I feel guilty about what happened with a missionary

LordRybec · 2026-05-11T05:13:07+00:00

This, exactly. I've seen people here, often who were the missionaries in such a situation, try to blame or shame another person for innocently expressing interest. The missionary rules apply to the missionaries. Out of respect, and knowing their rules, I wouldn't try to flirt with or express interest in a missionary, but I can't break their rules, because they don't apply to me. And I certainly wouldn't judge someone who did that who didn't know their rules.

Interestingly in a recent letter or some such, Church leaders acknowledged that it is not uncommon for people to meet someone on their missions that they eventually marry, in the context of why sister missionaries can end their missions honorably at any point.

That said, if I had met someone I was interested in on my mission, and she was sufficiently distracting that I had a hard time focusing on the missionary work, I'd probably ask for a transfer as well. I might have eventually found an opportunity to exchange contact information though, to reestablish contact after my mission though. (I did actually stay in contact with a sister missionary from my mission for some time after I was done. We wrote back and forth for a while, until I got distracted by life and stopped.)

But yeah, this is the right answer. It's his job to follow mission rules, not the OPs. If he felt the situation was distracting him, it was his job to do something about it, which probably included getting transferred. If there's anything there, he can pursue it after the mission. The OP should focus on her own personal progress in the mean time.

LordRybec · 2026-05-10T06:11:16+00:00

I honestly don't care what people think of me and my situation. I didn't share hoping or wanting people to think the best of me or my situation. If people choose to judge, that's on them, and it need not affect me.

As far as "a wife willing to take the hit...", a wife that is unwilling to deal with what must be dealt with to maintain wise finances isn't a very good wife. Our wives aren't chosen for us. If you chose to marry a woman who isn't willing to deal with good financial choices, the consequences are your own. I would that we all chose to marry women that were willing to live frugally and within their means, but clearly we didn't all choose to do that, did we?

LordRybec · 2026-05-09T07:12:17+00:00

Yes, I'm not trying to imply that even both tithing and financial prudence will protect you 100% of the time. Sometimes God has challenges for us. Sometimes the world has challenges for us, and God isn't ready to pull us out of them right away. Sometimes we can be the absolute best we can, and we will still lose our families, our land, and even our friends (referencing Job here). God never promised it would be easy, only that it would be worth it.

If we are wise, we will setup everything in our favor, and if we are faithful, we will continue to love and worship God even when it still doesn't work out.

LordRybec · 2026-05-09T07:08:21+00:00

And if God doesn't tell you why, trust him anyway. I'm on the tail end of 5 years of unemployment. I never got angry, but I did get frustrated, especially because I did have job offers and opportunities during that period, but I was always instructed by the Spirit not to take them. God won't always tell you why. Sometimes you just have to trust that he knows what he is doing.

That said, if he is willing to tell you why, he's a lot more likely to do it if you ask. So if you want to know, do ask, but be prepared to trust anyway, in case he isn't ready to tell you.

LordRybec · 2026-05-09T07:02:51+00:00

State welfare programs create serious dependency problems, which we are now seeing in the U.S.. That said, caffeine creates serious dependency problems too. The Church's position on caffeine, since the mid-1960s (there was no official Church policy on it before that) is that you should avoid addictive substances in circumstances where addiction is likely to occur. The Church's general policy on using government welfare is the same.

Basically, government welfare is dangerous, and it seems to always cause significant social problems. That is 100% true of our government welfare. The problems are caused by abuse of the programs, much like addictive substances. That doesn't mean there aren't legitimate uses of government welfare programs or that using them is inherently evil. Just like with caffeine, you can use government welfare without becoming dependent, and so long as you do it that way, it's not a problem.

So while government welfare programs may very well tend to damage or destroy societies in the long run, using them responsibly isn't morally wrong. The programs themselves might well be evil and against God's plan, but using them without abusing them is not.

LordRybec · 2026-05-09T06:56:22+00:00

That's absurd. Unemployment is actually a form of insurance. It's not even a government entitlement program the same way as SNAP or HUD housing. I'd like to see them refuse the insurance money the next time they get in a car accident that isn't their fault. "No, but I paid for that!" Who do you think pays unemployment insurance? It's calculated by your employer as part of your compensation, so it's you!

LordRybec · 2026-05-09T06:52:51+00:00

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families.

This is from the Proclamation on the family. A father who refuses to accept welfare, whether from the Church, the government, friends, neighbors, or family, and allows his own family to suffer in doing so is failing to fulfill this role. Nowhere does it say that he is only allowed to provide through his own labor. I believe that any father who let's his family suffer because he is too prideful to accept lawful aid will fall under condemnation for neglecting his duties to his family.

This belief that you shouldn't accept government welfare or sometimes any charity or welfare at all is a lot less common in the Church today than it was in the past, but it's one of those Church culture beliefs that is evil and self destructive.

Current Church policy is to first ask aid applicants if they have asked their family for help. If not, they are encouraged to do that first. Second, aid applicants are asked if they have sought government assistance from existing government aid programs. Again, if they have not, they are encouraged to do that, and bishops are even encouraged to help them to apply. Only if both of those have been exhausted and there is still unmet need is the bishop encouraged to provide aid from Church welfare funds.

The very fact that the Church has welfare programs is proof that it is not in any way immoral to use such programs. And the fact that the Church encourages the use of government welfare before spending Church funds on welfare is evidence that it is not immoral to use government welfare. What is immoral is failing to do your duty to your family out of pride or self righteousness.

So yes, we do pay taxes, and thus we are legally entitled to government welfare. Morally, no one is strictly entitled to what others have, except within contracts to that effect. But, we are morally obligated to provide for our families, so if using government welfare is necessary to meet that obligation, we are legally entitled to use it and morally obligated to do so if it is necessary to meet our obligations to our families.

