According to the Salt Lake Tribune
Sometime this spring, LDS Business College in Salt Lake City began selling Coke products — with caffeine — in its cafe. The church-owned Joseph Smith Memorial Building, across from downtown’s iconic Mormon temple, had long since shrugged off the supposed taboo.
It makes no difference: The faith’s flagship school in Provo is standing firm.
BYU spokeswoman Carri Jenkins previously said there was no demand for these energy-enhancing sodas. Now she says the school “has simply chosen not to sell caffeinated beverages on campus.”
Progress?
Wheat & Tares 
Maybe not progress, but reality? If the Church says it’s not the caffeine, then there’s no real reason not to sell it, if people want it. I defy anyone to check an apartment in Provo and not find a Coke or Mountain Dew bottle.
We are on really shaky ground with our caffeine policy in general. Our tea/coffee prohibition does not stand up to any kind of scrutiny and I hope that it will change in the future. Decaffeinated coffee is permitted, soda with caffeine (often caffeinated with the caffeine removed from coffee) is permitted. Also, tea and coffee are generally healthier than soda. I think an easy fix would be to adjust the TR question about the WOW to be something like: “Do you strive to maintain good physical health, following the principles outlined in the Word of Wisdom?”
Yes…it is progress because it was “taboo” for no good reason, and just having people think that it had something to do with faithfulness, obedience, and commitment…all for a silly drink.
This clears the air a bit with some rational approach to things that don’t matter and we don’t need to keep making it something it is not.
I also think it can be an example we use for how things change in the church, and to recognize some things are “tradition” not “revelation”. That helps in applying to other issues we face in the church, because it opens to the door to discussing how much really does change, and can change.
For example…you can use that argument to build a case for things like women and the priesthood. I know…but leap from coke to priesthood…but just one example where you CAN say that what we once thought was direction from prophets turns out to be not so critical to the true meaning of gospel principles.
We should be open to change.
haha…kinda funny actually we can put so much meaning on a soda.
Anytime we move away from silly things in our past…it is progress that we are left with more meaningful things for our future. I think it will lead to what Felix mentioned…coffee/tea…same silliness. Never mentioned in D&C, clearly rooted in culture and viewpoints of 1800 science or tradition. Just not applicable today. Silly mormons.
Also…my guess is Brigham will be rolling in his grave because he would have wanted “Brighams’ Favorite Cola” with full caffeine instead of bringing in competitors to the Lion House.
Sorry, Felix. That was an accidental down vote.
I agree with Herbert13 that the WOW is an example of tradition being adopted as doctrine and the history not backing up the tradition. The reality is that the leadership didn’t take it as a commandment or strictly live or enforce it until Heber J. Grant. Also, D&C 89 does not back up our current policy at all: verse 2, a principle, not a commandment, verse 17 barley for mild drinks (i.e. beer) and no mention of tea and coffee specifically. I’m really debating whether to bring some of these things up this week in gospel doctrine in the Section 89 WOW lesson.
Since BY included coffee and tea on the pack list to come West, I can’t imagine he would care. He’d probably just be weirded out that drinks had bubbles in them at all (Coke was invented in 1886).
“Also, tea and coffee are generally healthier than soda.” Only because of the high fructose corn syrup and sugar content. Diet drinks don’t have these drawbacks, and they have about 1/4 to 1/6 the caffeine of coffee. My DNA results show that I’m prone to feel less effects from caffeine than others. I imagine people who drink more of these do so because they don’t affect them the same. I like the idea of changing the WoW to be “healthy habits.” Mormons, like most Americans, consume too much sugar and meat, and they aren’t getting the stink eye for that. We strain at a gnat and swallow a camel–literally!
Angela C, unfortunately, I agree, most US Mormons follow the national trends and eat too much meat and too much sugar (what was on the menu at your last ward party?). I like the idea of letting people decide to some degree how they interpret D&C 89 and putting the focus on overall physical health and a desire to find areas for improvement. I’m just glad it’s been several years since I’ve heard anyone say that Jesus actually drank grape juice.
“My DNA results show that I’m prone to feel less effects from caffeine than others”
Really? They tell you stuff like this when they run DNA tests? That’s kind of amazing… and maybe suspect… Maybe they could also tell me if I’m prone to alcoholism or drug addiction. I’m thinking yes, judging by my relationship with sugar (and Hawk’s trying to keep me out of the temple for it!)
There is no commandment given by God in Section 89. It is “sent by greeting;not by commandment or constraint.” Every change made to section 89 that is not “thus saith the Lord unto you….” is a policy change or the interpretation of men.
As just one small example, here are the words of Joseph F Smith during the 1904 Smoot hearings before congress.
Chairman: You have revelations, have you not?
