smac97 Posted July 12, 2021 Posted July 12, 2021 14 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said: Thanks for sharing this. While I did make mention of the church owning the hotel next door to the PCC, this post is specific to the one owned by the church in Maui which yes does also contain a bar that serves adult beverages. Frankly the church can do whatever it wants, but I guess, only to me, it seems a bit hypocritical to teach us not to drink while at the very same time actually making a profit from the very product being taught not to consume. But the Church doesn't do that with "the hotel next door to the PCC." What makes you think it will do that with the newly-acquired one? Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted July 12, 2021 Posted July 12, 2021 56 minutes ago, 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. No, I don't think he did. He sure was a nice guy. I wish I had better grasped his emphasis on Civil Procedure at the time. It is the meat and potatoes of civil litigation. Thanks, -Smac 1
smac97 Posted July 12, 2021 Posted July 12, 2021 37 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said: So you support the church earning a profit from alcohol? OK Please first establish that the Church is "earning a profit from alcohol." Consider this a CFR. Thanks, -Smac
Fair Dinkum Posted July 12, 2021 Author Posted July 12, 2021 (edited) 17 minutes ago, why me said: Free will is a major principle of the church. I don't think that the church should be denying free will. 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. Edited July 12, 2021 by Fair Dinkum 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted July 12, 2021 Posted July 12, 2021 1 hour ago, bluebell said: Members commit to obey the WOW as the church currently teaches it though, when they go through the interview to be baptized. Sure. They absolutely do. And temple attendance is predicated on it. But no covenant. 1
Fair Dinkum Posted July 12, 2021 Author Posted July 12, 2021 6 minutes ago, smac97 said: But the Church doesn't do that with "the hotel next door to the PCC." What makes you think it will do that with the newly-acquired one? Thanks, -Smac My source told me that the church is keeping the liquor license so that it can be transferred easily it to a 3rd party once that 3rd party has met the qualifications. They will then lease back the bar space for a profit. The church has no intention of operating the bar themselves...only earn the profits through a 3rd party lessee.
Fair Dinkum Posted July 12, 2021 Author Posted July 12, 2021 (edited) Correct me if I have misinterpreted the sentiments of the posters on this thread. But I'm sensing that many approve of the church profiting from the sale of alcohol when done so on property that they own. I find this very enlightening Edited July 12, 2021 by Fair Dinkum 1
JAHS Posted July 12, 2021 Posted July 12, 2021 31 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said: So you support the church earning a profit from alcohol? OK Yes. I would not expect them to lose money by selling it. Like I said alcohol itself is not evil or sinful and drinking it is not sinful if you are not a member of the church. What would be hypocritical is a Church leader celebrating new years eve by having a drink. Marriots wanted to build a Hotel in Pennsylvania and JW Marriot labored over the question of whether to have a bar. As the story goes: "The board’s approval presented J.W. with a new wrinkle on an old problem—serving alcohol. The first three hotels had been built in Virginia and Texas, which were “dry” states. Pennsylvania, on the other hand, was a “wet” state that allowed the sale of alcohol in hotels except on Sundays. Bill commissioned a report from hotel consultants Horwath & Horwath, which concluded that the hotel would be successful in the early years primarily because of expected “extensive local use of the restaurant and bar facilities.” Bill knew they had to sell alcohol, and he advised his father accordingly. J.W. still agonized over this decision in discussions with Bill, who had no similar misgivings. Bill advised J.W. to consult with Church leadership, as he had in the past. This time, he would talk with 87-year-old President David O. McKay. “As you know, Brother Marriott,” President McKay told him, “the Word of Wisdom also enjoins abstinence from the use of tobacco, except as an herb for bruises and for sick cattle. Moreover, it enjoins abstinence from the consumption of hot drinks, such as tea or coffee.” “Yes, President, I am aware of that.” “Well, then, I will ask you as one brother to another, suppose a sheepman, like you were, goes into a grocery store owned by a Mormon to buy supplies, and he wants cigarettes for his men. If the storekeeper says—‘Sorry, we don’t carry tobacco in any form because it’s against our