- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
bc_pg wrote:Quote:
If the church owned a building in Nevada which it leased to a company that ran a legal brothel, would that be just as easy to accept, Ray?
That depends. Is it closed on Sundays
:clap: I laughed out loud, bc_pg. Thanks for that.I’m not equating tea samples and coffee stands to prostitution, just to be clear. I’m trying to make the point that this particular line of logic (We don’t endorse X,Y, and Z, we just own the property) is not sufficient justification for an institution that claims moral authority. There have to be other lines drawn. Quibbling over where those lines are drawn will reveal what really matters to the church institutionally. By the same token, refusing to draw lines may reflect what really matters to the church as an institution.
This is an argument that will never die. In a hundred years if there’s still someone around to get their nose out of joint about this or a variation of it. This will still be being resurected and discussed with horror, disdain, anger, and yes even outrage. Somehow I wish we could remember that alcohol, tobacco, coffee and tea are not evil. A sin maybe if you’re mormon but not for anyone else. If it looks like we’re heading towards the purity police, I’m moving back to New Zealand. I see this issue as a problem of members watching church money being put to work in a productive way. The structure of it can be related to the parable of the talents. I’m sure the church does own a subsidiary that owns businesses and puts money to work in ways that are deemed productive. This is not a main purpose of the church (can be debated) but is an effort to be responsible with capital. If we think about the parable of the talents the master distributed and expected his servants to make a profit. Was there any word about not participating in normal businesses? Was there a mandate to both make a profit AND promote a super idealized definition of righteousness within those ventures? Those two things will often conflict – can a talent serve two masters?
Another thing to think about: in early Utah the bishop’s storehouse kept an inventory of coffee, whiskey and tobacco (not just the kind used to treat cattle), among other things modern members would find offensive.
Well, at least now I can rest easy the next time someone suggests that I need to divest myself of mutual funds that invest in RJ Reynolds, or whatever. I agree totally, m&g, that there needs to be a line. I just don’t see this particular case as being anywhere near the line. I sold cigarettes and coffee as part of two jobs I had while in college. I was and am OK with that.
I agree, doug, that my investments have to meet my own conscience – not matter what anyone else says or thinks.
Orson wrote:I see this issue as a problem of members watching church money being put to work in a productive way. The structure of it can be related to the parable of the talents. I’m sure the church does own a subsidiary that owns businesses and puts money to work in ways that are deemed productive. This is not a main purpose of the church (can be debated) but is an effort to be responsible with capital.
If we think about the parable of the talents the master distributed and expected his servants to make a profit. Was there any word about not participating in normal businesses? Was there a mandate to both make a profit AND promote a super idealized definition of righteousness within those ventures? Those two things will often conflict – can a talent serve two masters?
Another thing to think about: in early Utah the bishop’s storehouse kept an inventory of coffee, whiskey and tobacco (not just the kind used to treat cattle), among other things modern members would find offensive.
I certainly don’t think the church turning a profit is obscene or unproductive so long as that profit isn’t for the sole purpose of amassing wealth, is put to use making the world a better place and sustaining efforts to that end.
Neither do I object to tea samples or coffee shops
per sebut the line of reasoning that we aren’t responsible for the use of properties we own is innately flawed in my book. The have to be some qualifiers, some lines we won’t cross. Legality and profitability cannot be the conditions for an institution that claims moral authority. Tocqueville’s theory that democracy would succeed in America only insofar as morality inhibited men from doing everything the law allows may foster relevant corollaries for the church. How long can the church survive if it is perceived as allowing profitability to determine morality, even if only in business affairs?
I’m
notsaying that is what’s happening at City Creek but that is what some clearly perceive as happening. And that’s why, imo, the reasoning behind institutional business dealings has to have parameters that members and non-members alike can clearly identify and that meet at least the basic criteria to which individual LDS are expected to adhere. PS Orson, common LDS interpretations notwithstanding, I believe the parable of the talents has absolutely nothing to do with money or business acumen. But that’s a topic for another thread.
For me, the prophet’s involvement in this at all sends a bad message. The church is famous for saying that “no tithing funds were used”…that the business interests of the church are a separate entity from the ecclesiastical church, so we shouldn’t be holding the church accountable for the actions of its business entities….