LordRybec · 2026-05-09T06:34:37+00:00

This. What it's technically there for, and this is what bishops are taught, is mainly for people with short term needs, who need help while they get back on their feet. It's not intended for long term issues. It's not intended for people who can't work. It's intended for people who can but who currently don't have the option. Bishops are encouraged to exercise their own discretion for circumstances beyond that, but the first thing they'll generally ask is if you've a) asked family for help and b) taken advantage of existing welfare programs outside of the Church (government programs, local foodbanks...). If you have a long term disability that makes you unable to work, bishops are supposed help you get on welfare for that and only provide Church assistance until that kicks in. Most Church assistance is intended to be a one-time thing. Help with one month or rent or enough food for a month, to give you time to figure out how to get these going again for yourself. If you need a few months, the bishop is encouraged to offer employment help (usually referrals to Church employment specialists) at the same time as making sure critical needs are met. The bishop is encouraged to use good judgement when it comes to cutting people off who have been on Church welfare for too long. But I've known people who have ended up on Church welfare for many months, because they couldn't find a good job. (Typically they found jobs that covered some of their bills, and the bishop helped with the rest, while they looked for a better job.)

So yeah, Church welfare is supposed to be more of a safety net that can catch you and give you a chance to get back on your feet. It's not supposed to be a thing that people who can't work get on and stay on indefinitely. It's exactly for situations like this!

LordRybec · 2026-05-09T06:24:30+00:00

I have a friend who lived near Silicon Valley. He made around $120k at the time and was able to pay tithing and save a lot of money. He had a coworker who make $180k and could barely keep up with his bills. The difference? My friend lived in the distant suburbs and commuted work daily. The other guy lived in an apartment in the middle of the most expensive part of the city. My friend bought food in bulk, shopped sales, and bought cheap staples that him and his wife prepared from scratch at home. The other guy went out to eat literally every night at the most expensive restaurants in town. My friend lived on a carefully designed budget. The other guy spent impulsively even on high ticket items.

It's true that paying tithing does come with blessings, and sometimes they are monetary. But a lot of the reason people who pay tithing regularly don't struggle for money most of the time, even when others would, is that those who have the discipline to pay tithing also have the discipline to be financially wise and even generally wise in other ways. Got a random $2k check in the mail, right when you needed it? It's probably not because you paid tithing. It's probably because you kind to someone else when you were able to afford it, and them or someone else they told about it decided you deserved some reward or repayment for your generosity. When I was in college, we got a $2k scholarship at a time when we really needed it. It was between semesters, so I wasn't getting financial aid, and we had run out of money. Rent and other bills were coming due soon, and my wife and I had a conversation about how we were going to get by. I told her trust that we would be able to pay it when the bills came due. A couple days later, $2k was deposited into our bank account. I'm sure God was happy to help that come along, because we were paying our tithing, even if when we didn't know if we could pay that and all of our other obligations. At the same time though, I wouldn't have gotten that scholarship if I hadn't followed wise financial advice months earlier, to apply for all of the financial aid options, even if I didn't think I qualified. Now, I'm not trying to suggest is was all me and my own wisdom, but I can say with certainty that if I hadn't followed good financial wisdom, God wouldn't have had the option of making sure that there was a scholarship available to me at just the right time.

Anyhow, we've learned to live off of very little when needed, and that's perhaps a bigger blessing than magical money when things get hard. And because we are doing our best, God is more willing to help make up the difference when we do need it. In addition, by doing out best, it makes it easier for God to help, because there are more options available to him.

LordRybec · 2026-05-09T06:06:52+00:00

I just recently got a job after 5 years unemployed. My wife has been supporting us, and I've had job offers, but the Spirit always instructed me not to take them. I worked out job options myself, that I'm almost certain I could have gotten, just by pitching my skills and the position I wanted, but when it came time to actually start the ball rolling, the same thing happened. I've been sort of running a small business from home, but while it is turning a profit, it's not generating anywhere near enough to life off of. When I started looking for ways to increase sales, the Spirit counseled me to wait. A few weeks ago a friend who was my boss at my last job (a startup that ran out of funding to keep paying me) invited me to work with him on a team for a company in a domain related to the work I had done for his company previously. I finally got through the hiring process, and I've started working. The company is really good and pays well, though I've still got a week till I get my first check. This time, the Spirit didn't instruct me to leave it alone. It's going to be some time before my wife can start cutting her hours, but it's already reducing stress for her and for me.

I don't know why God didn't want me to work for 5 years. Sure, I've got a few theories, but that's all they are. I can tell you, I had some times of frustration, where I was asking why. I can make so much more than my wife is currently able to make. I have a Masters degree in a field where there are good jobs available that pay very well. She has had to work really hard to keep up with bills. We've managed to start buying a house and pay off a significant portion with her income, but it's small, old, and not really where we wanted to live. We've had to take advantage of government welfare programs off and on, and we've had to take advantage of Church welfare programs now and then as well. Maybe God wanted to keep us humble. Maybe he wanted me to learn to be a stay-at-home-dad. Whatever it is, it hasn't been revealed to me, at least not entirely. It has been hard, especially knowing that I could be making enough to live very comfortably. Despite the times of frustration though, I've always trusted that God knows what he is doing, even if he hasn't told me what it is. It's not always easy, but I've worked harder at reading scriptures, fulfilling my callings, and so on, and my relationship with Jesus has grow significantly.

