In this chapter review of the Teaching of Joseph Fielding Smith (JFS), we shall be focusing on the Sacrament of Communion. This chapter of JFS’s teaching is particularly interesting given the overlap of teaching between orthodox Christianity and Mormonism in terms of the importance of the sacrament and the necessity of the sacrament as part of the life of the ‘church’. In this chapter, we shall focus on the surprising similarities and the key differences between the Christian and Mormon teaching in regards to the sacrament. For the purposes of this review, we shall be working from the basis of Chrstian sacramental theology of the memorialist tradition rather than the consubstationalist and transsubstantionist traditions. This choice has been made based on the prevailing opinions of the contributors to this column and as the memorialist tradition and the LDS tradition on the sacrament are more similar than the other two.
It is important to state at this point some of the things we will not be discussing. We will not be discussing the use of water in the Mormon sacrament, as it is a peripheral issue. Whilst it is not the wine that the Gospels or 1 Corinthians state should be used in the sacrament of communion, the use of grape juice/ribena/other wine substitute by Protestant churches since the eighteenth century without it causing major theological dispute so to focus on that would be at the least not generous and at worst, unfair. We shall also not be discussing the definition of ‘sacrament’ in this article. Whilst the term ‘sacrament’ is not necessarily transferable between Christianity and Mormonism (ordinance and sacrament could be considered more applicable in terms of transferability), there is no dispute that Christian and Mormon theology both would state emphatically that communion was instituted by Jesus Christ himself that all who obey him should follow.
Before we go into the differences between the two theologies, there are some important points that JFS makes that we must agree with him on. To not do so would be disingenuous. The questions that JFS raises at the bottom of page 97 and the whole of page 98 about how one should approach the sacrament of communion and what it represents are ones that orthodox Christians should ask ourselves. These questions are not rooted in our disagreements on grace and works. The need to address our attitudes and our walk with God before partaking in communion is very much necessary. JFS’s reference to the ‘disrespect’ of the sacrament on page 100 is also something that must strike a cord with the orthodox Christian as well. I have been in similar situations where communion has been treated trivially and without as much of a second thought to what Jesus endured on the cross for us, without as much as a second thought for the fact that he died in our place. This is something that should concern Christians. These two aspects of sacramental theology make orthodox Christianity and Mormonism look very similar if not the same. The fact that these discussions do seem to make Christianity and Mormonism look the same on the surface are part of the reason why this blog exists, to show what are the clear differences between Christianity and Mormonism, which dictate that only one can be called the truth.
There are some clear differences though between the Christian and Mormon theology of sacrament and communion and to explore those, we shall be looking at the scriptures of invocation.
“O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them; that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.” [D&C 20:77.] (Also found in Moroni 5:2)
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, ‘Take it; this is my body.’ Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it. ‘This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,’ he said to them (Mark 14:22-24 NIV)
And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. (Mark 14:22-24 KJV)
For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: the Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. (1 Corinthians 11:23-26 NIV)
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. (1 Corinthians 11:23-26 KJV)
It could be said that I have potentially over quoted here in terms of scripture verses but I believe that it is important to note the subtle differences between the Doctrine and Covenants invocation and the invocations for communion in the New Testament. It is because of this that I have included the King James Version and the New International Version for our comparisons, due to the language of the Doctrine and Covenants passage being closer to the King James translation.
The subtle difference within D&C 20:77 compared to the `Mark and 1 Corinthians passages is the phrase ‘always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them; that they may always have his Spirit to be with them’. The wording of the D&C passage is of course completely different but the doctrine does look very similar up until the point this phrase enters. Throughout whichever liturgical rite you see within Christendom, there is no mentioning of such a phrase or such a theology. One must repent before communion that is true. One must consider one’s walk with God before partaking in communion, that is true. One must reflect upon the sacrifice of God the Son upon the cross before communion. To promise to keep all the commandments and take the ‘name of the Son upon yourself?’ Not only is this not in the New Testament passages or in the history of communion throughout the ages, but it also sets a standard that is so impossibly high. The reflection upon the cross at communion should remind us that none can attain atonement for our sins by our own means. By assuming the unbearable burden at the table where we remember that Christ took that burden upon himself, assuming that burden is a sign that we believe that we must add works to the work and grace of Christ. Such sacramental theology supports salvation by works.
