Church chooses profits over principles

[CV75]

43 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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)

 

The question is, “At what point does showing that love cross the line into inadvertently endorsing behavior?” The context is a home setting and a parent’s concern for children (let’s say either young or adult).

We are talking about crossing a line in a given parent-child situation. The patent’s love hasn’t gone away, but does it now co-exist with endorsing sinful behavior? As we all now, parental love is extremely subjective and variable (“Love is…”).

So, let’s view Elder Oaks’ reply in context:

• The decision as to where the line is crossed is made in good faith by the head(s) of household who love their children.
• He can imagine such-and-such decisions for such-and-such a circumstances and factors.
• This does not preclude his imagining other decisions for other circumstances – he was answering the specific hypotheticals in the question.

I can think of innumerable ways to convey parental love without endorsing sinful behavior.

Edited July 14, 2021 by CV75

[Fair Dinkum]

9 minutes ago, Amulek said:

 Removing it would likely not be a good business decision

We are in agreement.  It would NOT be a good business decision.  It would cost the church a loss in revenue for the space that the bar currency occupies. Patron's who drink may chose to book their stay elsewhere for lack of an on premises bar.

I know that we have hashed this subject to death and the horse beating emoji is appropriate, it just saddens me to see the church chose profits instead of its standards.  Yes they are making the smart business decision, yes it is within their rights to have a bar in their hotels, yes accommodating guests is considerate but at what cost?  The exchange of principles for profits seems like selling their soul over a mess of porridge.

I see the church as one of the last institution's that stood rock hard on its principles in the face of even harsh criticism, I just find it sad to see those principles evaporating before our very eyes.

It's a slippery slope that once taken WILL lead to other compromises.  Which if it leads to a more loving approach to the LGBTQ community will be a good thing I guess.

[Amulek]

6 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I know that we have hashed this subject to death and the horse beating emoji is appropriate, it just saddens me to see the church chose profits instead of its standards. 

I didn't know it was a church standard that all hotels must be dry.

 

Quote

Yes they are making the smart business decision, yes it is within their rights to have a bar in their hotels, yes accommodating guests is considerate but at what cost?  The exchange of principles for profits seems like selling their soul over a mess of porridge.

You can keep repeating your 'principles for profits' line as much as you like, but it doesn't really move the needle for me. There are just too many things that break down once you start thinking this way.

I mean, a hotel could require single occupancy for all rooms to prevent fornication and adultery from happening, but it doesn't. Profits over principles!

They could prohibit guests from possessing coffee or tea on the property or from bringing in any outside food or beverages whatsoever, but they don't. Profits over principles!

They could redirect all internet traffic to LDS.org or FamilySearch.org, but instead they allow people to access pornography. Profits over principles!

Give me a break. It's a flippin' hotel, not the temple.

 

Quote

It's a slippery slope that once taken WILL lead to other compromises.

Good point. If the church were to purchase an Olive Garden I would probably suffer a faith crisis.

 

[mgy401]

10 hours ago, secondclasscitizen said:

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

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

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. 
 

 

Amending or footnoting D&C 89 would certainly be nice, but the underlying mentality of legalistic hostility to people one (theoretically) accepts as prophets and apostles is the bigger issue here.  The Church membership already knows what the prophets are saying and what the church is teaching; fundamentally—one either accepts what they’re saying or one doesn’t.  If one rejects the moral/revelatory/ecclesiastical authority of the LDS leadership, then (as the rantings of our FLDS/AUB/misc. cousins remind us) it doesn’t matter whether their teachings make it into the canon or not.

Your last paragraph is amusing, because it really boils down to “If you don’t like the fact that I and/or my fellow critics keep making making crap up, your only recourse is to shut up and let our assertions go unrefuted.”

Edited July 14, 2021 by mgy401

[mgy401]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

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?

 

I am fairly confident that what I said was that you were misrepresenting church teachings; and it’s unfortunate that your post wanders away from that issue.

You opened up the thread by asking “should a church that teaches the evils of alcohol consumption be serving alcohol?”  There have been ten pages of discussion in which it has been repeatedly pointed out that the Church’s position is more nuanced; that the theology is not that alcohol consumption is morally wrong by all people in every time and place, but that it’s a commitment specifically made by church members in this particular day and age and that outside the boundaries of Church membership the Church’s primary beef with alcohol revolves around drunkenness and underaged use, not consumption per se.  This isn’t really a nuance that you’ve engaged with in any meaningful way; you seem bent on imputing a much more absolutist stance to the Church just so that you can have something to disagree with it about.

