Church chooses profits over principles

[Fair Dinkum]

One of the most often taught messages we learn in church through song and lesson is to "Do what is right, let the consequence follow" So I was somewhat surprised to learn that when the church is given an opportunity to do what is right they more than often choose profits over their principles.

Some Examples:  At first,  when the church opted to allow alcohol to be sold in restaurants at their City Creek Mall, it initially raised an eyebrow, but I quickly justified their decision by mentally building another shelf in my mind to put this on and somehow accounted for this seeming abandonment of their principles by separating business decisions from religious principles.

But now I've learned that the church is doing it again by choosing profits over keeping their principles.

Earlier this month the church bought a Marriott Hotel on the Island  of Maui in Hawaii (what they need a Marriott Hotel other than the one at the Polynesian Cultural Center for is beyond me) but someone decided that the church needed this property so they paid $148 million dollars for this hotel.

One of the interesting acquisitions that came with this property is a bar where patrons to the hotel can purchase alcoholic beverages.

Now I am not against hotels serving their guests alcohol, but should a church that teaches the evils of alcohol consumption be serving alcohol? 

I am aware of all of the arguments against this point such as Joseph Smith having a bar in his hotel and that the church will most likely sell the liquor permit to a third party to separate themselves from the bar in the hotel that they own.  Should the fact that this third party will be the one who actually operates the bars in the hotel and the church will only profit from them selling alcohol make a difference?  I think it does.

The church has a great opportunity to actually practice what they preach by removing an establishment that serves alcohol from the world,  a product that they are so adamantly against in their teachings and doctrines and yet when given this perfect opportunity to do the right thing and remove the bar, they have instead chosen to keep the bar and their profits over their own principles and will keep the bar open, through a third party vendor. When the rubber meets the road the church has chosen mammon over God, profits over their claimed cherished principles. It's disappointing.

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/news/2021/06/15/residence-inn-marriott-maui-sells-100m-mormon.html

Edited July 12, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, Fair Dinkum said:

One of the most often taught messages we learn in church through song and lesson is to "Do what is right, let the consequence follow" So I was somewhat surprised to learn that when the church is giving an opportunity to do what is right they more than often choose profits over their principles.

Some Examples:  At first,  when the church opted to allow alcohol to be sold in restaurants at their City Creek Mall, it initially raised an eyebrow, but I quickly justified their decision by mentally building another shelf in my mind to put this on and somehow accounted for this seeming abandonment of their principles by separating business decisions from religious principles.

But now I've learned that the church is doing it again by choosing profits over keeping their principles.

Earlier this month the church bought a Marriott Hotel on the Island  of Maui in Hawaii (what they need a Marriott Hotel other than the one at the Polynesian Cultural Center for is beyond me) but someone decided that the church needed this property so they paid $148 million dollars for this hotel.

One of the interesting acquisitions that came with this property is a bar where patrons to the hotel can purchase alcoholic beverages.

Now I am not against hotels serving their guests alcohol, but should a church that teaches the evils of alcohol consumption be serving alcohol? 

I am aware of all of the arguments against this point such as Joseph Smith having a bar in his hotel and that the church will most likely sell the liquor permit to a third party to separate themselves from the bar in the hotel that they own. That this third party will be the one who actually operates the bars in the hotel.  But in fact the church has an opportunity to remove an establishment that serves alcohol from the world,  a product that they are so adamantly against in their teachings and doctrines and yet when given the perfect opportunity to do the right thing and remove the bar, they have instead chosen to keep the bar and their profits over their own principles and have will keep the bar open, through a third party vendor. When the rubber meets the road the church has chosenError! Filename not specified. mammon over God, profits over their claimed cherished principles.

Sounds like the church isn't your cup of tea.

[Fair Dinkum]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Sounds like the church isn't your cup of tea.

I would prefer that they actually do what they teach...seems hypocritical of them.

[Bernard Gui]

The WoW is something we covenant to obey, not something we impose upon others. 