Such theology can be seen on pages 101-102 of JFS’s chapter on the sacrament in the following quotation:
I want to ask you a few questions, and I speak, of course, to all the members of the Church. Do you think a man who comes into the sacrament service in the spirit of prayer, humility, and worship, and who partakes of these emblems representing the body and blood of Jesus Christ, will knowingly break the commandments of the Lord? If a man fully realizes what it means when he partakes of the sacrament, that he covenants to take upon him the name of Jesus Christ and to always remember him and keep his commandments, and this vow is renewed week by week—do you think such a man will fail to pay his tithing? Do you think such a man will break the Sabbath day or disregard the Word of Wisdom? Do you think he will fail to be prayerful, and that he will not attend his quorum duties and other duties in the Church? It seems to me that such a thing as a violation of these sacred principles and duties is impossible when a man knows what it means to make such vows week by week unto the Lord and before the saints.
JFS seems to start with some good principles but it seems to manifest out into some more works based theology. It is always the aim of all Christian men and women who partake in the sacrament of communion that they will not ‘knowingly break the commandments of the Lord’. The vow is made with all sincerity but the consciousness of sin is always there with every Christian. The Christian knows that sin is only one step away due to humanity’s innate sinfulness. Communion is a recognition of our need to rely on the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. For a man to reflect upon communion and come to a place where it is impossible for one to break the commandments is impossible. The burden is too high. Not only does it say that the grace that we remember in the sacrament is not enough, but also it rather explicitly states that one can actually achieve and work towards a goal that is actively impossible, that goal being not breaking a commandment week by week and attain salvation/attaining the celestial kingdom through works as well as grace. The emphasis is on perfection rather than a recommitment to grace and the sacrifice made by Jesus to forgive our sins. Given that the Moroni 5:2 verse as well as Moroni 4:3 are the sacramental prayers of blessings and one of the few ‘prayers of liturgical use’ in Mormon theology and practice, it also makes it quite clear that there is no prescribed act of penitence of confession as part of the sacrament of communion. Mainstream Christianity, no matter the theology of what occurs on the communion table, includes a period of reflection and/or prayers of confession and reconciliation to get oneself right with God, knowing that one has fallen short and will continue to do so whilst walking down the long and winding rod of sanctification until death and resurrection. The emphasis on perfection and works for God rather than confession and dependence on God is the key theological difference in this area of Christian/Mormon theological debate.
So what can we say for this chapter of JFS’s thought? We can say that there is a lot of theological thought and understanding that overlaps, as we have seen before. the understanding the importance and sacredness of the sacrament of communion. The conservative evangelical traditions of Christianity and the LDS almost have the same memorialist interpretation of what is going on at the communion table. What is being celebrated at the table is almost the same but the perhaps subtle differences are the key differences. Orthodox Christians focus in communion is to reflect on the work of Jesus on the cross remembered in the communion meal as part of the reconciliation of the relationship between God and man and the need for a repentance of sin. it may seem simplistic to say it is a grace focused activity but it cannot be denied that forgiveness and grace are the keys in the orthodox Christian sacrament. Whilst it would be most unfair to say that the LDS sacrament does not have forgiveness and grace at its heart, the different emphasis of perfection and observing the commandments instead of repentance for the times that we break those commandments are signs of the third element in Mormon theology, works. Mormonism, no matter what doctrine you investigate has works at the centre of obtaining the celestial kingdom and exaltation. Orthodox Christianity doesn’t.
You somewhat contradict and express some error in understanding us.
You cannot say on the one hand “it would be most unfair to say that the LDS sacrament does not have forgiveness and grace at its heart,” yet demand “Mormonism, no matter what doctrine you investigate has works at the centre of obtaining the celestial kingdom and exaltation.”
It is error to suppose works undermines grace when applying it to the LDS.
If forgiveness and grace are at the heart of our sacrament, please do not ignore this fact when you suppose we do not entirely depend upon God’s mercy/grace, when we privately ask for forgiveness. After all, Christians focus on our willful disobedience (acts, works), wanting to be cleansed, strengthened to more completely honor Him. One cannot find healing without his grace. But there is still much that can be done of our own determination and obedience.
Curiously, in Christ’s mortal mission, he had much he needed to do to “fulfill all righteousness”. Yet, He did nothing of himself. He was example that we may follow. As a Mormon, I attest that there is nothing in all of history than the singular event that the Sacramental prayer honors.
Hi there. Welcome to the blog.
I did not write this article but I am very supportive of it so will leave some thoughts.
Firstly looking at the supposed contradiction, are you saying that something can only have one thing at its heart? Have you never felt love and hate at the same time? Relief yet frustration? The list goes on, unless you are saying that it is only possible for an organization to have one thing at the core, you have made a redundant statement there. Gary in my mind (though I will let him speak for himself) is pointing out a clear contradiction, and has made a very fair point there.
