Church chooses profits over principles

[secondclasscitizen]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

But it can't be that, because the Word of Wisdom as written (WoWaW) specifically says that the alcohol prohibition only applies to members of the Church. 

 

Let us not forget the wow actually allows for the consumption of beer.

[mgy401]

7 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:

Let us not forget the wow actually allows for the consumption of beer.

Except that Smith’s successors have refined that aspect of its applicability.

Have they ever likewise refined or extended its applicability by saying that non-Mormons who take alcohol, will be judged for their “sin” in doing so?

Or are we really going to go on into our ninth page of former-Mormons and semi-Mormons and never-Mormons telling us what we, the actually-believing-and-practicing Mormons, are supposed to believe?

Edited July 14, 2021 by mgy401

[pogi]

2 hours ago, bsjkki said:

If the church directly served alcohol, I would be surprised.

The church has directly served alcohol at Hotel Utah (now the Joseph Smith Memorial Bldg).  President Joseph F. Smith even defended it in a conference address after some criticism.  I provided links previously.  So, this is a step removed and people are still pointing fingers.  

The thing that gets me is that he is condemning the church for their conservative political stance on alcohol in Utah, in the very same breath.  

[Scott Lloyd]

45 minutes ago, pogi said:

The church has directly served alcohol at Hotel Utah (now the Joseph Smith Memorial Bldg).  President Joseph F. Smith even defended it in a conference address after some criticism.  I provided links previously.  So, this is a step removed and people are still pointing fingers.  

The thing that gets me is that he is condemning the church for their conservative political stance on alcohol in Utah, in the very same breath.  

The Church was not the sole owner of the Hotel Utah. It never intended to be. 
 

Check your history before parroting talking points. The Hotel Utah was a joint venture with business interests whose intent was to enhance the vitality of the downtown area. 
 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.deseret.com/platform/amp/2011/6/7/20196771/hotel-utah-100-years-of-history

One common misconception about the hotel is that it was built and always owned by the LDS Church alone. In fact, the idea for the grand edifice arose in 1909 after industrialist Samuel Newhouse, who was not a Mormon, urged rapprochement between the city's usually warring Mormon and non-Mormon business factions.

Days later, according to "The Hotel," a citizens group composed of Jews, Protestants and Mormons came together, proposed the hotel and took the idea to LDS Church President Joseph F. Smith. He was enthusiastic, and quickly approved the exciting plan.

The church would be the majority investor, but others would have shares as well. These ranged from mining entrepreneur Daniel C. Jackling of the Utah Copper Co. (who would eventually live in a luxurious seven-room apartment in the hotel) to Newhouse himself (who was planning his own high-rise hotel on 400 South, an area in which he also built the era's near-twin Boston and Newhouse skyscrapers).

Edited July 14, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

The covenants and teachings accepted in the temple endowment can be regarded as encompassing the Word of Wisdom among other things. 

 

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That seems a huge stretch since the endowment predates the modern interpretation of the word of wisdom.

 

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The time between the endowment and the modern interpretation are not the issue of the covenant.  The word of wisdom is not what we covenant to obey.
We covenant to obey the law of god and to be obedient to his commands.  So then the question becomes who gives the current word of God to the Church?  That we are covenanting to obey.
 

Yes. 
 

The wording of the endowment is such that it can allude to whatever truths the Lord has revealed to His people at any given time through His servants, the prophets.  
 

To take a strict constructionist approach to it is akin to being a bibliolater who insists the scriptures cannot be applied to present-day needs and circumstances. 

Edited July 14, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[pogi]

49 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Church was not the sole owner of the Hotel Utah. It never intended to be. 
 

Check your history before parroting talking points. The Hotel Utah was a joint venture with business interests whose intent was to enhance the vitality of the downtown area. 
 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.deseret.com/platform/amp/2011/6/7/20196771/hotel-utah-100-years-of-history

One common misconception about the hotel is that it was built and always owned by the LDS Church alone. In fact, the idea for the grand edifice arose in 1909 after industrialist Samuel Newhouse, who was not a Mormon, urged rapprochement between the city's usually warring Mormon and non-Mormon business factions.

