Fair Dinkum Posted July 13, 2021 Author Posted July 13, 2021 38 minutes ago, pogi said: 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? I can lead a horse to water but I can not force it to drink. I have throughout this thread explained how the church teaches one thing and does the complete opposite, I can not make it any plainer than that for you. If you can not see the duplicity of that, I don't know how else to explain it to you.
CV75 Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 1 hour 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. Of course they can be taken as harsh comments -- hopefully you can appreciate how they aren't. 21 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said: 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? 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?
Fether Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 2 hours 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 I would consider that I righteous, therefor putting it under conclusion 1
CV75 Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 12 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said: I can lead a horse to water but I can not force it to drink. I have throughout this thread explained how the church teaches one thing and does the complete opposite, I can not make it any plainer than that for you. If you can not see the duplicity of that, I don't know how else to explain it to you. You are making the case for duplicity very, very plain and simple, but it is a woefully incomplete description and assessment of all that is going on. A lot of plain and simple things are going on at once -- just as in real life! I invite you list them so that the thinking isn't done for you. 1
Fair Dinkum Posted July 13, 2021 Author Posted July 13, 2021 (edited) 9 minutes ago, CV75 said: You are making the case for duplicity very, very plain and simple, but it is a woefully incomplete description and assessment of all that is going on. A lot of plain and simple things are going on at once -- just as in real life! I invite you list them so that the thinking isn't done for you. Why are we (well some of us) all shocked when a bishop or stake president is caught doing something that is so foreign to their calling such as molesting young teachers and deacons or caught in a prostitute raid or caught drunk driving? Its because the behavior is not in keeping with what they preach on Sunday nor the principle they expect everyone else to live their lives by. They're hypocrites. How is this decision by the church any different? they are not walking the walk that they are teaching everyone else to walk by. They are profiting from the sale of liquor, a product that they condemn yet are profiting from. And they're selling their collective souls so cheaply. For a few thousand dollars in lease payments. Edited July 13, 2021 by Fair Dinkum 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 On 7/12/2021 at 1:37 PM, bluebell said: Members commit to obey the WOW as the church currently teaches it though, when they go through the interview to be baptized. On 7/12/2021 at 3:23 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said: Sure. They absolutely do. And temple attendance is predicated on it. But no covenant. The covenants and teachings accepted in the temple endowment can be regarded as encompassing the Word of Wisdom among other things. 2
Popular Post bsjkki Posted July 13, 2021 Popular Post Posted July 13, 2021 (edited) I don't understand. This is nothing new. The church owns property it leases to 3rd parties that sell alcohol. https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=52455952&itype=CMSID The Marriott situation is no different. If the church directly served alcohol, I would be surprised. I don't even know what stocks I own. They are wrapped up in mutual funds. By this standard, we could not invest in anything that could be used for non-approved activities. Taking this to the extreme, there would not be much left. 🤷♀️ Edited July 13, 2021 by bsjkki 5
CV75 Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said: Why are (well some of us) we all shocked when a bishop or stake president is caught doing something that is so foreign to their calling such as molesting young teachers and deacons, or caught in a prostitute raid? Its because the behavior does not in keeping with what they preach on Sunday nor the principle they expect everyone else to live their lives by. How is this decision by the church any different? they are not walking the walk that they are teaching everyone else to walk by. They are profiting from the sale of liquor, a product that they condemn yet are profiting from. And they're selling their collective souls so cheaply. For a few thousand dollars in lease payments. OK I will do some thinking for you; I understand and appreciate the power of bias in sticking to one conclusion: You presented: The Church allows alcohol to be sold in restaurants at their City Creek Mall. A false judgement that business and religion must be separate. The Church’s Marriott Hotel on Maui has a bar where patrons can purchase alcoholic beverages. A false judgement that teaching the evils of alcohol (without considering teaching benefits of abstaining) should guide the Church to do otherwise, and doing so is duplicitous and abandoning religious principle for business profit. An error of not integrating the two Biblical teachings of God and mammon. Some things to consider: Business and religion can and do support one another (temporal and spiritual teachings of the Church). The teachings of how to treat "strangers and foreigners" in both business, religion and their intersection without compromising the moral and spiritual principles which guide both. This post about the two teachings about "God and mammon" here: Posted 22 hours ago Other posts where I answered you questions but then you did not answer mine, which address all the above. The Church's business decisions are different than a molesting and whoremongering bishop's because... well, what do you think a molesting and whoremongering bishop is taking into account for his decisions -- any of the above considerations? Edited July 13, 2021 by CV75 1
rodheadlee Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 7 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said: But let's first start with Utah Liquor Laws, its time for the church to get out of the way and allow liquor to be sold in grocery stores and join the real world just like nearly every other state in America. The world is truly your oyster when you are willing to compromise your core values for money. Utah is not the only state where you have to buy hard liquor at a state liquor store. Tennessee was like that when I lived there. You couldn't buy it on Sunday either. But you could go to the rib place an order a hard drink. 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 29 minutes 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. That seems a huge stretch since the endowment predates the modern interpretation of the word of wisdom.
