I ran into a really fascinating discussion on the website formerly known as Twitter. Someone commented that they saw friends who drank coffee in the morning who would go to the temple later that day. They seemed legitimately curious to understand how someone justified that to themselves.
In the comments there were many responses, which were not acceptable to everyone else. To put them into a few categories:
- It’s not a commandment: Some commented that the Word of Wisdom to them was less “this is sinful” and more “this is healthy recommendation.”
- All sins don’t disqualify: Others pointed out that struggling with other sins (e.g., porn) wouldn’t necessarily disqualify you from the temple. So why couldn’t someone who struggled with coffee be worthy? Just looking within the Word of Wisdom, many suggested that obesity (at least, obesity caused by poor diet) wasn’t disqualifying. But isn’t that also against the Word of Wisdom, right?
- The text isn’t clear: The word caffeine is never mentioned. The word coffee isn’t, either.
Again, these arguments weren’t accepted by everyone. (It doesn’t matter that caffeine isn’t mentioned in the text. The LDS church isn’t sola scriptura. Member are not limited to the printed text only.
But a fascinating thing started happening in the comments: unhinged anti-Mormons (…ok, i don’t know if they were anti-mormons, but they were definitely people not reading the room) came in asking if the others believed in other things from Mormon history:
Your “church” literally believes that people live on the sun and moon and believes in the insane writings of a false prophet a career criminal. And Coffee is what you’re concerned about?
Yikes. But while the other commenters could easily dismiss that they were not taught Joseph Smith’s apocryphal statement about Quakers on the Moon, the guy went further:
No! The mormon church has tried to delete that he professed that publicly, on numerous occasions! Next, you’ll tell us that mormons don’t believe mere mortals can become gods! Why are you avoiding discussing Smiths false prophecies??
What was interesting here is the original poster of the thread agreed! They also affirmed that LDS folks aren’t taught about becoming Gods.
The pendulum between retrenchment to LDS distinctives and assimilation to the wider Christian beliefs ain’t new. Even skepticism about theosis ain’t new. Even before I left (many years ago), I heard prophets say that they don’t know if we teach or emphasize the genealogical connection between humans and God.
I’m just really fascinated by how it plays out in 2025.
So, I wanted to have some fun. Do you believe any of these statements are legitimate LDS beliefs (even if you do not personally believe them)? Or do you recall being taught them earlier in your life, but not anymore? Or do you think any of these have never been taught as doctrine? (I’m just throwing things out there. Feel free to answer as many or as few of these as you like)
- Coffee and Tea are against the Word of Wisdom and should not be drunk
- Beer is a “mild barley” drink and is acceptable under the Word of Wisdom
- Oral sex is against the Law of Chastity
- Contraception is against the Law of Chastity
- Dating someone of the same sex is acceptable under the Law of Chastity, as long as it doesn’t lead to extramarital sex
- Marrying someone of the same sex makes sexual relationships with them licit under the Law of Chastity
- Someone who experiences same-sex attraction in this life can overcome it, either in this life or in the afterlife with the power of the Atonement
- Someone with dark skin can have that skin lightened, either in this life or in the afterlife with the power of the Atonement
- As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.
- Adam and Eve lived geographically around the Missouri area at some point in their lives
- When we pray to Heavenly Father, we are praying to Adam.
- The Church of the Devil refers to a specific institutional church (such as the Catholic Church). It is not just an abstract concept.
- You can test to see if a spirit is evil by shaking their hand.
Wheat & Tares 
Have been taught so many of these!
Despite the W of W banning “hot drinks”, it’s always been defined as tea and coffee, though herbal tea seems to be acceptable. Is decaffeinated coffee ok? Not to my understanding. – Never heard that beer was ok – the church president during prohibition brought a ban on all alcohol – I don’t recall which apostle it was, but one of them widely taught that oral sex was a sin, in or out of marriage – The atonement/afterlife will cure same-sex attraction – Righteousness will lighten skin – Man can become a God – The Garden of Eden was definitely in MIssouri – The Catholic church was “the whore of the earth” – Handshake with the devil is a legit test
They’re all bogus and offensive. I think (and I could be incorrect) the only ones still actively taught are no tea/coffee and no alcohol. I haven’t kept track of same-sex attraction, but it wouldn’t surprise me if that mindset is still prevalent. I have no doubt there are many more “doctrines” that have quietly faded, but these were some pretty heavily promoted “facts”.
Ooh, a fun one! Love this one, Andrew S. Also, I have gotten into some of these discussions on Twitter, and my longest exchange basically ended with something like “Yeah, as a religion gets older (see Catholicism and every other church), the ridiculous teachings from the past are replaced with more reasonable ones of the present.” And that is truly what not just Mormons but every church believes, including so-called Sola Scriptura faiths because someone’s always interpreting the scriptures for the congregation, and it’s the interpretation they believe, not the actual scripture. As Mr Bingley says to Darcy in chapter 10 of Pride & Prejudice “This is too much, to remember at night all the foolish things that were said in the morning.”
To your list, here’s my crack at it:
– Coffee and Tea are against the Word of Wisdom and should not be drunk. Definitely was taught this. 100%. But there’s a ton of actual wiggle room if you 1) read the actual WoW (“not by way of commandment”), 2) understand the historical context, and 3) see the history of actual LDS orthopraxy which included a whole lot of drinking of things that I was taught LDS people never drank (coffee, tea, alcohol)
– Beer is a “mild barley” drink and is acceptable under the Word of Wisdom. Was NOT taught this, but see the previous answer. It was clearly a carve out intended by JS.
