Church chooses profits over principles

[bOObOO]

On 7/12/2021 at 11:00 AM, Fair Dinkum said:

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

 

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

I can sympathize and even empathize with what you are going through in your thought processes now and although it may not help you very much to hear this right now I will still tell you that, although you may have tried, you don't understand the problem.

We believe the Lord has told us that it is wise to abstain from particular foods and drinks, and other types of activities, while also advising us on the things we should have and do instead.  We then tell other people what we believe the Lord has told us.

The problem is that other people do not believe the Lord has told us what we believe the Lord has told us.  What we say the Lord has told us.  So they disregard our counsel.  So, okay, we say to ourselves, at least we told them what the Lord has told us.

Now, in the alcohol business for example, we have the advantage.  We don't drink any alcohol, or at least we believe we should not, so we do not have any of the disadvantages that consuming alcohol can cause.  And we tell others they should not drink it.

So when other people choose to drink alcohol, they do so to their own disadvantage.  They live with the consequences of drinking alcohol and not believing what the Lord has told us.  And if we can gain any advantage over this, we should gain it.

Consider a merchant who offers to sell alcohol while telling his patrons they should not drink it, that the Lord advises against drinking it.  That it is good for medicinal purposes, but not for casual drinking.  The patrons then choose whether or not to buy any. 

It is not the responsibility of the merchant to make sure those who buy alcohol from him do not drink it.  

[Nemesis]

9 hours ago, Warlock said:

Please don't assume my pronouns 

“Warlock”  <~ male sorcerer

[Warlock]

12 hours ago, Nemesis said:

“Warlock”  <~ male sorcerer

Anyone can be a Warlock. You should ask someone their pronouns before assuming you know. 

[Nemesis]

9 minutes ago, Warlock said:

Anyone can be a Warlock. You should ask someone their pronouns before assuming you know. 

Maybe don’t use gender specific monikers. Unless you are trying to redefine the definition of “warlock”  maybe use “warrock” because a rock is gender neutral.  
 

By the way you didn’t ask me for my preferred pronouns.  Which is “We” as in “We are legion”  or “They” as in “They are legion”

[Maureen]

On 7/13/2021 at 9:33 AM, Fair Dinkum said:

...I think back to the moral high ground taken by universities back in the 1980's who devested stock from South Africa to protest aspartate....

They were protesting an amino acid? I tease, I actually had to look up the word "aspartate". You probably meant "Apartheid". 😁

M.

[Maureen]

On 7/12/2021 at 4:08 PM, bluebell said:

I grew up in northern wyoming, where many of the member farmers made a living selling barley to Coors.  These included two consecutive stake presidents (who were wonderful humble men).  You could say that they profited from the sale of alcohol.

It sounds like you would judge these families as hypocrites, but I don't believe that they were.

Even if the barley was used (by Coors) to make beer, it doesn't go against your own scripture that says that it is fine if barley is used "for mild drink". Your leaders may preach against the use of barley for mild drink (aka beer), but your scriptures don't.

M.

[ldsatty]

On 7/12/2021 at 2:17 PM, let’s roll said:

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

I was there for Doug Floyd.  He taught civil pro. We used to call him "Pink" because of is rosy complexion.  

[bluebell]

On 7/23/2021 at 7:29 PM, Maureen said:

Even if the barley was used (by Coors) to make beer, it doesn't go against your own scripture that says that it is fine if barley is used "for mild drink". Your leaders may preach against the use of barley for mild drink (aka beer), but your scriptures don't.

M.

I don't have a problem if it's used for beer.  But double standards have always annoyed me, and it seemed like FD was leaning into one.

[Esrom]

I get the debate is a challenge to define how principles are applied, or not, in church business endeavors, and it can be fun or mind twisting, but it reminds me of the Pharisees, and arguing over whether its permissible to pull an ox from a ditch on the Sabbath.  Or can the money changers still hang out if they do some charity along with it?  Orthodox Jews still debate over how far one can walk to synagogue without violating the Sabbath.  Meanwhile, there's a world in crisis, with people losing their faith at what appears to be an alarming rate, the poor & needy still suffering, and sparse evidence of repentance or "mighty changes" of heart.  I wonder, are we distracted and missing the bigger picture?

[Islander]

On 7/12/2021 at 12:19 PM, Fair Dinkum said:

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

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

The issue get muddied when Church members form a majority in places like Utah and Idaho. The tendency to try and run the government like a theocracy is just too appealing. But that is a colossal mistake. We are not to force our morality, way of life and practices on others. In fact, that is not done anywhere else in the Western world. Such imposition breeds resentment and animosity from the rest of the world. There is no mandate in the scriptures to change society. Our calling is to change the individual, to be the means and ready instruments of salvation to the mass of humanity on the edge of the abyss.

In Titus 3 the Apostle Paul counsels: "Put them in mind to be subject to principalities [governments] and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work, to speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men. For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another."