Stormin' Mormon Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 Just gonna leave this here. The actual text from Doctrine and Covenants Section 89 stating exactly who the revelation is meant for: Quote "A Word of Wisdom, for the benefit of the council of high priests, assembled in Kirtland, and the church, and also the saints in Zion" So, yeah. Not a revelation meant for the world. Just for the members of the Church. 4
SeekingUnderstanding Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 3 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said: Just gonna leave this here. The actual text from Doctrine and Covenants Section 89 stating exactly who the revelation is meant for: So, yeah. Not a revelation meant for the world. Just for the members of the Church. Not a strong argument since the modern word of wisdom is only tangentially related to doctrine and covenants 89.
JLHPROF Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: Quote The covenants and teachings accepted in the temple endowment can be regarded as encompassing the Word of Wisdom among other things. That seems a huge stretch since the endowment predates the modern interpretation of the word of wisdom. 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. 2
Popular Post JLHPROF Posted July 13, 2021 Popular Post Posted July 13, 2021 4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: Not a strong argument since the modern word of wisdom is only tangentially related to doctrine and covenants 89. Then what is the point of this entire thread? That D&C 89 disagrees with the Church owning a hotel with a bar in it? Or that the currently taught version of the word of wisdom disagrees with the Church owning a hotel with a bar in it? (Honestly, neither of them disagree with the Church owning such a business.) 5
bsjkki Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 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. I see a big difference in that the church owns The Roof restaurant and operates it. It does not lease it to a 3rd party. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/feature/templesquare/dining?lang=eng Hotels chains are owned by many companies. They often then hire a management group. Marriott does not own all the Marriotts. Many times, the bars and restaurants are then leased to 3rd party operators. I bet the church owns and operates the Marriott by the school, much like the Joseph Smith Building. Plus, the Marriott by the PCC is a Courtyard. I bet they had to get special permission not to sell alcohol since the brand standard includes a bar. But, they are not 3rd party bars with separate spaces. They are part of the Courtyard experience. https://hotel-development.marriott.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Courtyard-NoAm-March-2018-One-Pager.pdf 1
JAHS Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 Time for this emoji yet? Some people(cough FD) are not getting it and never will. 3
SeekingUnderstanding Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Then what is the point of this entire thread? That D&C 89 disagrees with the Church owning a hotel with a bar in it? Or that the currently taught version of the word of wisdom disagrees with the Church owning a hotel with a bar in it? (Honestly, neither of them disagree with the Church owning such a business.) I’m on your side on this one mate!
SeekingUnderstanding Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 (edited) 14 minutes 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. Sure. It’s a pretty slippery slope. Let’s say a Latter-day Saint was running for President. Let’s further say a church critic on this forum said that this later day Saint was under covenant (with the threat of eternal damnation) to do whatever the prophet called and asked him to do. What would be the response here I wonder. Edited July 13, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding
Stormin' Mormon Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Then what is the point of this entire thread? That D&C 89 disagrees with the Church owning a hotel with a bar in it? Or that the currently taught version of the word of wisdom disagrees with the Church owning a hotel with a bar in it? (Honestly, neither of them disagree with the Church owning such a business.) Exactly this. The modern interpretation of the Word of Wisdom self-evidently allows for the Church to own businesses that sell alcohol. Because the modern interpretation of the WoW comes from the same people who are making the business decisions. So the beef must be with the Word of Wisdom as written. 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.
