drinking or eating of anything that contains a habit forming drug.”  With reference to the cola drinks, the Church has never officially taken any attitude on this matter…but I personally do not put them in the class as with tea and coffee because the Lord specifically mentioned them(hot drinks)…I might say also that strychnine, sleeping pills, opium and heroin are not mentioned in the Word of Wisdom and yet I would discourage them with all my power.”(President Kimball 10/19/1962)

There continues to be new drugs introduced, both illegal and legal that are harmful to the body, including some drinks both  hot or cold and other substances, even some made from herbs and natural occurring ingredients.  We need to avoid any that have ingredients that are addictive, that are stimulants or harmful in any way to the body.  Some prescription drugs, administered by a qualified physician, may be helpful and needful to people, but can become addictive and destructive to the body even if they are taken properly.  Fen-Phen is an excellent example.  Though it did help people to lose weight, the side effects were very damaging to the body specifically to the heart and was even lethal in some cases.

President Hinckley speaking in October 1989 Conference stated:

“Some have even used as an alibi the fact that drugs are not mentioned in the Word of Wisdom. What a miserable excuse. There is likewise no mention of the hazards of diving into an empty swimming pool or of jumping from an overpass onto the freeway. But who doubts the deadly consequences of such? Common sense would dictate against such behavior.  Regardless of the Word of Wisdom, there is a divinely given reason for avoiding these illegal substances.  I am convinced that their use is an affront to God. He is our Creator. We are made in His image. These remarkable and wonderful bodies are His handiwork. Does anyone think that he can deliberately injure and impair his body without affronting its Creator? We are told again and again that the body is the tabernacle of the spirit. We are told that it is a temple, holy to the Lord. In a time of terrible conflict between the Nephites and the Lamanites, we are told that the Nephites, who had been strong, became “weak, like unto their brethren, the Lamanites, and that the Spirit of the Lord did no more preserve them; yea, it had withdrawn from them because the Spirit of the Lord doth not dwell in unholy temples.” (Hel. 4:24.)

Though President Hinckley was speaking of illegal substances, the misuse of legal substances would also apply.

We need to use wisdom concerning any thing we take into our bodies or our minds.   With a little research we can find what ingredients various drinks, and other substances contain and the possible effect it will have on our bodies.  If we become addicted to a drug or drink, it does not matter whether it is mentioned in the Word of Wisdom or not, it is contrary to the will of the Lord.  We have been placed here on earth to become masters of our own bodies and minds.  Nephi tells us that we are to “act for ourselves and not be acted upon”(2 Nephi 2:26)

The leaders of the Church will not tell us every drink or substance that is bad for us or whether we should partake of it or not.  The Lord expects us to use our own abilities and judgment in determining what we will and will not do.  In D&C 58:26-29, the Lord states:

For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

 

Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness.”

 

But he that doeth not anything until he is commanded, and receiveth a commandment with doubtful heart, and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is damned.”

We are given great promises In Section 89 of the Doctrine and Covenants that when we keep the Word of Wisdom, when we keep all the commandments and when we use wisdom in what we take into their bodies.

18 And all saints who remember to keep and do these sayings, walking in obedience to the commandments, shall receive health in their navel and marrow to their bones;

 

19 And shall find wisdom and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures;

 

20 And shall run and not be weary, and shall walk and not faint.

 

21 And I, the Lord, give unto them a promise, that the destroying angel shall pass by them, as the children of Israel, and not slay them.”

Gramps

Gramps,

I’ll just dive into it.

I was sexually assaulted at 17, left home and the church at 18 and was diagnosed with epilepsy at 20. I am now 23 and the seizures are getting worse. A long lost friend contacted me today and told me she also had seizures (almost the same story really) and suffered from multiple personalities as well until she had the demons in her cast out and she’s been seizure free since (over a year). What she said made a lot of sense, could I have unclean spirits causing this?
Becca

Answer

Dear Becca,

If you were my daughter, I would suggest that you get a Priesthood blessing, see a medical doctor and get a therapist. The Priesthood blessing would most likely answer your question about demons.  I could be wrong, but I don’t think that is the answer for you.

If you had a broken leg, you would get a blessing and then go to the hospital.  This is no different.  Yes, I believe the Lord could heal you instantly as He healed the lepers and blind men of His time, but He won’t.  Sometimes that still happens today, but other times He doesn’t because doing so would rob you of the growth that can come from working through these issues with Him at your side.   Terrible things happen in this world sometimes, but Christ can use them to make us better than we were before we were wounded.   So please, get a blessing, see a medical doctor and see a therapist.  Pray throughout the process.

