rockpond Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 On the other hand if all the models on the ads were holding to LDS standards, modest dress, no alcohol, Molly Mormon stuff, people would complain that it would appear that non-members were not welcome and that Mormons were clearly clannish and corny.Not me. I don't think there is anything about City Creek to suggest that non-members are not welcome.
mfbukowski Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 You Utahns don't see the "Utah" ads we see here in LA, every 10 minutes trying to drum up business for all the ski areas "within an hour from SLC airport"To see those, you'd think that a trip to Utah was what every jet-setter in the world AND everybody with an extra couple of hundred bucks would absolutely HAVE to do to be cool and in the in-crowd to get the "best snow on earth".One shows a family sitting on a row in a plane, where the plane and seats melt away and the family is now sitting on a ski lift in one seamless shot.You are obviously getting some visitors.Either you want people to feel at home, in a real urban environment, that they are used to, or you want them to think that Utah is a theocracy run by the church where lingerie and alcohol ads are strictly controlled.I mean, it's your state to decide how you want to present yourselves. I think you are on the right track with the mall and all. I honestly think that the reason Romney didn't win was that people thought he was one of those "weird Mormons". They didn't understand. Republicans did not vote for him.I mean either we are in the world (but not of it) or we are NOT in the world. We have to pick how to present ourselves- that's the bottom line. And clearly Utah is NOT "the church".This whole issue I think is kind of a coming-of-age question not for the church but for Mormons in general. Do we genuinely want to be IN the world (but not of it) or do we want to hide under a rock and be seen as peculiar people?Where is the balance? 3
mfbukowski Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 Not me. I don't think there is anything about City Creek to suggest that non-members are not welcome.NOMy point is that IF it had only Molly Mormon standards, it would be seen that way. Where is the balance- that is the question? 1
rockpond Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 NOMy point is that IF it had only Molly Mormon standards, it would be seen that way. Where is the balance- that is the question?The state and private enterprise can do whatever they want (within legal bounds). The way I see it, if a church investment requires the promotion of activity that is contrary to the standards of the church, maybe we shouldn't be making such an investment.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 Glad that you know what their wishes were.Apparently you think you do.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 You Utahns don't see the "Utah" ads we see here in LA, every 10 minutes trying to drum up business for all the ski areas "within an hour from SLC airport"To see those, you'd think that a trip to Utah was what every jet-setter in the world AND everybody with an extra couple of hundred bucks would absolutely HAVE to do to be cool and in the in-crowd to get the "best snow on earth".One shows a family sitting on a row in a plane, where the plane and seats melt away and the family is now sitting on a ski lift in one seamless shot.You are obviously getting some visitors.Either you want people to feel at home, in a real urban environment, that they are used to, or you want them to think that Utah is a theocracy run by the church where lingerie and alcohol ads are strictly controlled.Please don't lump all us Utahns in together with the likes of rockpond.(Assuming he's from Utah; I don't know where he's from.)