Smith: I have never pretended to nor do I profess to have received revelations. I never said I had a revelation except so far as God has shown me that so-called Mormonism is God’s divine truth; that is all.
Chairman: You say that was shown to you by God?
Smith: By inspiration.
Chairman: How by inspiration; does it come in the shape of a vision?
Smith: “The things of God knoweth no man but the spirit of God;” and I cannot tell you any more than that I received that knowledge and that testimony by the spirit of God.
Tayler: You do not mean that you reached it by any process of reasoning or by any other method by which you reach other conclusions in your mind, do you?
Smith: Well, I have reached principles; that is, I have been confirmed in my acceptance and knowledge of principles that have been revealed to me, shown to me, on which I was ignorant before, by reason and fact.
In 1902, Smith began MANDATING that entrance into the temple required obeying the non-commandment WOW given by the voice of the Lord, thus changing it into a command. We know that he didn’t receive revelation to change this policy because according to his own words, he had never received revelation before 1904.
We have, by tradition (and a false one at that) evolving over several presidents,
turned the WOW into a commandment that makes members APPEAR ” peculiar” and apart from the rest of society. (Factor in as well the popularity of teetotalism around prohibition and the ending of polygamy as a distinguishing doctrine of the LDS church as influences affecting church leaders to make the WOW more than a non-commandment). The mental gymnastics we perform in saying that soda is better for you than tea or coffee is just that.
BYU is trying to uphold an arbitrary commandment of men to appear as a commandment from God. Needless to say, I don’t expect BYU to make further progress because it would be akin to admitting that like polygamy, the priesthood ban, white shirts to pass the sacrament, etc….”we teach for doctrine the commandments of men.”
Very good post Jan and others above. Unfortunately we have many, what I believe to be, false traditions of the fathers embedded within the church. Many significant changes to church practices were implemented during the 1900s by the leaders of the church; however, it could be argued that we never received an accompanying revelation with the change in policy / practice. To me it seems that today members of the church are required to simply accept that if it came from a church leader, such as the prophet, then it is by definition revelation from God. (only one earring instead of two). I believe this is one of the greatest problems with the church today. If an individual questions direction given by the GAs typically that member will be branded an apostate for failing to “blindly follow”.
As others mentioned above, Joseph F. Smith and Heber J. Grant determined that the WOW was to be a commandment that would prevent members from holding temple recommends for failure to obey. Moreover, these leaders also decided that beer was to become a part of the word of wisdom prohibitions. It is clear that in D&C 89 beer is an acceptable beverage – the mild drinks vs. strong drinks distinction, and the mention of drinks of barley reference. Now I believe that a prophet can receive revelation to change a practice or revelation that was received in the past – but I believe it requires just that – a revelation. Where is the revelation that changes D&C 89 from being a recommendation to a commandment? Where is the revelation that changes what the Lord said in D&C 89 to permitting beer from restricting it?
In fact a better question might be – when was the last time any of the prophets and apostles over the past 100 plus years actually received a revelation? Often times it is said that the church is guided by modern day revelation, but why don’t we get to see the actual words of the Lord as we did with Joseph Smith? In church when the question is asked, “What are some modern day revelations received since the time of Joseph Smith?” Inevitably the blacks and the priesthood comes up and the proclamation to the world on the family is mentioned. But are these revelations comparable to those received by Joseph Smith?
I appreciate everyone’s input on the subject as this is a subject that I believe requires serious thought, contemplation and prayerful reflection.
Very good post Jan and others above. Unfortunately we have many, what I believe to be, false traditions of the fathers embedded within the church. Many significant changes to church practices were implemented during the 1900s by the leaders of the church; however, it could be argued that we never received an accompanying revelation with the change in policy / practice. To me it seems that today members of the church are required to simply accept that if it came from a church leader, such as the prophet, then it is by definition revelation from God. (only one earring instead of two). I believe this is one of the greatest problems with the church today. If an individual questions direction given by the GAs typically that member will be branded an apostate for failing to “blindly follow”.
As others mentioned above, Joseph F. Smith and Heber J. Grant determined that the WOW was to be a commandment that would prevent members from holding temple recommends for failure to obey. Moreover, these leaders also decided that beer was to become a part of the word of wisdom prohibitions. It is clear that in D&C 89 beer is an acceptable beverage – the mild drinks vs. strong drinks distinction, and the mention of drinks of barley reference. Now I believe that a prophet can receive revelation to change a practice or revelation that was received in the past – but I believe it requires just that – a revelation. Where is the revelation that changes D&C 89 from being a recommendation to a commandment? Where is the revelation that changes what the Lord said in D&C 89 to permitting beer from restricting it?