My two favorite talks on this subject (or related) are LIke a Broken Vessel by Elder Holland

And Cheiko Okasaki’s talk on Healing from Sexual Abuse

Gramps

Gramps,

An investigator had a health concern and she was prescribed by her doctor to drink coffee with her medicines at least once a day. Is she allowed to be baptized and receive a temple recommend in the future without giving up coffee? Or will she be required to give up it? Thanks Gramps.

Elder Manuel

Answer

Dear Elder,

If I were to speak with your investigator as a friend, I would advise her to ask her doctor why he prescribed coffee and if there’s any alternatives. I know many people who, when given a pricey prescription, will ask for alternatives (starting with generic versions of the medicine) so they can save money. Surely they would also be willing to ask for alternatives when it conflicts with the counsel and command of prophets!

After asking, she may find out that there really is no other alternative but the coffee. The Church has clarified its stance on the Word of Wisdom:

The only official interpretation of “hot drinks” (D&C 89:9) in the Word of Wisdom is the statement made by early Church leaders that the term “hot drinks” means tea and coffee.

 

Members should not use any substance that contains illegal drugs. Nor should members use harmful or habit-forming substances except under the care of a competent physician.

So is her coffee a forbidden “hot drink”? or is it a “substance” used “under the care of a competent physician”? In this case, my opinion doesn’t matter a fig. The mission president holds the keys! The mission president is the gatekeeper for the covenant of baptism. Elder, please ask your mission president what he discerns in this matter. If he gives the go-ahead, then you may also wish to work with the bishop who holds the keys and is the gatekeeper for temple blessings.

I’ve locked myself out of my own car before. I am not entrusted with keys, so I’m afraid any specific answer I give will not provide any meaningful solution. The key holders have the answers you’re looking for.

Gramps

Why have the leaders not tackled the problem of weight issues on its members?  I know the gospel is for us spiritually, but we have our heads in the sand on this topic.  Eat meat sparingly is not adhered. Nor is ‘your body is a temple’. I don’t want to be judgmental or sound critical.  But it is in epidemic proportions. The spirit cannot dwell in an unclean body. We are what we eat.  Nobody got fat eating fruits and vegetables.

Margie

Answer

Dear Margie,

I want to caution you and praise you. I’m happy that you care so much about the health of your fellow members, and I do get that sense from your post. Like you, I am concerned about the increasing obesity problem that we seem to have in the world today. However I also want to caution you. Obesity is not only a sensitive subject, it’s also a very complicated one. It would be rude and quite frankly, obnoxious of us to assume that all cases of obesity are because of slothfulness, laziness, or gluttony. To be clear Margie, I am not saying you think this way, but I do see that way of thinking sometimes in our life and culture.

We get questions about whether this or that food or drink is against the Word of Wisdom, even when the Word of Wisdom doesn’t say anything about said substance. We answer it by saying, “Sometimes you need to use your own judgment and follow the spirit. You cannot rely on the Church to make 100% of your decisions for you.” It’s the same basic thing here. Joseph Smith also said, “I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.” Think of that quote. Perhaps Joseph Smith was cautioning us on our draconian attitudes when it comes to health laws and enforcing it on ALL.

Just because you believe that obesity is a key problem in our culture today (and I’m not saying you are wrong) does not mean that you know better than the Church and its prophets. As of right now, God has not instructed His prophets and leaders to preach about obesity or make changes to our health codes that I am aware of.

Sometimes we have “pet issues”-such as weight issues and other things we feel passionately about that we believe to be gravely sinful. Often times those issues are sinful to some degree, but we need to be careful that we don’t blow them out of proportion or lose sight of the big picture. While the saying, “Don’t be judgmental” is used incorrectly in our culture today, that doesn’t mean it’s always wrong. We need to make proper and righteous judgments based on all the evidence. If someone is overweight and we don’t know the entire story, it is strongly advised that we keep out opinions to ourselves and find other things to worry about.

Gramps

Gramps,

I know the controversy of whether or not green tea is against the Word of Wisdom, but my question is specifically about a green tea extract called EGCG. I was wondering if I could use as a weight-loss aid?  I think it can contain very small traces of caffeine, if that makes any difference.