– Oral sex is against the Law of Chastity. I was a little too young to be affected by the brief mania around this, but I was aware of it from older siblings who were told this by bishops. I don’t know whether it was widely taught (e.g. top down from leadership) or just assumed by a bunch of bishops who weren’t having very imaginative sex themselves, and it was quickly discarded over the furor that ensued.
– Contraception is against the Law of Chastity. This definitely predated me, but I do know it was taught to people in maybe the 70s I wanna say? But it was not a thing in my day.
– Dating someone of the same sex is acceptable under the Law of Chastity, as long as it doesn’t lead to extramarital sex. So long as Kevin Wirthlin is running BYU, this is OK, but the second SLC got a whiff of it they shut it down. But I would have said in the 80s and 90s that holding hands and kissing was technically allowed, even for same sex.
– Marrying someone of the same sex makes sexual relationships with them licit under the Law of Chastity. “Makes them licit”? I mean, I know this came up when gay marriage was made legal, so the answer is tricky. I would have personally said that the Church remained against it, but that technically if you weren’t LDS you weren’t sinning if you were gay married. It’s the age old conundrum that makes it better to never have heard of the church and its rules.
– Someone who experiences same-sex attraction in this life can overcome it, either in this life or in the afterlife with the power of the Atonement. This was taught, but not widely believed by the people I knew in the 80s, 90s and beyond. The people who believed this were pretty much wishful thinking idiots who didn’t might torturing people into pretending they were straight.
– Someone with dark skin can have that skin lightened, either in this life or in the afterlife with the power of the Atonement. I heard people say this, and of course there is the skin condition vitiligo that I heard older church members cite as evidence. It seemed to most people from my age and younger (and I’m not young!) that we all fully knew that the race ban was just racists being racist.
– As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become. Definitely taught and believed this. And honestly, if not, then what even is the point? I only discovered in my 20s or 30s that women didn’t really count when it came to the godhood premise.
– Adam and Eve lived geographically around the Missouri area at some point in their lives. Definitely taught this, and that due to Pangea and continental drift it was now somewhere else (?) or something. But I will say that there was never any scenario in which Missouri was a destination that held any appeal for me–culturally, geographically, religiously, etc. I’m sure there’s good barbecue there, though.
– When we pray to Heavenly Father, we are praying to Adam. Never ever taught this, and only heard it for the first time when I was a college student at BYU. It still didn’t make sense to me, and it was definitely something that was disavowed.
– The Church of the Devil refers to a specific institutional church (such as the Catholic Church). It is not just an abstract concept. Was definitely taught this, but the source was clear: Bruce R. McConkie’s optimistically named Mormon Doctrine, remaking the church according to his own beliefs.
– You can test to see if a spirit is evil by shaking their hand. Definitely was taught this, but it didn’t really make logical sense to me why ghosts were so thirsty and gullible if they were evil, but if they were good they knew better? I mean, huh?
Thanks for this list–it was fun. You’ll have to do your own answers in a comment!
hawkgrrrl,
When I saw the series of tweets, I had the idea to do a poll, and I thought, “wow, this is 100% classic W&T, the team will love this.” Glad you enjoyed!
My answers to these, by the way (ugh now i wish i had numbered them originally, lol)
1. I was raised that coffee and tea are disallowed under the Word of Wisdom *regardless* of temperature (so even saying “hot drink” is just a term of art.) One of the Bishops I had in my ward had a son who famously drank a lot of Mountain Dew, so we definitely did not have a culture of thinking that any caffeinated beverage was against the WoW.
2. I was raised to believe that beer is against the WoW, but since I started blogging, I have run into people who seem to think it’s OK because of the “mild barley” interpretation. I can’t believe this is real. I feel like this is just a thing for weird internet people.
3. I was not taught that oral sex is against the Law of Chastity, but I do recall having discussions through blogs etc., where this definitely seems to be a generational thing
4. I was not taught that contraception is against the Law of Chastity, but see above. I didn’t mention abortion here, but I have heard some people on the internet say that Mormonism is pro-choice, and I do NOT see that.
5. Same Sex dating was NOT ok. I find it super hard to believe that people have been trying this one out at BYU of all places, but you know what, more power to them.
6. It seems very clear that the LDS church does NOT want to accept the validity of same-sex marriage even if it’s “legal and lawful.”
7. I threw this in as a modern version of 8. I have been taught this. I personally see it as “just as bad” as 8
8. I was not taught this personally, but I HAVE had people come up to me in person who believed this (in the context of them believing that me and my brothers were so righteous that we would surely be made white and delightsome in the afterlife. this person thought his comments were complementary/hopeful/positive. I was too young at the time to be offended, but I have thought about this a LOT since then.)
9. Yes, I was raised to believe that God and humans are the same species and that we are preparing to become Gods. With the Hinckley interview, I thought he was lying for the Lord. It did not cross my mind even in the slightest that based on this de-emphasis that over time faithful members would seriously stop believing in this teaching.
10. I have not personally been taught about Adam-ondi-Ahman in any serious capacity. I thought that this was an anti-mormon joke when I first heard it lol.
11. I have not been taught Adam-God theory.
12. I don’t think Church of the Devil = catholic church was super emphasized. I always found it strange when Protestants in Bible Belt Oklahoma claimed that Catholics weren’t Christian, which I probably wouldn’t have found strange if I were taught the LDS anti-Catholic message too.