Calm Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 51 minutes ago, bsjkki said: I don't understand. This is nothing new. The church owns property it leases to 3rd parties that sell alcohol. https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=52455952&itype=CMSID The Marriott situation is no different. If the church directly served alcohol, I would be surprised. I don't even know what stocks I own. They are wrapped up in mutual funds. By this standard, we could not invest in anything that could be used for non-approved activities. Taking this to the extreme, there would not be much left. 🤷♀️ Would it be even appropriate in every situation for the Church to tell a business owner what they can or cannot do with the property they lease from the Church? I get up to a certain point having some restrictions, especially if a business is next to church religious purposed property and the Church wants to maintain a certain environment or an activity damages property like smoking can…but micromanaging in a business relationship seems a bit much to me. 4
Calm Posted July 13, 2021 Posted July 13, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: Honestly, it surprises me a bit that growing pot as a farmer is acceptable, but cool. We can go with the flow. I had a Bishop say it was okay for an astrologer to keep doing that when he was baptized as long as he kept to personal analysis rather than predicting the future…and that was the most conservative bishop I ever had and he was very, so I was shocked. I am guessing he saw it much like ink blots…a way to help get talking going. The no predicting thing was allegedly respecting agency and avoiding false spiritual guidance. I heard it from the astrologer, a friend of my mother’s she got to know as he also taught piano and organ and she introduced him to the Church….so can’t guarantee that was the exact viewpoint of the bishop, but that was how it was interpreted. Edited July 14, 2021 by Calm 1
Popular Post mgy401 Posted July 14, 2021 Popular Post Posted July 14, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said: I can lead a horse to water but I can not force it to drink. I have throughout this thread explained how the church teaches one thing and does the complete opposite, I can not make it any plainer than that for you. If you can not see the duplicity of that, I don't know how else to explain it to you. Friend, the issue a lot of us have is that we feel you are misrepresenting what the Church actually teaches. 53 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: That seems a huge stretch since the endowment predates the modern interpretation of the word of wisdom. We can haggle over the meaning of “covenant”, whether it can extend beyond liturgical covenants and into the realm of “bishop’s office commitments”, and the question of which specific behavioral obligations are tied to which specific liturgical covenants; but the fundamental facts are that a) church members commit to living the Word of Wisdom as part of the baptismal interview and recommit during each temple recommend interview; b) people outside the church have not made that commitment; and c) as near as I can tell, in the eight pages of this thread no one has provided a single piece of evidence in which the Church has unambiguously held that alcohol consumption (as opposed to drunkenness or the other activities that happened at turn-of-the-century saloons) is objectively, inherently, eternally a grievous sin that will morally taint anyone who participated in it whether he is in the church or not. The best we have seen is someone referring us to a page of search results for articles that happen to contain the word “alcohol” at one point and “evil” at some other point, and demanding we do the research to make their point for them. That’s not very “fair dinkum”, to borrow a phrase from our New Zealander friends. Edited July 14, 2021 by mgy401 5
Popular Post Hamba Tuhan Posted July 14, 2021 Popular Post Posted July 14, 2021 (edited) 8 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said: But let's first start with Utah Liquor Laws, its time for the church to get out of the way and allow liquor to be sold in grocery stores and join the real world just like nearly every other state in America. 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. Edited July 14, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan 5
Stormin' Mormon Posted July 14, 2021 Posted July 14, 2021 To clarify on my earlier statement: A charge of hypocrisy requires that a behavior deviates from a standard. The behavior here is "owning a business that sells alcohol." So then the question is: what is the standard that this behavior deviates from? It has to be either the modern interpretation of the Word of Wisdom or the Word of Wisdom as originally written. An interpretation of the Word of Wisdom from any other time period other than our own is null and void, since we believe in continuing revelation and living prophets. And an interpretation of the Word of Wisdom that exists in an individual's head-canon is not binding on the church. The WoWaW specifically limits itself to only members of the Church. Heck, it even says of itself that it's not a commandment, just good advice. So, the charge of hypocrisy can't stem from a deviation of that standard. That just leaves us with the proposition that the behavior in question must violate the modern interpretation of the Word of Wisdom in order for a charge of hypocrisy to stick. In order to make this charge stick, one would have to conflate the modern standard "don't drink alcohol" with the standard "don't sell alcohol." I don't believe the latter has ever been taught, while the former has been amply taught. And I think those two standards are sufficiently distinct from each other. 2
pogi Posted July 14, 2021 Posted July 14, 2021 1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said: Its because the behavior is not in keeping with...the principle they expect everyone else to live their lives by. They're hypocrites. How is this decision by the church any different? This is the crux of the problem with your argument. We don’t expect “everyone else” to live their lives by our standards of membership in regards to alcohol. So, no hypocrisy. 3
Recommended Posts