religion’—why, the customer won’t come back the next time. If he wants coffee for his men and the storekeeper says—‘We disapprove of it, and we don’t want your men to drink it either’—he won’t come back again. He’ll go to the store down the street not only for his tobacco and coffee, but for everything else he needs. In the long run, this could put the storekeeper out of business, don’t you agree?” “Yes, President, it could—very easily,” J.W. responded. “As I see it, Brother Marriott, if you don’t satisfy your customers’ wants and needs, you could be running the same risk. If liquor today is an essential part of the service that the hotel and restaurant industry offers to its patrons, it seems to me that you’re obliged to sell it to them. To sell it to them doesn’t mean that we approve of drinking any more than to sell a gun means approval of using that gun to commit a crime. "The patron who believes as we do is not compelled to buy liquor, nor, indeed, is anyone. But it is the patron’s life, his money, his right to decide for himself, not ours.” President McKay cautioned J.W. against liquor sales in any family-oriented Hot Shoppes, and concluded, “It is hard sometimes to find the right path in these confusing times. But I know you will find it, and I know you will follow it.” When J.W. returned to Washington, Bill saw a changed man, at least in regard to this troublesome question. It was clear that his father felt unburdened by his talk with President McKay. Liquor was made available for patrons of the sophisticated specialty hotel restaurants and lounges, but never in the Hot Shoppes or in other company eateries where youngsters went. Bill, himself, was deeply grateful for President McKay’s pragmatic counsel. Even though he had made the same points, his father accepted the advice more fully when it came from his Church leader. Because of J.W.’s frequent recounting of that meeting, it provided pivotal guidance for Bill in his own business dealings long after his father was gone. What a Prophet Told the Marriotts About Serving Alcohol in Their Hotels 2
JustAnAustralian Posted July 12, 2021 Posted July 12, 2021 (edited) You know what else people do in hotels? Have sex with people they aren't married to. Edited July 12, 2021 by JustAnAustralian 3
Fair Dinkum Posted July 12, 2021 Author Posted July 12, 2021 (edited) 14 minutes ago, JAHS said: Yes. I would not expect them to lose money by selling it. Like I said alcohol itself is not evil or sinful and drinking it is not sinful if you are not a member of the church. What would be hypocritical is a Church leader celebrating new years eve by having a drink. Marriots wanted to build a Hotel in Pennsylvania and JW Marriot labored over the question of whether to have a bar. As the story goes: "The board’s approval presented J.W. with a new wrinkle on an old problem—serving alcohol. The first three hotels had been built in Virginia and Texas, which were “dry” states. Pennsylvania, on the other hand, was a “wet” state that allowed the sale of alcohol in hotels except on Sundays. Bill commissioned a report from hotel consultants Horwath & Horwath, which concluded that the hotel would be successful in the early years primarily because of expected “extensive local use of the restaurant and bar facilities.” Bill knew they had to sell alcohol, and he advised his father accordingly. J.W. still agonized over this decision in discussions with Bill, who had no similar misgivings. Bill advised J.W. to consult with Church leadership, as he had in the past. This time, he would talk with 87-year-old President David O. McKay. “As you know, Brother Marriott,” President McKay told him, “the Word of Wisdom also enjoins abstinence from the use of tobacco, except as an herb for bruises and for sick cattle. Moreover, it enjoins abstinence from the consumption of hot drinks, such as tea or coffee.” “Yes, President, I am aware of that.” “Well, then, I will ask you as one brother to another, suppose a sheepman, like you were, goes into a grocery store owned by a Mormon to buy supplies, and he wants cigarettes for his men. If the storekeeper says—‘Sorry, we don’t carry tobacco in any form because it’s against our religion’—why, the customer won’t come back the next time. If he wants coffee for his men and the storekeeper says—‘We disapprove of it, and we don’t want your men to drink it either’—he won’t come back again. He’ll go to the store down the street not only for his tobacco and coffee, but for everything else he needs. In the long run, this could put the storekeeper out of business, don’t you agree?” “Yes, President, it could—very easily,” J.W. responded. “As I see it, Brother Marriott, if you don’t satisfy your customers’ wants and needs, you could be running the same risk. If liquor today is an essential part of the service that the hotel and restaurant