Mormon Coffee

The Associated Press reported Tuesday on Mitt Romney’s visit to South Carolina, a “Bible Belt state” where “a few Republicans expressed deep reservations about backing a Mormon.” Mr. Romney isn’t really concerned about that, believing people recognize they will be electing a president, not a pastor.Nevertheless, South Carolina Republican State Representative Gloria Haskins said,

“I don’t think that I could see someone who is a member of a faith so contrary to my [Presbyterian] faith having my support,” said Haskins, a graduate of Bob Jones University, the Christian fundamentalist college. Haskins is backing Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

Another South Carolina Republican State Representative, Bob Leach, questioned Mr. Romney about his faith.

Romney attended a House Republican Caucus meeting that always begins with a Bible verse and prayer in Christ’s name, led by Republican state Rep. Bob Leach.Leach told caucus members he asked Romney who Jesus Christ was and Romney responded that Christ “was his personal savior.”

Leach said that was good enough to earn his vote.

Sigh.

Setting aside the implication that Rep. Leach only needs to know two things about a presidential candidate in order to grant his support (i.e., that the candidate is republican and that the candidate claims Jesus Christ is his personal savior), I’m very troubled by the lack of spiritual discernment here.

Bob Leach is a member of Taylors First Baptist Church, a member-church of the Southern Baptist Convention. According to the church’s web site, it subscribes to The Baptist Faith and Message as a statement of faith. That statement of faith says this in part:

The eternal triune God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or being…Christ is the eternal Son of God. In His incarnation as Jesus Christ He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. Jesus perfectly revealed and did the will of God, taking upon Himself human nature with its demands and necessities and identifying Himself completely with mankind yet without sin. He honored the divine law by His personal obedience, and in His substitutionary death on the cross He made provision for the redemption of men from sin. He was raised from the dead with a glorified body and appeared to His disciples as the person who was with them before His crucifixion. He ascended into heaven and is now exalted at the right hand of God where He is the One Mediator, fully God, fully man, in whose Person is effected the reconciliation between God and man. He will return in power and glory to judge the world and to consummate His redemptive mission. He now dwells in all believers as the living and ever present Lord. (Please see the complete statement for supporting Scriptures.)

This is an orthodox Christian statement of faith, describing Christ as He is revealed in the Bible. One might say this statement of faith represents belief in the traditional Jesus Christ. But this is not the Jesus Christ embraced and worshiped by Mormons who hold to the teachings of the LDS Church.

As was reported in the LDS Church News a few years ago,

In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President [Gordon B.] Hinckley spoke of those outside the [LDS] Church who say Latter-day Saints “do not believe in the traditional Christ. No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. He, together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.” (Church News, June 20, 1998, 7)

There is no doubt or disputing President Hinckley’s pronouncement that Latter-day Saints believe in a different Christ than the Being that is and has been worshipped by Christians throughout the history of Christianity. Some points on which the Christ “revealed in this dispensation” according to LDS prophets and apostles differs from the Baptist statement of faith quoted above are these:

• Mormonism denies the doctrine of the Trinity, holding instead to a doctrine that divides the nature, essence, or being of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (i.e., three Gods).
• Mormonism denies the eternality of Christ, claiming He is a created being.
• Mormonism denies that the earthly body of Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit, teaching instead that His body was conceived through a physical union between Mary and God the Father, a being of flesh and bone.
• Mormonism denies the sufficiency of Christ’s atoning death in providing reconciliation between God and man, teaching that some sins are beyond the power of Christ’s blood to remit (e.g., murder).(For documentation on these items, or to learn more, please see “Who is the Living Christ of Mormonism?” by Bill McKeever.)

So Mitt Romney answered Bob Leach’s question about who Jesus Christ is, declaring that Christ is Mr. Romney’s personal savior. What did Mr. Leach actually learn? Which Jesus Christ is Mr. Romney’s “personal savior”? I’m guessing Mr. Leach believed Mr. Romney was talking about the “traditional Christ.” And what, exactly, did Mr. Romney mean when he used the phrase “personal savior”?