Days later, according to "The Hotel," a citizens group composed of Jews, Protestants and Mormons came together, proposed the hotel and took the idea to LDS Church President Joseph F. Smith. He was enthusiastic, and quickly approved the exciting plan.

The church would be the majority investor, but others would have shares as well. These ranged from mining entrepreneur Daniel C. Jackling of the Utah Copper Co. (who would eventually live in a luxurious seven-room apartment in the hotel) to Newhouse himself (who was planning his own high-rise hotel on 400 South, an area in which he also built the era's near-twin Boston and Newhouse skyscrapers).

And this changes...what, exactly with my statement?

Ummmm...where did I get my facts wrong?  Can you please show me where I claimed they were the sole proprietor? 

Either way, as majority shareholder, they directly served alcohol to their patrons.  It was not leased to a third party.  They had direct, and majority, ownership.

My facts are straight, thank you very much.  
 

Are you also going to deny that Joseph F. Smith defended the sale of alcohol in Hotel Utah?  And he didn’t blame it on the minority shareholders either. Nope.  He wanted to attract outsiders to the area with...yes...alcohol.  

Edited July 14, 2021 by pogi

[Fair Dinkum]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You aren't being fair dinkum with us, mate. Only 18 of 50 American states 'allow liquor to be sold in grocery stores'. Your 'real world' exists only in your head.

That specific comment was dripping in sarcasm 

[carbon dioxide]

9 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

 

In terms of civil issues, SSM couples are legally married. In terms of the laws of God and the church, the marriages are not really legit.  God does not recognize the legitimacy of such marriages.  So in all practical purposes, SSM couples are committing fornication.  To God, the marriages are phony.  In regards to polygamy, the opposite is true. The civil law did not recognize it but God did.   The question really is does one want to be guilty of "fornication" in the sight of man, or the sight of God?  Which system or authority is one willing to offend the most.  It really is not even a close call.  Civil authority does not care about fornication.  Whether one commits it or not, it does not matter.

Edited July 14, 2021 by carbon dioxide

[secondclasscitizen]

4 hours ago, mgy401 said:

Except that Smith’s successors have refined that aspect of its applicability.

that’s fine. Change the d and c to reflect that. Until then I’ll have a cervevza if I feel like it. Guilt free

4 hours ago, mgy401 said:

Have they ever likewise refined or extended its applicability by saying that non-Mormons who take alcohol, will be judged for their “sin” in doing so?

I have not been making that argument here. Take it up with whomever it was. 

4 hours ago, mgy401 said:

Or are we really going to go on into our ninth page of former-Mormons and semi-Mormons and never-Mormons telling us what we, the actually-believing-and-practicing Mormons, are supposed to believe?

Sounds like ur wanting to go nine pages simply because you are replying. If you want the discussion to end do your part and quit responding. 
 

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

23 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:

Change the d and c to reflect that. Until then I’ll have a cervevza if I feel like it. Guilt free

Do you sincerely expect us to believe that your choice to drink alcohol -- or do anything else -- is currently controlled by what is in the Doctrine and Covenants???

Edited July 14, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[secondclasscitizen]

32 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Do you sincerely expect us to believe that your choice to drink alcohol -- or do anything else -- is currently controlled by what is in the Doctrine and Covenants???

If you are going to call me a liar then just say it. No need to dawdle around pulling taffy.

 I never said it controlled my decision, I said it says we can drink beer and I do if I so choose… guilt free just like Joseph smith. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 minute ago, secondclasscitizen said:

 I never said it controlled my decision, I said it says we can drink beer and I do if I so choose… guilt free just like Joseph smith. 

You said that you would continue to drink beer until the wording in the D&C might be changed. I don't believe you. By all means, correct me if I'm wrong.

Otherwise, we have someone who doesn't actually care about our scriptures or beliefs trying to push us to care about things we don't even believe. It's surreal.

