Reader comments
LDS Church posts statement on alcohol

I'm so glad the Church has spoken out. At last the legislature will know what to do.

Didn't know that state policy was governed by the LDS church. Is the State that has control over the state, or is it the church? As others have said in the past: Maybe the LDS church's tax-exempt status should be looked into.

In times past the LDS church has tried to prohibit alchohol consumption period, not reasonably regulate it. They opposed the repeal of prohibition. It was the state of Utah who was the state that overturned prohibition. They also encouraged a law that was passed in Utah years ago that forbade shopping on Sunday. We no longer have this law.

Certainly reasonable restrictions are welcome, but religion should not be allowed to decide such laws. Not just the LDS religion, but any religion. Laws should be based on common values and logic, not peciluar religious rules.

I wouldn't want Moslems telling my daughter to wear the tents they wear, or not to get an education. I wouldn't want Catholics to make it so birth control isn't available. I don't suppose that non LDS appreciate it when the LDS try to enforce their rules by force of law.

If alcohol is to be restricted, let public safety and health be the reasons and motivations. Not the fact that alcohol is "evil". Only this way will we get rules that protect society and at the same time allow people the benefits of responsible drinking.

Nothing brings out more ignorant comments from politicians and the public than a discussion on changing Utah's alcohol laws. Try coming to some counties in Texas or other places in the country and buying a drink. If it is so important to you to be able to buy a drink, why don't you move? You might want to educate yourself a little beforehand because you might end up in a place with stricter alcohol laws than Utah.

Thanks to the LDS church for a clear and strong statement. Certainly we believe in our freedome to make choices, but with choices come consequences. So the legislature should set some heavy consequences for bad behaviors, should require rigorous proof of age before purchase, and should require testing before turning the car key. And wrap in other mind numbing substancees besides alcohol, that are rampantly abused by some in our midst. It's an opportunity for constructive change.

So where's the problem? The Church itself has no voting rights whatsoever. Those members who agree with the church's positions, vote in representatives to make decisions/laws that reflect their personal views. What's wrong when those representatives in the State congress, vote in accordance with the wishes/desires of his/her constituency? This is how a republic is supposed to work.

There are checks and balances to this. Like the constitution and the court system.

Why would anyone with a brain drink alcohol? Why not hit yourself in the head with a hammer everyday, the effects are about the same? To drink yourself into a stupor and think you are having fun means you never had any real fun! Has there been anything that people do to themselves and each other that has ruined more lives than drinking alcohol? The world would be better off if alcohol was banned! Self distruction in a bottle!

"Religions shouldn't rule..." - I agree with your conclusion that alcohol consumption should be regulated according to public health and safety standards and concerns. I disagree with your premise that in the past it has been regulated because it is considered "evil." I think that's a superficial assessment. Neither the LDS church nor its doctrine has ever called alcohol evil, just as Paul never called money evil.

The LDS Church's statement itself cites health and safety concerns related to alcohol consumption. In a religious context, the constraint on drinking alcohol was given precisely for health and safety reasons: "adapted to the capacity of the weak, and the weakest of all saints."

Is someone not reading for comprehension here? The Church's statement is in favor of LOOSENING the liquor laws as they now stand. (Why do you think the Hospitality Association is HAPPY with the statement?) It says that the church IS in favor of regulations to protect the health and safety of the public, but that people should have the free will to choose whether they drink or not.

And I'm really tired of the "damn Church is running the State" whining. We live in a DEMOCRACY. The laws are proposed and passed by the majority; and whether you like it or not, the majority of the state is LDS. Move to Ohio, and you'll have to deal with a state where Catholics are the majority and run the state accordingly. Same with Baptists in the Deep South. No one is "dictating behavior"; but the prevailing moral attitudes of the majority shape the legislation that determines state law.

By the way, if you still think our liquor laws are draconian, move to the Midwest, or some areas of the South. Utah is an Alcohol Paradise in comparison.

When one of your family members is killed by a 4th time drunken driver.
You don't care who tries to change the Beer and Liquor laws. Anyone selling alcohol to a drunken driver should be charged with criminal activity and the so called 'Bar' should be sued out of business.