13. I ABSOLUTELY was taught to test spirits by shaking hands. I haven’t run into any spirits in my life, but if I ever do, they will CATCH THESE HANDS
OK, readers will get to enjoy just watching two permas have a conversation now, LOL. A few thoughts on your comments:
#4 “I have heard some people on the internet say that Mormonism is pro-choice, and I do NOT see that.” Weirdly, today’s GOP’s anti-abortion stance is radically more anti-abortion than LDS church policy as written is, and so by contrast, LDS church policy sounds pro-choice when you’ve got red states saying “Yes, our intention is that women bleed out in the parking lot while having a miscarriage because we refuse to clear out the womb in case the baby isn’t fully dead yet.” And yet when the church / Utah came up with its own “abortion law” they were only willing to let women “choose” if a police officer agreed it was rape, which basically does not work, particularly given that 40% of police officers have a DV charge. But the church believes and trusts men, not women, which is why that makes sense. Anyway, I do think that the policy is much more centrist than anything the GOP today is saying, particularly in places like Texas, other Southern states, and Idaho.
#6 I was however pleasantly surprised when Oaks (apostle at the time) said that Kim Davis was in the wrong for refusing to sign marriage certificates for gay couples. It’s an interesting thought experiment, but there are cases like this where church policy gives supremacy to the thing you don’t expect. In that case, following the law > religious freedom / fighting gay marriage. I mean, obviously bigots like Kim Davis should not be in a job where they can harm other citizens by refusing to do their job. Oaks, in that case, had more respect for the law than for bigots (even when he shares their bigotry).
#9 Completely agree that the Hinckley interview on Larry King was him “lying for the Lord” or at least putting “PR” first in “PRophet, seer, and revelator. Every LDS person watching that knew he was backpedaling from something we had been taught at church.
#13 – I LOLd
I’ve found that as the Church has progressed, it has become more, not less, restrictive. A couple of examples are Heber J. Grant making the Word of Wisdom part of the temple recommends, or Nelson’s “revelation” that we call ourselves Mormons anymore.
I also think that as the Church has progressed that it relies less on the scriptures and more on “modern prophets.” Sunday School and Priesthood or Relief Society lessons, and for that matter, Sacrament talks used to be based on the scriptures. Now they are taken from the General Conference, and scriptures are chosen to support a particular point, not to understand what the scripture really means. Actually, most scriptures are totally ignored. Even though there are calls now and then to read the Book of Mormon, it never seems to be for the New or Old Testament. There is never a place or a time to discuss what they say.
So most members don’t know what the scriptures say. Those who use scriptures use them to prove a point and ignore the rest of the scriptures. There is virtually no discussion about the context or history surrounding a given scripture. There is no discussion about how the scriptures are written by men who say they speak for God, but let their own biases or prejudices come in; take Paul, for instance, and his statements about women. Also, there is little discussion about what is between the lines. For instance, Christ’s conversation with the woman at the well, the Samaritan, or healing the centaurian’s slave. Why did he talk to a non-jew? Why did he talk to these sinners when the pious at the time would have shunned them?
Finally, there is no discussion about who Christ was at his time, and comparing him to someone today. He defied the system at his time. He was open, liberal, compassionate, and pushed the boundaries of the “morals” of his society with whom he associated. He paid his taxes. He didn’t push against Romans but against the ruling religious leaders of his own people. He healed the sick, fed the poor, and forgave the sinners. He spoke as one having authority to the authorities because he spoke truth to power. Very few in the church today would ask if Christ would support Ensign Peak investments, bringing guns to church, hiding child abuse, or justifying a corrupt political leader.
I think if people read the scriptures more and thought about them in their totality instead of relying on either ecclesiastical or intellectual commentary from someone in the church to give them what it means, they might have a better understand of God and what it means to be human.
To answer your question, Mormons, as they have always done,, believe what they were last told.
When hawkgirl wrote “As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become. Definitely taught and believed this. And honestly, if not, then what even is the point?”, I felt that one in my soul. It’s Joseph Smith’s single most radical, heretical, Punk Rock theological idea, and the Lord bless him for it—not just for how many “mainstream” Christians it pissed off, but for how empowering it is, how radically it changes the way you to treat even the humblest and poorest around you once you start to see them as not just children of God but literal Gods-in-embryo—not to mention how it solves just *so* many theological problems of what exactly we will spend the terrifyingly infinite expanse of eternity even *doing.* For all of Joseph Smith’s other personal failings, this single teaching covers a multitude of sins for me.
Hence it drives me bonkers how cowardly Church leadership keeps distancing itself from our single most distinctive, wild, and exciting doctrine, in their continued misbegotten quest to ingratiate themselves with an evangelical Right that will no more accept us than they will Muslims, Jews, or even Catholics. I wonder if we can track the growing viciousness and cruelty of the Utah electorate (it was less than a decade and a half ago that Utah shocked conservative America by passing a comparatively humane and compassionate immigration bill) to the Q15’s continued deemphasis of the King Follet discourse.
familywomen,
I agree that many of these beliefs are bogus or offensive, but I wouldn’t say all of them are. Do you think that man becoming Gods is bogus or offensive?
Hawkgrrrl,
I think it’s only centrist in the sense that the overton window is shifting sooooo far to the right. Also, I hadn’t heard that expression “putting the PR in PRophet.” I would have expected that one to come up in the exmormon spaces lol
Instereo,
Your point about General Conference talks being prioritized over scriptural quotes, and Book of Mormon being prioritized over OT and NT is very interesting. That’s something I noticed a little bit in doing my research for my last post. While I think that Elder Bednar’s statements on agency would fit well with Paul’s comments in Romans, Bednar *never* quotes Romans. Definitely, the latter-day scriptures that he did quote painted a similar picture, but it just seemed interesting.
