Wherever beer and religion intersect, there you will find the author of this website standing with piqued interest. The two can be found to be joined in harmony, or pitted in animosity, or jumbled up in a gray area of confusion. A recent article from the Associated Press momentarily lured me away from my daily (and thus far, vain) duty of vocation pursuance as it seemed to rest in the latter, more ambiguous intersection. The title: Abstinent Mormon farmers grow barley for beer says it all.
The article begins with Idaho Senator Mike Crapo’s efforts in pushing through a bill that would ease taxes on small beer makers, and then jumps ship from the newsworthy effort, rabbit trailing into several paragraphs that link Idaho Mormons as intrinsically tied to the beer industry, primarily as big suppliers of barley to breweries; mainly AB and Coors.
The fact that the article’s premise is only loosely tied to the Crapo’s Bill (the bill cuts taxes on breweries, not barley farmers) indicates to me that the author has a bit of an agenda…but then again, show me a reporter who maintains constant objectivity and I’ll give you a high five . The author seems to be attempting to support Crapo’s efforts by downplaying the tension between Mormonism and alcohol consumption, after all, Senator Crapo has faced scrutiny from his fellow Mormons for helping what some in the ranks may consider a sinful industry.
In the article, the author attempts to make it a point that alcohol consumption is an ambiguous tenet with the Latter Day Saints. He writes:
Church founder Joseph Smith offered this revelation in 1833, “Strong spirits are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies,” and members have practiced abstinence since.
But the church, which declined to comment for this story, doesn’t demand everybody quit drinking.
And later, he quotes members of the church:
Even so, Idaho’s Mormon barley farmers acknowledge an ambiguity in what they grow.
“I’ve often wondered about the correctness of doing it,” said Scott Brown, president of the Idaho Grain Producers Association and a Mormon who grows barley on 5,000 acres near Soda Springs. “But somebody is going to grow it, whether members of the LDS church do.”
And:
“People will look at me and say, ‘You’re a Mormon, why do you grow barley?’ ” he said. “I just don’t have a problem with it. I don’t think people who drink beer are bad.”
So it seems that this really is an ambiguous issue for the church, right? As a non-expert in Mormonism, I might beg to differ. You see, the Joseph Smith quote (the first that states alcohol is not meant for the belly) comes from section 89 of the Doctrine and Covenants, a source of authority for the LDS church, in which the Lord himself purportedly handed down to Joseph Smith what a member of the LDS church should or should not eat or drink. If the doctrine is taken at face value, it is not a black and white issue.
Typically when it comes to matters of truth, it is the perception of the truth that is pragmatically bent, not the truth itself. I think it comes through in the apologetic attitudes of the good Mormon barley growers.
Do I have a point in all of this? I suppose. First of all, I would support the Crapo’s bill (obviously, I want to open a brewery myself one day), but the article made me think: Do I ever intentionally downplay my motives or actions or morals for gain? For example, were I an ardent supporter of gun control and vocal pacifist, would it be morally acceptable for me to work in an ammunition factory? Are Crapo and the Barley growers participating in something against their conscience for the sake of economic growth? And here is the BIG QUESTION: If Crapo and the Barley growers truly believe that it is morally permissible to consume alcohol and contribute to the development of the industry despite the fact that their doctrine suggests otherwise, should they continue on as faithful LDS members?
Think about it beer drinkers…were you to be come ABSOLUTELY convinced that a particular religious vein was completely real and representative of a real deity (humor me..even if you are an atheist) and that religious matrix demanded abstinence from your beloved brewski, would abstain? Or, suppose you were a member of a religious community and disagreed with a tenet of faith that was deer to you (like abstaining from beer) would you continue on with the group?
It’s like Muslims in Pakistan growing and selling poppies (which is later turned into heroin) to support their cause. Only it’s beer, and beer is good for you.