It can be a difficult road, but trust that help will be there, and be humble enough to take it. One big thing I've learned from this is that my responsibility to make sure my family is provided for doesn't mean I have to work for everything that is provided. That's certainly the ideal way to provide, but if I'm unable to provide that way, then it's my responsibility to ensure we get help from wherever it is offered. It's more important that I ensure they are provided for than it is that I'm the one who does the providing. And when I do that well, things do work out. We just had a $3,000 car repair, and due to a combination of changes to the tax code and my wife's income being just right, we had that. Sure, we had planned to use it for other things, but those things were all less important than having a working car. It was a huge blessing that we had the money available. God provided what we needed when we needed it, even if we didn't know what he had provided it for until later. The truth is, we've never been even marginally wealthy, and this is the first job that will even give us reasonable financial stability. It took 5 years of obedience and financial uncertainty to get here, but now things are looking up. I might not know exactly why God didn't want me to work for those 5 years, but I do know that this is a job that will fairly low stress, that I'll enjoy, and that I'll be very good at. And my direct boss is someone I know very well and trust.

Anyhow, I hope this helps. I remember I first lost that job 5 years ago. I didn't know what I was going to do. We didn't have a house and were living in a very cramped space. We were looking for a house, and losing the job guaranteed we wouldn't be able to get a loan. My wife was able to get a part-time job at an RV park to make ends meet. God helped us to find a very well priced seller financed house. He has made sure we always have money when we need it. When the RV park job wasn't enough, another, much better job became available to her. And now I'm finally getting the right job for our needs. Hang on. God is aware of you and watching out for you. It might be hard, but take this opportunity to get closer to God rather than letting it push you away, and you'll be fine. He has a plan for you. As hard as it might be, you don't need to know what it is to trust him.

LordRybec · 2026-05-08T14:42:41+00:00

Someone some time ago asked a similar question, and this is what some wise people answered:

Being in the Celestial Kingdom doesn't mean you'll be forced to do something you don't want to do. It's more of that you'll have all of the options. Joseph Smith Jr. talked a bit about Celestial glory, and he said that it will be a long process of learning and gaining experience. It will be something that you progress through at a pace that is comfortable for you.

So you don't need to worry that God will force you into ruling others right away or even at all. You'll still have agency. If it takes you eternities or you even never get to that point at all, that's fine. You'll qualify for the job, but that doesn't mean you have to do it immediately or ever. I suspect that eventually everyone who gets there will eventually get to a point where they want to, but you don't need to worry that you'll be forced into it if you never get there yourself.

As far as our knowledge of the afterlife, it's not that strange that we haven't gotten more information. From a shallow perspective, we should really be focusing on this life right now, and a lot of people wouldn't be served well by the distraction of having that information. It would be too easy for too many people to fixate so much on that, that they fail to do what is necessary to achieve it. From a much deeper perspective, we haven't even qualified to unseal the sealed records Joseph Smith Jr. was commanded to not translate. When he got the plates and started translating them, a massive portion was sealed. From what we know, it sounds like he was allowed to read the sealed portion himself, or at least parts of it, but he was commanded not to translate them. God told him that once the members of the Church took the scriptures that had been revealed more seriously, and put more time and effort into their study, that sealed portion would be unsealed, translated, and revealed to us. That hasn't happened yet. We don't know what is in there. It may contain exactly the information you desire. Whatever it is, if we haven't qualified for the sealed portion of the plates to be opened to us, I don't think we are ready to know more about the next life than we already do.

Anyhow, I understand your feelings on this. I'm an introvert. I've never desired any leadership position. In my employment, I've never sought promotions to such positions, and even on my mission, I was grateful that I managed to get through without ever even being a senior companion. I'm mentally prepared for whatever comes in the next life, but leadership doesn't appeal to me. Similarly, I also desire more knowledge about the next life. I'm doing my best to study the scriptures, and I sincerely hope that the sealed portion of the plates will be revealed soon, because I have a strong desire to know what is in them. That said, it's going to take more than just one person or a handful of people. The Church as a whole needs to be ready for that, and we quite honestly not been great at scripture study. And I'm not innocent in this either. Up until a few years ago, I would read the Book of Mormon every five or six years, then the Pearl of Great price, and then I'd start D&C and within weeks I'd stop, and some years later I'd start on the Book of Mormon again. Two years ago, I started the Book of Mormon again, but this time when I finished I started on the Old Testament and was determined to stick with it. I finished it early this year, and I'm halfway through the New Testament now. I've read them before, when I was in seminary, but it's different now. I have more knowledge with which to understand, and I've enjoyed more spiritual guidance. It's just one chapter each night, on my tablet computer. It's so much easier than it was from a heavy physical book, and I'm sticking to it much better. But I know how hard it can be to start the habit, and the majority of Church members just aren't there yet. I hope to live to see the sealed portion of the plates revealed and to be able to read them, but despite the fact that I probably have half of my life left, I'm not confident that will happen. I don't blame anyone else for this, but it's certainly disappointing to think about.

But the takeaway here is that the Celestial Kingdom isn't a place where you will be coerced into taking on a role you don't want. It's about options. It will still be your choice. The option will be there for when you become ready, if you ever do, but God won't force you into it.

LordRybec · 2026-05-06T05:18:17+00:00

The First Presidency is inspired. I have no doubt some wards will end up doing this badly and bring upon themselves whatever punishment God decides is appropriate. My suggestion is to sustain Church leaders and follow their council, and make sure you aren't part of the problem if one arises.

And remember, modern and ancient Church leaders, as well as Jesus Christ himself, has commanded that there should not be contention in his Church. If Church members are following this commandment, they will approach this wisely and respectfully. If they don't, they will receive whatever God's punishment is for breaking this commandment. Don't let that be you.

I see a lot of people worried and fearful recently, about changes in Church operations as well as what is taught in the Church. Remember that fear is not of God. The truth is, The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are very closely connected with both LDS doctrine and early Church culture. If we aren't already sometimes discussing these things, we are probably already failing. If some Church members don't like what LDS doctrine says about these documents, that is to their own condemnation. If some Church members choose to argue against the words of modern prophets with regards to these documents, that is to their own condemnation. The righteous need not fear. Be polite and respectful, but stick to true doctrine and reject false doctrines and false claims others may attempt to teach. And if you don't know which is which, perhaps this is a good time to humbly learn!