My watching of Dan McClellan on YouTube gives me the impression that it’s definitely not only Mormons who read scriptures selectively and out of context. Learning about the actual historical and social context of various scriptures (especially Old Testament) is crazy because a lot of the scenarios just really aren’t applicable to us now.
But at the same time, the Bible itself is a bunch of people re-reading older texts “out of context” to apply it to their own rhetorical and spiritual goals, so it also doesn’t seem that unusual when we do it in modern times.
What do Mormons believe? is a tricky question. Listen to General Conference, you get a fair idea what senior leadership thinks Mormons are *supposed* to believe. Read Mormon Doctrine and you will see what Elder McConkie thinks you, as a Mormon, are *supposed* to believe. Talk to an LDS person you know one on one and ask a few questions, you will still likely get what that person thinks Mormons are *supposed* to believe. You have to be on fairly friendly and trusted terms with an LDS person to get an honest answer to what they truly believe personally. Most LDS learn fairly quickly that at church and in conversations with other LDS, the one thing you do not do is say what you really think about this or that doctrine or historical claim. You don’t spill your guts. You repeat the party line. So who knows what Mormons really believe? If half the people in your congregation reject the historicity of the Book of Mormon, how would you know?
It gets worse. I think many LDS people are simply unable to articulate what they personally believe, as opposed to what they think they are supposed to believe. If you, as an LDS person, can make that distinction, you might already be headed for the fringe. “Mormons are supposed to believe that coffee is bad for you and it’s some sort of sin to drink it, at least for a Mormon, but to be honest there’s nothing wrong with drinking coffee. Wouldn’t it be nice …” Once you start thinking this way, whether you then do or do not choose to drink coffee is almost beside the point. According to reliable data, about a third of young LDS have come to something like this view and find drinking coffee to be a good thing for them. It’s a bad sign for LDS leaders when a teenager can figure out they believe and preach silly things.
vajra2, Dave,
I’ll reply back to both of yours because I think this is getting at the underlying message.
When I was younger, I used to think that correlation meant that church doctrine was the same everywhere. But now I realize that this isn’t true. There is still difference in time (because what is taught to one generation differs from what is taught to the next, even when both generations are still living), and there are still differences in geography due to emphasis in standardized materials. But apart from this, it doesn’t seem like there’s standardization in terms of who is most authoritative, so some people will hear or read something and accept it as authoritative, while others will dismiss it as not being authoritative. (McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine got mentioned once or twice in the X thread if I recall correctly, where the person noted something along the lines of “this is ironically named, because it’s not doctrinal.”)
Given that, I am not sue if any Mormon can actually say “what they are supposed to believe.” Dave, leading with ‘what they think’ is so crucial. “What Person A thinks they are supposed to believe” may differ from what Person B thinks they are supposed to believe, but both A and B also think that they are just describing a universal, objective view of what the church teaches, not their own personal belief.
The people who think that all caffeine is disallowed by the Word of Wisdom don’t think that is just a personal belief. More often than not, the think that’s what everyone is supposed to believe.
So, I actually think that what’s happening with younger generations probably has more complexity to it. Layers of an onion.
The first time I ever encountered the idea that beer was a “mild barley drink” sanctioned by D&C 89 was on my mission when a recent convert told me he assumed it was referring to beer. It was revealing to me how such an interpretation was so obvious to someone coming to it without the lifetime of conditioning that I had, while it had never even occurred to me before that moment. That experience showed me how much everything we experience in the church and everything we read in our own scriptures is colored by our own life experiences. It’s also why I think it’s helpful that we now have the perspective of an adult convert among the apostles (who often sounds radically different from his colleagues in his public speaking because of it).
I definitely heard it taught that contraception was wrong, but I don’t think I ever heard it specifically cited as a violation of the law of chastity. That’s interesting. By now I’ve learned not to be surprised that ideas that are totally foreign to me were taught as gospel somewhere, so I don’t doubt that it was.
Ok, you twisted my arm. I’ll take a crack at the full list. I’ll try to be brief. For context, I grew up outside the Mormon corridor in the 80s and 90s.
1. No coffee or tea meant no on anything containing caffeine (accept for chocolate which apparently contains trace amounts), and this rule was strictly enforced in my house. So only caffeine free sugary drinks were allowed
2. Beer was definitely out
3. Oral sex was not talked about. Sex wasn’t talked about. It was all “icky” until you were married and then, you know, good luck. I later heard about (on my mission actually) of some Church leader advising against oral sex for married couples. Not sure why
4. Contraception was fine
5-7. Anything non-hetero was a “choice” and a “sin” that could be “overcome” through the atonement. Only same sex attraction would exist in the afterlife. It was widely believed that the Aids epidemic was “proof” that God disapproved of homosexuality (ya… wish I were remembering this wrong but don’t think I am)
8. “Dark skin becoming light” was definitely out there but no one I knew seriously believed it.
9. We could definitely become gods, not just “like God.”
10. Adam and Eve definitely lived in Missouri. That’s where the garden of Eden was. Duh.
11. Wasn’t taught Adam-god theory but was vaguely aware of it. It was a “deep doctrine” topic that went around on my mission.
12. My grandpa definitely believed the church of the devil was the Catholic Church. But he was born as close to the 19th century as he was the great depression. This idea also came back up during my mission in a predominantly Catholic country.
13. Yes, on the hand shaking with spirits or whatever thing, but I always thought Shaggy and Scoob modelled appropriate response upon encountering a specter.
I’ll add a couple more:
1. We were definitely going to be walking back to Missouri one day (that was the real reason we did Trek, to practice)
2. God could literally read and was reading all of your thoughts (especially the dirty ones) and you would be judged for your thoughts on judgement day, whether or not you followed through on them.