As for the legal marijuana thing:  so far “legal marijuana” is a bit of a misnomer since it remains banned under federal law, which (among other complications) makes financing such transactions a bit tricky.  I’d be surprised to see the Church get involved with that kind of thing until the legal issues are resolved.  I also can’t claim to have a strong position about whether marijuana is per se harmful in the way that—say—heroin or methamphetamine or even tobacco are.  If the substance turns out to be as harmless as advocates are saying, then no; I wouldn’t be shocked to see a pot dispensary get grandfathered in as part of a larger Church property purchase.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

We are in agreement.  It would NOT be a good business decision.  It would cost the church a loss in revenue for the space that the bar currency occupies. Patron's who drink may chose to book their stay elsewhere for lack of an on premises bar.

I know that we have hashed this subject to death and the horse beating emoji is appropriate, it just saddens me to see the church chose profits instead of its standards.  Yes they are making the smart business decision, yes it is within their rights to have a bar in their hotels, yes accommodating guests is considerate but at what cost?  The exchange of principles for profits seems like selling their soul over a mess of porridge.

I see the church as one of the last institution's that stood rock hard on its principles in the face of even harsh criticism, I just find it sad to see those principles evaporating before our very eyes.

It's a slippery slope that once taken WILL lead to other compromises.  Which if it leads to a more loving approach to the LGBTQ community will be a good thing I guess.

Given that the hospitality industry has notoriously low profit margins (even with the high-margin sale of alcohol), consider that the Church’s decision does not reflect a preference for profits over moral standards any more than owning a hotel reflects a preference for bad business decisions over high profits.

You need to know why the Church chooses to own a hotel in the first place and how that is congruent with her temporal and spiritual interests before concluding duplicity and hypocrisy simply because alcohol may be sold.

Isolating a couple of spiritual principles in a vacuum while ignoring others does not allow for a thorough analysis. As with @HappyJackWagon LGBTQ concern, people of faith can make good-faith decisions when making complex or difficult decisions. To paraphrase the above, “You need to know why the Church chose to support the Utah Compromise in the first place, and how that is congruent with her social and spiritual interests before concluding duplicity and hypocrisy simply because it materially supports same-sex couples.”

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

20 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).

 

I would also add that the people patronizing the bar have not made promises to God to not drink (a very unique rule for a religion), and have therefore committed no sin, so why should we impose our set of rules on those people? 

[HappyJackWagon]

11 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

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.

It's very convenient to say the law doesn't apply to Mormons because the prophet says God believes something different. The church can make any claim it chooses but that doesn't mean I have to accept it's new definition of 'fornication". When a couple is legally married, it is not fornication. The church accepts legal marriage. The church believes in being subject to the laws of the land.   Are you really suggesting the law doesn't apply when the church doesn't want it to?

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

The question is, “At what point does showing that love cross the line into inadvertently endorsing behavior?” The context is a home setting and a parent’s concern for children (let’s say either young or adult).

We are talking about crossing a line in a given parent-child situation. The patent’s love hasn’t gone away, but does it now co-exist with endorsing sinful behavior? As we all now, parental love is extremely subjective and variable (“Love is…”).

So, let’s view Elder Oaks’ reply in context:

• The decision as to where the line is crossed is made in good faith by the head(s) of household who love their children.
• He can imagine such-and-such decisions for such-and-such a circumstances and factors.
• This does not preclude his imagining other decisions for other circumstances – he was answering the specific hypotheticals in the question.

I can think of innumerable ways to convey parental love without endorsing sinful behavior.

I can't take this seriously. Elder Oaks suggested/taught that it would be appropriate to tell a SS couple loved one not to even come visit for the holiday. There is no expression of love in telling someone not to come visit for the holiday. The excuse that it would be endorsing a lifestyle would be comical if it wasn't so offensive. I wonder if that father or mother has any other children who have 'sinned" in some other way. I wonder if he/she would tell that child not to come visit for Christmas because he didn't want to endorse the sinful lifestyle. 

It comments like Oaks' and then the justifications by members of comments likes Oaks' that have LGBTQ members and a huge portion of the younger generations running from the church.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I can't take this seriously. Elder Oaks suggested/taught that it would be appropriate to tell a SS couple loved one not to even come visit for the holiday. There is no expression of love in telling someone not to come visit for the holiday. The excuse that it would be endorsing a lifestyle would be comical if it wasn't so offensive. I wonder if that father or mother has any other children who have 'sinned" in some other way. I wonder if he/she would tell that child not to come visit for Christmas because he didn't want to endorse the sinful lifestyle. 

It comments like Oaks' and then the justifications by members of comments likes Oaks' that have LGBTQ members and a huge portion of the younger generations running from the church.

The degree of seriousness with which someone takes an explanation is a function of many things, and is evidently interfering with your being able to accurately reflect what I posted.

You are getting worked up over hypothetical decisions for which you do not have all the circumstances and factors faced by the decision-maker. As he pointed out, "There are so many different circumstances, it’s impossible to give one answer that fits all."

It is unfortunate you seek a "one answer that fits all", employ one standard of "love = endorsement" and judge others harshly who do not. So much for your "one answer that fits all"!