Edited August 16, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[Fair Dinkum]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

The WoW is something covenant to obey, not something we impose upon others. 

You forget all of the influence the church imposes on the Utah legislature in it's liquor laws, which does impose it's WoW on others by restricting access and availability.

To their credit, when the church turned the Hotel Utah into an office building and rebranded it as the Joseph Smith Building, they retained the roof Restaurant over looking Temple Square but ended the sale of alcohol.  I guess selling it in Hawaii is ok however.

[JAHS]

7 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

One of the most often taught messages we learn in church through song and lesson is to "Do what is right, let the consequence follow" So I was somewhat surprised to learn that when the church is giving an opportunity to do what is right they more than often choose profits over their principles.

Some Examples:  At first,  when the church opted to allow alcohol to be sold in restaurants at their City Creek Mall, it initially raised an eyebrow, but I quickly justified their decision by mentally building another shelf in my mind to put this on and somehow accounted for this seeming abandonment of their principles by separating business decisions from religious principles.

But now I've learned that the church is doing it again by choosing profits over keeping their principles.

Earlier this month the church bought a Marriott Hotel on the Island  of Maui in Hawaii (what they need a Marriott Hotel other than the one at the Polynesian Cultural Center for is beyond me) but someone decided that the church needed this property so they paid $148 million dollars for this hotel.

One of the interesting acquisitions that came with this property is a bar where patrons to the hotel can purchase alcoholic beverages.

Now I am not against hotels serving their guests alcohol, but should a church that teaches the evils of alcohol consumption be serving alcohol? 

I am aware of all of the arguments against this point such as Joseph Smith having a bar in his hotel and that the church will most likely sell the liquor permit to a third party to separate themselves from the bar in the hotel that they own. That this third party will be the one who actually operates the bars in the hotel.  But in fact the church has an opportunity to remove an establishment that serves alcohol from the world,  a product that they are so adamantly against in their teachings and doctrines and yet when given the perfect opportunity to do the right thing and remove the bar, they have instead chosen to keep the bar and their profits over their own principles and have will keep the bar open, through a third party vendor. When the rubber meets the road the church has chosen mammon over God, profits over their claimed cherished principles.

Your key words "their claimed cherished principles".  The people that will buy drinks at the bar most likely are non members who made no such promise to not drink. In other words it's not against their religion to drink so why should we force our beliefs and principles on them by not allowing them to buy what they want? There is nothing religiously "evil" about alcohol. The Bible does say to not drink excessively but it is our Church doctrines by latter-day revelation that tells us to not drink and so we make promises to God in that respect.  Major Hotel guests normally expect their to be a bar and Patrons at the bar made no such promises. That's just my opinion. 

[bluebell]

33 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

One of the most often taught messages we learn in church through song and lesson is to "Do what is right, let the consequence follow" So I was somewhat surprised to learn that when the church is given an opportunity to do what is right they more than often choose profits over their principles.

Some Examples:  At first,  when the church opted to allow alcohol to be sold in restaurants at their City Creek Mall, it initially raised an eyebrow, but I quickly justified their decision by mentally building another shelf in my mind to put this on and somehow accounted for this seeming abandonment of their principles by separating business decisions from religious principles.

But now I've learned that the church is doing it again by choosing profits over keeping their principles.

Earlier this month the church bought a Marriott Hotel on the Island  of Maui in Hawaii (what they need a Marriott Hotel other than the one at the Polynesian Cultural Center for is beyond me) but someone decided that the church needed this property so they paid $148 million dollars for this hotel.

One of the interesting acquisitions that came with this property is a bar where patrons to the hotel can purchase alcoholic beverages.

Now I am not against hotels serving their guests alcohol, but should a church that teaches the evils of alcohol consumption be serving alcohol? 

I am aware of all of the arguments against this point such as Joseph Smith having a bar in his hotel and that the church will most likely sell the liquor permit to a third party to separate themselves from the bar in the hotel that they own.  Should the fact that this third party will be the one who actually operates the bars in the hotel and the church will only profit from them selling alcohol make a difference?  I think it does.