A tract published by the LDS Church in 1973 says this:

Christians speak often of the blood of Christ and its cleansing power. Much that is believed and taught on this subject, however, is such utter nonsense and so palpably false that to believe it is to lose one’s salvation. For instance, many believe or pretend to believe that if we confess Christ with our lips and avow that we accept Him as our personal Savior, we are thereby saved. They say that His blood, without any other act than mere belief, makes us clean. (What the Mormons Think of Christ, 22)

Well, this is what the Southern Baptist (and biblical) faith entails — salvation by grace through faith alone:

Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord. (The Baptist Faith and Message)

This is probably what Bob Leach believed Mitt Romney was talking about. Mr. Leach’s unfamiliarity with the doctrines and terminology of Mormonism put him at a disadvantage and left him with an assurance regarding Mr. Romney’s faith that is wholly unfounded.

To be fair, “Who is Jesus Christ?” is a question which requires a long and complicated answer in order to effectively communicate how one Christ differs from another. A much better question could have been asked, one that would not have allowed Mr. Romney — and Mormonism — so easily off the hook. Charleston County GOP chairwoman Cyndi Mosteller suggested,

“The question is: Does Governor Romney support Joseph Smith’s doctrines? We as evangelicals don’t believe we can go in and change Paul’s doctrine. I don’t see how you move around this.”

Comments (4)

A friend once said,

“I think LDS see us this way though - more concerned about right belief than right living.”

First, let me make clear that in the common Mormon mind, the alternative to this is being more concerned about right living than right belief. This thinking has essentially produced a kind of postmodernism or pluralism that views their beliefs—true or false—as largely just “practical” for helping them be “good people.” This is the worldview from which many Mormons view religious criticism itself as unethical and “bashing” and mean-spirited. For many Mormons, just about any basic religion is inherently practical for right living and sincerity toward God, so none should be actively opposed. Missionary work is described as “adding” and improving upon the beliefs of others, not challenging or replacing them.

Second, in a way Mormons are right about us being “more concerned about right belief than right living,” because Christianity is more about knowing and loving God than it is about treating people right. This may be a shocker, but think about the order of the two greatest commandments that Jesus gave. Christians inevitably do both. One of life’s greatest ironies–an irony that I believe some unbelievers will dwell on forever in hell–is that we can only love people like Jesus wants us to once we have had our sins freely forgiven, and once our obedience becomes an outgrowth of our love for God. And how are we freely forgiven? By faith alone in the promises of God as they really are. And how do our hearts love God? By the focus of faith on the truth and beauty of who God really is. Faith, my friends, is theological, and, ironically, the best and only way to go about “right living” is to prioritize “right belief”–not just the right objective content of belief, but the right subjective heart-desiring, hungering, and thirsting faith that focuses on that right objective content (which is ultimately Christ Himself, as He really is).

Third, Mormons are only wrong about Christians being “more concerned about right belief than right living” if by that they mean we only care about right views of God, but care not at all about the works and obedience that accompany saving faith. The tricky thing is that the phrase “more concerned about right belief than right living” usually conflates two things, one good, and one bad. When challenged with the Christian passion and insistence on the right knowledge of God (replete with religious criticism of false views), Mormons often want to condemn both orthodoxy without obedience and orthodoxy-based-obedience altogether. The condemnation comes in the form of conflating both, and I think it ultimately stems from an unbelief in the power of the gospel (justification of the ungodly by faith alone in the promises of Christ) to change one’s life. Paul anticipated their unbelief almost two thousand years ago in Romans 6:1 and 10:1-4.

But the Christian won’t settle for this sweeping rejection of the primary and foundational role of “right belief.” We will neither accept “right beliefs” without “right living,” nor “right living” without “right belief.” We believe in the power of God, through our “faith alone,” to radically change our lives so that we become as the woman in Luke 7. She “wet [Jesus'] feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head and kissed his feet and anointed them with the [alabaster flask of] ointment,” not to be worthy, but because she knew the goodness of a savior who freely forgives. “[H]e who is forgiven little, loves little.” She loved much.

Christianity stubbornly refuses to accept any kind of love or obedience that isn’t rooted in the right knowledge and faith and heart-desire toward who God really is, and what He has really promised.

