Re: Marriott International -- Utah's Religion Debate

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 12:11:42 04/19/05 Tue
Author: JW
Subject: Re: Marriott International
In reply to: Mormon 210 's message, "Re: Marriott International" on 10:19:13 04/12/05 Tue

>Along the same lines as Sheepdog notes, do you drive a
>GM or own a BMW? Use Comcast, Viacom, Direct TV, Dish
>Network, etc.? Do you buy from RJR Nabisco? Do you
>purchase items from Coca Cola Corp.? Are you an
>investor in Vantage, Fidelity, or any other funds that
>invest heavily in Blue Chips? Finally, did you visit
>Blockbuster in the past month? Though I could go on I
>think this is sufficient.

No need for any of the ranting. We are all part of the problems, and the solutions. No need to get all defensive about it and carry on like that lol. Point is, I am a peon and he is a very influential person. That's the difference here. Besides... it's no excuse. It's impossible to avoid sin and the relation to sin when we are immersed in it daily and connected to it either voluntarily or ignorantly. That's why there is Jesus as we are all well aware. So your shifting the focus to me is invalid as an argument.

>
>Also, it truly bugs the heck out of me that JW
>Marriott incorporated and as such now has to allow his
>name to be used along with the sales of these types of
>things. Remember also, that JW Jr. and JW III are
>members of the Board. They are 2 of 12 members. Their
>family is a large share holder but no longer holds the
> majority (they own about 20% see the folowing website
>-http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_199
>8_March_3/ai_20341637). It is now truly an
>international corporation (Mariott International) and
>not a family owned business as JW I had it years ago.
>Additionally, Henry Pearce (a Catholic), former
>Chairman of Hughes Electronics, a subdivision of GM
>and owner of Direct TV the provider that sells the
>Porn to Marriott campaigned for Direct TV in all the
>hotels to keep up with other Sheratons, Radissons,
>etc.

He should simply sell his shares then. Does not take a genius to figure that one... but apparently he is too greedy for the $$$ so has sacrificed his supposed beliefs and given Mormons a bad name in the process.

I, a lowly peon, can smoke, drink, watch porn, and do whatever and will never have the same detrimental impact to Mormonism as he.

As someone once said... with great power comes great responsibility. So measuring me and him by the same stick is just silly. But I do understand that you had to grasp for something so attacking me (as if I really was ignorant of all those facts (laughable) was your argument of choice. Lame as it is.

>As proposed and voted on both Marriotts opposed
>sales of pornography along with others, but the
>majority voted in favor (at least one Christian Debra
>Lee - Black Entertainment Tonight [BET] Chair voted in
>favor).

Darn Negros always messing things up. Im starting to think the Mormon church should revert back to the "pre-secular-conformist" ideology they once embraced.

>
>Finally, if you think an individual who is that
>influential is detrimental to the work of Christ you
>probably would have left Christ after Judas Iscariot
>stole money from the Church of Jesus Christ, betrayed
>Christ with a kiss, and then committed suicide.

Okay, well this last one is a doozie. Where do I start with this garbage heap? lol!

First - Anyone can be detrimental to the work of Christ. It does not matter how much influence they have. It just compounds matters when it's someone of relative "importance" or someone who has an amount of money/power to weild, is respected, or otherwise in the limelight. A child can follow this logic, but clearly you can not.

Second - The tone of my message is fairly harsh since you take it upon yourself to attack my integrity by telling me I would have run away from the church just because of one sheep's actions.

You may be so shallow but dont assume it of others. Any idiot knows that one bad apple does not spoil the whole bunch... unless left to rot in the bottom of the barrel.

That last jab was really pathetic of you Mormon. I guess it really does get under your skin after all.

For Christ's sake man... I actually hoped someone would simply admit the guy is a bad example but you people (so far) all have defended him.

For my next argument, I will defend the actions of the Roman Catholic pedophiles! Hey, we have all sinned right? FYI! LOL same reasoning you used against my argument (which wasnt even an argument... just a statement intially)... Try using it on a 6 year old and it may work.