However, when you have the ecclesiastical leader of the church dedicating banks, and also, opening shopping malls which symbolize materialism and the world, it sends a different message. This lack of separation only underscores the idea that the ecclesiastical and business interests of the church are not nearly as “separate” as we hear over the pulpit.
Also, can you envision the prophet, who is the spiritual leader in General Conference ending his talk with “1,2,3…let’s go shopping!!!”??? No, you would hear comments abour restraint, sacrifice, comments devaluing the importance of materialism in favor of spiritual aims etcetera. What has happened with the mall really does represent a severe disconnect between the church messages we hear regularly.
It also creates a huge amount of role confusion for what it means to be a prophet.
I find this move by the church very difficult to swallow on so many levels.
Old-Timer wrote:I agree totally, m&g, that there needs to be a line. I just don’t see this particular case as being anywhere near the line.
The problem is that we don’t know where the church draws that line. Perhaps some transparency in the church’s business dealings would effectively counter the criticisms and calm the sensitive souls who are offended by this particular venture. I don’t know.
I also think that if we have the right to question policies about earrings and white shirts, and we can nuance the temple recommend questions, it’s certainly reasonable that faithful members have every right to question investments made by the institution to whom they’ve covenanted their all, as well as whether those investments reflect their values.
doug wrote:the inherent hypocrisy of a church which preaches that its members ought to shun the very appearance of evil, and yet is hand in glove with purveyors of “evil” things. I see his point.
I have a career in casino hotels. At my place of employment we supply the axis of evil (drinking, smoking, and gambling) to an eager public. I could limit myself to non-casino hotels. This would represent a significant pay cut and reduce my ability to provide financial security for my family. I fully understand that a portion of my salary is supplemented with casino revenue. A portion of that salary is then donated to the church.
I am thankful that I have never been treated differently at church based upon where I work. I have even been reassured by church leadership that working in a casino doesn’t qualify as “associating with apostates etc. etc.” The people that have questioned how I square my employment with my beliefs have invariably
notbeen LDS. When I offered to get regular job lists to one Pastor Friend of mine to help his congregation – he told me that he didn’t feel comfortable referring members of his congregation to “casino jobs.” This was a shock to me as it was so foreign to my experience in the LDS church. I do understand the point that various person have made here. There does appear to be a type of hypocrisy or compartmentalism going on. I believe that the LDS have become fairly adept at this compartmentalism over the course of our history. This ability has benefits. Our members are fairly well represented in business and even highly sought after in some law enforcement/intelligence areas. It also has its drawbacks like the double mindedness that has been mentioned.
I personally have found a good thing by straddling both worlds. I know that dealing with this contradiction would not be for everyone, but I have generally found that the LDS church has not had a problem with it.
The difference, though Roy, is that individuals have far fewer options than organizations for sustainable employment. Stop working, and your family suffers immeasurably. But a large corporation with apparently a lot of cashflow can afford to live by its values. In fact it has an obligation to. I don’t see the analogy of an individual working for a casino as anywhere near a comparable analogy to a church affiliated/church sponsored/prophet-headed organization using its wealth for something materialistic like the mall, which is not necessary for survival.
I have no problems with individuals taking jobs for beer companies or casinos — I even worked for a company that made cigarette packaging when I had no other employment — and got flack from members about it (unlike your story), but I have problems with the prophet acting as figurehead to something like the mall development….
mercyngrace wrote:PS Orson, common LDS interpretations notwithstanding, I believe the parable of the talents has absolutely nothing to do with money or business acumen. But that’s a topic for another thread.
I agree 100%, but it flowed with the subject so well I couldn’t resist.
SilentDawning wrote:The difference, though Roy, is that individuals have far fewer options than organizations for sustainable employment. Stop working, and your family suffers immeasurably. But a large corporation with apparently a lot of cashflow can afford to live by its values. In fact it has an obligation to. ….
I’m just saying that the church has been flexible and tolerant with me on this issue. I believe that the church is flexible and tolerant on a number of issues and very intolerant and inflexible on others. I am reluctant to complain that the church is too loose and flexible on X issue, especially as I personally benefit from the church being flexible on issue Y. A number of sayings come to mind – “people that live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones” – “be careful what you wish for, you may just get it” and end up “cutting off your nose to spite your face.”