industry offers to its patrons, it seems to me that you’re obliged to sell it to them. To sell it to them doesn’t mean that we approve of drinking any more than to sell a gun means approval of using that gun to commit a crime. "The patron who believes as we do is not compelled to buy liquor, nor, indeed, is anyone. But it is the patron’s life, his money, his right to decide for himself, not ours.” President McKay cautioned J.W. against liquor sales in any family-oriented Hot Shoppes, and concluded, “It is hard sometimes to find the right path in these confusing times. But I know you will find it, and I know you will follow it.” When J.W. returned to Washington, Bill saw a changed man, at least in regard to this troublesome question. It was clear that his father felt unburdened by his talk with President McKay. Liquor was made available for patrons of the sophisticated specialty hotel restaurants and lounges, but never in the Hot Shoppes or in other company eateries where youngsters went. Bill, himself, was deeply grateful for President McKay’s pragmatic counsel. Even though he had made the same points, his father accepted the advice more fully when it came from his Church leader. Because of J.W.’s frequent recounting of that meeting, it provided pivotal guidance for Bill in his own business dealings long after his father was gone. What a Prophet Told the Marriotts About Serving Alcohol in Their Hotels Great insights into what the Marriott's did and great advice from President McKay but we are talking about a hotel owned by the church not the Marriott's. The Marriott's never taught abstinence of alcohol as a core principle of their corporation where as the church has and does. Are you suggesting that the church should hold to the same principles as the Marriott corporation? Then I guess porn is acceptable now but only if you profit from its sale and don't consume it right? Edited July 12, 2021 by Fair Dinkum
pogi Posted July 12, 2021 Posted July 12, 2021 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said: against the availability of pornography...using their influence to keep gambling out of Utah etc. How has their position changed on these? Edited July 12, 2021 by pogi
JAHS Posted July 12, 2021 Posted July 12, 2021 Just now, Fair Dinkum said: Great insights into what the Marriott's did and great advice from President McKay but we are talking about a hotel owned by the church not the Marriott's. The Marriott's never taught abstinence of alcohol as a core principle of their corporation where as the church has and does. Are you suggesting that the church should hold to the same principles as the Marriott corporation? Then I guess porn is now acceptable now but only if you profit from its sale and don't consume it right? But by your standards would it also not be hypocritical for the prophet to tell him what he told him? This is the business side of the Church and according to them a bar is needed to make it a successful business. Let the patron decide whether they will drink or not. 1
pogi Posted July 12, 2021 Posted July 12, 2021 (edited) 4 hours ago, 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? We don't teach that it is evil for non-members to purchase or consume alcohol - and therefore, it would not be evil for members to sell it to them. 3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said: You forget all of the influence the church imposes on the Utah legislature in it's liquor laws... I bet you have issue with that too, right? It's a no win situation for us. If I was prone to find fault with the church, this would be the issue I would take up, so I am surprised that you are taking the opposite stance. There is absolutely no doctrine or moral dilemma with the church selling alcohol in their hotels. I would also add that strict liquor laws in Utah is not the same as prohibition. They still are ok with alcohol being sold and consumed in Utah. Edited July 12, 2021 by pogi 3
Fair Dinkum Posted July 12, 2021 Author Posted July 12, 2021 20 minutes ago, pogi said: How has their position changed on these? never suggested that they have
bluebell Posted July 12, 2021 Posted July 12, 2021 36 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said: Correct me if I have misinterpreted the sentiments of the posters on this thread. But I'm sensing that many approve of the church profiting from the sale of alcohol when done so on property that they own. I find this very enlightening 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. 4
bluebell Posted July 12, 2021 Posted July 12, 2021 27 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said: You know what else people do in hotels? Have sex with people they aren't married to. And the church is profiting off of all of that fornication and adultery! Clearly the church should not be in the hotel business at all.