Not Mormon210

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> Re: Marriott International -- Mormon 210, 10:27:44 04/20/05 Wed

OK. I wasn't ranting, I was drawing parallels. I used the term "you" broadly. As most Christians in this nation drive a GM and could choose to drive another brand and avoid a relationship with the largest retailer of pornography in the world. Second. Where is the outrage over GM's decision to sell porn. Mr. Wagoner is Christian yet I don't see you (and I use it broadly again) attacking his decision to sell porn.

As for shifting the focus. The issue as noted in Sheepdogs analysis (which I referred to) was that while people are casting the stone at straw men they continue to provide their hard earned cash to GM and others who are essentialy selling sin. Which is the greater sin the buyer or the seller?

>He should simply sell his shares then. Does not take
>a genius to figure that one... but apparently he is
>too greedy for the $$$ so has sacrificed his supposed
>beliefs and given Mormons a bad name in the process.

In your armchair judgement of this man I assume you know his heart and his intent. Could it be that he intends to purchase a greater share of the company and thus reverse some of the decisions made earlier. In fact in 2004 the Marriott family sought to have a repurchase of stock that would have essentially raised their voting position to about 30%.

>I, a lowly peon, can smoke, drink, watch porn, and do
>whatever and will never have the same detrimental
>impact to Mormonism as he.

What a narrow perception. Change begins with each of us.

>As someone once said... with great power comes great
>responsibility. So measuring me and him by the same
>stick is just silly. But I do understand that you had
>to grasp for something so attacking me (as if I really
>was ignorant of all those facts (laughable) was your
>argument of choice. Lame as it is.

whatever.

>Darn Negros always messing things up. Im starting to
>think the Mormon church should revert back to the
>"pre-secular-conformist" ideology they once embraced.

She is only one of two Negros the other voted along the same lines as the whiteys (10 of the 12). Additionally if you want a doctrinal discussion we can go into that.

>>Finally, if you think an individual who is that
>>influential is detrimental to the work of Christ you
>>probably would have left Christ after Judas Iscariot
>>stole money from the Church of Jesus Christ, betrayed
>>Christ with a kiss, and then committed suicide.

>Okay, well this last one is a doozie. Where do I
>start with this garbage heap? lol!
>
>First - Anyone can be detrimental to the work of
>Christ. It does not matter how much influence they
>have. It just compounds matters when it's someone of
>relative "importance" or someone who has an amount of
>money/power to weild, is respected, or otherwise in
>the limelight. A child can follow this logic, but
>clearly you can not.

And clearly you missed the point. Your claim was that since he was much more influential than say you or I, he has greater responsibility and you inferred that we (Mormons) should oust him or bring him into conformance. Since I referenced Sheepdog and she clearly spelled that issue out it seems my argument would clearly have made sense to you.

Understand, that a testimony based on anothers life (besides Christs) is weak. My statement clearly indicated that you would have cast a stone at Judas even though you may not be perfect.

>Second - The tone of my message is fairly harsh since
>you take it upon yourself to attack my integrity by
>telling me I would have run away from the church just
>because of one sheep's actions.
>
>You may be so shallow but dont assume it of others.
>Any idiot knows that one bad apple does not spoil the
>whole bunch... unless left to rot in the bottom of the
>barrel.

OK. Let's take a look at your judgement again

Just thought you "GOOD MORMONS" should know what some of your prominent Mormon leaders are up to.

You put into quotations "good mormons" clearly insinuating - if there really is such a thing.

Then you state that Bill Marriott is the owner of Marriott Corp which is only 20% correct and that he is a devout Mormon (or so he claims). Essentially you gave me a basis of argument when you challenged both my integrity and that of the Marriotts.

Given that. Again I was drawing parallels. If you are bothered by Marriott Corporations decision to sell porn, then you rationalize that JW Jr. and JW III could have changed that and since they didn't we (Mormons) should, then you if you purchase items sold by the companies I discussed early are what's called aiding in cause. You are thus liable for the same claims as a purchaser as the provider.

>For Christ's sake man... I actually hoped someone
>would simply admit the guy is a bad example but you
>people (so far) all have defended him.

Are you always this rude and defensive? Do you lack somewhere and thus have to feel better about belittling others or judging others? Again you have acted in behalf of Christ to judge a man. Where is your authority to do so? I have made no judgements. I have provided arguments that you potentially haven't considered in hopes that you might make a more sustainable judgement.

Mormon 210

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]