And for the Grand Finale of pithy quotes –
Quote:“Corporations Are People Too!”
I’m glad to have elicited such a rich discussion, and I still tend to feel the same as I did in my original post. Roy makes a good point by saying that the Church is highly selective about the kinds of evils it tolerates: it’s OK to sell pornography to someone, but it’s wrong for women to wear more than one earring in each ear. I find that such tolerance of evil is usually in line with conservative political ideology. The reason I find the Church’s hypocrisy so outrageous in this situation is that that the Church is so firm with its people (especially youth and college-age people) about what kind of behavior is unacceptable. In seminary, it was better to lose all your friends and live a life of social isolation than to have a single sip of alcohol. I remember watching a video in seminary about a kid who was a recent convert and refused to take an excellent job that required him to work on Sunday, and his faithfulness in refusing to take a job that required Sunday work was portrayed as the epitome of valiance.
It also seems that the Church is shooting itself in the foot by selling products that it claims are spiritually damaging to the very people it is trying to administer salvation to.
I’ve wondered for a long time why it’s wrong to drink alcohol and view pornography, but it’s OK to sell alcohol and pornography to someone else (Marriott Hotels was one case in point.) I’ve wondered why it’s wrong to work on Sunday, but it’s OK to own a business that is open on Sunday. I’ve wondered why it’s wrong to gamble, but it’s OK to be a casino executive or stockholder and to encourage gambling through marketing and advertising. I’ve wondered why the Church won’t accept tithing money made from gambling, but it will accept tithing money made by casino executives and stockholders whose income comes from money that people have gambled away; whether or not the Church will accept tithing on money made from gambling depends on which side of the slot machine you’re on. And if we really believe our message, why would we be selling these things to people? Don’t we have a solemn obligation to save their souls rather than administer sin to them?
If the Church was kinda loosey-goosey about whether or not drinking alcohol and tea were wrong, and how many earrings a woman can wear, and about what I can’t do with a woman I’m not married to, then I’d be more open to the Church’s sale of products that it spiritually condemns. But since the Church is so firm and black-and-white about how many earrings a woman can wear, and what I can and can’t drink, and what I can and can’t do with a woman I’m not married to, then I see no justification for the Church’s sale of products that it spiritually condemns.
For me, at this point, the question is, “Is the Church what it claims to be?” If it isn’t, then all questions have been answered for me and the confusion is over. But if it is, then the confusion and questions continue. I suppose that most of us are on this site because we’ve decided that the Church isn’t exactly what it claims to be. A part of me still wants to hang on to the Church’s fundamental claims, largely because, as a singe guy in college, I see little reason to stay if the Church isn’t what it claims to be. And if there is a One True Church, I don’t see it doing business the way that the Church does.
InquiringMind wrote:For me, at this point, the question is, “Is the Church what it claims to be?” If it isn’t, then all questions have been answered for me and the confusion is over. But if it is, then the confusion and questions continue. I suppose that most of us are on this site because we’ve decided that the Church isn’t exactly what it claims to be. A part of me still wants to hang on to the Church’s fundamental claims, largely because, as a singe guy in college, I see little reason to stay if the Church isn’t what it claims to be. And if there is a One True Church, I don’t see it doing business the way that the Church does.
This describes my feelings exactly. I don’t believe it is what it claims to be — not at the highest of ideals it claims. Those ideals reign supreme on Sunday, and in the lives of a subset of members, but not for the organization.
GBSmith wrote:This is an argument that will never die. In a hundred years if there’s still someone around to get their nose out of joint about this or a variation of it. This will still be being resurected and discussed with horror, disdain, anger, and yes even outrage. Somehow I wish we could remember that alcohol, tobacco, coffee and tea are not evil. A sin maybe if you’re mormon but not for anyone else. If it looks like we’re heading towards the purity police, I’m moving back to New Zealand.
i, for one, am looking forward to peter jackson’s next scenic tour of new zealand this december…
- The topic ‘City Creek Shocker’ is closed to new replies.