Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Church chooses profits over principles


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, pogi said:

Except drinking alcohol isn't a "sin" for non-members.

Is SSM a sin for non-members?

If the church only defines sin for members then I wouldn't think Oaks would have a problem if some non-member friends (who aren't married or are SSM) stayed over night at his house and he'd feel fine introducing them to friends, right? IMO he is on one extreme.

On the other hand I recall Elder Christiansen talking about serving alcohol to guests at a dinner party as part of being a good host. So I definitely think there is a spectrum of belief even amongst the brethren about what is or is not appropriate in regards to hosting others with different standards.

 

What I'm confused about Pogi is your idea that the prophet and apostles are only the prophet and apostles for the church and seemingly don't have responsibility to the rest of the world. Also, how is drinking alcohol a sin? Is there a commandment? And don't say D&C 89 which specifically says the WoW is NOT a commandment. It would seem that the sin is less about drinking alcohol (as some kind of God-given commandment) and more to do with not following the commandments of the brethren. As others have noted, while there is a "commitment" to keep the WoW at baptism and one has to answer about it with the TR questions, there really isn't an actual commandment or covenant about the WoW. It's more about being in line with a policy, so technically not keeping the WoW wouldn't even be a sin for members, even if it did disqualify them for the temple for failure to follow policy.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

FWIW, the Elder Oaks interview you’re thinking of is at https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction.

And I think the point that keeps coming back is:  the proscription against alcohol use is of limited applicability in terms of time, space, and place; whereas the Church holds that the proscription against fornication (including gay sex) is eternal in nature and universal in application.

That's a good point.

Although "fornication" doesn't seem to apply to a SSM couple since they are married legally. Fornication would apply more easily to early polygamists than modern SSM.

It's kind of hard to say what is or isn't eternal in nature when church policies and doctrines have changed over time. I don't recall seeing anything in any scripture about SSM being a sin eternally. I've only seen modern opinion from the brethren. Some of the church's policies (think November policy) have already changed so calling something today..."eternal" simply lacks a historical context

Link to comment

If your bishop continues to give you grief over getting a temple recommend for owning a bar, you can share this conference talk with him from President Joseph F. Smith in defense of the church owning a bar and selling alcohol at Hotel Utah:

Quote

 

"The people who visit us want something to 'wet up' with once in a while, and unless it is provided for them they will go somewhere else, and instead of beholding and viewing the beauties of Zion they will go where they will see everything that is not beautiful and that which is not good." 

"We are not responsible for the character of men who come here and are entertained in the hotel."

https://www.ldsliving.com/A-Controversial-Bar-Famous-Guests-More-Things-You-Didn-t-Know-About-Hotel-Utah-Before-It-Became-the-Joseph-Smith-Memorial-Building/s/82527

 

It seems that there is precedent set by the church itself.  There is no way the temple recommend denials would be ratified by higher-ups.  Only then could you claim duplicity and hypocrisy. 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
28 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I recall Elder Oaks saying something regarding SS couples that they should be shown love but don't expect him to introduce them to friends, or something like that. I've heard people talk about how they won't let a SS couple or even an unmarried adult family member spend the night with their significant other. It doesn't seem like he would agree with the idea that hosting others who "sin" is no biggie.

Unless you can remember what he said, or find it and cite it, it isn't worth commenting on (for either you or me). To your point (i think), Church-owned hotels have paying guests commit all sorts of taboo on the premises, and I do not find that duplicitous either.

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I recall Elder Oaks saying something regarding SS couples that they should be shown love but don't expect him to introduce them to friends, or something like that. I've heard people talk about how they won't let a SS couple or even an unmarried adult family member spend the night with their significant other. It doesn't seem like he would agree with the idea that hosting others who "sin" is no biggie.

Unless you can remember what he said, or find it and cite it, it isn't worth commenting on (for either you or me). To your point (i think), I'm sure that Church-owned hotels have paying guests commit all sorts of taboo on the premises, and I do not find that duplicitous either.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

1.  Perhaps.  If a plethora of folks start saying they were denied temple recommends for producing/serving alcohol and that the area authorities ratified these denials, I’ll naturally have to re-evaluate my position.

2.  Like . . . release me?  Refuse to call me to teach primary/nursery?  I mean, yeah, I suppose a bishop’s position in the hierarchy gives him a stronger platform from which to stir up “ward drama” against me if he’s particularly sadistic; but ultimately—not a lot of sadists get called as bishops; and fundamentally either you care about ward drama, or you don’t (and I don’t).  

