Here's a question that splits LDS families at dinner tables across Utah. Is Coca-Cola against the Word of Wisdom? The answer from the church itself is no. But a significant minority of observant Mormons treat caffeinated soft drinks as off-limits anyway. This matters for stock investors because it affects whether KO, PEP, and related names belong in an LDS portfolio.

Let me walk through the actual history, the official position, and the practical screening question.

The Text Says Coffee and Tea, Not Caffeine

Doctrine and Covenants 89:9 says, "And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly." That's the full scriptural reference. Nothing about caffeine. Nothing about Coca-Cola (which didn't exist in 1833). Nothing about cola drinks, energy drinks, or chocolate.

When early church leaders clarified "hot drinks," they specified coffee and tea. That's it. Hyrum Smith, in a sermon recorded in Times and Seasons in 1842, made the coffee and tea interpretation explicit. Later church presidents have reinforced this specific interpretation.

The caffeine hypothesis, which says that the Word of Wisdom really prohibits caffeine generally rather than coffee and tea specifically, is a 20th-century folk interpretation. It's not in the scripture. It's not in the original church leadership clarifications. It arose later as a cultural extension among some members who felt that the spirit of the Word of Wisdom should extend beyond the specific items mentioned.

The Church's Official Clarification

This got confusing enough that the church has had to clarify multiple times. In 2012, the church issued a formal statement that said, in effect, the Word of Wisdom does not prohibit caffeine in non-coffee, non-tea forms. The statement was published on the church's official website and republished in church magazines.

The 2012 clarification came after years of media coverage and member confusion about whether Mormons could drink Coke. Brigham Young University cafeterias had historically not sold caffeinated sodas, and many members avoided them as a cultural practice. The clarification explicitly distinguished between official church doctrine (coffee and tea prohibited) and cultural practice (some members also avoid caffeine, but this is personal choice).

BYU updated its food service policy after 2012 to allow caffeinated sodas on campus, though this was still a notable change at the time.

The Practical LDS Community Split

Despite the 2012 clarification, LDS members are not uniform on caffeine. Roughly speaking:

About 60-70% of active LDS members accept caffeinated soft drinks as permitted under the Word of Wisdom. They'll drink Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Dr Pepper, Mountain Dew, and similar products without concern. This is the mainstream position consistent with the 2012 church clarification.

About 20-30% avoid caffeinated soft drinks as a personal choice or family tradition, even though they acknowledge the scripture doesn't explicitly prohibit them. This is a cultural extension, not a doctrinal requirement.

A small minority interprets the Word of Wisdom as prohibiting caffeine generally and considers caffeinated sodas off-limits under the same spirit as the coffee prohibition. This is the strictest position and is a minority view even within observant LDS communities.

Energy drinks (Monster, Red Bull, Celsius, Rockstar, Bang) sit in a similar position. The church hasn't formally addressed them, but the 2012 caffeine clarification would presumably extend to them by the same logic.

How This Shapes Stock Screening

For investors building an LDS-aligned portfolio, the caffeine question creates three possible screening approaches.

Approach 1: Strict coffee and tea exclusion only. This matches the church's official position. You exclude pure-play coffee companies (Starbucks, Dutch Bros, JDE Peet's) and companies with significant coffee revenue (possibly Nestle and KDP under a threshold). You do not exclude Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Monster, or other caffeinated soft drink companies.

Approach 2: Coffee, tea, and energy drink exclusion. This extends the screen to include pure-play energy drink companies (Monster Beverage, Celsius) on the grounds that they're closer to stimulant beverages than traditional sodas. It's a compromise between the mainstream and stricter positions.

Approach 3: All caffeine exclusion. This strictest approach excludes anything with significant caffeine content, including colas, energy drinks, and even chocolate companies. It matches the strict minority view within LDS practice.

Most LDS financial advisors and screening services (including FaithScreener) use Approach 1 because it aligns with the church's official position and doesn't impose minority views on users. Individual investors can tighten the screen further if they want.

Coca-Cola (KO) Deep Dive

Let me give you a fuller picture of Coca-Cola from a screening perspective. The company has total revenue of roughly $47 billion in 2024. The business is diversified across many beverage categories:

Sparkling soft drinks (Coca-Cola, Diet Coke, Sprite, Fanta, etc.): about 42% of revenue
Water, tea, sports drinks (Dasani, Smartwater, Powerade, Topo Chico, BodyArmor): about 30% of revenue
Juice, dairy, plant-based (Minute Maid, Simply, fairlife, Innocent): about 15% of revenue
Coffee (Costa Coffee, Honest Tea acquired, ready-to-drink coffee): about 10% of revenue

Here's the interesting part. The Costa Coffee acquisition in 2018 added meaningful coffee exposure to Coca-Cola. Costa is a major UK-based coffee chain with over 3,000 stores. This makes KO borderline under a strict 10% coffee threshold (because coffee is around 8-10% of revenue depending on the year).

Under a 5% threshold, KO fails. Under a 10% threshold, it's borderline. Under a 15% threshold, it passes clearly.

Most LDS screening services place the coffee threshold around 10% and treat KO as acceptable because the core business remains soft drinks and water. A strict investor could apply a tighter threshold and exclude KO, but it's not the mainstream approach.

The caffeine content of Coca-Cola itself (about 34mg per 12oz can, roughly a third of a typical cup of coffee) doesn't trigger exclusion under the church's 2012 clarification.