The church has a great opportunity to actually practice what they preach by removing an establishment that serves alcohol from the world,  a product that they are so adamantly against in their teachings and doctrines and yet when given this perfect opportunity to do the right thing and remove the bar, they have instead chosen to keep the bar and their profits over their own principles and will keep the bar open, through a third party vendor. When the rubber meets the road the church has chosen mammon over God, profits over their claimed cherished principles. It's disappointing.

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/news/2021/06/15/residence-inn-marriott-maui-sells-100m-mormon.html

The nonmembers are not accountable to the WOW.  It is not a sin for nonmembers to drink alcohol, smoke, or drink coffee or tea.  How is the church not practicing what it preaches?  Where does it teach that alcohol is evil in and of itself? 

We do believe that Christ drank wine, right?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The nonmembers are not accountable to the WOW.  It is not a sin for nonmembers to drink alcohol, smoke, or drink coffee or tea.  How is the church not practicing what it preaches?  Where does it teach that alcohol is evil in and of itself? 

We do believe that Christ drank wine, right?

Also the first four presidents of the church (at least). 

Edited July 12, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Also the first four presidents of the church (at least). 

Great point.

[smac97]

53 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I would prefer that they actually do what they teach...seems hypocritical of them.

"They?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

46 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

The WoW is something covenant to obey, not something we impose upon others. 

To be fair, I don’t think there is any covenant. And the modern proscription against alcohol, smoking, coffee and Tea can only loosely be tied to section 89 which allows mild barley drinks, prohibits meat, all hot drinks, says to use tobacco for bruises etc etc. 

[Fether]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I am aware of all of the arguments against this point such as Joseph Smith having a bar in his hotel and that the church will most likely sell the liquor permit to a third party to separate themselves from the bar in the hotel that they own. 

This is a poor argument and makes me think that you really don’t know the arguments

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

One of the most often taught messages we learn in church through song and lesson is to "Do what is right, let the consequence follow" So I was somewhat surprised to learn that when the church is given an opportunity to do what is right they more than often choose profits over their principles.

Some Examples:  At first,  when the church opted to allow alcohol to be sold in restaurants at their City Creek Mall, it initially raised an eyebrow, but I quickly justified their decision by mentally building another shelf in my mind to put this on and somehow accounted for this seeming abandonment of their principles by separating business decisions from religious principles.

But now I've learned that the church is doing it again by choosing profits over keeping their principles.

Earlier this month the church bought a Marriott Hotel on the Island  of Maui in Hawaii (what they need a Marriott Hotel other than the one at the Polynesian Cultural Center for is beyond me) but someone decided that the church needed this property so they paid $148 million dollars for this hotel.

One of the interesting acquisitions that came with this property is a bar where patrons to the hotel can purchase alcoholic beverages.

Now I am not against hotels serving their guests alcohol, but should a church that teaches the evils of alcohol consumption be serving alcohol? 

I am aware of all of the arguments against this point such as Joseph Smith having a bar in his hotel and that the church will most likely sell the liquor permit to a third party to separate themselves from the bar in the hotel that they own.  Should the fact that this third party will be the one who actually operates the bars in the hotel and the church will only profit from them selling alcohol make a difference?  I think it does.

The church has a great opportunity to actually practice what they preach by removing an establishment that serves alcohol from the world,  a product that they are so adamantly against in their teachings and doctrines and yet when given this perfect opportunity to do the right thing and remove the bar, they have instead chosen to keep the bar and their profits over their own principles and will keep the bar open, through a third party vendor. When the rubber meets the road the church has chosen mammon over God, profits over their claimed cherished principles. It's disappointing.

https://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/news/2021/06/15/residence-inn-marriott-maui-sells-100m-mormon.html

What is your question for the sake of discussion?

[bluebell]

33 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

To be fair, I don’t think there is any covenant. And the modern proscription against alcohol, smoking, coffee and Tea can only loosely be tied to section 89 which allows mild barley drinks, prohibits meat, all hot drinks, says to use tobacco for bruises etc etc. 