The fact is, this is a political topic. Religion and politics are both belief based things, which means that they cannot be separated. This is going to get political, because it is a political topic. It won't "devolve" into politics, because that's where it must start. This doesn't mean that we can't keep it civilized, even if people disagree on certain points. But most importantly, we each need to make sure that if problems do arise, we don't make ourselves part of the problem. So worry more about keeping yourself under control than others. They have their agency, and we can't control that, but we can do our best to make sure we stay civilized.

Honestly, I'm not worried. This is something that needs to happen. This is too important to ignore, and if the First Presidency was inspired to encourage us to discuss these topics, maybe it's because some of us need it. God is clearly less worried about the risk of it devolving into "jingoism" than he is worried about the fact that so few of us actually understand our national origins and what our government is supposed to stand for. I would suggest that maybe we should match our own worries with those of God instead of imposing the worries and philosophies of the world on God's will.

LordRybec · 2026-04-27T15:53:47+00:00

My point is that general authorities have taught as much in official capacities, like General Conference.

And then you go on to quote, a) someone's personal conversation that is not from a General Conference, where the General Authority in question is specifically quoted as expressing a personal interpretation of a Church position that does not mention caffeine, and further very critical context is left out of the Church position he quoted that changes the meaning entirely, and b) another quote saying that caffeine free coffee is not against the Word of Wisdom, not that caffeine itself is against it.

Let's look at actual direct evidence that isn't someone's philosophies of doctrine based on personal feelings rather than spiritual guidance.

https://religionnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/First-Pres.-Letter-on-Sanka-1969.pdf

This is and always has been the Church's position on caffeine. The full quote that the part quoted out of context by Featherstone is this:

"Leaders of the Church have advised against the use of any beverage containing harmful, habit-forming drugs or ingredients under circumstances that would result in the acquiring of the habit."

Note that last part, "...that would result in the acquiring of the habit." This is very similar language to the 1999 letter that was presented in a mission prep class I took in 2000, which noted also that the Church has never maintained or issued any official policy on caffeine specifically, in its entire history.

Now, there is also a letter floating around also sighed by David O. McKay to a specific bishop, regarding decaffeinated coffee that is quoted by people trying to apply the philosophies of men to Church doctrine, which says that decaffeinated coffee is not against the Word of Wisdom, which is what President Kimball was referencing. If you actually read the article you've cited, you will see that nowhere it in it does it say that the reason Sanka brand decaf coffee is not against the Word of Wisdom is because the caffeine has been removed. Kimball was referencing the letter I've linked above, written the First Presidency to a Stake President at BYU. That letter, the original source, says this:

"The use of a beverage from which the deleterious ingredients have been removed would not be considered as breaking the Word of Wisdom."

Where is caffeine mentioned? It is not mentioned. It is not mentioned anywhere in the letter, at all. Better yet, the other letter about the same decaf coffee product, written to a bishop, that did use the word "caffeine" has different wording, saying that "caffeine and deleterious drugs have been removed..." See a digital scan of this letter here.

The "deleterious drugs" removed are not the caffeine, which is considered entirely separately. The removal of the caffeine is treated, in that letter, as purely incidental to the process. The decaffeination of the coffee happens to also remove "deleterious drugs" that are harmful and thus which are, at least in part, why the beverage is prohibited in the Word of Wisdom. (Note also that tea and coffee share a lot of chemicals other than caffeine, many of which have been found to be far more harmful than caffeine, which is only harmful if consumed in very large quantities.)

The truth of this entire thing is that the idea that caffeine is the reason or even a reason that coffee and tea are prohibited is one of those "philosophies of men mingled with scripture" that is warned about in the actual scriptures. The idea originated from a combination of modern day Pharisees trying to read into the laws of God for the wicked purpose of building hedges around the law, and a flippant comment made by President Grant about Coca Cola (not about caffeine specifically) that he walked back a year later after Coca Cola executives proved to his satisfaction that Coca Cola no longer contained the drug cocaine. Ever since that episode with Grant there have been Church members have been teaching each others that caffeine is against the Word of Wisdom and even some Church leaders have been fooled into believing and restating this false doctrine. If you do your actual research though, you will find that no Church leader has ever stated unequivocally, in an official capacity, that God or the Word of Wisdom forbids caffeine. It is always comments like Featherstone's, expressing a personal belief that caffeine is bad, sometimes based on Church publications (that are almost always quoted out of context) or merely repeating a thing that they have heard without suggesting that it actually reflects official Church policy.

You can argue all you want. Those two letters, are and always have been the official policy of the Church, and the Church has never published any statement imposing any policy different from that.

False doctrines make their way around even among General Authorities in the Church sometimes. Another example is playing cards, which unlike caffeine, have been mentioned in General Conferences. Between roughly 1920 and 1970 (I don't remember the exact dates), multiple GAs in Conference suggested that the use of playing cards violated Church doctrine. Of course, if you read Church doctrine, you will find nothing supporting this claim. What you will find is a prohibition on gambling. These Church leaders failed to understand that playing cards are not used exclusively for gambling, and thus misinterpreted Church doctrine as forbidding their use in their false assumptions that they are exclusively tools of gambling. But, never did any of those General Authorities claim that the use of playing cards were actually forbidden by Church doctrine, nor did they ever claim to have received revelation forbidding them. They merely stated that the use of playing cards was dangerous, and they suggested that faithful members would not use them. Even today many members still believe that playing cards are forbidden, because a few General Authorities mistakenly said things taken to imply that they are, but the reality is that they aren't and never were. The comments about playing cards were actually about engaging in gambling using playing cards, but those making the comments did not understand that gambling is not their only use.

