We analyzed the 2021 Ranked Choice Voting elections in Utah County and Moab (the capitol of Grand County), focusing on the Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) algorithm. We found three issues: (1) The fractions of ballots discarded and those that needed rectification exceeded 10% in 7 of the 17 races (across 4 municipalities) indicating a considerable degree of voter confusion .(2) Four different election pathologies were detected in the Council (Seat 1) race in Moab: failure to elect a consensus winner, monotonicity failure and two participation failures. A ``spoiler'' candidate, which IRV proponents have claimed this method prevents, was also detected.(3) Four towns elected two seats by discarding the winner of the first seat, then re-running IRV with the resulting modified ballots to determine the winner of the second seat. This all four times caused the second-place finisher in the first election, not to win the 2nd seat, but rather to finish second again, somewhat frustratingly for them.Overall, IRV elected the same winner as standard plurality in 15 of 16 races with >= 3 candidates, with the single changed outcome in the Vineyard City Council (Seat 2) race.We also analyzed the data from a recount viewpoint -- implementing the Utah Election Code rules for automatic recounts versus Blom et al. ``Exact Margin of Victory (EMOV)'' method. According to the former, a recount was justified in two races, namely the Springville (4yr) and Moab City Councils; butonly Moab was actually recounted. However, EMOV showed recounting Springville almost certainly would have been inconsequential. As far as we know, this is the first-of-kind analysis of IRV elections in the state of Utah and it highlights the paradoxical properties of the IRV algorithm --- often incorrectly dismissed as too rare to worry about --- showing that these unfortunately indeed occur in real-world elections hence really are worrisome. In conjunction with the above-mentioned ballot issues, these problems cast doubt on the wisdom of IRV for Utah. We believe there are better alternatives than IRV, e.g. ``range voting,'' and these should become part of a debate towards fundamentally rethinking the program.