It has nothing to do with sadism or ward drama. It would be very natural for them to think about the example the individual is setting for others.

Do you think the owner of a brewery or a pot dispensary would be called to work with the Priest Quorum? Seems doubtful to me. Even seems reasonable.

I kind of doubt I'd see a professional gambler called as bishop, or the doctor/owner at the abortion clinic being called as RS President.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is SSM a sin for non-members?

If the church only defines sin for members then I wouldn't think Oaks would have a problem if some non-member friends (who aren't married or are SSM) stayed over night at his house and he'd feel fine introducing them to friends, right? IMO he is on one extreme.

On the other hand I recall Elder Christiansen talking about serving alcohol to guests at a dinner party as part of being a good host. So I definitely think there is a spectrum of belief even amongst the brethren about what is or is not appropriate in regards to hosting others with different standards.

What I'm confused about Pogi is your idea that the prophet and apostles are only the prophet and apostles for the church and seemingly don't have responsibility to the rest of the world. Also, how is drinking alcohol a sin? Is there a commandment? And don't say D&C 89 which specifically says the WoW is NOT a commandment. It would seem that the sin is less about drinking alcohol (as some kind of God-given commandment) and more to do with not following the commandments of the brethren. As others have noted, while there is a "commitment" to keep the WoW at baptism and one has to answer about it with the TR questions, there really isn't an actual commandment or covenant about the WoW. It's more about being in line with a policy, so technically not keeping the WoW wouldn't even be a sin for members, even if it did disqualify them for the temple for failure to follow policy.

Is SSM a sin for non-members? Yes and no; it depends on the light the have. It is a sin in the eyes of God, and He will enlighten everyone at some point.

If Elder Oaks feels to express his disapproval under certain circumstances, he is only doing what the Church already does in official circumstances.

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is SSM a sin for non-members?

They would have to repent and divorce before baptism, even though they were not members at the time.  So, yes.

Elder Oaks suggested that he would not personally host them.  That is his personal prerogative.  I don't agree with his position.  No one would be disciplined for doing so, however.

24 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

What I'm confused about Pogi is your idea that the prophet and apostles are only the prophet and apostles for the church and seemingly don't have responsibility to the rest of the world. Also, how is drinking alcohol a sin? Is there a commandment? And don't say D&C 89 which specifically says the WoW is NOT a commandment. It would seem that the sin is less about drinking alcohol (as some kind of God-given commandment) and more to do with not following the commandments of the brethren. As others have noted, while there is a "commitment" to keep the WoW at baptism and one has to answer about it with the TR questions, there really isn't an actual commandment or covenant about the WoW. It's more about being in line with a policy, so technically not keeping the WoW wouldn't even be a sin for members, even if it did disqualify them for the temple for failure to follow policy.

If you read my posts, it is plainly evident that I don't think the prophets are only prophets for the church, as you accuse me of believing or suggesting.  I addressed this directly in several posts.  It appears that several people here are falsely correlating being a prophet for all people with holding all people to the same covenants.  

My understanding is that the church entered a covenant to abstain from alcohol by common consent under Brigham Young.  That is when the church began being held spiritually accountable.

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's a good point.

Although "fornication" doesn't seem to apply to a SSM couple since they are married legally. Fornication would apply more easily to early polygamists than modern SSM.

It's kind of hard to say what is or isn't eternal in nature when church policies and doctrines have changed over time. I don't recall seeing anything in any scripture about SSM being a sin eternally. I've only seen modern opinion from the brethren. Some of the church's policies (think November policy) have already changed so calling something today..."eternal" simply lacks a historical context

Sure; and that gets into the sort of issues Elders Oaks and Wickman discuss about whether, in God’s eyes, a civilly-recognized SSM is really a “marriage” at all; their answer is that it is not.  (A cynic may accuse the church of special pleading here vis a vis your observation about polygamy; because the Church basically says that God recognized those unions but not SSMs).

I would also respectfully submit that any Mormon who insists that modern orthopraxy must have textual support in ancient scripture, is sort of missing the point of having living prophets at all. ;)  As it is, though:  the scriptures speak more-or-less approvingly of people drinking alcohol;  but seem to lack approving references of either extramarital sex or any kind of homosexual intercourse.  Typically policies that are wont to change have either been demonstrably different in the past (e.g. polygamy, baptismal requirements, etc); or have been undergirded by consistent statements from ecclesiastical leaders to the effect that the policy can/will change in the future (e.g. Blacks-and-priesthood).  