Members commit to obey the WOW as the church currently teaches it though, when they go through the interview to be baptized.

[smac97]

 

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

One of the most often taught messages we learn in church through song and lesson is to "Do what is right, let the consequence follow" So I was somewhat surprised to learn that when the church is given an opportunity to do what is right they more than often choose profits over their principles.

Some Examples: At first,  when the church opted to allow alcohol to be sold in restaurants at their City Creek Mall, it initially raised an eyebrow, but I quickly justified their decision by mentally building another shelf in my mind to put this on and somehow accounted for this seeming abandonment of their principles by separating business decisions from religious principles.

But now I've learned that the church is doing it again by choosing profits over keeping their principles.

Are you sure?

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Earlier this month the church bought a Marriott Hotel on the Island  of Maui in Hawaii (what they need a Marriott Hotel other than the one at the Polynesian Cultural Center for is beyond me) but someone decided that the church needed this property so they paid $148 million dollars for this hotel.

One of the interesting acquisitions that came with this property is a bar where patrons to the hotel can purchase alcoholic beverages.

Now I am not against hotels serving their guests alcohol, but should a church that teaches the evils of alcohol consumption be serving alcohol? 

A few thoughts: 

1. From the above article: "Hawaii Reserves owns at least one other hotel in Hawaii — the Laie Courtyard by Marriott hotel next to the Polynesian Cultural Center."

2. A website, ReadyToTrip.com, includes this review of the Laie Courtyard: "Great and comfortable hotel. Staff is friendly. The lobby is great. Not that many people around. I definitely would stay again here! The only problem I find is that they don't serve alcohol here. You have to buy it somewhere else : ("  (Emphasis added.)  See also Priceline: "THERE IS NO ALCOHOL ANYWHERE. NOT IN THE HOTEL, NOT AT THE LUAU NEXT DOOR, NOT AT THE RESTAURANTS NEARBY. NONE, ZERO, NADA. You'd have to go to a grocery store and drink in your room."

Does this alter your calculus at all?

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

The church has a great opportunity to actually practice what they preach by removing an establishment that serves alcohol from the world,  a product that they are so adamantly against in their teachings and doctrines and yet when given this perfect opportunity to do the right thing and remove the bar, they have instead chosen to keep the bar and their profits over their own principles and will keep the bar open, through a third party vendor. When the rubber meets the road the church has chosen mammon over God, profits over their claimed cherished principles. It's disappointing.

https://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/news/2021/06/15/residence-inn-marriott-maui-sells-100m-mormon.html

Years ago I was in law school at BYU and spent several days helping with the school's annual "International Law and Religion Symposium."  Many of the guests were fairly notable in their own countries (I had a number of nice discussions with a judge from the "High People's Court" of a province in China, and also a justice from the Mongolian Supreme Court).

One thing I found interesting was that the patio area on the west side of the law school was modified to include ashtrays, and the continental breakfasts included coffee.

I was sort of surprised and remember asking about it.  My recollection is that the I was told that the law school had received specific permission from BYU and the Church to allow such accommodations for the international visitors, some of whom have heavy smoking habits in their own countries, and would not attend if they were forced to not smoke all day while on campus, and would also have problems if they were required to abstain from coffee.  No alcohol was served, but virtually all of the invitees stayed at the Marriott in Provo, which serves alcohol.  I would assume some of the invitees finished the events on BYU campus and then returned to the hotel and, per their own preferences, imbibed.

Now, I suppose a person could say that the law school (and, by extension, BYU and the Church) could have refused to accommodate these guests regarding coffee and cigarretts. 

Conversely, a person could allow the Church some discretion to make the above limited exceptions.  The law school did not provide cigarrettes to invitees, but allowed them to smoke on campus (which is, under normal circumstances, not allowed at all).  The law school did provide coffee, but not alcohol.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

[let’s roll]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

Are you sure?