3. My generation was definitely (probably?) the last to reach adulthood before the Second Coming.
4. We would definitely see additional scriptures / “records” being revealed and there was a possibility polygamy would be brought back.
JB,
I had two thoughts here. The first is: I think it would be really interesting to understand from LDS folks who don’t believe in theosis as a component of exaltation what they really think about this idea. Is it scary for them? Is it silly? Is it just something they haven’t really thought about since they haven’t had it taught?
The other thought was: I think a lot about the “routinization of charisma”. It’s well and good for Joseph Smith to be iconoclastic and punk rock, but eventually, you have to settle down and create a stable institution. I wonder if, in addition to the external pressure of wanting to be like everyone else, there was internal pressure to de-emphasize this doctrine so that they could emphasize more about obedience, the necessity of the church as an institution and intermediary, etc., whereas if we are all Gods-in-embryo, the attitude that people might develop might be different.
I was taught almost all of these as doctrine. Oral sex wasn’t discussed but I’m pretty sure my parents would never because they thought French kissing was gross. I’m pretty sure they didn’t have sex for fun. I feel really bad for them and it’s no wonder that generation has so many sexual hang ups, some of which were passed to me. Thanks for that.
Growing up in the late 80s / early 90s in a tiny LDS town in Arizona I didn’t know any gay people personally. I thought it was very rare and sort of academic as a teenager.
So many. I’ll throw out a few more. One of my bishops was really into deep doctrine and he told us that each star was a sun, which meant that each star was a “son” (you know sun = son) and a god. Most stars, according to him, were binary or tertiary systems so that meant they were a married star or married male star to two or more females. Also we’d become stars when we were perfect enough after the resurrection. Yeah, weird. Also, inanimate animals objects obeyed God’s laws completely and didn’t really have free agency, so Jesus’ atonement was to satisfy the demands of justice coming from these inanimate objects.
Also there are two “tracks” or maybe cohorts of gods. The one that Jesus and Heavenly Father are on; they never sin and are saviors for the rest of us who will become gods. However this second track of gods is lesser than the pure bred gods like Jesus and HF because we’ve sinned.
Mormon doctrine is so f’ed up. I’m ashamed it took me so long to leave.
This looks fun. My answers probably best reflect my experiences in the 1960s and 1970s.
Coffee and tea? Always contrary to the Word of Wisdom.
Beer? Just as contrary to the Word of Wisdom as any other prohibited item.
Oral sex? This was a brief bugaboo during the 1970s (if I recall correctly) and contributed to more than a few bumps in people’s marriages.
Contraception? Mostly prohibited.
Dating someone of the same sex? Never acceptable.
Marrying someone of the same sex? Unthinkable in the 1960s and 1970s.
Overcoming same-sex attraction possible? Yes, then no. So be celibate.
Dark skin getting lighter? President Kimball said so.
God as man, man as God? Yes, yes, yes.
Garden of Eden in Missouri? Yes, there’s an altar and everything there.
Praying to Adam? No, never.
The Catholic Church as the Church of the Devil? Absolutely, it’s in the Book of Mormon.
Shaking a spirit’s hand? Definitely, according to BYU religion teachers.
• You can test to see if a spirit is evil by shaking their hand.
Technically we still teach this. From D&C 129:4-9.
4 When a messenger comes saying he has a message from God, offer him your hand and request him to shake hands with you.
5 If he be an angel he will do so, and you will feel his hand.
6 If he be the spirit of a just man made perfect he will come in his glory; for that is the only way he can appear—
7 Ask him to shake hands with you, but he will not move, because it is contrary to the order of heaven for a just man to deceive; but he will still deliver his message.
8 If it be the devil as an angel of light, when you ask him to shake hands he will offer you his hand, and you will not feel anything; you may therefore detect him.
9 These are three grand keys whereby you may know whether any administration is from God.
rpeijm,
I feel like there’s a lot of things that you can find in scriptures though, but that doesn’t mean we still teach it. After all,
1. we don’t reach every verse equally. Some verses probably get deemphasized more often than brought up
2. even when we do refer to verses, there’s often interpretations of these verses beyond what the words on the page say. (e.g., the modern interpretation of the Word of Wisdom vs what it printed on the page)
Re
Re oral sex, in 1982, our Bishop read my wife and I a letter from the First Presidency that said: “The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure or unholy practice.” We haven’t heard about the letter since. If you google oral sex, LDS, First Presidency, you will find it.
Re: hot drinks, I read an excellent article in Sunstone that said in the 19th century, the temperature of the drink was the problem. Hence, the prohibition of “hot drinks.” It has nothing to do with caffeine, which is why Coca Cola is now sold at BYU and in temple cafeterias.
True North,
Even without considering caffeine, do you think the Word of Wisdom allows or disallows iced tea?
Gary Bergera:
“The Catholic Church as the Church of the Devil? Absolutely, it’s in the Book of Mormon.”
I believe that Nephi saw the inception of a combination that succeeded in destroying the church from within. Their aim was to shape the teachings of the church into something that would be palatable to the learned of the day–who were well schooled in Greek thought. Over time the rites of the priesthood were replaced by credentialism–and thus a counterfeit to the temple emerged as the Great and Abominable Church. And that counterfeit persists today. It is everywhere–especially in the West. It is even more pervasive than the Catholic Church–or any other church for that matter. Nowadays its influence comes to us more as, shall we say, “messaging” from the world. But that “messaging” did begin with a specific institution that has become watered down over time as the dominant culture has embraced its teachings. And what is that institution? I can’t pinpoint it exactly–but it is (IMO) the grandfather of the modern university.