It seems historically unprecedented for the Church leadership to entrench themselves into a position for which they have left themself no theological “out” for future change, the way they have on the issue of SSM.

Edited by mgy401
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Unless you can remember what he said, or find it and cite it, it isn't worth commenting on (for either you or me). To your point (i think), Church-owned hotels have paying guests commit all sorts of taboo on the premises, and I do not find that duplicitous either.

Interview With Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Lance B. Wickman: “Same-Gender At (churchofjesuschrist.org)

Quote

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: At what point does showing that love cross the line into inadvertently endorsing behavior? If the son says, ‘Well, if you love me, can I bring my partner to our home to visit? Can we come for holidays?’ How do you balance that against, for example, concern for other children in the home?’

ELDER OAKS: That’s a decision that needs to be made individually by the person responsible, calling upon the Lord for inspiration. I can imagine that in most circumstances the parents would say, ‘Please don’t do that. Don’t put us into that position.’ Surely if there are children in the home who would be influenced by this example, the answer would likely be that. There would also be other factors that would make that the likely answer.

I can also imagine some circumstances in which it might be possible to say, ‘Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”

Oaks took it even further than I remembered- he suggested that if kids are in the home the SS couple shouldn't even visit for the holidays or "deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your partnership." 

Ouch. Very loving indeed.

One might also ask, at what point does selling alcohol cross the line into inadvertently endorsing behavior the church opposes? I think this is the crux of Fair Dinkum's question.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It has nothing to do with sadism or ward drama. It would be very natural for them to think about the example the individual is setting for others.

Do you think the owner of a brewery or a pot dispensary would be called to work with the Priest Quorum? Seems doubtful to me. Even seems reasonable.

I kind of doubt I'd see a professional gambler called as bishop, or the doctor/owner at the abortion clinic being called as RS President.

I hope I’m not being overly offensive here, but . . .

Getting one’s nose out of joint because one was not called to serve in a particular calling, strikes me as “drama”.

Can you propose any more substantive ways that a disapproving bishop could affect a member’s church membership, liturgical participation, and/or daily walk with Christ?

Edited by mgy401
Link to comment

Would any LDS here feel uncomfortable buying a drink for a non-LDS friend? For example, you offer to pay for dinner for a group of friends. The non-LDS order some beer or wine to go with their dinner. How would you feel personally about paying for it?

I'm not trying to make a point here one way or another. I'm just curious.

I'm also curious how widespread in the LDS church is the belief that it is not sinful for non-LDS to drink alcohol. That kinda surprised me, but hey, I'll drink to that tonight! ;) 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

@Fair DinkumIt is not duplicitous to decry the evils of alcohol while accommodating the comforts of friends, guests and visitors who, within the scope of the host-paying guest relationship and according to the light the guests are operating under, are not using these things for evil purposes (as far as anyone wants to speculatively cogitate over). The guests may well be aware of the Word of Wisdom, but it doesn’t mean anything to the unconverted. To be recompensed for this accommodation is reasonable.

It is not duplicitous to decry the evils of Pornography while accommodating the comforts of friends, guests and visitors who, within the scope of the host-paying guest relationship and according to the light the guests are operating under, are not using these things for evil purposes but purely for its entertainment value (as far as anyone wants to speculatively cogitate over). The guests may well be aware of our stance against pornography, but it doesn’t mean anything to the unconverted. To be recompensed for this accommodation is reasonable.

Ok, I see where your going, it never hurts to accommodate those with different standards than ours. We certainly don't want to make them feel uncomfortable by making them live up to our standards and we would never want to offend anyone so let's forget what God said For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance" But He really didn't mean this when the sin is the done in the spirit of hospitality and to make others feel welcomed and loved; then sin is just fine with God. We would certainly never want to offend anyone would we. And if we can profit from their sin all the better, I mean what's the harm in that right?

Edited by Fair Dinkum
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

It is not duplicitous to decry the evils of Pornography while accommodating the comforts of friends, guests and visitors who, within the scope of the host-paying guest relationship and according to the light the guests are operating under, are not using these things for evil purposes but purely for its entertainment value (as far as anyone wants to speculatively cogitate over). The guests may well be aware of our stance against pornography, but it doesn’t mean anything to the unconverted. To be recompensed for this accommodation is reasonable.