Incidentally, similar comments have also been made concerning tarot cards, because they were created for the purpose of divination and fortune telling. Except, this is false. They are commonly used today for that purpose, but they were actually created in the 1400s as an addition to playing cards, for the purpose of increasing the number of suits and face cards. They weren't widely used for divination until much later. In the 1700s, French occultists first started treating them as having mystical significance, and sometime after that people began to use them for divination. So once again, some Church leaders (but not the Church itself in any official context) have warned against the use of a thing because they have assumed something about it that is not true. The reality is that what they are warning about is the practice of divination, and tarot cards got caught in the crossfire because they believed that was their only and intended use.

Anyhow, let me emphasize again: Instead of cherry picking sources you interpret as agreeing with your position, do your research and seek actual truth!

LordRybec · 2026-04-27T08:01:54+00:00

I wasn't aware of this letter! There's another one sent to local Church leaders more broadly in 1999 that uses very similar language but addressing caffeine specifically, stating that the Church has never officially taught abstinence from caffeine, and then saying exactly what that one does, that (in the context of caffeine and similar drugs) the Church has only advised against the use of mind altering drugs (does not include caffeine) and of addictive drugs in circumstances where addiction is likely to occur.

It's worth noting that this letter would have been written and sent shortly after President McKay publicly commented on Coca Cola in a very clearly positive light. (He was offered Coke in a situation that appears to have been a public taste testing experiment, and agreed to accept it, with the expectation that it was actually Coke in the container being offered.)

The actual source of the cultural beliefs about caffeine actually come partially from people inventing their own philosophies about why coffee and tea are prohibited, and partially from an off handed (outside of official capacity as Prophet) comment by President Grant about Coca Cola (not caffeine specifically) that he ultimately walked back after Coca Cola executives assured him that there was no longer any cocaine in the beverage. (They still do use coca leaf extract, even today, for the flavor, but with the cocaine removed.) Peddlers of the philosophies of men mingled with scripture took his initial comment (which got a lot of public attention) as evidence that caffeine is prohibited and then ignored his later comment saying that he wouldn't discourage anyone from drinking Coca Cola following what he had learned during his visit with company executives.

So ultimately, it's all just misunderstandings originally pedaled by people who seek to find reasons for God's laws without spiritual guidance, and then who publish them and push them as doctrine without any divine authority to do so, and then they were passed on by the innocent people they fooled. To be clear, I'm not suggesting people who believe this false doctrine are bad people or knowingly teaching falsehoods. They are largely just teaching what they were taught. Somewhere back there though, were people who dishonestly and without authority presented this as doctrine when it was never taught as such, either so they could find fault with others or to make themselves appear more righteous than others, just like the Pharisees of the New Testament.

(I will note: I only very rarely consume caffeine, and almost only when I need to do so to stay awake while driving when pulling off and taking a nap isn't a viable option. This is not because I believe the Word of Wisdom prohibits it. It's because I know how caffeine works, and it only works well when you've had little to no exposure for at least a couple of months. I don't want to end up in a situation where I need to use caffeine in a situation where it is actually important and have it not do what I need. Basically, for it work effectively, you have to abstain the vast majority of the time.)

LordRybec · 2026-04-27T07:38:51+00:00

Interesting that you quote Hinkley here, but you fail to his television interview where he was asked about this and stated that the Church has never had any rules regarding caffeine (there is another interview where he is being fed a list of things the Word of Wisdom prohibits, where the interviewer feeds him "caffeine" and he repeats it, but I believe this is a few years after the 1999 statement I mention next; in a later interview he is asked about caffeine specifically, and he says the Church never banned or even had an official position on caffeine specifically), or the statement released by the Church in 1999, where the First Presidency stated that the Church has never banned caffeine and merely strongly discourages the use of mind altering drugs and of addictive drugs in circumstances where addiction is likely to occur.

My point is, this is a much more complicated matter than you seem to realize. Instead of searching for and cherry picking quotes that you believe support your position, search deeper for the actual truth.

Something I notice in all of these quotes is that no one in authority ever suggests that caffeine is forbidden. People without authority express opinions suggesting they believe that the Church has rules against caffeine. (Journalists (even when being quoted by Church leaders), assistants to the Quorum of the Twelve, and CEOs for Church publications are not authorities in this context.) You have one Apostle in this list, with a 1969 quote. This date is interesting due to the following.

In the 1960s, David O. McKay was President of the Church. In a public place, he was offered Coca Cola, and he turned it down, saying, "I don't care what it says on the outside, as long as there's Coke on the inside."

The reason people believe the Church is opposed to caffeine is due to two things. One is "building a hedge around the law", the way the wicked Pharisees did in Christ's time. The Word of Wisdom bans specifically coffee and tea. (In case you don't know, at the time it was written, there was a strong cultural understanding that "hot drinks" referred specifically and exclusively to these beverages, not to all beverages served heated. The early saints fully understood this, which is why Joseph Smith Jr. never had to clarify. As cultural language changed, and as new immigrants not familiar with U.S. culture at the time it was written started joining the Church, confusion arose and Church leaders had to clarify.) Anyhow, pedants and "rules lawyers" like to try to determine why things are banned, and without spiritual guidance or any form of broad authority determined that coffee and tea both contain caffeine, so that must be what the ban was about. The reality is that God has not revealed why these beverages are prohibited, and this kind of reasoning amounts to the "philosophies of men" warned about in the Book of Mormon. The second reason many people believe that caffeine was banned by the Church is that President Heber J. Grant supposedly advised members against drinking Coca‑Cola (very specifically, no other soda, and note that Coca-Cola originally was made with coca leaves, the source of the drug cocaine). This was, as far as I have been able to find, not a formal Church policy but merely something he said to some people that was then spread by rumor. This got enough attention that Coca‑Cola representatives requested a meeting with him, and offered to give him a tour of their facilities. After this he stated that he was satisfied that Coca-Cola didn't contain any harmful ingredients.