Romans 11:6 says And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
I appreciate this will raise some disagreement from you, and I say this as no beginner to Mormonism, but Mormon leaders have repeatedly over the years taught that works are necessary (meaning absolutely essential) for exaltation (or salvation in the fullest sense), this is a contradiction to the New Testament and falls foul of what Romans 11:6 is saying. I will spare you the quotes from your leaders teaching this (as you will have likely seen them) however I am happy to go there if you are taking the modern day apologetic line, that Mormonism promotes the idea of salvation by grace alone, which is just spin in my mind.
Like any good distortion of truth Mormonism is not flat out falsehood, it does have forgiveness and grace on one hand, but on the other is expectation and legalism, these cannot go together in reality, however this is what I have seen repeatedly in years of studying Mormonism.
Interesting in your last paragraph you say Christ had much to do to fulfil all righteousness, I can think of one example where this was said and there is good reason for this. Can you tell me the other cases before I respond to that?
thanks for the comment, great to meet you,
Gary,
//Whilst it would be most unfair to say that the LDS sacrament does not have forgiveness and grace at its heart, the different emphasis of perfection and observing the commandments instead of repentance for the times that we break those commandments are signs of the third element in Mormon theology, works. Mormonism, no matter what doctrine you investigate has works at the centre of obtaining the celestial kingdom and exaltation. Orthodox Christianity doesn’t.//
Without getting into the whole debate of works vs. grace, it is the teaching of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that without the Grace of Christ (as the centerpiece), Jesus’ command to us to “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matthew 5:48) is not possible. The Sacrament, with proper participation, is an effective means for turning our hearts to His Grace and His “perfection” aspirations for us, at least on a weekly basis, that we might ultimately, through His Grace, be made perfect and become “heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.” (Romans 8:17) Christ was clear throughout His ministry of the importance of “doing the will of my Father which is in Heaven.”(Matthew 7:21) As He taught, “If ye love me, keep my commandments”.(John 14:15)
Of course, without a personal relationship with Christ and without repentance and without grace and without His atonement and acceptance of it, we can never be enabled to keep the commandments on our own or to be perfect as Father, as Christ commanded (Matthew 5:48)
C.S.Lewis (a well known Christian scholar, non-LDS) explains the possibility and plausibility of perfection far better than I could:
http://raychoi.org/2011/06/22/c-s-lewis-quote-on-a-believers-sanctification-or-perfection-mere-christianity/
Michael and others,
The term grace in scripture is sometimes used in a different sense than you suppose. It can describe a quality that is responsive or reactive to human behavior. When spoken of in this sense, God’s favor or grace is not a preexisting given but is something that can be sought after, increased, decreased, or even lost completely by an individual’s own actions. I do not see this thought in Protestant thought. Thus Peter can insist in 1 Peter 5:5 that God gives grace to the humble (as opposed to those who lack humility). He also exhorts believers to “grow in grace.” (See 2 Pet. 3:18; italics added. also Luke 2:52.) John explains that believers receive grace for grace, or in other words they receive increased favor from God as they react positively (graciously) to grace already received. (See John 1:16; see also D&C 93:12, 19-20) Paul even warns the Galatians against falling from grace through their own foolishness. (See Gal. 1:6; 5:4.)
This reactive or responsive grace can “be multiplied” (e.g., 1 Pet. 1:2), it “abounds” under certain circumstances, and it can be received “in vain” (2 Cor. 6:1). It is used in the sense of reward in Luke 6:32-34 (“What thank have ye?”) 2 and of the thanks that humans owe God. Thus even now, “to say grace” means to offer the thanks due to God in return for his blessings. This responsive kind of grace is also the nuance behind most of the scriptural passages in which one individual speaks of finding “grace in the eyes of” another (See, e.g., Gen. 19:19; 1 Sam. 20:3.). We see how an individual can be said to grow from grace to grace until ultimately coming to a “fulness of grace.” (D&C 93:13, 19-20)
BELIEVING CHRIST by Stephen E. Robinson
Stephen,
Thank you for that explanation of Grace and its relationship to the exercise of our will – wonderful! Although there are aspects of Grace that are universally applicable as a free gift, like the Resurrection, there are, as you so well explained, other aspects of Grace that are manifest in our lives related to the exercise of our will.