[why me]

On 7/13/2021 at 12:18 AM, Fair Dinkum said:

I guess I could agree with you if the church was consistent across all subjects, platforms and issues but they are not.  They were very proactive in denying the free will of the LGBTQ in marriage equality, Against the expansion of cable TV in the early 80's, against the availability of pornography,  Imposing dress standards, using their influence to keep gambling out of Utah etc.  In fact the church has done just the opposite of what you are suggesting.  They are suppressing free will in a multitude of areas that cross all religious and secular boundaries.

I think that this is different. They cannot deny a person to drink a beer in a hotel. They will just bring it from outside and into the hotel. Also, the church cannot prohibit people from watching porn by taking away their free will right. Likewise, they cannot allow SSM in their church or temple. It is a stance. However, members can get married somewhere else. No problem. I see no suppression of free will at all. No prohibition. There is the proclamation of the family that seems to guide the leaders of the church. They can come out against the expansion of cable. But they cannot prohibit it if comes into the TV stream. It seems that the lds church has lost many battles.

[secondclasscitizen]

5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You said that you would continue to drink beer until the wording in the D&C might be changed. I don't believe you. 
 

ok. What do I do now that you don’t believe me? 

5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: 

5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Otherwise, we have someone who doesn't actually care about our scriptures or beliefs trying to push us to care about things we don't even believe. It's surreal.

What don’t you believe about sec 89? I’m not saying anything about it that isn’t written there. Go read it yourself. Sounds like it is you who doesn’t  believe your  own scripture. Prophets are another story but sec 89 says what it says. 

[why me]

On 7/13/2021 at 12:10 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

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

I think that if it ever becomes mainstream liking sipping a beer on a hot day, it just may be in places of businesses. However, most likely smoking of pot will be on the outside not inside. And I am sure that where it is legal, people are smoking pot outside church owned businesses. The direction of society is progressing in the opposite direction of what the church teaches. What to do? Such is free will.

Edited July 14, 2021 by why me

[SeekingUnderstanding]

16 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:

ok. What do I do now that you don’t believe me? 

What don’t you believe about sec 89? I’m not saying anything about it that isn’t written there. Go read it yourself. Sounds like it is you who doesn’t  believe your  own scripture. Prophets are another story but sec 89 says what it says. 

He’s saying that if section 89 was updated tomorrow via revelation (claimed by church leaders), he doubts you’d stop drinking beer. Would you?

Edited July 14, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Hamba Tuhan]

34 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:

What do I do now that you don’t believe me?

Continue posting non sequiturs like the following, apparently:

Quote

What don’t you believe about sec 89? I’m not saying anything about it that isn’t written there. Go read it yourself. Sounds like it is you who doesn’t  believe your  own scripture. Prophets are another story but sec 89 says what it says. 

 

Edited July 14, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[secondclasscitizen]

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

He’s saying that if section 89 was updated tomorrow via revelation (claimed by church leaders), he doubts you’d stop drinking beer. Would you?

I already answered him. Thanks for helping out.

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, CV75 said:

Of course they can be taken as harsh comments -- hopefully you can appreciate how they aren't.

I thought your issue was duplicity. But if your issue is about the Church profiting from the sale of liquor, careful consideration of the full picture would resolve that issue. Now that is what is interesting (for the interested), and it has been provided to you. What do you keep doing with that?

I would need someone to explain to me with a straight face how those aren't very harsh comments. (and that is my kind and generous way of saying it)

 

[Kenngo1969]

Dair Finkum,

I know, and you don't know the half of it, Brother!

The gentiles are running the non-profit newspaper now, while it is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that is in the news business for the filthy lucre!  Horrors!    

Why, it's enough to make one think that Christ himself is going to show with a braided whip up in the Deseret News newsroom tomorrow and start overturning tables!

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, secondclasscitizen said:

I already answered him. Thanks for helping out.