Ok, I see where your going, it never hurts to accommodate those with different standards than ours. We certainly don't want to make them feel uncomfortable by making them live up to our standards and we would never want to offend anyone so let's forget what God said For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance" He really didn't mean this when the sin is the done in the  spirit of hospitality and to make others feel welcomed and loved; then sin is allowed. Oh and it really makes it ok if we profit by making the sin available then that's ok too.

With your approach you would need to hold God accountable for everything bad that people do while on the earth (or he is condoning their sinful behavior), because he allowed people to make their own choices while dwelling in his establishment.  The earth is his.  We are his guests.  Ultimately God judges us for what we do here, but that comes later.  

Edited by InCognitus
Link to comment
33 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Would any LDS here feel uncomfortable buying a drink for a non-LDS friend? For example, you offer to pay for dinner for a group of friends. The non-LDS order some beer or wine to go with their dinner. How would you feel personally about paying for it?

I'm not trying to make a point here one way or another. I'm just curious.

I'm also curious how widespread in the LDS church is the belief that it is not sinful for non-LDS to drink alcohol. That kinda surprised me, but hey, I'll drink to that tonight! ;) 

I'll tell you what, if you pay for my concert tickets to the band of your choice (we seem to like the same bands), I'll buy you a beer!

I have no moral dilemma with that. 

 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

With your approach you would need to hold God accountable for everything bad that people do while on the earth (or he is condoning their sinful behavior), because he allowed people to make their own choices while dwelling in his establishment.  The earth is his.  We are his guests.  Ultimately God judges us for what we do here, but that comes later.  

Not at all.  God either does or does not have an expectation and standard of what He expects of His Church.  We as individuals also have freedom of choice. The church can choose to either profit from the sale of alcohol or choose not to.  Its really that simple.  Right now they are choosing to profit from it. Which is their right, but it none the less sends a confusing message that allowing a little sin is just fine if we can make some money off of it but teach about abstaining from its use and its evils on Sunday.  

Edited by Fair Dinkum
Link to comment
18 minutes ago, pogi said:

They would have to repent and divorce before baptism, even though they were not members at the time.  So, yes.

Elder Oaks suggested that he would not personally host them.  That is his personal prerogative.  I don't agree with his position.  No one would be disciplined for doing so, however.

If you read my posts, it is plainly evident that I don't think the prophets are only prophets for the church, as you accuse me of believing or suggesting.  I addressed this directly in several posts.  It appears that several people here are falsely correlating being a prophet for all people with holding all people to the same covenants.  

My understanding is that the church entered a covenant to abstain from alcohol by common consent under Brigham Young.  That is when the church began being held spiritually accountable.

So it's not a sin for the non-member but they would have to repent of that non-sin before becoming a member?

Can you cite a reference for when and where a covenant is made to keep the WoW?

Wait...what?

When and how did the church enter a covenant? CFR on that one. Also, Brigham continued drinking as did the general membership of the church until Heber J Grant who was a teetotaler. There were rules against public drunkenness for entering the temple but also exceptions for that. So even though BY declared it a commandment there was no abstinence requirement during the BY era. This is an interesting paper about the development of the WOW historically.

An Historical Analysis of the Word of Wisdom (byu.edu)

Page 90 starts the Heber J Grant section which is really interesting IMO.

BUT... this article from Dialogue is outstanding. The Word of Wisdom: From Principle to Requirement, by Thomas Alexander

THE WORD OF WISDOM: FROM PRINCIPLE TO REQUIREMENT on JSTOR

It's a much shorter read.

 

Link to comment
On 7/13/2021 at 11:16 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

Interview With Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Lance B. Wickman: “Same-Gender At (churchofjesuschrist.org)

Oaks took it even further than I remembered- he suggested that if kids are in the home the SS couple shouldn't even visit for the holidays or "deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your partnership." 

Ouch. Very loving indeed.

One might also ask, at what point does selling alcohol cross the line into inadvertently endorsing behavior the church opposes? I think this is the crux of Fair Dinkum's question.

 

That said, this thread seems a bit overwrought to me. I mean one it’s a hotel not a church. It’s owned as an investment. Two, it’s just alcohol. The hotel is going to serve coffee too, but not seeing much allegations of outrage there? Should the church ask for marriage certificates for adults sharing a bed? I mean come on. 
 

My dad (a stake patriarch) asked how he could make sure my wife and I could have coffee when we go visit him later this month. They live in the middle of nowhere (45 minutes to a grocery store). We have two small children that don’t sleep at night. Is this an act of kindness or should I chew him out for being duplicitous?