As C.S.Lewis taught, “And He (Christ) knows perfectly well that your own efforts are never going to bring you anywhere near perfection. On the other hand, you must realise from the outset that the goal towards which He is beginning to guide you is absolute perfection, and no power in the universe, except you yourself, can prevent Him from taking you to that goal.” and
“The command “Be ye perfect” is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. …If we let Him — for we can prevent Him, if we choose — He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, a dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through which such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly. His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said.”
Ephesians 2:8-10
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Seems clear enough to me. But this strikes me as a text which Mormons can never truly accept without a lot of qualifiers.
I would go so far as to say that no Mormon (or person for that matter) other than Christ has achieved perfection, we should seek to be Christ like and Christ honouring in all that we do. However I do not and should not feel any pressure to become perfect, its just impossible. However I am 100% righteous in the sight of God, because I am clothed in Christ, and I am honestly very grateful for this. And I want to honour Christ and live for Him in response to this great forgiveness.
To say that grace is something that we earn is such a contradiction and such a sad untruth, its impossible to earn that, that you absolutely do not deserve.
Bobby , would you agree with this statement by an Evangelical? “Sanctification is the process of being set apart for God’s work and being conformed to the image of Christ. This conforming to Christ involves the work of the person, but it is still God working in the believer to produce more of a godly character and life in the person who has already been justified (Phil. 2:13). Sanctification is not instantaneous because it is not the work of God alone. The justified person is actively involved in submitting to God’s will, resisting sin, seeking holiness, and working to be more godly (Gal. 5:22-23). Significantly, sanctification has no bearing on justification. That is, even if we don’t live a perfect life, we are still justified.”?
Absolutely. I do like carm.org too
Gary and Bobby,
In light of this statement, “The justified person is actively involved in submitting to God’s will, resisting sin, seeking holiness, and working to be more godly (Gal. 5:22-23)”,
Can you see how the Sacrament with its renewed commitment on our part to keep the commandments and to Remember Him can be so valuable to us as we seek sanctification through Christ?
Your first part is dead on Michael. I also have no problem really with the idea that when you take the sacrament you are, in your heart committing yourself to God, to keep His commandments etc
(casting aside any dispute on what those commandments are for now)
Here is my understanding of the LDS Sacrament, bold added
Think of the significance of this ordinance! A 16 or 17-year-old priest, sitting at the sacrament table, in the power of his Aaronic Priesthood office, and in the name of Jesus Christ, blesses and sanctifies, not the bread or the water, but the souls of all those who partake of the bread and water, in remembrance of Christ and with commitment again to keep His commandments (D&C 20:77, 79). To the earnest, penitent participant in the sacrament ordinance, that priest promises the return of the Holy Ghost, which is the agent that sanctifies and makes one clean again. That priest makes available to all, who receive the sacrament in the proper spirit, the redeeming power of Jesus Christ. Week after week, this sacred ordinance is offered to us, and if we receive it in the spirit in which it is offered, we are sanctified, or made clean, little by little, grace for grace, until the perfect day. Only by enduring to the end in this manner will we qualify ourselves to stand in the presence of God in the day of resurrection.
(taken from https://www.lds.org/pages/areapresidency/2012/july?lang=eng&country=au)
I utterly reject the idea that one is made clean by taking the sacrament, or any other church ordnance.
I am clean by virtue of being in union with Christ. By one offering He has made me perfect (Hebrews 10:14) I am not made perfect in the sight of God repeatedly, by renewing covenants. Rather I am always clean due to always being connected to Christ. By virtue of His faithfulness to me by my being saved by grace.
Bobby remarks: “I utterly reject the idea that one is made clean by taking the sacrament, or any other church ordinance.” That being the case, and logically consistent, you utterly reject that you can be made clean through baptism. It turns out there is much you reject.
Right on both counts, so are you saying taking the sacrament does cleanse you before God?
Bobby,
The Sacrament prayers are just that – they are prayers on behalf of those who participate in the Sacrament.
“O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them; that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.”
The Lord instituted the Sacrament during the Last Supper and His disciples continued the practice after His ascension. It’s purpose was and is to assist us to “remember HIM” and maintain that union with Christ you have discussed, that we have previously formalized through Baptism as Christ commanded us to do. It is one of the many means for us to, as robinobishop explained, to have His grace multiplied in our lives.
Pretty much happy with that michael but I am sensing the whole story isn’t being told.
Please see my last comment I don’t think you have responded to it yet.