A few thoughts: 

1. From the above article: "Hawaii Reserves owns at least one other hotel in Hawaii — the Laie Courtyard by Marriott hotel next to the Polynesian Cultural Center."

2. A website, ReadyToTrip.com, includes this review of the Laie Courtyard: "Great and comfortable hotel. Staff is friendly. The lobby is great. Not that many people around. I definitely would stay again here! The only problem I find is that they don't serve alcohol here. You have to buy it somewhere else : ("  (Emphasis added.)  See also Priceline: "THERE IS NO ALCOHOL ANYWHERE. NOT IN THE HOTEL, NOT AT THE LUAU NEXT DOOR, NOT AT THE RESTAURANTS NEARBY. NONE, ZERO, NADA. You'd have to go to a grocery store and drink in your room."

Does this alter your calculus at all?

Years ago I was in law school at BYU and spent several days helping with the school's annual "International Law and Religion Symposium."  Many of the guests were fairly notable in their own countries (I had a number of nice discussions with a judge from the "High People's Court" of a province in China, and also a justice from the Mongolian Supreme Court).

One thing I found interesting was that the patio area on the west side of the law school was modified to include ashtrays, and the continental breakfasts included coffee.

I was sort of surprised and remember asking about it.  My recollection is that the I was told that the law school had received specific permission from BYU and the Church to allow such accommodations for the international visitors, some of whom have heavy smoking habits in their own countries, and would not attend if they were forced to not smoke all day while on campus, and would also have problems if they were required to abstain from coffee.  No alcohol was served, but virtually all of the invitees stayed at the Marriott in Provo, which serves alcohol.  I would assume some of the invitees finished the events on BYU campus and then returned to the hotel and, per their own preferences, imbibed.

Now, I suppose a person could say that the law school (and, by extension, BYU and the Church) could have refused to accommodate these guests regarding coffee and cigarretts. 

Conversely, a person could allow the Church some discretion to make the above limited exceptions.  The law school did not provide cigarrettes to invitees, but allowed them to smoke on campus (which is, under normal circumstances, not allowed at all).  The law school did provide coffee, but not alcohol.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for the research Smac.

Personally, If I we’re running the “affiliate of the commercial real estate arm” of the Church that bought the property, I would be on board with making alcohol available to hotel guests and donating the profits on all alcohol sales to MADD. 

[let’s roll]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The law school did provide coffee, but not alcohol.

 

I wonder if they got the coffee from Prof. Floyd.  He was my favorite professor at the Law School.  Don’t know if you were there while he was.  A partner at a great firm in SF, he taught civ pro, federal courts, antitrust etc.  I was there early in his time at the law school...I don’t believe he ever joined the Church.

[JAHS]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

Are you sure?

A few thoughts: 

1. From the above article: "Hawaii Reserves owns at least one other hotel in Hawaii — the Laie Courtyard by Marriott hotel next to the Polynesian Cultural Center."

2. A website, ReadyToTrip.com, includes this review of the Laie Courtyard: "Great and comfortable hotel. Staff is friendly. The lobby is great. Not that many people around. I definitely would stay again here! The only problem I find is that they don't serve alcohol here. You have to buy it somewhere else : ("  (Emphasis added.)  See also Priceline: "THERE IS NO ALCOHOL ANYWHERE. NOT IN THE HOTEL, NOT AT THE LUAU NEXT DOOR, NOT AT THE RESTAURANTS NEARBY. NONE, ZERO, NADA. You'd have to go to a grocery store and drink in your room."

Does this alter your calculus at all?

Years ago I was in law school at BYU and spent several days helping with the school's annual "International Law and Religion Symposium."  Many of the guests were fairly notable in their own countries (I had a number of nice discussions with a judge from the "High People's Court" of a province in China, and also a justice from the Mongolian Supreme Court).

One thing I found interesting was that the patio area on the west side of the law school was modified to include ashtrays, and the continental breakfasts included coffee.