Katie

Answer

Dear Katie,

I think questions about the Word of Wisdom are among the most popular questions we get here. In 1996 during General Conference Boyd K. Packer said,

“Members write in asking if this thing or that is against the Word of Wisdom. It’s well known that tea, coffee, liquor, and tobacco are against it. It has not been spelled out in more detail. Rather, we teach the principle together with the promised blessings. There are many habit-forming, addictive things that one can drink or chew or inhale or inject which injure both body and spirit which are not mentioned in the revelation.” (The Word of Wisdom: The Principle and the Promise)

His words ring true today. While one can easily nit pick the Word of Wisdom and members can debate what is and isn’t allowed, we often forget the big picture.

Without a doubt, one of the best ways to start a discussion/argument in the Mormon community is to ask if caffeine is forbidden by the Word of Wisdom. Though the members who debate this often mean well, it is my fear that they are being penny wise and dollar foolish.  Regardless of if there is “official doctrine” of what is and isn’t forbidden by the church, it’s never a good idea to run towards the edge of a cliff and look down just because no one told you not to.  You might slip on a stone and fall off the cliff.

Do you really want to test the limits of our obedience, or are we missing the big picture? We can bicker about green tea, energy drinks, caffeinated soda, and decaffeinated coffee but I think we (and you) know the answer. It’s never a good idea to start drinking/eating a substance just because it’s not forbidden.

Gramps

Gramps,

My son is a 2nd year medical student with a young family and is active in the Church.  He is beginning to buy the philosophy that  moderation in all things is okay when it comes to the Word of Wisdom.  He is being influenced by some of the doctors he associates with and looks up to. How do I explain to him the importance of obedience in all things?  He is struggling with how he will raise his children and how strict he will be with them.

Melanie

Answer

Dear Melanie,

Thank you for your question.  I am sorry to hear about your son.  It is always difficult and heartbreaking when a loved one uses their agency to make decisions that lead away from Heavenly Father.  Fortunately, as a mother, there are things you may say to at least encourage your son to step back and reconsider the views he is adopting.  Before talking with your son, I would definitely prepare through prayer, fasting, and perhaps a visit to the temple, to get in just the right spirit and to have just the right words.  Then, as your son is active in the Church, perhaps a touch of boldness (as the Spirit directs) will go a long way!  Below are some ideas for what you may wish to say to your son.

In 2003, Boyd K. Packer of the Quorum of the Twelve gave a speech at BYU called “The Instrument of Your Mind and the Foundation of Your Character.”    In the speech, Elder Packer said,

“We have accepted the Word of Wisdom in the Church standards that we will not change.  You are not going to go on a mission unless you observe it.  You are not going to go to the temple for the more sacred ordinances unless you observe it.  That is no tea or coffee or liquor or tobacco or whatever else is covered by it.”

President Packer did not say that using these things in moderation is OK.  He was pretty clear about using no tea, coffee, liquor, or tobacco.

Let’s think about what this means.  I am particularly struck by the sentence, “You are not going to go to the temple . . . unless you observe [the word of wisdom].”  In 2016, Elder J. Devn Cornish of the Seventy gave a talk called “Am I Good Enough?  Will I Make It?”   The subject of the talk is what the standard is for entering into the Celestial Kingdom.  Cornish states that “If you will really try and will not rationalize or rebel – you positively are going to be ‘good enough'”.  However, Cornish states that “‘Really trying’ means we keep at it as we fully come up to the Lord’s standard, which is clearly defined in the questions we are asked in order to get a temple recommend.”  If living worthy of entering the temple is a marker that one is worthy of entering the Celestial Kingdom, and if breaking the Word of Wisdom means we are not living worthily to enter the temple, there is a strong implication that breaking the word of wisdom could threaten our exaltation!

Your son is active in the Church and likely knows all about the Word of Wisdom.  Perhaps he just needs a reminder that breaking the Word of Wisdom is some particularly serious business!  If the spirit directs, perhaps you can remind your son that he is doing so well by being active and following the Church, and he should not let a few cups of coffee (or whatever he is having problems with) threaten to derail all of his hard work – his eternal marriage, his exaltation, and his future.  It just isn’t worth it.

Good luck!

Gramps

Gramps,

What is the Church’s stance on medicinal marijuana?