Bobby, I would say it is NOT the ordinance itself, but the opportunity the ordinance provides us and when we take that opportunity, the Sacrament is a means for us for us to Remember HIM, renew our Baptismal covenant with HIM and to have His Spirit to be with us. The words of the Sacrament prayers say it all, Everything else said is well meaning commentary.
I will take that as your opinion michael and stay with the words of general authorities to represent Mormonism
Thus this article and my comments stand
Bobby, James J. Hamula is NOT writing a doctrinal statement by the Church. He is wring His own commentary on the subject. The Sacrament prayers speak for themselves and are established Church Doctrine. His statements are NOT and he would be the first to tell you that.
If I could sit down with James J. Hamula, I would ask him to reconcile his statement, “A 16 or 17-year-old priest, sitting at the sacrament table, in the power of his Aaronic Priesthood office, and in the name of Jesus Christ, blesses and sanctifies, not the bread or the water, but the souls of all those who partake of the bread and water”
with
the actual wording of the Sacrament prayer which has the Priest praying to the Father in the name of Christ on behalf of those participating, asking “Father” to “bless and sanctify” the “bread” or the water” to the souls of all those who partake,
“O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them; that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.”
In fact, I think I will try to contact Him to see what His response is
Thanks michael I would love to hear how that goes.
He reflects my understanding that I have also heard from other Mormons over the years.
Any other LDS people here have thoughts on this?
I found his email address and have asked him to further explain his thoughts on the subject in relation to the wording used in the actual Sacramental prayers. I will let you know when he responds.
Just a quick clarification. You do realise my issue with all of this is the notion of becoming clean when taking the sacrament dont you? This is not something to do with the sacramental prayer. as such.
Or are you just saying that you feel he has misinterpreted this and that is the root of the problem?
thanks
Bobby,
What is impossible is to be “perfectly righteous” without being “perfect”. Yet in two posts you have remarked so. It would be helpful to me to know how you are perfectly righteous? Are all those who have said they believe in Christ and his atonement made perfectly righteous (in your eyes)?
Hi there good question.
I believe as I am sure you do that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God,.(Romans 3:23) that this sin separates us from God (Isaiah 59:2) that outside of Christ we are children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3) totally separate to God and literally His enemies. (Christ said you are for me or against me)
Any good works we do in this position are useless and are as filthy rags to God (Isaiah 64:6) so we need to become righteous in the sight of God in order that any of our works will be acceptable to Him.
So as Romans 4:5 says to the one that does not work but believes in the one that justifies the ungodly, His faith is credited as righteousness (Romans 4:5), in Christ we become new creations (2 Cor 5:17) the old person dies and the new person, crucified with Christ lives by faith in Him (Galatians 2:20)
This new person is saved by grace not of themselves, so they have no room for boasting of any works that they do, yet in their new existence they are to do good works that glorify God, that have been prepared in advance for them to do. (Ephesians 2:8-10)
Good works are so important, they demonstrate the reality of our faith and more importantly they bring glory to God, the very thing He created us for. However unless we do this in a state of total righteousness in His sight, they are useless works, glorifying no one but the doer of them.
So yes I believe I am totally righteous in the sight of God, in order that I might bring glory to God. I am not worried about my standing before God, but I am eager to love and glorify Him forever.
He that has been forgiven much loves much, that sounds like me. I am not saying I am perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but I am righteous and free to glorify my God.
Bobby,
I appreciate that you answered my question at long length. As I see it, you suppose a person becomes endowed with righteousness in consequences of becoming a “new person”. I suppose another expression that you might use is “born again”. Over the course of a life of being a “new person” in Christ, how is this manifested for others to see? Would you expect a “new person” in Christ be more committed their marriage by example?
Hey there no problem.
Yeah born again certainly works. And yes I would expect that sooner or later, every aspect of a persons life will be influenced by the work of Christ in them. Again not to the point of perfection but as they become more Christ like such a key area of marriage should certainly see the fruit of that.
Then, for instance, why do people who describe themselves as born again in Christ divorce at a much greater rate than atheists? That is a profound contradiction.
A contradiction to what, have I claimed somewhere that born agains never divorce?
I think you just committed the guilt by association fallacy (look it up). Likewise is Mormonism false because Utah has the highest number of pornography subscribers in the US? Come on you can do better than that.
Cheapshot.com
Only Non-Mormons subscribe
Nice
But I SERIOUSLY doubt it, in a 68% Mormon state the 32% left over account for that statistic, they would have to view porn full time…
But anyway, I hope you were seeing Michael that I am not raising that as a reason for Mormonism to be false, nor do I intend to do so.