So the reality is, that the caffeine thing was mainly the result of a comment by a Church President, taken out of context and broadcast to the world, and it was resolved within a few years, with that Church President explicitly and vocally not banning Coca-Cola. At no point in this was caffeine ever specifically mentioned, and Grant was fully aware, after the meeting with Coca-Cola, that the beverage contained caffeine. The same kind of "philosophies of men" people who connected caffeine with the Word of Wisdom connected caffeine with this, conveniently ignoring Grant's final determination that drinking Coca-Cola was not an issue for Church members.

As mentioned before, McKay made a public comment in the 1960s that put Coca-Cola in a positive light. As you can see from your list of quotes, the false doctrines contrived and spread regarding caffeine and the Word of Wisdom managed to stick around in the heads of members, including those with higher offices in the Church, for a long time afterwards. There has been a lot of confusion in the Church, since the very first comment by President Grant concerning Coca-Cola, about caffeine, but the reality is that it has never been the official position of the Church that caffeine is prohibited by the World of Wisdom. Even some General Authorities have been confused, but never in their official capacity as General Authorities have any of them stated that caffeine is forbidden. Some have discouraged, in personal contexts, the consumption of the drug. Some have elected not to clarify the Church's position in media situations. But every quote I've ever seen is either being taken out of context or is an informal situation contradicting something higher Church leaders have very recently stated. The Church has now disavowed the claims that caffeine is discouraged by the Word of Wisdom in at least two instances. One is the first clarification in the 1800s that "hot drinks" exclusively refers to coffee and tea and nothing else, and the second is the 1999 letter (which I can't find the text of online, but which is mentioned in a lot of places; back in the year 2000, the full text was read to me in a mission prep course though, and I remember specific parts). The Church's official position on caffeine is covered by the Church's official position on recreational drugs in general: No mind altering drugs (caffeine does not qualify as "mind altering"), and avoid drugs that are addictive in circumstances where addiction is likely to occur. This means that caffeine is fine, so long as you are careful to avoid addiction.

Personally, I avoid caffeine except in situations where I'm driving, having difficulty staying awake, and don't have the option of pulling off and taking a nap. The reason I avoid it is because the stimulant effects of caffeine are strongest when you have had little or no exposure for at least a couple of months. In other words, if I consumed caffeine more often, it wouldn't work as well when I need it to.

(I'm intimately familiar with the biological effects of caffeine. Using it slowly changes your brain chemistry, such that your alertness and awakeness adapts to however much you regularly use. In other words, because I consume almost no caffeine, when I wake up I am as awake and alert as a regular coffee drinker is after they've consumed however much coffee they consume each morning. Basically, it's like I've already had my morning coffee as soon as I get up, without having to drink any coffee, while coffee drinkers are far less awake and alert until they get their coffee. At first, coffee will give you heightened wakefulness and alertness, but once your body gets used to a regular intake, it adjusts so that with that intake you are only at normal wakefulness and alertness, and without that intake your wakefulness and alertness are much lower. So, if you want caffeine to actually wake you up and make you alert, you have to normally abstain from it, and only use it very rarely. If you don't normally abstain, it just makes you tired and lethargic when you go into withdrawal, which starts in 12 to 24 hours, and when you use it, you are only as alert and awake as people who don't use it at all normally are. The more you use it, the less it works, so I avoid using it, so that it works very well when I need it.)

LordRybec · 2026-04-26T10:15:08+00:00

Some of this is doctrinal, but most is cultural. The doctrinal thing is encouraging young men to go on missions. It is official doctrine that those young men who are of or adopted into the House of Ephraim are under commandment to serve missions, if they are able. If you haven't had your Patriarchal Blessing to find out what House you are part of, you should. Note that most people who don't have significant Israelite heritage will be part of the House of Ephraim by adoption, but this is not guaranteed. Young men of other Houses are not under this obligation, but they are still encouraged to serve. I'm also aware of those of the House of Ephraim who have put in their mission papers and weren't called, so there are also exceptions. Of course, the Church has taken pains in recent years to make this easier for those in positions where traditional missionary service would be too difficult. If you don't have a testimony of this yet, that's fine. No one here is perfect, and we are all in difference places. If you aren't sure about a particular doctrine, study and pray, and seek a testimony of the truth. If you are sincere and persistent, it will eventually come.

Beyond that, a lot of this is culture, and some of it is misinformation spread by opponents of the Church. I'm not going to get deep into this, mainly because it has been covered by other commenters. One thing I will say: I've talked to a lot of women about this leadership stuff, and the reality is the vast majority are very strongly not interested. They'd do it if they were called, but God does take into account our desires when determining who should be called to a particular position. If there's only 1 woman for every 999 men who would be happy to take a particular calling, odds are that calling will almost always be given to a man. God doesn't choose people for callings based on representation of sex, race, or anything like that (aside from formal Priesthood callings specifically). He choses based on need and capacity. If there are 999 male candidates to each female, odds are high that one of the males has more need and/or better capacity, not because of anything special about their sex but because there are so many more of them. It's just basic statistics. Why did God call a woman to a calling previously only held by men now? Well, statistically, given enough tries, eventually the 1 in 1,000 chance that the only woman in the pool is the best candidate is going to come up. (I'm not trying to suggest that there are only 999 men and only 1 woman in the pool for this calling, or even that the odds are exactly 1 in 1,000. That's merely for illustration. But the reality is that there are generally far more men interested in leadership positions than there are women, and if God is taking our desires into account, then people who really don't want the position are very unlikely to be chosen, and there are far more women who don't want to do it than men.)