I was sort of surprised and remember asking about it.  My recollection is that the I was told that the law school had received specific permission from BYU and the Church to allow such accommodations for the international visitors, some of whom have heavy smoking habits in their own countries, and would not attend if they were forced to not smoke all day while on campus, and would also have problems if they were required to abstain from coffee.  No alcohol was served, but virtually all of the invitees stayed at the Marriott in Provo, which serves alcohol.  I would assume some of the invitees finished the events on BYU campus and then returned to the hotel and, per their own preferences, imbibed.

Now, I suppose a person could say that the law school (and, by extension, BYU and the Church) could have refused to accommodate these guests regarding coffee and cigarretts. 

Conversely, a person could allow the Church some discretion to make the above limited exceptions.  The law school did not provide cigarrettes to invitees, but allowed them to smoke on campus (which is, under normal circumstances, not allowed at all).  The law school did provide coffee, but not alcohol.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

I have been in meetings for my company where visitors from China came to our US site. They were all chain smokers and could not have gone without a cigarette for even a short amount of time.
Accommodations have to be made sometimes regardless of your own personal convictions.

[Fair Dinkum]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

Your key words "their claimed cherished principles".  The people that will buy drinks at the bar most likely are non members who made no such promise to not drink. In other words it's not against their religion to drink so why should we force our beliefs and principles on them by not allowing them to buy what they want? There is nothing religiously "evil" about alcohol. The Bible does say to not drink excessively but it is our Church doctrines by latter-day revelation that tells us to not drink and so we make promises to God in that respect.  Major Hotel guests normally expect their to be a bar and Patrons at the bar made no such promises. That's just my opinion. 

So you support the church earning a profit from alcohol?  OK

[Fair Dinkum]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

What is your question for the sake of discussion?

Is it consistent for a church that teaches its members to avoid even the appearance of evil to profit from the sale of the very product that they teach should be avoided on Sunday?

Edited July 12, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Is it consistent for a church that teaches its members to avoid even the appearance of evil profit from the sale of the very product that they  teach should be avoided?

The Church's history with alcohol is interesting: from wine being used for the sacrament (amongst the brethren in the temple even after the stronger prohibitions), and the wineries and distilleries which were some of the early investments of the church and its leaders. IIRC there was even alcohol placed in the cornerstone of the St George temple. There is a fascinating article about the the WoW developed into what it is today and how it is taught and the policies surrounding it. The church has the right to set policies about the practice of the WoW however it chooses for whatever purpose it chooses, but IMO there isn't any kind of eternal commandment  about it. There has never been a revelation commanding the WoW be practiced. IMO the WoW (abstinence from alcohol, tobacco, drugs, coffee/tea) are more used by the church as a loyalty test and a way to rebrand into a wholesome, family oriented church from the early days where it had the opposite reputation (polygamy).

But always remember, the "church" doesn't really exist as a church but rather as a trademark of the corporation.  

[Fair Dinkum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

Are you sure?

A few thoughts: 

1. From the above article: "Hawaii Reserves owns at least one other hotel in Hawaii — the Laie Courtyard by Marriott hotel next to the Polynesian Cultural Center."

2. A website, ReadyToTrip.com, includes this review of the Laie Courtyard: "Great and comfortable hotel. Staff is friendly. The lobby is great. Not that many people around. I definitely would stay again here! The only problem I find is that they don't serve alcohol here. You have to buy it somewhere else : ("  (Emphasis added.)  See also Priceline: "THERE IS NO ALCOHOL ANYWHERE. NOT IN THE HOTEL, NOT AT THE LUAU NEXT DOOR, NOT AT THE RESTAURANTS NEARBY. NONE, ZERO, NADA. You'd have to go to a grocery store and drink in your room."

Does this alter your calculus at all?

Years ago I was in law school at BYU and spent several days helping with the school's annual "International Law and Religion Symposium."  Many of the guests were fairly notable in their own countries (I had a number of nice discussions with a judge from the "High People's Court" of a province in China, and also a justice from the Mongolian Supreme Court).