In fact a better question might be – when was the last time any of the prophets and apostles over the past 100 plus years actually received a revelation? Often times it is said that the church is guided by modern day revelation, but why don’t we get to see the actual words of the Lord as we did with Joseph Smith? In church when the question is asked, “What are some modern day revelations received since the time of Joseph Smith?” Inevitably the blacks and the priesthood comes up and the proclamation to the world on the family is mentioned. But are these revelations comparable to those received by Joseph Smith?
I appreciate everyone’s input on the subject as this is a subject that I believe requires serious thought, contemplation and prayerful reflection.
“My DNA results show that I’m prone to feel less effects from caffeine than others.”
Do you have a sprinter muscle type too?
I actually had a bishop refuse to give me a temple recommend to do baptisms for the dead when I was 14 because I admitted to drinking Dr. Pepper. Of course, this was the same bishop who refused to give my mother a temple recommend because she saw R-rated movies (this was in 1982). She drove the next day from our home in Indiana to Salt Lake, spent an afternoon waiting until she got in to talk to a general authority, and raised her concerns about the bishop’s actions. We had a new bishop three weeks later. But I digress….
Former BYU professor Thomas Alexander wrote a great article in Dialogue on the evolution of the Word of Wisdom: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V14N03_80.pdf. It is clear that the context of the times–the temperance and prohibition movements that spread in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries–played a major role in how D&C 89 was interpreted and deployed by the Church’s leadership. And once the 21st amendment was ratified in 1933, the role of the Word of Wisdom in LDS culture was well established. Nearly a century later, it is such a pivotal part of what it means to be LDS–both internally in the Church and externally in the perception of the organization and its members–that I cannot see anything short of a burning bush-type revelation that would change the way that temple-worthy members are expected to adhere to the requirements that have evolved…..the reality of the wording in the scripture notwithstanding.
On the BYU-caffeine issue specifically, I doubt this will change any time soon. The standard of “righteousness” required on campus is beyond that expected in temple recommend interviews (that is a topic for another, much longer post), and banning caffeine is in line with those heightened expectations….the David O. McKay anecdote in the Prince biography notwithstanding.
I am glad BYU is remaining unique in this. The students are free to imbibe, but it is a good reminder to me of the good old days if nothing else. I am a volunteer greeter in the Church Office Building and I get a kick out of watching the hundreds of employees streaming in carrying huge drink containers every morning. I don’t presume to know what is in the containers, though.
I am one who thinks it ridiculous the we maintain the prohibition against coffee and tea.
I would also disagree with the idea that soda can be better than coffee or tea…
This from AARP website:
Someof the benefits you may be getting from your favorite cup of joe: longer life. The largest study to date, a joint project last year by the NIH’s National Cancer Institute and AARP that followed 400,000 men and women ages 50 to 71 for more than 10 years, found that those who regularly drank coffee — either decaf or regular — had a lower risk of overall death than did nondrinkers. In particular, the coffee drinkers were less likely to die from heart disease, respiratory disease, stroke, injuries and accidents, diabetes, and infections.
Protection against a number of cancers. A 2010 overview of major studies on coffee consumption and cancer by the University of California, Los Angeles, found a strong protective association between coffee and endometrial (also called uterine) cancer and some protection from colon cancer; other recent studies have found that drinking coffee may protect against prostate and liver cancer.
Reduced risk of type 2 diabetes. “Studies from around the world consistently show that high consumption of caffeinated or decaffeinated coffee is associated with low risk of type 2 diabetes,” says Harvard’s van Dam. That’s true even though coffee may raise blood glucose levels in people with diabetes, at least on a short-term basis. His recommendation: Switch to decaf because some research shows it has less of an effect on blood sugar.”
Of course, there are those who should steer clear of caffienated products whether it be from soda, coffee or tea, such as those who suffer from frequent heartburn/reflux disease.
I’m not aware of any nutritional/health benefits from drinking diet or regular soda.
The bottom line to good health is primarily moderation and variety in what one consumes.
Now, maybe we should focus on things that are actually harming our health–overconsumption, highly processed foods and lack of exercise.
The Joseph Smith Memorial Building serves a lot of tourists, so it makes sense they stopped the caffeine ban awhile ago (tea and coffee are still prohibited, even in the pricier restaurants there). Having a church school allow caffeine (in the heart of Mormon country, no less) seems like a notable event, relatively speaking. The business college still has majority LDS students as far as I know, so they are clearly expecting Mormons to drink it. I’d hope BYU would follow suit in the next couple years, especially since they’ve backed off the “lack of demand” excuse.
I like to reflect on Romans ch. 14 when discussing matters such as this. It helps me with context.
ji: You should really go into marketing for Coke. “When I’m hot and thirsty, I like to crack open the New Testament. Ah! The New Testament adds life!”