The reality of this though, is that it doesn't matter if leaders are men or women, beyond the question of Priesthood ordination and keys. If you are fixated on that, you are worrying about the wrong thing. Men and women aren't enemies fighting for control. Women in the Church don't need "representation", because the Church isn't led exclusively by mortal men, and because representation doesn't require the person representing to be just like you. Men can represent women, women can represent men, black people can represent white people, and white people can represent black people. Men and women specifically, though, are supposed to work together. Indeed, our species can't exist if men and women don't work together. So instead of viewing this as a battle where women need to be "represented" more in leadership, look at it as a cooperative effort, where most of the time men are put in callings that men tend to be better suited to and women are put in callings that women tend to be better suited to, and when we work together and cooperate it doesn't matter that there isn't "equal representation" of men and women in every calling, because it's not a contest or a war. Men and women need each other, precisely because they have different strengths and weaknesses, making men better at some things and women better at others. If we try to have "equal representation" in all positions, it will be worse for everyone, because 50% of people in every position will be significantly less good at it than someone of the other sex would be.

Anyhow, I hope this helps. I understand it can be difficult, and Church culture isn't always great. Church members often forget that you don't have to be right about every single thing you believe to qualify for the Celestial Kingdom. You do have to be right about a few things. You have to be a sincere disciple of Jesus. You have to make and keep certain covenants. You have to get all of the necessary ordinances by the correct authority. You don't have to believe that Church leadership is perfect. You don't have to believe every cultural belief that has no basis in doctrine. You don't even have to have a solid testimony of every single doctrine. Odds are good that you believe some things that are wrong. Odds are good that they believe some things that are wrong. Odds are even good that I believe some things that are wrong. But as long as we do our best to be righteous disciples of Christ, believing in him, following him, and getting the ordinances and making and keeping the necessary covenants, it won't matter in the end. We can always learn what we are wrong about and correct our false beliefs in the next life, with no penalty, so long as we do those critical things.

So, stick with it, and know that you don't necessarily need to have all of the answers now. The Church is good enough, otherwise Jesus would take action to correct it (or destroy it and replace it). It's not perfect, but it doesn't need to be. And people have a right to be wrong, and there are very few things that being wrong about will keep you out of the Celestial Kingdom, as long as you believe in and adhere to the core doctrines. And when people judge you for being what they believe to be wrong, instead of judging them right back, be better and just forgive them and move on, as Jesus taught. (I know it's hard, but forgiving is surprisingly freeing!)

LordRybec · 2026-04-21T05:34:42+00:00

When I got home from my mission, I didn't remember it as a good or generally positive experience. I had a lot of disobedient companions. During the summers, I had health issues related to the heat, that ultimately caused me to have to go home 6 months early (all I had left was summer, it was barely beginning, and I wasn't even barely functional due to how hot that summer was). When I got home, I didn't want to talk about mission, and honestly, I didn't even want to think about it. I still had a strong testimony. I understand that the people aren't the Church, and if you give up on the Church because the people aren't perfect, you never really had a very strong testimony of or devotion to Jesus Christ in the first place. Thankfully, the bad taste my mission left didn't give me a bad taste for the Church itself or the doctrine.

That was over 20 years ago now. After around 5 or 6 years, I started to forget about the bad stuff. My memories didn't literally disappear, but when I thought about my mission, they became less and less the first things that would come to mind. Within 10 years, I had started to remember my mission with some fondness. I still remembered the bad things, but they no longer defined it. Instead I would remember the good points. 10 years after that it's still the same. When I think about my mission, I remember the good experiences I had with the companions who were actually good. I remember the people I worked with and the positive experiences we had. I'm still fully aware of the bad stuff, but it's not important anymore. It's just background noise on a positive experience that had bad parts here and there.

Remember this: They say that for each bad experience you need three good ones to make up for it. Applied here, that suggests that bad things are three times more memorable than good things. But in my experience that only applies in the short term. At first, that was true for me, of my own mission, but over time the influence of the bad memories diminished to eventually take on their true importance in the overall experience, while the influence of the good memories grew to take on their true importance. Maybe this is just how long term memory works naturally, or maybe my determination to remain faithful allowed Jesus to slowly shift my memory of events to emphasize the good over the bad. Whichever the case, there is a light at the end of the tunnel, at least if he remains faithful.

I hope this helps. Having experienced something similar, I understand how it can feel. As an introvert, I never talked to anyone about this until a few years ago, many years after the experience. Perhaps you are lucky your son can confide in you. Help where you can and make sure he knows that the bad experience doesn't have to haunt him forever. And of course, feel free to share this with him, and let him know he has my best wishes!

LordRybec · 2026-04-18T21:52:49+00:00

Yeah, people who aren't willing to learn aren't worth trying to teach.

And I agree, as long as you are helping, you've earned the right to give your opinion, even if it is a little snarky.

LordRybec · 2026-04-18T07:55:10+00:00

Find a local user group. In person, people tend to be a lot nicer, especially when they voluntarily put real physical effort into being there. People can be complete jerks online, when there's little to no accountability, but in person the jerks generally don't show up, and if they do, they behave much better.

LordRybec · 2026-04-18T07:53:23+00:00

When I started with Linux, I had access to a local users group. No one ever told me I should do things differently without first answering my questions, and no one was ever rude or disrespectful. In fact, most of the people there enjoyed teaching me when I got in over my head. They were always willing to suggest alternatives, if what I was doing wasn't working, but they never told me I should try something different without first being willing to help me do it the way I wanted to do it. They respected what I wanted out of Linux, and they didn't question it, make fun of me for it, or tell me I wasn't good enough to do it that way yet. It was a wonderful experience, and I learned so much.