Terry

Answer

Dear Terry,

When the Utah State Legislature was considering two bills on medical marijuana the Church did issue a statement.  It said in part:

“While we are not in a position to evaluate specific medical claims, the Church understands that there are some individuals who may benefit from the medical use of compounds found in marijuana. For that reason, although the Church opposes SB 73, it has raised no objection to SB 89. These two competing pieces of legislation take very different approaches when it comes to issues like access, distribution, control and the potential harm of the hallucinogenic compound, THC.

 

In addition to the therapeutic, treatment, and control questions, there are several other important issues to be resolved.  At the forefront is that the use of medical marijuana is still illegal under federal law.  We agree with groups such as the American Medical Association, who have said (see the AMA policy below) that further study is warranted before significant public policy decisions on marijuana are advanced. For these reasons, the Church urges a cautious approach.”

You can read the full statement here: Church Urges ‘Cautious Approach’ on Medical Marijuana Issue in Utah

So, the Church appears to have several concerns on the matter which include medical necessity, potential for abuse and addiction, as well as current federal legal status among others.  None of these concerns seem to be based on the implications of the Word of Wisdom.  To my knowledge, the Church has not yet made any theological/religious statement regarding the medical use of marijuana vis-a-vis the Word of Wisdom.

Gramps

Gramps,

I am a member and wonder why the church does not rescind the ban on coffee when scientific studies over the past 20 years have shown that drinking 3-4 cups of coffee a day reduces the risk of Alzheimers by 65%. So in order for me to reduce my risk of the ravages of the disease I have to commit a sin everyday.  One of the studies is referenced in the August issue of “Real Simple” magazine on page 116.  Do you think the Church will ever rescind the ban?

Jordan

Answer

Dear Jordan,

I was unfamiliar with the scientific literature over the past two decades regarding coffee and Alzheimer’s. I read the latest study, High Blood Caffeine Levels in MCI Linked to Lack of Progression to Dementia (from Feb 2012) and found it impressive. This was the first study actually performed on humans relying on physical evidence (instead of surveys) to gather data on coffee consumption and the onset of dementia (the MCI in the title refers to the sample set of people with mild cognitive impairment). The study confirmed in humans what has been evident in mice, that high levels of coffee intake can delay or prevent the onset of dementia. Prior studies on mice were able to control for the effects of caffeine only (which proved insufficient), and decaf coffee (which was also insufficient). Only caffeinated coffee did the trick.

Another study came out about 18 months later delineating some tragic side effects of this preventative medicine. Association of Coffee Consumption With All-Cause and Cardiovascular Disease Mortality links the same high-level of coffee consumption to early deaths. Unfortunately, this study is less compelling, as it didn’t control for additional causations in the correlations (for instance, are high-coffee consumers sleep-deprived? Is sleep deprivation the real cause of early death or heart disease?). Be aware that you risk an early death in an effort to hold off Alzheimer’s.

I don’t foresee The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints lifting the blanket prohibition on coffee for the sake of Alzheimer’s delay. The Lord gave us the Word of Wisdom to “forewarn” us of the “evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of men” (D&C 89:4). He’s proven to be spot-on with tobacco, and I have faith that He’s correct about coffee as well.

Gramps

Gramps,

I have a hard time understanding the reasoning behind coffee and tea not being allowed. I have a friend who left the church because of this. I just don’t get how coffee isn’t allowed but energy drinks and other things are.

Sam

Answer

Sam,

This may sound a bit harsh, but your friend did not leave the church over not being able to understand why coffee is included in the Word of Wisdom. Your question is really about obedience and why do we need to obey things we don’t understand. An unwillingness to obey is probably the prime reason many leave the church.

But let’s look at coffee and tea objectively.

Is coffee (and tea) harmful? The answer is undoubtedly yes. A quick search on the internet easily reveals some of its issues: Insomnia, headaches, heartburn, gout attacks, osteoporosis, incontinence, ulcers, reduction in fertility, forceful heart contractions, hallucinations, tremors, stress, high blood-pressure, etc., etc… Yes, most of these come from caffeine, something you also get from energy drinks and the like. But it can hardly be argued that coffee usage is beneficial to our health.

So, really, what are we asking? That we ought to be allowed to consume whatever we want to without any restrictions, in spite of the harm? Is the fact that one can get a temple recommend using energy drinks proof-positive that coffee and tea should be removed from the Word of Wisdom? Or, perhaps, should we be reconsidering our usage of energy drinks?