[Reply]
THFBeer_nate Reply:
September 8th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
I’ve been wrestling with the issue of selling my body to raise funds for a brewery. Ends justifying means???
[Reply]
Fortunately for me, I need not worry. But to humor you in this discussion, I suppose I would forsake it. It would be tough at first, but I imagine it would get easier over time. Thankfully, your hypothetical is not reality.
[Reply]
THFBeer_nate Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 6:47 am
Is that Papal beer for real? Yes, thank goodness it’s hypothetical…
[Reply]
I can’t answer your first question in the last paragraph because I refuse to be involved in things that deal in absolutes like that. So for the second question, I would still participate in that faith as long as I was still welcomed, because I wouldn’t give up something I love because it breaks one of a thousand rules. If I’m 99% on the right side of things and that’s not enough, then I guess it’s just not going to work out.
[Reply]
THFBeer_nate Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 6:49 am
As far as your answer to the second question, I think that’s fair. Though I would WANT to be able to accept 100% of any given ethos–whether it be political, philosophical, religious, or whatever–it seems highly improbable, that were we to be honest with ourselves we could accept 100% in our heart of hearts…thus the compromise. Also, in my opinion, even if a religious group were to forbid alcohol, to me it seems like a minor, not a major issue in which the adherent should still be welcome should the tactfully imbibe.
[Reply]
I think the key phrase is “if the doctrine is taken at face value.” As theologians, you of course know that doctrine is taken at anything but, but that philosophy of religion evolves and changes. At face value, most of Leviticus is a tad nutty. But doctrine has changed as we have learned more about the world, and we have come to view those edicts as important historically or culturally, but not morally relevant anymore.
Put it this way: Should every Catholic who disagrees with the Church on birth control or stem cell research give up Catholicism? I suppose a mad dog philosopher (Van Inwagen? Plantinga?) would say yes, belief systems are all-or-nothing. But most would say that what we’ve learned is that religious experience is defined by praxis – that is, what we do – and not by specific opinions on policy. For example, I don’t eat pork, not because I think the Kashrut are sacred, but because part of faith is sometimes doing things differently than others.
So Mormons don’t need to believe that beer is evil to see it as an important part of their faith, any more than I believe G-d cares if I eat bacon or not. People can do things religiously for reasons other than believing that even a black-and-white textual statement is the only arbiter of morality. The LDS has already demonstrated that not everything Joseph Smith thought was ironclad (e.g. polygamy), and in this case even the official church stance is that it’s not a salvifically necessary belief.
[Reply]
THFBeer_nate Reply:
September 9th, 2010 at 6:54 am
Thanks for the in-depth response, Greg. Like you suggest, just because I disagree with a stance of my group, I wouldn’t give it up. As far as the evolution of doctrine, I would say some would say that isn’t true. In fact, there are branches of Judaism that adhere to strict observance of Levitical Law. Of course they are the minority.
I think the key to your statement is that some stances are not “salvific”. Every religion has practices that are suggested and/or tradition that do not necessarily impact one’s standing with the group.
I am not absolutely sure if this is the case with Mormonism though, as I said ‘m not an expert (nor am I mormon).
[Reply]
Wow, Nate…Heady stuff. Here is something to consider beyond the topic and a couple of insights into the Mormon Church. First there are many levels of Mormonism. The leve all “good” Mormons strive to meet is “Temple Worthy”. That means that they are permitted into the mormon temples and can freely worship in any Mormon facility. They actually get a card that they have to flash to prove they are temple worthy. OK, with that said there are several actions that will get you booted out of the temple. One that will do it every time is consumption of alcohol, even in moderation. Now, one that gets you in to the temple, or a prerequisite condition of being temple worthy is tithing. They must tithe 10% of their income to be considered for temple worthiness.