Can anyone say Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego?
I’ve drank Diet Coke for a number of years. I finally had to give it up largely because it aggravated my acid reflux. I sometimes wonder if the initial recommendation against it had nothing to do with caffeine, but because for a number of years cocaine (even in very minimal amounts) was an active ingredient. Just a thought. http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/cocaine.asp
Jim in NY
Was it the trace cocaine” or the carbonation that irritated your reflux?
PS. Soda is not in the WOW. Why create a commandment where one never existed? Sounds a bit like building hedges around the law.
Ji, you can take that scripture in a general way as to not judge what people feel they are allowed to partake of (caffeine or no caffeine). The second most likely way to apply that reference is to tell people who drink caffeine to refrain from drinking caffeine in front of those who think drinking caffeine is sin, lest you damage their testimony. Which direction were you going?
Funny story, I had a BYU student come running to me sobbing one day because her boyfriend drank a Dr. Pepper in front of her. She had no problem with his swearing, though…
The fact that a church-run school exhibits no true understanding of the Word of Wisdom is disappointing, but not at all surprising. The level of unrealistic expectations for stuff this trivial is stratospherically high in Provo. It’s remarkable that wearing white shirts and abstaining from Diet Coke somehow equals a kind of privileged status; it never ceases to amaze me that a church bearing Christ’s name is, in some instances, as pharisiacal as it gets.
On another note, to piggyback on felixfarulous’s comment, I’d like to see a different emphasis on the W of W question in TR interviews. It’s my feeling that when we’re asked: Do you follow the Word of Wisdom, the question only concerns abstention from tobacco, hard drugs, alcohol and coffee and tea. I’ve never heard of someone being denied a temple recommend, for example, because they eat three Big Macs a day. Which, if we’re really concerned with health and with treating our bodies like temples, it’s the folks who eat fast food and who have out of control BMIs who should be kept out of the temple. High blood pressure, fatty foods and snickers bars are all far more likely to do irreversible damage to the body than an occasional glass of red wine or a cup of coffee. We’re going about the enforcement of this “code” a bit backwards, IMHO.
Progress, Mormon Heretic. Incidentally, my dad has witnessed firsthand the amount of Pepsi required to keep up with President Monson’s mammoth intake (at least a few decades ago — who knows what age and time have done to his appetite). Caffeinated sodas are not out of bounds for the prophet. Good enough for me.
If the purpose of the Word of Wisdom is for health, we should approach it as a health code, and the prohibitions against intemperate meat use should be taken more seriously, and building hedges around the law to include exercise, reduced sugar intake, etc., to adapt to modern needs seems to make sense. If the purpose of the Word of Wisdom is for community cohesion — we are all doing this thing together — we should approach it as a team-building exercise and perhaps limit its expansion. The two approaches are not mutually exclusive.
One thought about arbitrary dietary restrictions: There is nothing inherently wrong with bacon. (In fact, there are many, many wonderful things about bacon.) Most Jews I know who observe kosher understand this very well, but keep kosher anyway. Kosher is not about health directly, although there may be health benefits. Many modern people keep kosher because it holds them fast to a community and a tradition they find valuable. (They also don’t think I’m a sinner if I eat my bacon with enthusiasm — an attitude that might be helpful for Mormons, recalling what JI said about Romans 14).
Mary Ann,
If some Saints at BYU (or elsewhere) don’t want to drink caffeine beverages, and feel it is a matter of obligation or sanctification, I want to respect that. And knowing that this sentiment exists among some Saints, I don’t take caffeinated beverages to a ward activity. It’s not a matter of them being right or wrong — they’re my brothers and sisters, and they’re sincere in their belief, so I respect that — that’s what Romans ch. 14 teaches me. Some (like Angela) will mock, but that has always been so.
Incidentally, my dad has witnessed firsthand the amount of Pepsi required to keep up with President Monson’s mammoth intake (at least a few decades ago — who knows what age and time have done to his appetite). Caffeinated sodas are not out of bounds for the prophet. Good enough for me.
I’m disappointed to hear that Pres. Monson is a Pepsi man, when everyone knows that God drinks Coke, but no matter. There’s a delightful story in Prince’s David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism in which Pres. McKay is at a theater in SLC and the manager offers him a drink, and apologizes that it’s in a Coke cup – that’s what the concession company supplies, so sorry, etc. McKay says, “I don’t care what’s ON the cup as long as there’s Coke IN the cup.”
My kind of prophet. 🙂
I think the church schools A) are run by imagination-free, Section-121-style rigid CES types, and B) know they’re going to take more uproar from the Caffeine Hobby Horse crowd if they change than from the Coke smugglers (who already have a system) if they keep the ban. The can of worms you already have open is better than opening a strange one.