Grace and peace in Christ, who justifies the ungodly like me by faith apart from works (Romans 4:1-8),

Aaron

Related Resources

• Faith: The Link Between God’s Love For Us and Ours For Others (MP3)
• Above All Earthly Powers: The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World (Desiring God Conference)
• I highly recommend this video.
• Orthodoxy/Orthopraxy Again, by Phil Johnson

by Sharon

Deseret Morning News journalist Jerry Johnston recently devoted his column to supporting LDS presidential hopeful Mitt Romney with “Be willing to vote for a believer.” The gist of the article was a challenge to those of the “Religious Right” who have concerns about voting for a Mormon. In the form of an open letter, Mr. Johnston wrote about some of the ways religions differ from one another and urged people of faith — whatever that faith may be — to stick together. He wrote,

Today, good people of every stripe must link arms. We can no longer afford to judge the value of each other’s beliefs; we must look to the value of each other’s hearts. More than ever, true believers must believe in each other.In the end, it comes down to trust. If you can’t trust the tenets of Mr. Romney’s faith, at least trust the honesty and authenticity with which he holds them. He may not be able to embrace your beliefs, any more than you can embrace his. But he can — and I think he does — believe in your basic goodness and purity of your motives. I suspect he knows that religious faith never stands as a contradiction to the notions of the world; it is, by nature, more real than the world. Let the world have its irony. Others must be willing to vote for an earnest person of faith — even if that faith is not their own.

I have no reason to question Mitt Romney’s sincerity, honesty and authenticity; if his name is on the next presidential ballot you can be sure my vote will be cast after thorough due diligence, not decided solely by his church affiliation. But here I would like to move beyond the question of Mitt Romney and look in a more general sense at Mr. Johnston’s comments. I’m really bothered by his suggestion that faith and sincerity are the important things — that the content of any particular faith needn’t enter into the question.

These days, people in America have largely bought into the idea that to disagree or reject someone’s view is to disrespect the person who holds that view. We have lost the ability to separate the idea from the person promoting that idea. Because of our confused notions, we have been bullied to silence by the cry of “intolerance!”

As I see it, all people are equally valid, regardless of the views they hold. We should treat each other with respect and courtesy, giving opportunity for the expression of all manner of ideas and views. Tolerance requires us to be civil toward others, even when we disagree with them.

But not all ideas are equally valid. Greg Koukl, president of Stand to Reason, says the classical view of “tolerance” is this: Be egalitarian regarding persons. Be elitist regarding ideas. I’ve discussed the idea of equal value of all persons above. Greg Koukl said of the value of ideas:

“When you are elitist regarding ideas, you acknowledge that some ideas are better than others. And they are. Some are good; some are bad. Some are true; some are false. Some are brilliant, others are foolish, and many are dangerous.” (Solid Ground, January/February 2006, 2)

Ideas — beliefs — have consequences. We might even say that the more sincere, honest and authentic a person is in holding to his beliefs, the more diligent we ought to be in understanding what those beliefs are. Wisdom calls for understanding how someone’s beliefs might affect us, or, in the case of a president, what consequences they might have for our nation or even the entire world.

There’s a long history of cases in point we can look at. Consider Hitler, Stalin and Mao, whose sincerely held beliefs led millions of people away from God and into lives (and deaths) marked and marred by evil. Mr. Johnston says, “We can no longer afford to judge the value of each other’s beliefs, we must look to the value of each other’s hearts.” Since we are unable to accurately judge another’s heart (God alone knows the hearts of men — 1 Kings 8:39), we must judge the values of beliefs and ideas.

On September 11, 1857, armed Mormon men (with the assistance of some Native Americans) slaughtered at least 120 unarmed non-Mormon men, women and children, as the pioneers’ wagon train passed through Utah Territory. This dreadful event has come to be known as the Mountain Meadows Massacre. People today disagree on some of the specifics that led to the massacre, but everybody agrees that it was religiously motivated. Whether Brigham Young ordered the attack or not, the men who carried out the murders held sincere and honest, authentic beliefs that drove them to commit this crime. Perhaps, if we could see their hearts, we would see that their motives were good and pure. Perhaps they believed they were serving God and His kingdom. They may have had the same earnest mindset as the religiously motivated men who attacked America on another September 11th.

Are we to look at these things and think, “While I can’t embrace the beliefs that these men held, they were obviously true believers, so I believe in them”?