Regardless, it does not really matter. We cannot understand all the reasons the Lord gives every command. That is why we have the law of obedience, which includes the idea that we do as the Lord asks us to even if we do not understand. Coffee and tea usage being unhealthy does not seem particularly difficult to understand however. But even with some of the proposals that limited usage of some things included in the Word of Wisdom may be healthy (some suggest limited use of coffee can be healthy, and anti-oxidants in wine have been thought to be beneficial), the Lord’s commandments are His to give according to His will and understanding, not according to our wills and understanding.

Remember, this life is a test. What is that test? Will we obey? It’s a simple as that.

The Word of Wisdom can also be understood as a lesser law. We read in D&C 89:3, that it was, “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” (emphasis mine). Ideally we should look to live the purest and highest form of the law, not the least and lowest form. The higher-law version of the Word of Wisdom may well ban energy drinks, or at the very least, those living it would abstain from any addictive substances. And who knows, perhaps obedience to the fullest principles of the Word of Wisdom during the Millennium will be a great part of what will enable us to live “to the age of a tree.”

What has been revealed of the Lord’s health code is, as taught in vs. 3 of Section 89, an adaptation for the weakest of all saints. But if one feels like there’s more – live it! Enjoy the health and good life it brings. As a general principle, abstaining from coffee and tea are minimum requirements for temple admittance (and to receive saving ordinances). There is no law that says one can’t abstain from energy drinks, caffeinated beverages, lemonades, juices, or ice water. Feel free to do so (though I would not recommend abstaining from the water part of ice-water). Just don’t act like your personal Word of Wisdom scaffolding is the foundation for everyone else. REMEMBER HIRAM PAGE!!

Interesting to note (if you have tastes similar to mine), this is not a new practice. Elder Widtsoe, in writing about the Word of Wisdom, included a section on the evils of refined (white) flour (the GMO’s of his day I guess). Later, Elder McConkie corrected this thinking in his book, Mormon Doctrine:

“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. As Paul said, “The kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” (Rom. 14:17.)

 

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. God has created “meats,” he says, “to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.” (1 Tim. 4:3.) If some particular food or drink disagrees with an individual, then that person should act accordingly without reference to the prohibitions in this particular law of health.”

Elder Quentin L. Cook also taught:

“Certain members have wanted to add substantially to various doctrines. An example might be when one advocates additions to the Word of Wisdom that are not authorized by the Brethren and proselytes others to adopt these interpretations. If we turn a health law or any other principle into a form of religious fanaticism, we are looking beyond the mark”.

In the same article he helps us to understand what the mark is:

“The “Mark” Is Christ”

And Christ taught us the means whereby we hit the mark:

If ye love me, keep my commandments. (John 14:15)

Gramps

Gramps,

I just want to know your side about members who are selling products against the WOW like tobacco, alcohol, etc. Are they entitled to have a temple recommend?  How about a farmer planting tobacco as means of income? Any enlightenment is greatly appreciated.

dreb

Answer

Dreb,

The decision as to whether a person is worthy to hold a temple recommend is between that member, their local priesthood authority and the Lord. Anyone else who thinks they can judge the worthiness of another needs to look to the beam in their own eye and not the mote in another (Luke 6:42)

Now let’s take some hypothetical examples. Let’s say we have those who are doing their best to make ends meet. They have a job as a clerk, or a cashier or a waitress, and as part of their job they have to sell to the customers products that will break the Word of Wisdom. While it is true we do get to choose what job we will take, for many that can be a choice between a job we don’t like, and an even worse or no job at all. For those in this situation it seems clear to me that denying them a temple recommend based solely on their job is not the response of a follower of Christ but more an action of a modern day Pharisee.

The next hypothetical situation is the business owner. He makes the call on what to sell (or plant in the case of the farmer). The sad reality in these cases is that the products that violate the Word of Wisdom seem to be very profitable. The owner/farmer often has a very tough choice. He can carry a product he doesn’t like but represents a better chance of turning a profit, or do something else that carries a greater risk and likelihood of failure and going under.

Some may choose not to sell such things. Others may sell them for awhile and then choose to stop. Still others may choose to carry them always. If we don’t agree with those choices, we have the choice to spend our money elsewhere. That is a judgment we can and should make, but we don’t have any authority to go beyond that.

When we are in a place that doesn’t require us to make such choices, it is easy for us to declare what we would  never do. But to judge and ‘throw stones’ at those who have to, and who make different choices than we think we would, only reveals our own sins and shortcomings.

Gramps