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.

I thought it was the will of the majority of the people. When most of the laws were enacted the majority of the state was of the LDS faith, so it is natural laws were associated with that faith, or believe. Its not the church that runs the stste it's the people.

For those who can't grasp the concept of democracy and majority rule, the LDS church isn't telling government what to do. By clarifying its position, the large numbers of LDS voters in the area can feel confident that they wouldn't run afoul of their religion if they were to support a political stand.

But I think these people know that already and are just using this as another opportunity to grind their ax.

Why do anti-religious bigots choose to live in places where religion is a strong part of the culture?

Wouldn't common sense have them go where they would be happier?

That is the whole reason state governments have such autonomy, so that like minded people can enjoy a government that reflects and enforces their own belief system.

This has nothing to do with the LDS church or any church.

There are red states and there are blue states, and that isn't just a voting map, laws differ in states according to the belief system of the majority of their citizens.

Then again, some people just aren't happy unless they are tearing down someone else. Maybe that's it.

I'm in full agreement with people being allowed to consume alcohol. However, when they are impaired and they commit a crime or cause an accident, etc. They should be punished to the fullest extent.

Anyone who drinks and drives and causes an accident resulting in the death of another should be tried for premeditated murder.

Driving drunk is no different that walking into a large crowd of people with a handgun, closing your eyes and then firing in all directions randomly thinking you are not going to shoot anyone.

Our politicians are by far the most "spineless" when it comes to making and enforcing drunk driving laws. If someone wants to drink alcohol, drink all you want, but don't endanger the lives of innocent people around you by driving drunk.

Dear xscribe, it was the mormons that came to this neck of the woods and created this beautiful city that we all enjoy, alcohol or not. There is a reason that we have a great interest in what happens or doesn't happen here. No my religion nor anyone elses for that matter, should dictate what everyone does. But asking the LDS church not to care what happens here or not to get involved is a little much. Don't you think?

When about 70% of the population of any area / state want something one way or the other they usually get it.

The private club membership is, and always has been, really stupid. I don't drink, and I don't condone drinking, but the private club thing needs to stop. It's embarrassing for our state.

That said, however, should it lead to an increase in drunk driving incidents, then it should be brought back in a hurry.

On a personal note, drunk drivers are scum, and no punishment is too harsh for them.

I am not so sure that there is a way to drink responsibly. Certainly my life would have been better if alcohol were never a part of it. I would have to say that at times alcohol can take a nice respectable person and turn them into a complete monster and some one gets hurt. I still have to deal with the issue of what happened to me when alcohol consumption turned a friend of mine into a a complete @#$ and my life changed forever.

It kills me to read all of the posts with the bashing of your State's most prominent religion. Several of you act as if Utah is the only State that has restrictive laws regarding alcohol and shopping on Sunday. Kentucky and several other states actually have "Dry Counties" where NO alcohol can be sold anywhere. Also, as early as 2006 there where over 30 counties that still had "Blue Laws" which restricted shopping on Sunday.

It always amazes me to see how such "small mindedness" is still alive and thriving.....

Be Careful. Alcohol is a mind numbing chemical that destroys lives. Quit whining about "Church vs State."

Think scourge on society, including, atheists, mormons, babtists, catholics and anyone else dumb enough to drink or unlucky enough to be affected by loved ones or drunk drivers who do.

Isn't it interesting that even a statement that most non-mormons approve of still brings on more Mormon bashing!

When the church comments on moral issues, it is bashed for "trying to run the government." When it does not comment on things that someone thinks it should, it is bashed for NOT taking a stand.

I'm LDS and I've never had a sip of alcohol in my life. That said, I would vote to remove the private club laws if given the chance. Heck, I've even bought a drink on occasion for my friends who don't happen to be LDS. How could I do this, you ask, if drinking is against my religion? That's not the important question. The real question is this: Is it against my FRIEND'S religion? No? Then bottoms up!

msgelter - you are incorrect - we do NOT live in a democracy! We live in a representative republic, which is wholly different from a democracy. I hope and pray we NEVER live in a democracy. That would be the end of this country as we know it.

I used to live in Loma Linda, California, headquarters for the Seventh Day Adventist Church.

You could not buy a Beer at any convienence or grocery store. No bars, and we got the mail on Sunday, from the United States Postal Service.

Community governments have the right to make laws that are congruentwith the values of that communities.

As you try to slam the church for their opinion, remember, they are not telling you that you need to have any certain belief pattern, or do any type of ritual. They are only looking out for the best interests of the community as a whole, and they have that right through speech, as found in the first ammendment.

As non-LDS, we took that into account when we came to this state with our families, and like the fact.

For those of you who want to turn SLC into the streets of Deadwood, So. Dakota during the goldrush, I don't see the need for the majority of people, including myself, to bow to your bullying demands and taunts, which are silly and inane.

Utah is a nice state to live and raise a family. I like that.

It comes with the territory.