Please don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying that faith is a bad thing or that religion generally leads people to commit deplorable actions. Many of the truly good things in our world have been implemented by people of faith, people acting on their religious convictions. What I am saying is that “sincere faith,” in and of itself, is not necessarily a virtue.

Mr. Johnston’s idea that we need to be willing to vote for an earnest person of faith regardless of what that faith entails, in my opinion, falls into one of the categories Greg Koukl mentioned: this idea is dangerous indeed.

Today, January 22nd, 2007, marks the 34th anniversary of the legalization of abortion in the United States. Forty million unborn babies have been legally killed in this nation since that tragic ruling.My father is in favor of legalized abortion, citing the gruesome stories of illegal back-alley abortions he heard about as a young man. I wasn’t there, of course, but I’ve also heard plenty of horror stories about abortions that pre-dated Roe vs. Wade. Nevertheless, I’m compelled to place a higher value on pre-born life than my father does. Perhaps it’s because we don’t share a common faith in the Giver and Creator of life, the God who bestows value on all life.

Even so, there’s an important argument that can be made for the sanctity of human life that doesn’t rely on faith issues. But my dad won’t talk about it. I think there are a lot of people who don’t want to talk about it. Though it’s legal, the topic is packed with emotion and conviction — as it should be, since lives are at stake.

The LDS Church position on abortion is this:

If a child is conceived by those who break the law of chastity, they may be tempted to commit another abominable sin: abortion. There is seldom any excuse for abortion. The only exceptions are when –

1. Pregnancy has resulted from incest or rape.
2. The life or health of the woman is in jeopardy in the opinion of competent medical authority; or
3. The fetus is known, by competent medial authority, to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.

Even in those cases the couple should consider an abortion only after consulting with each other and their bishop or branch president and receiving divine confirmation through prayer. (Gospel Principles, 1992 edition, 251,)

This has not always been so. The previous edition of Gospel Principles (to the one quoted above) said,

If a child is conceived by those who break the law of chastity, they may be tempted to commit another abominable sin — abortion. There is no excuse for abortion unless the life of the mother is seriously threatened. (1988 edition, 214)

Going back even further, Sarah Pratt, wife of early LDS Apostle Orson Pratt, related a story from when she lived in the Mormon community of Nauvoo, Illinois:

“One day they came both, Joseph [Smith] and [John C.] Bennett, on horseback to my house. Bennett dismounted, Joseph remained outside. Bennett wanted me to return to him a book I had borrowed from him. It was a so-called doctor-book. I had a rapidly growing little family and wanted to inform myself about certain matters in regard to babies, etc., — this explains my borrowing that book. While giving Bennett his book, I observed that he held something in the left sleeve of his coat. Bennett smiled and said: ‘Oh, a little job for Joseph; one of his women is in trouble.’ Saying this. [sic] he took the thing out of his left sleeve. It was a pretty long instrument of a kind I had never seen before. It seemed to be of steel and was crooked at one end. I heard afterwards that the operation had been performed; that the woman was very sick, and that Joseph was very much afraid that she might die, but she recovered.”Bennett was the most intimate friend of Joseph for a time. He boarded with the prophet. He told me once that Joseph had been talking with him about his troubles with Emma, his wife. ‘He asked me,’ said Bennett, smilingly, ‘what he should do to get out of the trouble ?’ I said, ‘This is very simple. GET A REVELATION that polygamy is right, and all your troubles will be at an end.’” (Dr. W. Wyl, Mormon Portraits: Joseph Smith The Prophet — His Family and His Friends, 61-62)

I don’t mean to suggest that Dr. Bennett’s abortions were in any way sanctioned by the LDS Church. Dr. Bennett was a scoundrel by all accounts. Consider the sworn testimony of Joseph Smith’s brother, Hyrum:

On the seventeenth day of May, 1842, having been made acquainted with some of the conduct of John C. Bennett, which was given in testimony, under oath…by several females who testified that John C. Bennett endeavored to seduce them, and accomplished his designs by saying it was right; that it was one of the mysteries of God, which was to be revealed when the people was strong enough in faith to bear such mysteries — that it was perfectly right to have illicit intercourse with females, providing no one knew it but themselves, vehemently trying them from day to day, to yield to his passions, bringing witnesses of his own clan to testify that there were such revelations and such commandments, and that they were of God; also stating that he would be responsible for their sins, if there were any, and that he would give them medicine to produce abortions, provided they should become pregnant.” (History of the Church, 5:71)