Fair Dinkum Posted July 12, 2021 Author Posted July 12, 2021 19 minutes ago, JAHS said: But by your standards would it also not be hypocritical for the prophet to tell him what he told him? This is the business side of the Church and according to them a bar is needed to make it a successful business. Let the patron decide whether they will drink or not. Not my standards, its the standards taught by the church itself. I'm not the one being a hypocrite. I remember a time when the church was accused of holding stock in Coke A Cola. I don't know if they ever did or not, but at that the time is was a criticism of the church of being hypocritical by teaching that drinking caffeinated beverages while at the same time holding stock in Coke was being hypocritical. They have since relaxed they teachings on caffeine and now only hot caffeine is prohibited.
pogi Posted July 12, 2021 Posted July 12, 2021 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said: never suggested that they have I misunderstood. My bad. With a re-read, I understand now. I will suggest that the difference is that the church views morality issues such as pornography, etc. as universally evil for all. In regards to alcohol and coffee, etc. it only applies to members of the church, so it makes sense that the church might sell alcohol but not pornography. No hypocrisy. No inconsistency. Edited July 12, 2021 by pogi 2
JLHPROF Posted July 12, 2021 Posted July 12, 2021 1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said: Is it consistent for a church that teaches its members to avoid even the appearance of evil to profit from the sale of the very product that they teach should be avoided on Sunday? Brigham thought it was. He specifically said so. 1
Fair Dinkum Posted July 12, 2021 Author Posted July 12, 2021 4 minutes ago, 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. Not at all, they profited on the sale of barley, a grain commodity, they did not sell alcohol.
bluebell Posted July 12, 2021 Posted July 12, 2021 Just now, Fair Dinkum said: Not at all, they profited on the sale of barley, a grain commodity, they did not sell alcohol. They enabled Coors to make the alcohol. They had yearly contracts with that buyer alone. They personally profited off of the sale of alcohol, even if they weren't selling it themselves. 3
Fair Dinkum Posted July 12, 2021 Author Posted July 12, 2021 (edited) 17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Brigham thought it was. He specifically said so. Again as I stated in my OP I don't care if the church wants to own a hotel, I would only ask for consistency. It's the inconsistency in their messaging that profiting from the sale of alcohol is ok. that's what I have issues with. What are their principles worth these days. Evidentially principles are going very cheaply these days, about the cost of the monthly rent of a hotel bar which I imagine would be several $5 to10,000 a month. Seems pretty cheap for a multibillion dollar corporation to sell their souls for. I do find it interesting that the church can do virtually anything, engage in any business practice and as long as it is the church that is doing it, it is ok with the posters here and the lot of you would defend the church because we all know the church can do nothing wrong, right?. That alone tells me a lot about the members of this board. I honestly find that perplexing. So if Hawaii legalizes gambling you'd have no problem with them opening up a casino with BYU-H students dealing cards? Edited July 12, 2021 by Fair Dinkum 1
pogi Posted July 12, 2021 Posted July 12, 2021 13 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said: Again as I stated in my OP I don't care if the church wants to profit by selling their principles down the river, I would only ask for consistency. It's the inconsistency in their messaging that I have issues with. What doctrines are being violated or sent "down the river" exactly?
Teancum Posted July 12, 2021 Posted July 12, 2021 (edited) 5 hours ago, JAHS said: Your key words "their claimed cherished principles". The people that will buy drinks at the bar most likely are non members who made no such promise to not drink. In other words it's not against their religion to drink so why should we force our beliefs and principles on them by not allowing them to buy what they want? There is nothing religiously "evil" about alcohol. The Bible does say to not drink excessively but it is our Church doctrines by latter-day revelation that tells us to not drink and so we make promises to God in that respect. Major Hotel guests normally expect their to be a bar and Patrons at the bar made no such promises. That's just my opinion. Sort of like that prop 8 move and the history of abstract liquor rules in Utah right? No forcing beliefs there right?😏 Edited July 12, 2021 by Teancum
Fair Dinkum Posted July 12, 2021 Author Posted July 12, 2021 1 hour ago, smac97 said: No, I don't think he did. He sure was a nice guy. I wish I had better grasped his emphasis on Civil Procedure at the time. It is the meat and potatoes of civil litigation. Thanks, -Smac lol remember when the non LDS ROTC had to move its command post to UVU due to its commander drinking coffee on campus? I do.
Recommended Posts