PepsiCo (PEP) Deep Dive

PepsiCo is larger than Coca-Cola and more diversified. Total revenue of roughly $91 billion in 2024. The business:

Frito-Lay North America (chips and snacks): about 30% of revenue
Beverages North America (Pepsi, Mountain Dew, Gatorade, Aquafina, Lipton, etc.): about 25% of revenue
International food and beverages: about 40% of revenue
Quaker Foods (oatmeal, cereals, granola bars): about 5% of revenue

PepsiCo has less coffee exposure than Coca-Cola because PEP hasn't pursued a major coffee acquisition. The beverage portfolio includes Pepsi (caffeinated), Mountain Dew (caffeinated), Gatorade (not caffeinated), Aquafina (not caffeinated), and Lipton ready-to-drink teas (caffeinated).

The Lipton exposure is the one Word of Wisdom concern. PepsiCo has a joint venture with Unilever to sell Lipton ready-to-drink tea products globally. Tea revenue from this JV is a small portion of total PEP revenue (under 5%), so PEP passes threshold screens.

Under all reasonable LDS screens, PepsiCo is acceptable because the tea exposure is minor and the core business (snacks and non-tea beverages) is clean.

Monster Beverage (MNST) and Energy Drinks

Monster Beverage is a pure-play energy drink company. Total revenue of roughly $7.5 billion in 2024, essentially all from energy drinks (Monster, Reign, NOS, and several other brands, plus Bang after the 2023 acquisition).

Under the mainstream LDS interpretation that follows the 2012 church clarification, energy drinks are permitted because they're not coffee or tea. MNST passes an LDS screen under this approach.

Under stricter interpretations that extend the Word of Wisdom to cover stimulant beverages generally, MNST would fail. This is a minority position.

For practical screening, FaithScreener treats MNST as permitted by default and offers an optional exclusion for users who want to extend Word of Wisdom compliance beyond the church's official interpretation.

Celsius Holdings (CELH) is a newer energy drink company that has grown rapidly. Similar screening position to MNST. Passes under mainstream, fails under strict.

Keurig Dr Pepper (KDP): The Hybrid Case

KDP is interesting because it combines a large cola business (Dr Pepper, 7UP, A&W Root Beer, Canada Dry, Snapple, RC Cola) with the Keurig K-Cup coffee business. Total revenue of roughly $15 billion in 2024.

The Keurig business is essentially a coffee delivery system. The K-Cup pods are predominantly coffee (though the system can brew tea and hot chocolate as well). Coffee revenue is probably 40-50% of total KDP revenue when you include the brewing systems, pods, and packaged coffee products.

Under any reasonable LDS screen, KDP fails. Coffee is too significant a portion of the business. The soft drinks and snacks don't compensate for the Keurig coffee exposure.

This is sometimes surprising to investors who think of KDP as "Dr Pepper" and assume it's like Coca-Cola. The coffee component is larger than the cola component at KDP, which flips the screening verdict.

Nestle (NSRGY) and Global Coffee Exposure

Nestle is the world's largest food company. Total revenue of roughly $100 billion in 2024. Coffee is one of Nestle's biggest product categories through Nescafe (instant coffee), Nespresso (premium pod system), and the Starbucks Global Coffee Alliance (packaged Starbucks products).

Coffee is roughly 20% of total Nestle revenue, which fails a 10% threshold LDS screen but passes a 25% threshold. Most LDS screens exclude Nestle because the coffee exposure is clearly above incidental levels.

The rest of Nestle's business (water, dairy, nutrition, baby food, pet care, confections) is generally clean. But the coffee exposure alone is enough to trigger LDS screening in most frameworks.

What About Chocolate?

Chocolate contains caffeine in small amounts (about 5-10mg per ounce of dark chocolate). The strictest caffeine interpretations of the Word of Wisdom would exclude chocolate too. This is a very minority position and isn't typically applied in stock screening.

Hershey (HSY), Mondelez International (MDLZ), Nestle's chocolate products, and other confection makers are generally not excluded under LDS screens even though chocolate contains caffeine.

Practical Portfolio Implications

For LDS investors building a portfolio in 2026, here's how the caffeine question typically plays out:

Permitted under mainstream LDS screening:
- Coca-Cola (KO)
- PepsiCo (PEP)
- Monster Beverage (MNST)
- Celsius Holdings (CELH)
- Hershey (HSY)
- Mondelez International (MDLZ)

Fails LDS screening (coffee exposure):
- Starbucks (SBUX)
- Keurig Dr Pepper (KDP)
- Nestle (NSRGY)
- Dutch Bros (BROS)
- JDE Peet's (JDEP.AS)

Borderline (depends on threshold):
- McDonald's (MCD) if McCafe is counted
- Yum Brands (YUM) depending on coffee exposure
- Restaurant Brands International (QSR) because of Tim Hortons

Bottom Line

The caffeine question is a good illustration of how religious values investing requires distinguishing between official doctrine and cultural practice. The Word of Wisdom, as interpreted by the church, prohibits coffee and tea but not caffeinated soft drinks. A significant minority of LDS members extends the prohibition to all caffeine as personal practice, but this isn't the official position.

For stock screening, the mainstream approach matches the church: exclude coffee and tea-heavy businesses, permit caffeinated soft drinks and energy drinks. This gives LDS investors access to major consumer staples names like KO, PEP, and MNST while still maintaining Word of Wisdom compliance on the scripturally specified categories.

Investors with stricter personal views can tighten the screen further. FaithScreener (and most other LDS-aware screening services) defaults to the mainstream interpretation but offers options for users who want to apply stricter caffeine rules. The scripture hasn't changed, but the interpretive community has, and investment screening should reflect where the majority of observant members actually stand rather than where the most restrictive voices want them to stand.

Caffeine and the Word of Wisdom: The Coca-Cola Question