I KNOW THE EFFECTS OF ALCOHOL AND THE DAMAGE THAT IT CAN DO FIRST HAND AFTER THREE FAILED MARRIAGES AND NUMEROUS RELATIONSHIPS. THE FAILED SUICIDE ATTEMPTS AND NOW TO THE ONE OF THE MOST DIABLING THINGS THAT CAN HAPPEN TO THE HUMAN BRAIN AND BODY CEREBELLAR ATAXIA. LOSS OF EQUALIBERIUM PARALIZATION AND IN A WHEELCHAIR FOR LIFE. I DID THIS TO MYSELF I ACCEPT IT.
SO WITH ALL GLAMOR PEOPLE TRY SO HARD TO PUT ALCOHOL AS BEING FUN AND THE THING TO DO.
WISE UP AND LOOK AT YOUR LIFE AND ASK YOURSELVES DO I WANT TO BE DEAD, ALONE, OR MESSED UP PHYSICALLY IN SOMEWAY AT THE AGE OF 52.

So you think the LDS Church should lose its tax exempt status? Have you researched this subject or just throwing out more uninformed opinion? In the last 50 years the IRS has only investigated two churches regarding tax exempt status. The LDS church was not one of them. If the IRS was to take on the LDS Church over this issue there are at least a dozen other churches that would have to be investigated for their political activities. Ever notice where Hillary and Obama gave most of their speeches on Sunday during the campaign?

msgelter - sorry, I forgot to add my name to the post. I hate anonymous snipe postings.

THE L.D.S. IS RIGHT.

I agree with "Enforce the laws striclty" requarding spineless politicians. The two issues for me and they should be for lawmakers are safety and accountablity. When laws are enacted they should ensure the safety of the public. Does making liquor easier and cheaper to get, make roads safer? I think not!

Does making liquor easier and cheaper to get increase accountiblity and responsiblity by the drunk that causes the accidents? I think not!

Where are the politicians and public pushing for more accountability - like loosing a drivers license for 5 to 10 years for a start

I have never understood those people who fall in love with an area (Mesa, Az being one of those areas)who then fail to see and understand what made the area what it is. For starters, the people who first moved to the area made decisions based on goals or a plan they had in mind. Then, the area became what it is. Now, newcomers who love the area and move to the area to enjoy it, begin to change what they loved in the first place. Mesa is no longer what it once was and Utah is facing the same dilemma.

Does the church have influence? Yes. But its only because the majority of legislatures choose for themselves to be influenced by the church in making the decisions. To blame the church for creating laws is wrong. Spirituality and religion of individuals, in whatever denomination or nature it may be, is part of the personality, belief and character of those individuals whether it be for good or bad. When decisions are made by those individuals, they alone are responsible. They chose to act on there beliefs. It is true that many government officials in Utah decide to wait for statements from the church to make their decisions but once again that is the individual's choice. The church did not tell them to wait for their input. If one is uncomfortable or disagrees with the legislature's choices and whether they feel the individual is being influenced by the church too much then vote that legislature out of office. That is what democracy is for. Society can vote out who they wish. Don't blame those who don't make the decisions, put responsibility on the lawmakers and ourselves for electing the lawmakers.

A Dictator State ruled by the State and the LDS Religion
There seems to be no Seperation
To many old Fosils are running The Judicial System
Just a matter of time to fence the state
Criminals are every where

What are the benefits of alcohol?

I tried it a few times as a kid but never found a use for it. Maybe a drinker could shed some light on the subject? (I might have to check back in a few hours. After consuming thier "relaxing" beverage last night they might not be up this early.)

Kudos to the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Hooray for theocracy!!

to: Beliefs don't @ 7:41 a.m.
Being non-LDS, may I just say "thank you" for having respect for your friends differing view. I hope, and would like to think, there are a lot more LDS like you around who put friendship and mutual respect ahead of legalisms. Cheers !

With using the "words" only "freedom of choice" comes some heavy consequences for bad behaviors, none of us really have that. We HAVE freedom to choose right from wrong - good from evil" WITHOUT living in thar gray area between the two, and, calling it just another livestyle choice that's ok to "just do it" and worry about it when we get caught. The LDS Church and its Membership, should NOT let State Law Maker's write any law's to permote anything about alcohol to try and make it good, or for more use of it. If it does this, than it should lose its Tax Exempt stat's for good. After all, it's Jesus Christ's Church, HE knows what's right, not some member running the call's only. That's my view. I to should have a voice here, after being a Member for 50 years now, don't ya think?.

does not see the need to have any alcohol available any time any where. Utah should continue to be a state where one can visit and not suffer the alcoholics that occupy the streets and public establishments we suffer elsewhere. Change if you wish, but at the peril of becoming less attractive to those of us who seek a safer, healthier environment. No one needs alcohol. No one needs the effects of the alcoholic. No one!

I drink a glass of red wine with dinner every evening. It is healthful and responsible. So did my Mormon ancestors before "the brethren" decided to contradict the word of the Lord and make the "Word of Wisdom" a commandment.

What year did the LDS church quit using wine for sacrament? Was it because water is cheaper?

Bigot –noun: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
I sense a lot of malevolence coming from the predominant faith in this article. How many of you have either flat out called someone a bigot or implied they are a bigot if they disagree with your religious views? I can only assume that you use that word with much hate and spite in your heart. There are those of us who live in Utah for the atmosphere (small town), great snow and wonderful diversity of camping and outdoor activities. When you tell me, “if you don’t like the Church influence in Utah you should leave”, you come off as very elitist and quite frankly, ignorant. While I won’t ignore the fact that there are plenty of people outside of your religion that can be labeled as “bigots”, from where I sit there are just as many INSIDE your religion that deserve that label as well.