I should clarify: I think the university is a wonderful thing. But I also believe that it’s best for students to be grounded in the gospel when getting an education. That “grounding” serves to leaven the whole educational experience–IMO. And that’s why the adversary absolutely hates the CES program.
“He defied the system at his time. He was open, liberal, compassionate, and pushed the boundaries of the “morals” of his society with whom he associated. He paid his taxes. He didn’t push against Romans but against the ruling religious leaders of his own people. He healed the sick, fed the poor, and forgave the sinners. He spoke as one having authority to the authorities because he spoke truth to power.”
Amen.
I was wondering if anyone was going to bring up D&C 129. Andrew is right about variance in actually teaching things found in the scriptures but it seemed that everyone was treating the handshake thing like some kind of weird folklore ala Sasquatch being one of the three Nephites instead of something taken directly from scripture.
There are two distinct Word of Wisdoms–the one as written in D&C which puts restrictions on meat consumption and allows for mild barley drinks, and the one practiced by the LDS church today, which prohibits tea and coffee (except for herbal tea) and all alcohol but doesn’t say anything about meat.
There are certainly quite a few members (hopefully not a majority) who believe the Catholic church is the great and abominable church. My personal beliefs are that the great and abominable church is the love of money and the current vehicle for that in the U.S. right now is our capitalistic system. I mean, what else is there that has “dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people”? (1 Nephi 14:11). After all, you can buy anything in this world for money.
Hawkgirl: “Adam and Eve lived geographically around the Missouri area at some point in their lives. Definitely taught this, and that due to Pangea and continental drift it was now somewhere else (?) or something. But I will say that there was never any scenario in which Missouri was a destination that held any appeal for me–culturally, geographically, religiously, etc. I’m sure there’s good barbecue there, though.”
New KC tourism slogan: “Come for Jesus, stay for the BBQ.”
Jack, it sounds like you’ve taken Hugh Nibley’s idea, once referring to academic robes as the “black robes of a false priesthood”, to the next level and made some form of academia itself into the great and abominable church. That’s a new one to me, and it seems like a particular stretch. The only commonality between academia and the LDS temple I can think of is the wearing of robes that Nibly pointed out. I know it’s popular, beginning with Bruce McConkie, to try to identify a specific organization as “great and abominable”, but I think that to try to so is a missed opportunity to hear a bigger message. You can find the elements of that “church” described in the Book of Mormon, pride, wealth, obsession with status, in almost every institution in the world, including our very own church. So perhaps rather than trying to identify an individual organization as this great and abominable church as so many have, we might be better served by seeing it as the manifestation of human frailty inside all institutions, and do everything we can to root those tendencies out from the institutions we’re a part of.
I should add, it’s still weird, just weirdness with scriptural provenance.
Later in life I have wondered, given when and where this revelation happened, if shaking hands to verify heavenly beings is directly tied to Joseph’s formulation of the original temple endowment and not just just some random thought out of left field that he wrote down.
The adversary hates CES? I guess the adversary and I are on the same page.
Adam F, Let me add to your Amen! As the church collects billions, this vision of Christ seems to be, if not forgotten, at least deemphasized. He was a liberal, probably would have been a Democrat! Saw a bumper sticker recently, ‘I am a Democrat, because I am a Christian’.
In Stereo, Even when scripture is mentioned or quoted, it is usually the BOM. IMO we do not spend nearly enough time looking at the Jesus of the New Testament except for the year it is taught in Sunday School. The other 3 years, it is barely mentioned.
As for doctrine, it appears to me that the church is now run by the Gospel According to the Handbook. The new additions about our trans members ( and for that matter the old ones regarding LBGTQ) are how decisions are made instead of looking into scripture and hearts. The handbook is used by what is actually in it (the above mentioned) and by what is NOT in it (my husband who had a beard when we joined the church 50 years ago cannot be a temple worker because he has a beard). No mention of temple workers having to follow missionary standards in the handbook.
I cant find my copy right now, but I own a recipe for beer in my great-aunt’s handwriting, given to my grandparents. In the 1930s, so after the WofW was a commandment. And all the people involved were lifelong members of the church, living in small town Utah.
I love discussions of what’s in or out on what we all were taught at various times and in various places. And I relate so much to JB’s comment about men becoming gods. (As Hawkgrrrl well observes, that’s not for women so much; women are just divine ornaments.) It’s a radical and fascinating idea, even if I don’t believe it. It’s pathetic that GAs will discard so much of Mormonism to try to court the evangelicals who will never accept us.
On the list:
1. Coffee and Tea are against the Word of Wisdom and should not be drunk – I was definitely taught this, especially through lots of stories of people righteously resisting social pressure to drink them in order to keep themselves pure.
2. Beer is a “mild barley” drink and is acceptable under the Word of Wisdom – I was a kid and teen in the 80s and 90s, and I never heard this idea until I started participating in the bloggernacle in the 2000s.
3. Oral sex is against the Law of Chastity – I never recall being taught this explicitly, but it was pretty clear that any sex that didn’t have the possibility of leading to pregnancy was evil (e.g., homosexual sex, masturbation). I definitely got the sense that God wasn’t very happy with how much people enjoyed sex, and would really rather it only be a thing for having babies.
4. Contraception is against the Law of Chastity – I never heard of it being against the law of chastity, but I definitely learned that it was wrong wrong wrong. Even as rhetoric on it softened and then mostly went away, it seemed to me like something the GAs still clearly believed, but didn’t want to admit too loudly for fear of criticism, kind of like polygamy.