[secondclasscitizen]

3 hours ago, mgy401 said:

Amending or footnoting D&C 89 would certainly be nice, but the underlying mentality of legalistic hostility to people one (theoretically) accepts as prophets and apostles is the bigger issue here.  The Church membership already knows what the prophets are saying and what the church is teaching; fundamentally—one either accepts what they’re saying or one doesn’t.  If one rejects the moral/revelatory/ecclesiastical authority of the LDS leadership, then (as the rantings of our FLDS/AUB/misc. cousins remind us) it doesn’t matter whether their teachings make it into the canon or not.

Your last paragraph is amusing, because it really boils down to “If you don’t like the fact that I and/or my fellow critics keep making making crap up, your only recourse is to shut up and let our assertions go unrefuted.”

What am I “making up ?”

[Bernard Gui]

On 7/12/2021 at 2:55 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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

Learning how the WoW was viewed and practiced by Church members over the years is an interesting study. 

[Teancum]

On 7/13/2021 at 12:42 PM, mgy401 said:

Huh.  I didn’t have alcohol at my wedding reception because alcohol is freakin’ expensive.  

All this sturm und drang about the Church selling alcohol while advising its own members to abstain, makes me wonder what would happen if the Church sold alcohol and advised its members to indulge.  Somehow, I don’t think the criticisms would be ameliorated.

Somehow I think your logic is flawed.

[Teancum]

On 7/13/2021 at 12:41 PM, pogi said:

My band Hoodooh played at several local bars including the Urban Lounge, we played at the old Zephyr Club, O'Shucks Bar and Grill, The Owl Bar at Sundance, we frequented Eddie McStiffs in Moab, and several others.  I didn't feel hypocritical one bit.  Should I have?

You are not serving or selling the liquor in these instances are you?  

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You are not serving or selling the liquor in these instances are you?  

I was directly supporting the sale of alcohol and directly profited from it.
They supplied the trough, but I supplied the herd.

I have also directly served alcohol as a server at a lodge in Glacier National Park.

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

I have also directly served alcohol as a server at a lodge in Glacier National Park.

I spent the summer after my mission back in my mission working as a server in a coastal restaurant. We had a full bar in the restaurant, and therefore it was part of my job to order and serve drinks. I was hopeless at the former! We had a touchscreen ordering system that first required me to pick the correct liquor. So many times I had to go back to a table to ask what kind of booze was in each drink the party had ordered. I did eventually figure out that anything with 'Russian' in it could be found on the vodka screen ...

[Vanguard]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I spent the summer after my mission back in my mission working as a server in a coastal restaurant. We had a full bar in the restaurant, and therefore it was part of my job to order and serve drinks. I was hopeless at the former! We had a touchscreen ordering system that first required me to pick the correct liquor. So many times I had to go back to a table to ask what kind of booze was in each drink the party had ordered. I did eventually figure out that anything with 'Russian' in it could be found on the vodka screen ...

Ha! Hamba - You hit my funny bone on this one. After my years and BYU I secured a waiter position back home in Palm Springs where I was required to take the drink orders. I knew NOTHING about mixed drinks so I had to privately strike a deal with the bartender to bear with me while I wrote out in long hand each of the drinks. There is a type of shorthand for writing drinks down and I could never learn it. My entire order pad was filled with my desperate long-hand 'chicken scratch' and I had to face the bartender each time! Good grief. Interestingly, I many times made more tips off the alcohol than the food! And truth be told, I was giddy when such big drink orders would come through (especially the fine wine)!

[mgy401]

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

Somehow I think your logic is flawed.

it was illogical for me to save money by not serving alcohol at my wedding?

Or it’s illogical for me to suspect that the Church would get criticism for affirmatively advising its members to buy a product that the Church itself was selling for profit on the open market?

I mean, crimony—some of y’all are [acting] ticked that the Church bailed out an insolvent insurer in order to pay life insurance claims to widows and orphans, and saved thousands of jobs  when the Great Recession engulfed the City Creek development.  These critics are so consumed with the idea that the Church is nebulously harmful, that they advocate the tangible harm of more people just so they can be proven “right”.

When discussing LDS business practices, “logic” tends to be one of the first things that gets thrown out the window.

Edited July 16, 2021 by mgy401

[The Nehor]

I bet the hotel's wifi doesn't block porn sites either.

[Warlock]

On 7/18/2021 at 11:48 PM, The Nehor said:

I bet the hotel's wifi doesn't block porn sites either.

Porn is bad

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Warlock said:

Porn is bad

We probably shouldn't jump to conclusions.

[Warlock]

Just now, The Nehor said:

We probably shouldn't jump to conclusions.

Did you mean hump to conclusions?

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Warlock said:

Did you mean hump to conclusions?

Touché.

[Nemesis]

20 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Touché.

Let’s not encourage him.

Nemesis

[Warlock]

6 minutes ago, Nemesis said:

Let’s not encourage him.

Nemesis

Please don't assume my pronouns