One thing I found interesting was that the patio area on the west side of the law school was modified to include ashtrays, and the continental breakfasts included coffee.

I was sort of surprised and remember asking about it.  My recollection is that the I was told that the law school had received specific permission from BYU and the Church to allow such accommodations for the international visitors, some of whom have heavy smoking habits in their own countries, and would not attend if they were forced to not smoke all day while on campus, and would also have problems if they were required to abstain from coffee.  No alcohol was served, but virtually all of the invitees stayed at the Marriott in Provo, which serves alcohol.  I would assume some of the invitees finished the events on BYU campus and then returned to the hotel and, per their own preferences, imbibed.

Now, I suppose a person could say that the law school (and, by extension, BYU and the Church) could have refused to accommodate these guests regarding coffee and cigarretts. 

Conversely, a person could allow the Church some discretion to make the above limited exceptions.  The law school did not provide cigarrettes to invitees, but allowed them to smoke on campus (which is, under normal circumstances, not allowed at all).  The law school did provide coffee, but not alcohol.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

Are you sure?

A few thoughts: 

1. From the above article: "Hawaii Reserves owns at least one other hotel in Hawaii — the Laie Courtyard by Marriott hotel next to the Polynesian Cultural Center."

2. A website, ReadyToTrip.com, includes this review of the Laie Courtyard: "Great and comfortable hotel. Staff is friendly. The lobby is great. Not that many people around. I definitely would stay again here! The only problem I find is that they don't serve alcohol here. You have to buy it somewhere else : ("  (Emphasis added.)  See also Priceline: "THERE IS NO ALCOHOL ANYWHERE. NOT IN THE HOTEL, NOT AT THE LUAU NEXT DOOR, NOT AT THE RESTAURANTS NEARBY. NONE, ZERO, NADA. You'd have to go to a grocery store and drink in your room."

Does this alter your calculus at all?

Years ago I was in law school at BYU and spent several days helping with the school's annual "International Law and Religion Symposium."  Many of the guests were fairly notable in their own countries (I had a number of nice discussions with a judge from the "High People's Court" of a province in China, and also a justice from the Mongolian Supreme Court).

One thing I found interesting was that the patio area on the west side of the law school was modified to include ashtrays, and the continental breakfasts included coffee.

I was sort of surprised and remember asking about it.  My recollection is that the I was told that the law school had received specific permission from BYU and the Church to allow such accommodations for the international visitors, some of whom have heavy smoking habits in their own countries, and would not attend if they were forced to not smoke all day while on campus, and would also have problems if they were required to abstain from coffee.  No alcohol was served, but virtually all of the invitees stayed at the Marriott in Provo, which serves alcohol.  I would assume some of the invitees finished the events on BYU campus and then returned to the hotel and, per their own preferences, imbibed.

Now, I suppose a person could say that the law school (and, by extension, BYU and the Church) could have refused to accommodate these guests regarding coffee and cigarretts. 

Conversely, a person could allow the Church some discretion to make the above limited exceptions.  The law school did not provide cigarrettes to invitees, but allowed them to smoke on campus (which is, under normal circumstances, not allowed at all).  The law school did provide coffee, but not alcohol.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for sharing this.  While I did make mention of the church owning the hotel next door to the PCC, this post is specific to the one owned by the church in Maui which yes does also contain a bar that serves adult beverages.  Frankly the church can do whatever it wants, but I guess, only to me, it seems a bit hypocritical to teach us not to drink while at the very same time actually making a profit from the very product being taught not to consume.

[why me]

Free will is a major principle of the church. I don't think that the church should be denying free will.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, why me said:

Free will is a major principle of the church. I don't think that the church should be denying free will.

Maybe a pot dispensary will be next. As long as it's legal and for non-members only...right?  

[why me]

We can also point out coffee and tea. Should the church serve coffee and tea for breakfast, lunch and dinner? Why just pick out alcohol? A business is a business. It employs people, gives them a living. And it does not impose its will on others.