Edited by Nemesis
You could have gotten your point across without the first sentence. So I removed it as it’s against board guidelines.
Link to comment
31 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

I hope I’m not being overly offensive here, but . . .

Getting one’s nose out of joint because one was not called to serve in a particular calling, strikes me as “drama”.

Can you propose any more substantive ways that a disapproving bishop could affect a member’s church membership, liturgical participation, and/or daily walk with Christ?

Limiting the way someone is allowed to serve IS substantive IMO.

What else could a priesthood leader do? Restrict the sacrament or participation in other ordinances like ordaining a son to the priesthood or setting apart a wife for a calling etc. You may not think those are a big deal but I would disagree. And I still believe that a temple recommend could very well be in danger as well.

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Would any LDS here feel uncomfortable buying a drink for a non-LDS friend? For example, you offer to pay for dinner for a group of friends. The non-LDS order some beer or wine to go with their dinner. How would you feel personally about paying for it?

I'm not trying to make a point here one way or another. I'm just curious.

I'm also curious how widespread in the LDS church is the belief that it is not sinful for non-LDS to drink alcohol. That kinda surprised me, but hey, I'll drink to that tonight! ;) 

Surprised me too. :)  At the very least it would be very frowned upon as a weakness or vice and a person might be used as a negative example if they were seen drinking.

 

Link to comment

This Bar is Leased to its Operators by

***Imagine the Logo Of the Church Right here***

        "Please Drink Responsibly"

 

Am I the ONLY one here that is offended by this????    How anyone can approve of this venture is beyond me.

 

Edited to be less offensive but the fact remains that having the good name of the church attached to a bar is just as offensive as having the above sign unedited hanging on the wall of that bar they own.

Edited by Fair Dinkum
Link to comment
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is SSM a sin for non-members?

If the church only defines sin for members then I wouldn't think Oaks would have a problem if some non-member friends (who aren't married or are SSM) stayed over night at his house and he'd feel fine introducing them to friends, right? IMO he is on one extreme.

On the other hand I recall Elder Christiansen talking about serving alcohol to guests at a dinner party as part of being a good host. So I definitely think there is a spectrum of belief even amongst the brethren about what is or is not appropriate in regards to hosting others with different standards.

 

What I'm confused about Pogi is your idea that the prophet and apostles are only the prophet and apostles for the church and seemingly don't have responsibility to the rest of the world. Also, how is drinking alcohol a sin? Is there a commandment? And don't say D&C 89 which specifically says the WoW is NOT a commandment. It would seem that the sin is less about drinking alcohol (as some kind of God-given commandment) and more to do with not following the commandments of the brethren. As others have noted, while there is a "commitment" to keep the WoW at baptism and one has to answer about it with the TR questions, there really isn't an actual commandment or covenant about the WoW. It's more about being in line with a policy, so technically not keeping the WoW wouldn't even be a sin for members, even if it did disqualify them for the temple for failure to follow policy.

The policy comes by revelation from God to His prophets so in my opinion makes it a commandment that I follow. If I start drinking and want to get a temple recommend I would have to repent and stop drinking. Repenting implies that a sin was committed. If a prophet of God says we should not drink I consider it a commandment that should be followed. 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Limiting the way someone is allowed to serve IS substantive IMO.

What else could a priesthood leader do? Restrict the sacrament or participation in other ordinances like ordaining a son to the priesthood or setting apart a wife for a calling etc. You may not think those are a big deal but I would disagree. And I still believe that a temple recommend could very well be in danger as well.

On your first point, I respectfully disagree; particularly since within Mormonism service positions are not sought, people don’t even know they’re “up for consideration”, and numerous less-formal opportunities come up frequently that allow for service without bishop approval (meals, moving, welfare assignments, etc).

On your second point:  I would consider those as “adverse actions against church membership”, and as I said earlier—if we get concrete examples suggesting that this is a statistically significant issue in the Church that stake and area authorities are failing to remedy then I’ll be happy to reconsider my position; but thus far we seem to be dealing in hypotheticals and “what ifs”.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

This Bar is Leased to it's Operators by

Churchy

        "Please Drink Responsibly"

 

Am I the ONLY one here that is offended by this????    How anyone can approve of this venture is beyond me.

I am deeply offended by the erroneous inclusion of the apostrophe in the possessive “its”.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Am I the ONLY one here that is offended by this???? 

By "this," are you referring to the sacrilegious use of the Savior's name and image in your post?

If so, then yes. I find it rather off-putting.

 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...