Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Church chooses profits over principles


Recommended Posts

21 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" 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?

What do you understand is the message the Lord would have us take from the story of the prodigal son?  The father freely gave his son his inheritance knowing that the son would waste it on “wine and women.”  Is the father to be condemned for facilitating his son’s sins?

And when the son returned, the father accepted him with open arms, celebrating his return with no questions asked.  Is the father to be condemned for this?

My understanding is judgment is for God (and those acting on His behalf), ours is to love and invite.

Frankly, I’m confused at your apparent confusion, this really is Gospel 101, not much nuance.  My experience teaching early morning seminary for 4 years was that all the students could explain these fundamental concepts and apply them to contemporary  circumstances.

 

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

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

Two possible conclusions:

1) You are the only righteous person in the Church

2) You are over reacting

 

I’ll allow you the honor to decide which one is correct.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Amulek said:

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.

 

As am I...so how is attaching the name of the church to a drinking establishment any different than placing a sign on the wall of this bar.

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

What do you understand is the message the Lord would have us take from the story of the prodigal son?  The father freely gave his son his inheritance knowing that the son would waste it on “wine and women.”  Is the father to be condemned for facilitating his son’s sins?

And when the son returned, the father accepted him with open arms, celebrating his return with no questions asked.  Is the father to be condemned for this?

My understanding is judgment is for God (and those acting on His behalf), ours is to love and invite.

Frankly, I’m confused at your apparent confusion, this really is Gospel 101, not much nuance.  My experience teaching early morning seminary for 4 years was that all the students could explain these fundamental concepts and apply them to contemporary  circumstances.

 

So a little sin won't offend God then, especially when we're making a little profit, right?

Edited by Fair Dinkum
Link to comment
1 hour ago, 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.

Thank you --  it seems to me that his personal position isn’t quite so hardline, black-and-white as you may have first understood it to be; he expressing his imagined support for a few hypothetical circumstances and personal decisions.

Who thinks the Church endorses alcohol consumption, sexual immorality and same-sex marriage? How does the Church make a profit on these things?

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Fether said:

Two possible conclusions:

1) You are the only righteous person in the Church

2) You are over reacting

 

I’ll allow you the honor to decide which one is correct.

or a 3rd possible conclusion:

3) Anything the Church does in the name of making money is A-OK even when it compromises their own principles

Link to comment
46 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! ;) 

In the corporate world policy typically dictates that the person with the highest job title pays the tab using the corporate card. I was often in that position.  There were a number of my co-workers who, aware of my faith, would not order alcohol when I was present, despite the fact that it was the company and not I paying for it.  Most didn’t work for me.  I had more than one conversation about it, making clear that there was no prohibition and was always told no one felt compelled to abstain but did so as a courtesy to me. Since I worked in the South for many years, gentility May explain some of this, but I’ve also worked in CA and WA and it happened there many times as well.  I was always touched by their graciousness. 

I invite friends to dinner, a game and golf on my dime and there are no off limit drinks.  I admit to some sticker shock 🙂

Link to comment
1 hour 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" 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?

I don't think you are representing the concept very well here, and I understand why you keep pressing your point of view without opposing critical analysis.

Yes, of course the Lord means it when He says He does not look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. Yet here you are, not on fire quite yet, paying your tithe (I'm giving you the benefit of a doubt :) ) in all your imperfection (and dare I suggest sins?): what do you think that means for you in the household of faith, and how do you apply that to how the Church treats non-member guests?

I'm assuming some Church-owned hotels have adult TV options (but content not generating profit for her through Church-owned production/distribution enterprises), but I do not know that or the circumstances in which those might be included in the hotel's business model. Do you?

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
42 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

 

From that article- page 79

Quote

In June, 1902, The First Presidency and Twelve agreed not to fellowship anyone who operated or frequented saloons.

So, even if no one agrees with Fair Dinkum in 2021, it appears the First Presidency and Q12 from 1902 would have agreed with him by refusing to fellowship anyone who operated (profited) from saloons (liquor sales) even though sacramental wine was used generally through 1906 and even longer among the brethren in their temple sacrament participation.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

From that article- page 79

So, even if no one agrees with Fair Dinkum in 2021, it appears the First Presidency and Q12 from 1902 would have agreed with him by refusing to fellowship anyone who operated (profited) from saloons (liquor sales) even though sacramental wine was used generally through 1906 and even longer among the brethren in their temple sacrament participation.