State policy is NOT governed by the church. It is governed by the people. In any state can find a particular group of people who might lobby for change to suit their values or beliefs, religious or not. You just happen to live in a state where there are a large number of people who share a common set of values.
BTW, I believe, LDS or not, that liquor is the common base for almost ALL crime and tragedy in our lives and that makes it evil. Liquor is the 1st step toward drug use and all of the crime that accompanies drugs. People who commit most assaults, especially family violence are almost always drunk. How many deadly car accidents are caused by drunk drivers as opposed to sober. I strongly believe "responsible drinking" is an oxymoron and that there is no such thing. Drinking causes far too many people to lose their ability to be responsible. I would like to see it abolished and made completely illegal. Of course, the loss of tax moneys would be staggering. That industry has a strangle hold on even the non drinkers.

Wondering: If the Catholic or Baptist churches, or the Jewish community, issued statements on alcohol regulation in Utah, would the Deseret News fall all over itself in reporting it? What would legislators say?

I know the "church" is dominant in Utah, but this statement on alcohol consumption and the manner in which the News and others responded certainly shows the "church" controls state government.

Wondering: If the "church" forbad horse riding in Utah what would be the reaction of the legislature? Goodby horses.

People get on the LDS church for making the laws... last time I checked, it was the responsibility to elect officials for the state. If you don't like how they vote, then don't vote for them. Vote in a catholic, Jew, a Gay, whoever you choose.

...and for most of you in the state who didn't vote, but still want to complain about how our legislators run the state... well guess what... you didn't vote, so you don't get to complain.

RE: Religions shouldn't rule... I'm just a tad confused about what the "benefits" of responsible drinking are? The definition of such "benefits" undoubtedly vary from person to person, as does the amount of alcohol consumed in relation to onset of impairment. The individual who was driving drunk and hit my brother and his young family head-on 7 years ago probably considered himself to be reaping the benefits of a "little" buzz as he rounded the highway corner in the wrong lane. While it is inappropriate for any singular religion to dictate law, sober common-sense and social responsibility (vs. individual pleasures) should prevail in civic decision making. Unfortunately too many people these days feel a sense of personal entitlement to behave in ways that not only put others at potential risk/harm but set poor (and oftentimes embarassing) examples for our youth - all because they want to experience a good time or even just relax after a busy day. Regular aerobic exercise will create a "high" that will ultimately yield greater physical and mental results...why not experience the "benefits" of that? :-)

Hey "Religions shouldn't rule all" what the heck is a Moslems...you mean Muslim, if you are going to bash a religion, at least have the spelling right...and what about the Catholic church in Italy...right they do not hold any influence.

A year ago my second cousin was crossing the road with his wife and his very young two children. A truck with a drunk driver hit them going about 50 mph. His wife and children died, he was in the hospital a very long time.

My mom and younger brother were going to the post office when a drunk driver ran through a stop sign and slammed a second car (filled with little kids going to the beach) into my mom. When I arrived, it was like a bomb had gone off with glass and little kids. My mom's neck had moved so much they found lipstick on her shirt.

My wife's grandmother (who raised her) was an alcoholic. She was embarrassed as a child because she would her find grandmother out lying on the sidewalk having soiled herself.

I know two co-workers who had 14 year old daughters that got drunk at parties and then got raped. Now those two girls have SERIOUS issues.

To the silly person who says that the tax-exempt status of the church should be revoked, SHAME ON YOU!! The church has an obligation to speak out on issues that affect the community.

Religions shouldn't rule all--
What do you mean when you say " responsible drinking"?I know many so called " responsible drinkers,"who are alcoholics, and have ruined their families. Yet they deny the truth. They think they are " responsible".

In an earlier article on the debate over the regulation changes, it was stated quite clearly that the Church's input was given after a request by the government. They asked for input from a large number of groups and institutions.

The Church doesn't dictate to the government. It states its opinion (quite a bit less forcefully than some other churches in many areas, actually), and leaves it to government to decide what to do.

"Religions shouldn't rule all" says the restrictions should be based on health and safety issues. If you'll actually read the statement the article talks about, you'll see that this is all it says. There is only one sentence that says anything about morals, and I quote "One of the functions of religious leaders in a democracy is to add their moral voice to issues of public importance."

After that, the statement never mentions moral issues, just health and safety concerns. So where is the problem?

Lots of bitter statements. Lots of drinking going on here in the great state of New York. Maybe those that are bitter ought to think about relocating somewhere else. Everything that is perceived as bad in Utah is always blamed on the church. Maybe there should be a mandate that only anti or non Mormons be eligible for public office.

As much as I hate the idea that the church's approval is necessary to progress in this area, I am glad that the church appears to have green-lighted the issue.

Now just do it--it's really pretty simple. My biggest fear is that the legislature will use the opportunity to take one step forward and two steps back.