This all gets a little confusing, but in the end here is the real rub. The Mormon Barley growers are wealthy beyond measure. They really rake it in. So if the church denies them temple worthiness, they run the very real risk of loosing all that cash in their coffers. After all churches must have money to sustain their mission. What if that money comes from farmers that grow barley for beer that millions of people will drink? I’ll bet a bartender can’t be temple worthy, even if they don’t drink. Of course they aren’t making millions of dollars for the church every year either, but those wealthy barley farmers are.
So that is where This whole issue lies for me, not that Crapo (a Mormon BTW) is trying the get Breweries less taxes and keep is wealthy mormon buddies profitable, but that this is an issue in the first place at all. However the hierarchy in the religion itself creates this angst around this issue. I’m sure the church will see fit to turn a blind eye here, because after all, all that money keeps the mission of the church moving forward. Even if it at the cost of hypocracy.
[Reply]
Big Tex Reply:
September 10th, 2010 at 8:33 am
Interesting insights, Don. I’ve wondered about some of the various prohibitions “good” Mormons are subjected to. It’s been said that caffeine is one such prohibition, yet a Mormon roommate would raid my fridge in college, aiming for the Mountain Dew first.
[Reply]
Don Reply:
September 13th, 2010 at 7:31 am
That is why you need to have two Mormon room mates. They will keep each other honest!
[Reply]
Big Tex Reply:
September 13th, 2010 at 10:35 am
Dorm life… lol.
Reminds me of a rule when fishing with Baptists… take more than one with you. Otherwise, your beer is gone.
Interesting insights, Don. Thanks for sharing.
Perhaps I was wrong that the alcohol provision isn’t relevant to salvation. If one isn’t Temple Worthy, I assume that bodes ill for one’s chances at getting to heaven? Though Crapo seemed to imply alcohol abstinence is kind of a suggestion, rather than a necessity. If so, it seems the production of alcohol is far enough removed for tolerance, though the profitability may help its case.
All religions have to adapt to survive (though, as Nate wisely pointed out, there are always some purist holdouts… though I would still argue even they evolve with interpretation), and a part of any successful evolution is definitely related to resources, so forgiving otherwise sinful behavior if it’s really dang profitable has a ton of precedent in religion.
One of the more interesting examples is the FLDS movement – the extreme polygamist quasi-Mormom offshoots – who are staunchly opposed to government but are huge users of entitlement programs. They justify it as “bleeding the beast”… that is, by helping the government go broke, they are helping to bring down the unbelievers (and they get paid). A premillennial Christian could make the same argument for growing grains for beer… by increasing the sinfulness of infidels who will drink the stuff, you’re helping bring about the final reckoning, which will be good for the believers.
Doubly so, in this case, since the grains go to make Budweiser and Coors, which even a heathen like myself thinks are sinful.
[Reply]
Bottom line is Mormons are people too, and like the majority of Catholics practice some sort of birth control (beyond the rhythm method) during their child bearing years I’m sure more than a few Mormons drink. They however are either doing so under wraps or they are not Temple Worthy. It is a very strict thing too. I actually have known kids of parents that were not temple worthy and the kids were and the parents couldn’t attend their wedding in the temple. It is pretty divisive from my perspective. That said, I’m sure some of them are drinking without it being common knowledge to keep that Temple Recommend. The church’s actions and policies just drive the behavior underground.
[Reply]
Actually, you can be a bartender and be temple worthy, trust me. its the consumption of alcohol that if prohibited. Caffeine is not prohibited although some members choose not to drink it (I am not one of them). Like many things in our church, there are guidelines, and many of them are left to be interpreted by the members themselves. Much of our church is about self governing based on a select few rules that are absolute. Even the absolute rules that are broken however, can be corrected and temple worthiness can be acquired again. The church would probably benefit from the tithing that comes from the barley farmers, but to be honest, its a worldwide church that does not need that tithing with all the other that it gets. Tithing goes towards feeding the poor in our own countries as well as others, providing disaster relief, and subsidising education costs for those who cannot afford it alone.
[Reply]