Just for context’s sake:  was drinking the *only* vice that was going on in those saloons?

Link to comment
Just now, mgy401 said:

Just for context’s sake:  was drinking the *only* vice that was going on in those saloons?

I would suppose not, but I don't have any particular knowledge about that. Whilst the prohibition movement was happening, there was also a strong anti-tobacco political action happening. But I don't know if there was anything else happening in the saloons that wasn't also happening in the SLC brothels.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

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.

Since he was speaking at an official church event as an official church representative I would think that his harsh comments could be taken as official church direction.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

So a little sin won't offend God then, especially when we're making a little profit, right?

You have chosen not to provide a direct response to the substance of either of my posts on this thread, so I will bow out.  I’ve tried to give you the benefit of the doubt with respect to the motivation of your posts on this and a few other threads, but I believe you post merely to provoke so I choose to avoid your posts going forward.

Godspeed to you.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I would suppose not, but I don't have any particular knowledge about that. Whilst the prohibition movement was happening, there was also a strong anti-tobacco political action happening. But I don't know if there was anything else happening in the saloons that wasn't also happening in the SLC brothels.

Perhaps.  The article’s suggestion that even the mainstream local Protestant clergy wanted them shut down, suggests to me that the saloons were looked at not just as the sites of responsible use of theologically-taboo substances; but as epicenters of inebriation and other social ills.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Have heard of legal pot farmers being in callings. 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Since he was speaking at an official church event as an official church representative I would think that his harsh comments could be taken as official church direction.

Elder Oaks’s comments about how to address/incorporate family members who were engaged in gay relationships were pretty tentative in nature.  For the purposes of this discussion, I think the more interesting passage is Elder Wickman’s statement that “Homosexual behavior is and will always remain before the Lord an abominable sin.”

Edited by mgy401
Link to comment
2 hours 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! ;) 

A drink or two…as long as there wasn’t any sign of getting too ‘relaxed’, starting to act dumb or aggressive, I wouldn’t have a problem.  
added:  would feel very awkward if they starting getting inebriated.   Been around drunk and high high schoolers and drunk Russians. Very limited experience 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

Perhaps.  The article’s suggestion that even the mainstream local Protestant clergy wanted them shut down, suggests to me that the saloons were looked at not just as the sites of responsible use of theologically-taboo substances; but as epicenters of inebriation and other social ills.

Possibly. It could also indicate a vast political prohibition movement that was becoming popular which Elder Grant wanted to align with in an effort to be viewed as more acceptable to his protestant counterparts. IIRC there was also history of alcohol abuse in Grant's family growing up so I would imagine that would impact his views on the topic.

 

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Have heard of legal pot farmers being in callings. 

 I've never seen that but accept your claim. Have you ever heard of a dispensary owner holding leadership callings? I think there is usually a difference in viewing farmers versus retail sales and ownership. Kind of like the farmers who grow barley and sell to Coors being on a different level than someone owns and operates a bar

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 I've never seen that but accept your claim. Have you ever heard of a dispensary owner holding leadership callings? 

Perhaps this is best left for a different thread, but . . .

Is there really a big subset of Church members who *want* Church leadership positions and are deeply, sincerely disappointed when they don’t get them?  I mean, it’s probably natural to have inclinations to that effect in the early 20s (I certainly did!); but as life and church experience showed me what a pain in the neck those positions are and gave me a more realistic view of my own capacities and limitations, the ambition for those kinds of calling was pretty well squashed out of me.  Is it not that way for most people?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

I am confused, are we talking about beer or homosexual activity?  I was talking about homosexual activity, how it is considered a sin by the church - member or not.  I don't think there is any requirement to repent of WoW issues before baptism that I am aware of - just a commitment to keep it is required.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

It was the September 1851 conference. 