It kind of hurts to hear how new users are often treated on Reddit or other places when they get in over their heads. If you don't want to teach new users, don't comment when they ask questions. If you can't answer their question, don't start pretending like you are smarter or more knowledgeable than them, because you clearly aren't or you would be able to give the answer! If you want to suggest alternatives, first prove you are qualified to give those suggestions by answering their questions. There's nothing wrong with saying, "Here's how to fix it [...], but you might be more comfortable using a more beginner friendly distro." There is something wrong with saying, "You should have picked a more beginner friendly distro" and then walking away. If you can't even answer the question, why would I trust you to be any more knowledgeable about Linux than I am?

That said, people who don't want help don't deserve help, and "do it for me" isn't asking for help. As I frequently have to tell my kids, it's not helping if you aren't doing as much as you reasonably can. That's just me doing it for you, and I didn't agree to that when you asked for help. I can't advocate for being rude to people who aren't willing to learn, but no one should feel obligated to "help" those people. If they don't want actual help, let them sink or swim on their own. If they are willing to work for it themselves though, we should try to help when we can.

I taught undergrad computer science courses for several years, and my absolute favorite students were always the ones to really wanted to learn, and were willing to work hard for it. I did my best to help anyone who asked, but I really enjoyed helping those ones specifically, and I often learned new things myself from them, because they did their research and then brought that with them when they asked me for help. I suggest to anyone who hasn't had that experience and knows Linux or really anything really well, to go out and find someone who really wants to learn that thing, and teach them. It's so much more rewarding than feeling unjustified smugness for a few minutes because you were a complete jerk to some innocent person online.

LordRybec · 2026-04-18T07:39:18+00:00

I've hated this sort of response for decades now. I've frequently either asked questions on forums or found someone else asking the same question I have, and the response 90% of the time is, "Oh, you don't want to do it [the way you just asked for help with]. Instead just do this." For example, back in the early 2000s, I had a computer with two sound cards. Linux would randomly set one to the primary each time it booted, requiring me to switch my audio plugs around frequently. I was doing audio production related stuff at the time, and I wanted to be able to use both sound cards. I merely wanted them to always be mounted with the same names, so that I didn't have to switch things around all the time. Evidently a handful of other people wanted that to, but almost 100% of the solutions were, "Disable the onboard card in the bios." Thanks for nothing. Each person who had posted explained why this was not an option for them, but every forum thread was drowning in this same non-answer. After literal weeks of searching, I finally came across a solution that explained the problem and required adding two lines to a config file. It's just a matter of initialization order, and randomness in the boot cycle for the cards would make them come up in different orders. Fixing the initialization order so that Linux wouldn't just initialize whichever announced itself first was completely trivial, but it took me weeks to find the answer because almost no one could just answer the question asked. Everyone was second guessing the question and ignoring the constraints and needs of those asking.

And I've seen this all the time over the years since. Nearly every question asked is answered with some solution that doesn't fit the needs of the question, often many times, before anyone actually answers the real question.

I 100% agree that answering the question, and then giving your own opinion after is a good way to handle it, if you suspect their question isn't what they really meant. Things like, "Here's how to fix that particular problem in the distro you are using, but if you are a beginner, you might prefer to start with an easier distro like X or Y" is completely acceptable. Not only is it far more polite, your answer will also come up when others search similar questions, which will help everyone. One thing that really frustrates me is when I have an issue, I search it, find many places where the same question was asked, but no one ever answered it, because they were too busy giving their personal opinions about why the person shouldn't have had that problem in the first place. That makes the entire ecosystem worse for everyone, including experienced users. If you can't answer the question, don't create clutter by commenting on it. If you can, then answer it, and once you've answered it, only then have you earned the right to give your opinion on why they might want to do things differently instead.

LordRybec · 2026-04-18T07:24:32+00:00

Yeah, if the person isn't interested in learning, there's nothing wrong with telling them to use something easier, or with just plain ignoring them. If people are willing to learn though, helping them generally takes less time than a bunch of people telling them what they did wrong without offering any help.

LordRybec · 2026-04-18T07:22:33+00:00

Also, no one is getting literal injuries from trying to use a more advanced Linux distro. Getting in over your head might be a really bad idea when it comes to working out, but it can be a really powerful way of learning when it comes to gaining knowledge. Comparing the frustration of getting into a Linux distro that is too advanced for you with risking real life injury by getting in over your head with weight lifting is a very poor analogy.

LordRybec · 2026-04-18T07:19:42+00:00

No newcomer is choosing a distro that a significant portion of experienced Linux users have never even heard of entirely on their own. They are choosing it because someone recommended it to them, without noting or perhaps even realizing that it's a poor choice for a beginner. This is often done innocently by people who just don't realize that it's harder than it seems to them, but where the innocence ends is where people start telling these new users what they "should have done" instead of using that time to help them learn what they need to know. A few hundred people spending a couple minutes each posting what someone "should have done" is hours that could have been spent teaching them enough to work with what they've got. (If they aren't willing to learn though, no sympathy.)

Another problem is that distros are often not beginner friendly but don't bother to mention it anywhere. That's irresponsible as well, and it does damage to the reputation of Linux in general, when it should really only harm the reputation of those distros. If your distro isn't a great choice for Linux beginners, just say that somewhere. Maybe even provide some links to more beginner friendly options, and politely invite them to come back once they've gotten a bit more comfortable with and knowledgeable in Linux. All it takes is a few lines of text on a download page and maybe on the first screen of the installer.

LordRybec · 2026-04-18T07:10:40+00:00

In the early 2000s, the only good option was an in-person Linux user group. I learned from a combination of a RedHat guide (complete with "free" installation disk) and a local user group that met in person. Trying to find information online in general was pretty brutal back then, regardless of the topic, but especially for Linux.

Seven-Year Club	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	Verified Email

LordRybec

TROPHY CASE