5. Dating someone of the same sex is acceptable under the Law of Chastity, as long as it doesn’t lead to extramarital sex. – I was a kid and teen in the 80s and 90s. Homosexuality was just wrong all the way through, and I never heard of any such loopholes.
6. Marrying someone of the same sex makes sexual relationships with them licit under the Law of Chastity. – I definitely never heard this.
7. Someone who experiences same-sex attraction in this life can overcome it, either in this life or in the afterlife with the power of the Atonement. – I probably heard or even maybe believed this at one point, but not until I was a young adult.
8. Someone with dark skin can have that skin lightened, either in this life or in the afterlife with the power of the Atonement. – I’m pretty sure I didn’t hear this until my mission, and then only in a “wow, even prophets say some weird things” way, not in a “we should believe this” way.
9. As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become. – Absolutely, 100%. As Andrew and Hawkgrrrl have already said, when GBH downplayed this, I thought he was lying for the Lord. I’m with them in being surprised that the downplaying has taken hold so much.
10. Adam and Eve lived geographically around the Missouri area at some point in their lives. – Absolutely, 100%. There were frequent jokes around this or that stake or general conference about whether we’d be told to pack to go back to Missouri. And I had multiple seminary teachers talk about the Garden of Eden being in Missouri. I understood this to be mainstream doctrine, and I’m surprised again at how much it’s been de-emphasized.
11. When we pray to Heavenly Father, we are praying to Adam. – I was never taught this. I first ran into Adam-God as a missionary, but only as a past weirdness to try to explain away.
12. The Church of the Devil refers to a specific institutional church (such as the Catholic Church). It is not just an abstract concept. – My impression as a teen was that this was true, but like with polygamy and birth control, not something GAs were going to speak before the world. But it may be that I just put too much stock in McConkie.
13. You can test to see if a spirit is evil by shaking their hand. – I was definitely taught this, but even in the 80s and 90s, I feel like the people teaching it to me didn’t quite believe in it. Mostly, what I recall is *really* hoping I never met any ostensibly heavenly messengers I’d have to test, because that would really freak me out.
The essence of the modern LDS religion is that believers will model their behavior sufficiently close to the religious norm so as to be deemed “worthy” to be a full participant, which means worthy of a temple recommend. However, the standard of a temple recommend is illusionary with great allowance given to the interviewer and the interviewee on whether that standard is met. The result of this is there exists a massive gap in the LDS religion between orthodox and non-orthodox believers. Human nature being what it is, I expect the percentage of orthodox believers to decline. And the more non-orthodox believers there are, the more the religious authorities are pressured to make accommodation for them.
Lacking a “revival” I expect the LDS religion to become wholly secularized within two generations, if not this generation. The religion so desperately desires to be mainstream that it will succeed and the reward will be the loss of the spiritual significance of the religion and what it claims.
A Disciple,
I think this OP from Times and Seasons speaks to your comment:
https://archive.timesandseasons.org/2021/11/the-future-of-the-church-is-orthodox/
Love this thread. Yes to most of the list.
Additionally, I remember my dad telling me that while themed card games like Go Fish or Old Maid were ok, face cards were specifically sinful. And I consider my dad to have been a pretty middle-of-the-road mormon at the time.
Also, I served my mission in northeastern Brazil in the mid 2000s. Our mission was a super-baptizing, sales-trained corporate bro fest. And, as a result, we peddled a whole lotta BS in addition to the more mainstream doctrine if it helped boost sales—ahem—baptisms.
For example, we had an unofficial script telling investigators that coffee contained 32 drugs, the worst of which was caffeine (the horror!).
Well, if Mormonism ever goes hardcore anti-intellectual, then Jack’s comments in this thread will help me to understand the sort of reasoning that helped that happen…
I’m 7th generation mormon on both sides. Born and raised in the church. NEVER EVER heard that when we are praying to God we are praying to Adam.
Honestly, when I read about Adam-God Theory, it feels like trying to make sense of time travel movies. I now kinda want to write another post just so people can set me straight on what the proposed timeline there was supposed to be.
I can totally get why it’s not taught anymore in the mainstream/Brighamite church anymore.
I also wonder if disavowing Adam-God is justification for disavowing some of the others (e.g., the Man God couplet)?
A few months ago I went to a baptism. The new convert had chosen as a hymn for the service, Sons of Michael, He Approaches, without, I’m pretty sure, any awareness of the thornier theological associations. It was the first time I had seen it sung in decades, and I imagine it is programmed rarely if at all in most wards. I remember playing and singing it in the 1970s (I was a very young branch pianist) with the old tune in the 1948 hymnal. That version had already changed the original continuation of the first line, “Rise, the Eternal Father greet” to Rise, the ancient father greet.” But it included the lines (verse 3) “Mother of our generations, Glorious by great Michael’s side, Take thy children’s adoration; Endless with thy Lord preside”, changed in 1985 to “. . . Endless with thy seed abide”, and (verse 4) “That the Ancient One may reign In his Paradise again!”, changed in 1985 to “In his Father’s house again!”
The author of the poem, Elias L. T. Harrison, (incorrectly listed as Edward in the 1948 book, a volume riddled with incomplete and incorrect attributions) was a convert from Great Britain who came to Salt Lake City in 1861. He was an architect and built some important early buildings in the city and also helped found what eventually became the Salt Lake Tribune. He was eventually excommunicated and involved with the Godbeites.
Incidentally, the W. W. Phelps poem, Adam-ondi-Ahman, is also still in the hymnbook. I remember it being much more popular than Sons of Michael, but it too, seems to have gone into eclipse, hardly ever used anymore.