I recognize that there is some controversy over this event and it can be interpreted in different ways, but this conference is often referenced as the day the line was drawn:

Quote

The September 1851 Conference in Review. Church leaders would later refer to the September 1851 conference as the point in time when Joseph Smith's revelation was accepted by the members of the Church as a binding commandment.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4086&context=byusq

Quote

The September 1851 Conference. Events of the September 1851 general conference are often regarded as a watershed in the history of the Word of
Wisdom.38

On the third day of the conference, Patriarch John Smith urged the men to "leave off using tobacco &c."39  After Smith's fervent plea, W. W. Phelps presented a motion (perhaps uttered from his seat in the podium area) that the Saints lay aside their use of tea, coffee, tobacco, and snuff.40

Apparently, Brigham Young then "rose to put the motion [to the people] and called on all the sisters who will leave the use of tea, coffee, &c, to manifest it by raising the right hand." One vote in opposition was recorded.  Brigham, in a second vote, then called "on all the boys who were under ninety years of age who would covenant to leave off the use of tobacco, whisky, and all things mentioned in the Word of Wisdom, to manifest it in the same manner" (italics in original). Again, there was one dissenting vote.41

Patriarch Smith then uttered a brief encouragement: "May the Lord bless you and help you to keep all your covenants."42

Brigham continued: I will draw the line and know who is for the Lord and who is not, and those who will not keep the Word of Wisdom, I will cut off from the Church; I throw out a challenge to all men and women. Have I not always counselled you right? I would rather you would cut me into inch pieces, than to flinch from my duty, the Lord being my helper.43 

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4086&context=byusq

I recognize there are some inconsistencies after wards and some disagree with this interpretation, but that is all besides the point.  The issue is not when the WoW became a sin for members - that is a totally separate issue which deserves another thread.  The point is that the church clearly believes it is a moral issue for members (it doesn't matter when or how that came to be), but the question is whether or not the church is duplicitous and hypocritical in selling alcohol to non-members despite their perspective of it being a sin for themselves to consume.   The question is, does the church perceive it as a sin for non-members?  The question is, is it a sin for a member to sell profit off of selling alcohol to non-members?  I suggest the answer is no to both questions.  
 

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

or a 3rd possible conclusion:

3) Anything the Church does in the name of making money is A-OK even when it compromises their own principles

You are yet to supply with a CFR for how the church compromises its own moral principles.  You have made that accusation several times.  I honestly don't get it. 

Which principle/commandment says that it is immoral for non-members to drink alcohol?   It would be no more immoral for a non-member to drink alcohol as it would be for them to eat a steak in the summer (according to the word of wisdom), so why are you not equally offended that members own steakhouses? 

Lets say I made a personal covenant with the Lord to never eat donuts.  As in, it would be a sin for me to eat donuts, but not for other people.  Lets say that I even hold the belief that eating donuts can be a serious health problem for some and that it can get out of hand and lead to serious temporal consequences.  Lets also suggest that I believed that most can eat donuts socially and in moderation without any serious health consequences.  Lets say I also highly valued liberty and agency, and yes, even capitalism.  Would I be compromising my own principles if I sold donuts to other people for a profit?    

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I don't think you are representing the concept very well here, and I understand why you keep pressing your point of view without opposing critical analysis.

Yes, of course the Lord means it when He says He does not look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. Yet here you are, not on fire quite yet, paying your tithe (I'm giving you the benefit of a doubt :) ) in all your imperfection (and dare I suggest sins?): what do you think that means for you in the household of faith, and how do you apply that to how the Church treats non-member guests?

I'm assuming some Church-owned hotels have adult TV options (but content not generating profit for her through Church-owned production/distribution enterprises), but I do not know that or the circumstances in which those might be included in the hotel's business model. Do you?

You keep justifying the church profiting from the sale of liquor. A choice that they are making and one that could if they wanted to not make.  I wonder how much they make, probably less than a few thousand a month, certainty not make or break for the church and yet they've chosen the money over what impact selling liquor might have to their image.  Don't you find that interesting at all?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, let’s roll said:

You have chosen not to provide a direct response to the substance of either of my posts on this thread, so I will bow out.  I’ve tried to give you the benefit of the doubt with respect to the motivation of your posts on this and a few other threads, but I believe you post merely to provoke so I choose to avoid your posts going forward.

Godspeed to you.

Sorry my replies didn't meet your expectations.  I sincerely attempted to reply to you.  Cheers to you Mate

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

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