According to LDS authors Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippets Avery, if the women he approached were reluctant to accept Dr. Bennett’s proposals, he would tell them he came with Joseph Smith’s approval (Mormon Enigma, 111). There exists contradictory testimony from faithful Mormons, and from Bennett himself, that Smith’s name was never invoked during these encounters. Whatever the truth of the matter, Hyrum Smith’s testimony indicates that Dr. Bennett “accomplished his designs” with at least some of the women he approached (see also fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History, 311). This raises a question in my mind.

Regardless of the level of responsibility Joseph Smith may have had in any of this — whatever the official position of the LDS Church may have been — what sort of society was it that proved to be fertile ground for Dr. Bennett’s illicit proposals and his subsequent performance of abortions? What made these women vulnerable to his claims of revelations and commandments if they were contradictory to Church teachings? Perhaps this is where Joseph Smith becomes culpable. I’m uncertain whether he ever taught this principle publicly, or how often he may have taught it privately, but it’s well known that in trying to convince Nancy Rigdon to become one of his plural wives, Joseph taught her:

“Happiness is the object and design of our existence; and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God. …That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. …Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.” (see Mormon Enigma, 111, including footnote)

This teaching — in the context of secretive, illegal polygamous marriage — opens the door wide for credulity and confusion. I wonder how many unborn babies have died because of it.

Comments (5)

During the Priesthood Session of last September/October’s General Conference, LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley spoke to the men and boys of the Church, urging them to be worthy of the LDS priesthood. President Hinckley instructed them to shun unclean thoughts, pornography and abuse of any kind. He told them to watch their language and stop dressing in a “slouchy manner.” Then he said,

I call your attention to another matter that gives me great concern. …young women are exceeding young men in pursuing educational programs. And so I say to you young men, rise up and discipline yourself to take advantage of educational opportunities. Do you wish to marry a girl whose education has been far superior to your own? We speak of being “unequally yoked.” That applies, I think, to the matter of education. (”Rise Up, O Men of God,” Ensign, November 2006, 60)

When President Hinckley said, “We speak of being ‘unequally yoked,’” I can only think he was referring to the New Testament passage where the apostle Paul says,

Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. (2 Corinthians 6:14)

Of course President Hinckley was not suggesting that women with higher educations fall under the category of “unbelievers.” He must have thought to broaden Paul’s teaching on being unequally yoked.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume for a moment that President Hinckley is a true prophet and, while speaking in his official capacity as such, was giving prophetic counsel. He said the idea of being unequally yoked applies to the level of education achieved by each individual in a potential “couple.” If the biblical command is to not be unequally yoked, and being unequally yoked is defined as being married to someone with a differing level of education, then the prophetic counsel given by President Hinckley boils down to this: Marriage must only take place between partners who are equally educated.

Have I got that right?

In the Priesthood Session of the October 2000 General Conference, President Hinckley gave another bit of prophetic counsel which, while on a different topic, was similar to the counsel on education in that it spoke to what constitutes proper behavior among Church members. On this occasion President Hinckley said,

The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have declared that we discourage tattoos and also “the piercing of the body for other than medical purposes.” We do not, however, take any position “on the minimal piercing of the ears by women for one pair of earrings” — one pair. (”Great Shall Be the Peace of Thy Children,” Ensign, November 2000, 52)

Since President Hinckley gave his counsel against more than one set of pierced earrings per woman, the number of earrings in a Mormon girl’s ear has become somewhat of a benchmark of her willingness to obey the prophet. Consider this story related by an LDS apostle in last month’s Ensign:

Sister Bednar and I are acquainted with a returned missionary who had dated a special young woman for a period of time. He cared for her very much, and he was desirous of making his relationship with her more serious. He was considering and hoping for engagement and marriage. This relationship was developing during the time that President Hinckley counseled the Relief Society sisters and young women of the Church to wear only one earring in each ear.The young man waited patiently over a period of time for the young woman to remove her extra earrings, but she did not take them out. This was a valuable piece of information for this young man, and he felt unsettled about her nonresponsiveness to a prophet’s pleading. For this and other reasons, he ultimately stopped dating the young woman, because he was looking for an eternal companion who had the courage to promptly and quietly obey the counsel of the prophet in all things and at all times. The young man was quick to observe that the young woman was not quick to observe. (David A. Bednar, “Quick to Observe,” Ensign, December 2006, 31)