It’s a pretty simple and easy question to answer again. Just one word…

[Kenngo1969]

12 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

That specific comment was dripping in sarcasm 

Dair Finkum,

Sipping in drarcasm?  You, who are so positively earnest that you make Dudley Do-Right look like a mere piker in comparison, make a comment that is sipping in drarcasm?!!    

Nooooo!  I don't believe it!

[Fair Dinkum]

14 hours ago, mgy401 said:

Friend, the issue a lot of us have is that we feel you are misrepresenting what the Church actually teaches.  

OK here is how I see it, please correct me where I am misrepresenting the facts:

Church buys Hawaiian Hotel w/existing Bar--->Church has option, close bar or subleases Bar to 3rd Party--->Church chooses to sublease bar to 3rd party which they know will sell alcohol--->Church chooses to profit from the sell of alcohol rather then close a bar within a hotel that they own.

Ok, your turn, what did I misrepresent?

Just out of curiosity, what if this had been not a bar, but a legal marijuana distribution outlet within the hotel or some other legal vice, should the church compromise their standards for that vice as well or only for alcohol?

 

[Fair Dinkum]

8 hours ago, why me said:

I think that this is different. They cannot deny a person to drink a beer in a hotel. They will just bring it from outside and into the hotel.

I agree with you but there is a huge difference between someone leaving their hotel room , driving to a 7-11 to buy alcohol and then returning to the hotel to consume it and selling alcohol at a bar in the hotel lobby

8 hours ago, why me said:

 

Also, the church cannot prohibit people from watching porn by taking away their free will right.

Again true

8 hours ago, why me said:

 

Likewise, they cannot allow SSM in their church or temple.

Nor should they ever have to until God changes His mind and allows it (guessing God will change his mind in my lifetime)

8 hours ago, why me said:

 

It is a stance. However, members can get married somewhere else. No problem. I see no suppression of free will at all. No prohibition. There is the proclamation of the family that seems to guide the leaders of the church. They can come out against the expansion of cable. But they cannot prohibit it if comes into the TV stream. It seems that the lds church has lost many battles.

And I want the church to continue to fight these battles and stand on their principles, profiting from the sale of alcohol seems like a compromise of these principles

[Amulek]

16 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

[H]ow is attaching the name of the church to a drinking establishment any different than placing a sign on the wall of this bar.

Well, I don't really think of the Marriott as being a "drinking establishment," per se. I mean, they have washers and dryers there as well, but that doesn't make it a multi-housing laundry establishment.

No, I think of it primarily as a lodging establishment - one which happens to have on its property various amenities which are common to the hotel industry. There's a coffee station (eek!), a pool, a fitness center, a shuttle service, a breakfast buffet, a business center, guest laundry facilities, conference rooms / meeting space, and yes - even a bar. There's apparently a putting green and an outdoor grilling area too (seems like a nice place).

The crux of the issue here seems to be in how you go about establishing nexus between the church and whatever objectionable practice you think the church ought not to be involved in.

For me, I think there are enough degrees of separation here to make a difference. It isn't like the church went out and bought an empty plot of land and then built a bar on it. No, a real estate investment company (75 Wailea Ike Drive LLC) which is affiliated with two other real estate investment companies (Hawaii Reserves Inc. and Property Reserve) which manage property for the church, acquired a hotel property which happens to come with a lobby bar - you know, like pretty much every other hotel on the planet.

I've looked at pictures of the hotel online, and eliminating the bar would not be a trivial endeavor. Removing it would likely not be a good business decision, so leasing it out to a third party operator seems like a reasonable solution to me.

You obviously disagree. That's your right, but it just seems like you're making a much bigger deal out of this than it really is.

The church - just like all of us - has to operate in the world. From what I have seen, the church makes reasonable efforts to eschew businesses that might be considered objectionable (so no holdings in corporations like Phillip Morris, even though that would be a financially sound investment).

But I don't think there's anything terribly objectionable about owning a Marriott hotel - even one that happens to have a bar in it. When the church starts buying up hotels owned by Caesars Entertainment down in Vegas, then you can start waving the hypocrite flag (and probably get more people to agree with you).