I have no idea what most members believe now. But I know what I was taught in seminary and sunday school in the 70’s.
!. Coffee and Black tea bad, hot or cold. Debate on green tea. Celestial Seasonings divine. Coffee flavored candies are wicked. (thanks seminary) But Sanka is fine and may be served at a church related function with a visitor from Salt Lake. Just don’t tell anyone. My temple sealer grandfather drank Coca cola. My orthodox parents let us drink caffeinated soda’s, but I was told all that sugar wasn’t good for me. But several families thought even chocolate was bad.
2, Beer bad. Near beer bad, Root beer, ordained of God and homemade served at ward parties.
3. I didn’t even know what oral sex was. But I heartily recommend it.
4. I think half the ward thought contraception was not to be used by married couples, and the other half would show them a letter from First Presidency. For unmarried, a big nono. My advice to the ladies to avoid pregnancy, is engage in no sperm sex. Full proof workaround.
5. Dating someone of the same sex. Never, by everyone. Even being gay would get you sh*tcaned by 99.7% of members. Ok, that’s 68%
6. Sure same sex marriage is legal. much to Kim Davis chagrin. But God’s Law Do Not Change.
7. The 32% who wouldn’t sh*tcan you for being gay, most definitely thought you could change,–this life or next. My point was don’t even try. I mean you spend your whole life being super pious, and your reward, at best, is to be a smoothie. My advice is to live your life, then after few years in spirit prison, you can get out early for good behavior and then magically changed and yoked to an opposite sex, grimly for eternity. My recommendation gave you a few years of happiness before the torment begins.
8. My 99.9% white ward believed this about skin lightening.. But there was always that guy who pointed out it was genetically impossible.
9, Yep, Godhood awaits. Because God is an Englishman or NW European, that’s the goal. Irish are suspect cos they’re Catholic.
!0. Yes 99,7 believed that, except that one guy who in Sunday School who said it was genetically impossible. And the other guys who countered with Adam and
Eve were white, and it’s the other races who evolved living out there, like in Nebraska along with their pet dinosaurs.
11. No one believed Adam was God. Except that really really old guy who read weird churchie old stuff, even older than him.
!2. The Catholic Church is the Church of the Devil. But don’t tell your Catholic friends and neighbors, You don’t want to give them the wrong impression.
13. My favorite church activity as a child. Shaking everyone hands looking for an evil spirit. There had to be an evil spirit here somewhere. And what if the Evil Spirit possessed someone like all those hippies or people who went and saw that movie, so much for handshaking.
Suzanne Neilsen: “Coffee flavored candies are wicked.” That’s funny because we had a former bishop everyone called “the candy bishop” because he would come to church on Sundays with his pockets full of Brach’s candies and coffee-flavored candies, so I grew up eating them at church, and have always loved them. And I don’t like actual coffee! Just coffee-flavored sweet stuff. Years later when my daughter was 10 we were in Thailand and I got coffee-flavored ice cream, and she was so scandalized. She said “I’m going to tell the bishop on you!” I said “Go ahead! Coffee ice cream is fine!”
Re the sex stuff, there was definitely a pivot between the 80s and 90s away from the church telling married couples what to do in the bedroom (or more likely what NOT to do), to it being a matter between the couple, a more libertarian approach. Seriously, though, there are statements by church leaders from before that happened that are just horrible–telling wives it’s their fault if their husbands stray, encouraging women to lie back and think of England or whatever, and literally ranting against female orgasm. It’s bizarre to me that people were cool with their church dictating this stuff to them, but so it was. Then again, I’ll never understand the women who opposed the ERA.
In my very active Mormon circles, growing up in the 70s and 80s, coffee flavored ice cream or candy was ok, and so was cooking with alcohol or alcohol in desserts or candy. In other words: DRINKING coffee or alcohol was against the rules, but EATING it was fine.
Dot
We always had Dreyers Mocha almond fudge in the freezer. (and we had a good laugh over grandma and her rum cake) But I certainly heard differently at mutual and seminary. Some people held that even cooking with real vanilla extract was wrong, but they never turned down my mom’s desserts.
But my biggest shock was when a fellow girl at mutual commented about not going swimming on Sundays when the pool was right out the door. No swimming on Sundays, such an idea had never occurred to me. What else was someone to do between Sunday school and Sacrament(besides watching football) Apparently reading scriptures. I’m like fine, I’ll read a book on religion while floating around the pool and working on my tan.
And there’s the rule of no shopping or eating out on Sunday. Which is in stark contrast to the long standing Mormon tradition of eating at a restaurant after fast and testimony meeting. My theory is that hitting the buffet is a reward for going hungry.
A few points:
1. “Mormon Doctrine” was criticized by Marion G. Romney as containing hundreds of doctrinal errors.
2. The Church, fortunately, has disavowed some of Brigham Young’s stranger assertions, I.e., the “Adam-God” Theory.
3. Gordon Hinckley, when President of the Church, is said to have said (unconfirmed), “I hope the CES decides to join the Church, someday.”
4. Even before I joined the Church, when I was a conservative Republican (no longer, but I still am a registered Republican, so I can have a say in Utah politics, and help keep the MAGA wing-nuts at bay), I knew that ETB was an extreme conspiracist). J. Reuben Clark, no liberal slouch, wrote a letter to a woman who was a member of the Church in Logan, and told her that she did not have to agree with ETB‘s politics, and that he, himself, did not.
5. It is my personal belied that Church doctrine changes over time. When I served a mission in Taiwan, the other missionaries criticized me for emphasizing the grace of Christ. They told me that I was too Protestant.
Thank you,
Taiwan Missionary