We are not to get entangled in politics, revolts or civic disobedience. We are not to attempt to force others to conform to our morality, behaviors or beliefs. They don't know God or do not care. But we are to treat all people with courtesy, kindness and  love. Keeping in mind that some of us were just as wicked before our salvation. We must be a true example of the believer by the love that radiates through us, pursuing a peaceful existence of service and dedication to the welfare of our neighbors. The business world is not our world. We should just render to Cesar what is Cesar's and to God what is God's.

 

[Ipod Touch]

On 7/12/2021 at 11:00 AM, Fair Dinkum said:

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

I was once in an EQ meeting where a brother proudly explained how he had turned down lucrative business opportunity because it would involve building building a bar etc.  This man was a struggling tradesman who worked with this hands.

I really felt bad for him because I knew that the Church's Hotel Utah had served alcohol proudly to Gentiles. He acted out of an idealized version of how the Church behaved when in reality, the Church has always been pragmatic.  If booze pays the bills, booze will be served.

Edited August 7, 2021 by Ipod Touch

[JLHPROF]

9 hours ago, Islander said:

The issue get muddied when Church members form a majority in places like Utah and Idaho. The tendency to try and run the government like a theocracy is just too appealing. But that is a colossal mistake. We are not to force our morality, way of life and practices on others. In fact, that is not done anywhere else in the Western world. Such imposition breeds resentment and animosity from the rest of the world. There is no mandate in the scriptures to change society. 

We are not to get entangled in politics, revolts or civic disobedience. We are not to attempt to force others to conform to our morality, behaviors or beliefs. They don't know God or do not care. 

That will change.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That will change.

There was a lot in there…which ‘that’ were you referring to?

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

There was a lot in there…which ‘that’ were you referring to?

The separation of Church and society/government.  Theocracy is part of the Millennial prophecies.  And I'm not convinced it's that far away.  Maybe a couple of decades.

[Danzo]

11 hours ago, Ipod Touch said:

I was once in an EQ meeting where a brother proudly explained how he had turned down lucrative business opportunity because it would involve building building a bar etc.  This man was a struggling tradesman who worked with this hands.

I really felt bad for him because I knew that the Church's Hotel Utah had served alcohol proudly to Gentiles. He acted out of an idealized version of how the Church behaved when in reality, the Church has always been pragmatic.  If booze pays the bills, booze will be served.

Why would you feel bad for him?

I have regularly turned down money for Working on Sundays. Even when I really needed it. I feel very blessed for it. I don't feel any less blessed knowing that the church invests in and probably owns businesses that work on Sunday. My blessings for the good choices I make are not diminished by the choices of other church members. I don't even have to decide if the choices of others are correct or not to make and receive blessings for the choices I make.

I certainly hope you don't feel bad for me.

Edited August 7, 2021 by Danzo

[Ipod Touch]

46 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Why would you feel bad for him?

Because he was trying to meet some imagined standard that the Church has never even tried to meet.  He gave up opportunities that the Church never would.

46 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I certainly hope you don't feel bad for me.

I do.  Because you are living to a standard that the Church doesn't.  Why would you want to be more righteous than the Apostles?  Obviously Church leaders do not believe this standard needs to be met.

Edited August 7, 2021 by Ipod Touch

[Danzo]

4 hours ago, Ipod Touch said:

Because he was trying to meet some imagined standard that the Church has never even tried to meet.  He gave up opportunities that the Church never would.

I do.  Because you are living to a standard that the Church doesn't.  Why would you want to be more righteous than the Apostles?  Obviously Church leaders do not believe this standard needs to be met.

I wonder if there is a term for someone who feels sad for someone who is happy.  I just don't understand why you need to be sad for something that brings me such joy.

I really don't believe honoring the sabath day is a commandment from the apostles (it may come through the apostles, but it isn't from the apostles).  Therefore it isn't really that important to me how they keep Gods commandments.  If they are not following the commandments they will need to deal with the same person I do.  How I keep the commandments is between me and God.  We are commanded to perfect, like our father in heaven, not perfect like an apostle.  Apostles, like all of us are going to fall short and will have to rely on the atonement of Jesus Christ just like I will.

However, striving (even though not always succeeding) to keep the sabath day holy has brough countless blessings to my life, and those of my family even though it might have cost me a dollar or two. The Joy that comes into my life from being willing to keep Gods commandments is worth far more than the money I might have lost.

This is independent of what the prophets, apostles or church owned businesses do. 

 

[echelon]

This thread has been a real eye opener for me as to how the church conducts its business and where the thoughts of the members of this board are on it.  I still struggle with determining what the lesson or doctrine is (if any) that I am to learn from the church's example in offering goods and services on church property to the general public and at the same time prohibit their own members to partake of it. 

What is the doctrine they follow that guides their decision from 'selling alcohol is okay, maybe a few VLT's, but we will put our foot down on strip club' on church owned property? (assuming they would put their foot down on a strip club)

I would like to know so that I can apply it in my relationships with friends and business partners which I think will certainly improve if I start offering them drinks or lottery tickets, working on Sundays, and an occasional joint.  It seems like if the church caters to public needs, I should do the same for my friends so that comfort and enjoyment can be maintained for all without imposing my beliefs on them. 