cinepro Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) It's the combination of the two. And live models as opposed to pictures. I'm just trying to gain an understanding of Nathair's perspective on this.I've always believed that our bodies were temples, so I would have no objection to a restaurant that allows its patrons to enjoy nicer-than average temples while they dine.That's also why I believe that we, like the Church with its Temples, should spend the time and money to get our bodies professionally refurbished every few decades. Edited February 1, 2013 by cinepro
rockpond Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) Please don't lump all us Utahns in together with the likes of rockpond.(Assuming he's from Utah; I don't know where he's from.)I'm not sure who mfbukowski was speaking to with that. I am not from Utah and don't live there.His comment also seems to put up the strawman that somehow the church is controlling visitor impressions of Utah and therefore must run ads that appear to endorse behavior contrary to church standards. At least that's how I read his statement: "Either you want people to feel at home, in a real urban environment, that they are used to, or you want them to think that Utah is a theocracy run by the church where lingerie and alcohol ads are strictly controlled." in the context of our discussion on City Creek. But he is welcome to clarify. Edited February 1, 2013 by rockpond
Scott Lloyd Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 Nope.Then apparently you have no standing to be insinuating that the Church is desecrating their memory by the investment of its real estate holdings.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 I'm not sure who mfbukowski was speaking to with that. I am not from Utah and don't live there.Then speaking as a resident of Utah and the Salt Lake Valley and one who works downtown at least five days a week, I will take this opportunity to express my delight with the City Creek project. After over a decade of urban decay, it is good to see a commercial district that is vibrant and inviting again.I think the Church hit one out of the park with this. 1
rockpond Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 Then apparently you have no standing to be insinuating that the Church is desecrating their memory by the investment of its real estate holdings.Correct. And nobody else here can insinuate that the City Creek development is what they would have wanted.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) Correct. And nobody else here can insinuate that the City Creek development is what they would have wanted.So at long last, then, the point is irrelevant.Edited to add:With that said, I think it worth noting that the early pioneers who founded Salt Lake City and the Utah Territory pooled their personal resources and the proceeds from their labors to form Zion's Cooperative Mercantile Institution (ZCMI) and similar cooperative enterprises throughout the territory, evidence, perhaps, that they were in no way opposed to having their newly settled Zion thrive through economic development. Edited February 1, 2013 by Scott Lloyd 2
rockpond Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 Then speaking as a resident of Utah and the Salt Lake Valley and one who works downtown at least five days a week, I will take this opportunity to express my delight with the City Creek project. After over a decade of urban decay, it is good to see a commercial district that is vibrant and inviting again.I think the Church hit one out of the park with this.I think I've tried to make this point before... I am confident for people like you who live there it is an outstanding development and a huge improvement to SLC. I've walked through it and its great. Totally agree.I just think that is a rather ethnocentric rational for such a significant portion of our church finances.
rockpond Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 So at long last, then, the point is irrelevant.I realize you see it that way.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) I think I've tried to make this point before... I am confident for people like you who live there it is an outstanding development and a huge improvement to SLC. I've walked through it and its great. Totally agree.I just think that is a rather ethnocentric rational for such a significant portion of our church finances.And as has been repeatedly pointed out, one of the identified purposes was to safeguard the environs around the sacred spaces of the temple and the headquarters of the Church, arguably the earthly seat where the Lord's anointed receive revelation from Jesus Christ to govern His kingdom.If tomorrow I were to move 10,000 miles away, I would still approve. Edited February 1, 2013 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 I realize you see it that way.Did you note the part I added on to my post later?
rockpond Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 Did you note the part I added on to my post later?Just checked it. And yes, I've previously stated that I support the beginning of the cooperative mercantile idea. I don't see the resemblance to the City Creek development and I don't think one can conclude that because the early saints began ZCMI, that they would support all versions of economic development.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 Just checked it. And yes, I've previously stated that I support the beginning of the cooperative mercantile idea. I don't see the resemblance to the City Creek development and I don't think one can conclude that because the early saints began ZCMI, that they would support all versions of economic development.I think the evidence weighs more in favor of that conclusion than the opposite which you appear to be implicitly espousing.
rockpond Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 And as has been repeatedly pointed out, one of the identified purposes was to safeguard the environs around the sacred spaces of the temple and the headquarters of the Church.If tomorrow I were to move 10,000 miles away, I would still approve.Alright then. Glad that we have safeguarded the environs around our sacred space with restaurants that serve alcohol and a temple to consumerism.
rockpond Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 I think the evidence weighs more in favor of that conclusion than the opposite which you appear to be implicitly espousing.I disagree.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 Alright then. Glad that we have safeguarded the environs around our sacred space with restaurants that serve alcohol and a temple to consumerism.I suppose you would prefer bars, dives, pawnshops, tattoo parlors, etc. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 I disagree.That's obvious from the way you've been holding forth. We get it.
rockpond Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 That's obvious from the way you've been holding forth. We get it.Just didn't want to leave any doubt (since neither of us can prove what the early saints would want).
rockpond Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 I suppose you would prefer bars, dives, pawnshops, tattoo parlors, etc.Nope. That's a strawman. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation.
Recommended Posts