I wonder. Did President Hinckley’s counsel against young men marrying women with unequal educations result in faithful members being quick to observe? Did the morning of October 1st, 2006 dawn over a Temple Square littered with the broken engagements of people who had planned to marry outside their level of education? If not, I wonder why not, for according to LDS Apostle James Faust,

We have been promised that the President of the Church will receive guidance for all of us as the revelator for the Church. Our safety lies in paying heed to that which he says and following his counsel. (Quoted in “Following the Prophets: A Book of Mormon Perspective,” Ensign, July 2000, 22)

Be that as it may, I believe President Hinckley fails in his interpretation of what the Bible means when God tells us not to be “unequally yoked.” Putting the passage in its context, Paul is making an impassioned plea to the Corinthian church to be holy.

Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will dwell in them and walk among them. I will be their God, and they shall be My people.” Therefore, “Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, and I will receive you.” “I will be a Father to you, and you shall be My sons and daughters, says the LORD Almighty.” Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. (2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1)

Is this biblical passage really talking about unequal education in marriage? God is telling the Corinthians — and us — not to unite with unbelievers,* for they walk in darkness and dishonor God.

What does a college degree have to do with that?

* That is, false apostles (2 Corinthians 11:2-4), and perhaps idolaters (1 Corinthians 10:14)

Comments (5)

by Sharon

The Salt Lake Tribune published a lighthearted article yesterday: “Beehive State Brew”. In it, journalist Kathy Stephenson takes a look at the history of beer in Utah. She writes,

[Tourists to Utah] likely have heard plenty of tales of Utah’s teetotaling ways.

But few visitors — not to mention some longtime residents — may not realize that the Beehive State has a rich beer-making history. And it began shortly after the Mormon pioneers arrived.

No kidding!

Ms. Stephenson interviews two people in her article. One is Utah resident Stan Sanders, a collector of Utah beer memorabilia. The other is Del Vance, author of the new self-published book, Beer in the Beehive: A History of Brewing in Utah. I was surprised by much of the information in the article; you might be, too. Here’s a bit of it to wet your whistle.

“At one time, there was an awful lot of brewing going on in Utah,” says Sanders, who will turn 80 this year.

Indeed, Utah was once the crossroads of the West, so there were plenty of travelers stopping in for a drink. But that couldn’t account for all the beer that was consumed, said Sanders, during a recent interview at his Salt Lake City home. The locals had to be downing their fair share as well.

“I know they say the Mormons don’t drink [alcohol],” he said, “But I don’t know who else drank it.”

…”The early pioneers seemed to live by a different set of rules than today,” Vance wrote. “They believed in moderation rather than total abstinence from alcohol. Like the Puritans before them they didn’t consider beer to be liquor — yet.”

For example, a Mormon named Richard Bishop Margetts started Salt Lake City’s Utah Brewery… The brewery claimed to produce up to 500 gallons — about 16 barrels — of “good lager beer” a day, according to Beer in the Beehive.

While focused on beer, Vance’s book does mention the fact that Mormons produced their own brand of whiskey, called Valley Tan. It was considered one of the better brands in the West and earned praise from many, including British adventurer Captain Richard F. Burton and Mark Twain.

Even the Mormon-owned department store, Zion’s Co-operative Mercantile Institution (ZCMI) sold beer, wine and liquor at its downtown store.

“By 1870, three-fourths of the state’s revenue came from the sale of alcoholic beverages,” said Vance.

Prohibition, of course, ended all commercial brewing. (Ironically, Utah was the 36th and deciding state to ratify the 21st Amendment ending national prohibition.)

By then, however, the attitude toward liquor had permanently changed in the state. The Word of Wisdom — a code of health which prohibits Mormons from consuming alcohol and other harmful substances — may have originated in 1833, but not all Mormons followed it strictly until 1921, when adherence was required in order to be worthy of entering a sacred church temple.