In other words, The church's example in the OP is teaching me that I'm allowed to offer things to other people I wouldn't do myself if I know it is something they want...(that would go over well with my kids!)

I don't think that any doctrine is being followed by the church in what it allows within its business establishments but rather what is legal and socially acceptable, keeping one foot in Zion (the church) and the other in Babylon (its business end).

[Gillebre]

48 minutes ago, echelon said:

This thread has been a real eye opener for me as to how the church conducts its business and where the thoughts of the members of this board are on it.  I still struggle with determining what the lesson or doctrine is (if any) that I am to learn from the church's example in offering goods and services on church property to the general public and at the same time prohibit their own members to partake of it. 

What is the doctrine they follow that guides their decision from 'selling alcohol is okay, maybe a few VLT's, but we will put our foot down on strip club' on church owned property? (assuming they would put their foot down on a strip club)

I would like to know so that I can apply it in my relationships with friends and business partners which I think will certainly improve if I start offering them drinks or lottery tickets, working on Sundays, and an occasional joint.  It seems like if the church caters to public needs, I should do the same for my friends so that comfort and enjoyment can be maintained for all without imposing my beliefs on them. 

In other words, The church's example in the OP is teaching me that I'm allowed to offer things to other people I wouldn't do myself if I know it is something they want...(that would go over well with my kids!)

I don't think that any doctrine is being followed by the church in what it allows within its business establishments but rather what is legal and socially acceptable, keeping one foot in Zion (the church) and the other in Babylon (its business end).

In my mind it's at least in part because alcohol isn't necessarily immoral in and of itself, whereas strip clubs most definitely are. In the age of cars and vehicles there are whole new layers of potential consequences, and a culture of getting wasted, drinking to great excesses, that did not exist in the far past.

I think part of why we have the Word of Wisdom, therefore, is not that getting buzzed or drunk is morally wrong as much as it is about the tendency to consume too much that is common today. It's a transgression for members of the Church to partake because they specifically promise when they get baptized that they won't do it. Nonmembers have made no such promise with the Lord through this Church and aren't accountable like we are in that way. Evil thoughts in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, as well as the ongoing war against Satan and his angels.

Edited August 15, 2021 by Gillebre

[secondclasscitizen]

I find it rather humorous members will defend the church selling alcohol in order to make money. 
 

The first presidency has spoken out against profiting from the sales of alcohol among other things. 
 

I guess a dead prophet’s words are not real important if they are not convenient.

 

[Fether]

This may have been shared already. Worth considering in the conversation https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1977/04/i-have-a-question/should-a-latter-day-saint-sell-a-product-when-its-use-violates-the-word-of-wisdom

 

I left the thread a while back, but has there been any sources posted showing the church’s connection and verifying there is alcohol sold?

 

EDIT: I found the connection between the company and the church and links to the hotel’s restaurants. It all checks out.

Edited August 15, 2021 by Fether

[echelon]

I understand it's not reasonable to hold people accountable for 'Church' commitments they did not make.  What I don't understand is a Church that not only tempts others to do exactly what it clearly disapproves of from its own members, but also enables them to do so by making it accessible.  Perhaps the doctrine being followed is what we learn from the Book of Mormon where it is okay to poison a Lamanite, but not a Nephite (Alma 55:30-32), and that is it is okay to benefit from the suffering of others.  In this case we don't get to drink the 'safe' wine, but rather profit from it.

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, echelon said:

This thread has been a real eye opener for me as to how the church conducts its business and where the thoughts of the members of this board are on it.  I still struggle with determining what the lesson or doctrine is (if any) that I am to learn from the church's example in offering goods and services on church property to the general public and at the same time prohibit their own members to partake of it. 

What is the doctrine they follow that guides their decision from 'selling alcohol is okay, maybe a few VLT's, but we will put our foot down on strip club' on church owned property? (assuming they would put their foot down on a strip club)

I would like to know so that I can apply it in my relationships with friends and business partners which I think will certainly improve if I start offering them drinks or lottery tickets, working on Sundays, and an occasional joint.  It seems like if the church caters to public needs, I should do the same for my friends so that comfort and enjoyment can be maintained for all without imposing my beliefs on them. 

In other words, The church's example in the OP is teaching me that I'm allowed to offer things to other people I wouldn't do myself if I know it is something they want...(that would go over well with my kids!)

I don't think that any doctrine is being followed by the church in what it allows within its business establishments but rather what is legal and socially acceptable, keeping one foot in Zion (the church) and the other in Babylon (its business end).

I don't think the church would have a problem if you owned a bar or liquor store, honestly.

[Bernard Gui]

On 7/12/2021 at 2:19 PM, Fair Dinkum said:

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

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

Several years after my father joined the church, he went to work for a Safeway grocery store. To be baptized he quit alcohol, tobacco, and coffee. At the Safeway store he was obliged to sell customers all three. He would jokingly refuse to sell them to the customers, but in the end he had to do it. 

[Bernard Gui]

On 7/12/2021 at 3:02 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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

I think this is an inaccurate description.