Update: 7/8/07 9:50 a.m. The post over at Times and Seasons, upon which my post here is based has now been removed in its entirety. I very much appreciate the fact that Time and Seasons’ bloggers decided that it was appropriate to remove the offending post. I agree with that decision, and applaud them for pulling it. Some [many have now been re-linked] of the links now in this post will not work and may not make sense. Thank you for doing the right thing Times and Seasons.
———————————————————————————————————————————
One can only describe Matt Evans’ tirade over at Times and Seasons, that has now descended below the common denominator of decency, little more than a witch trial. Without so much as affording the Marriott family or anyone from the Marriott Corporation an opportunity to respond, or present their side of the story, the Truth Will Prevail Gang, has denigrated into just a gang pile.
The Marriott family has been publicly ridiculed, and Elder Marriott ( a general authority of the Church) has been called a pornographer and pimp, on a blog that only last week was linked by LDS.org.
(Update 7/7/09 7:30 a.m. Matt has re-worded (though not voluntarily) his comment 202 linked immediately above to remove some of the offending language. See Times and Seasons comment 282. Thank you Matt and editors.)
Nate O. Kaimi, Jim F., Russell A. Fox, Julie M. Smith, Adam Greenwood, and the others, where are your voices in all this cacophony? Do your comment policies here and here not apply to the posts themselves by permabloggers? Do you approve of the tone and tenor of this post and many of its comments?
[Update 7/11/07--I have relinked the comments which appear immediately below. When Times and Seasons Administrators pulled the post, all my links became inoperative. I have, through copies of the original post re-created the comments referenced immediately below, by adding them as comments to this post and linking to them. I have accurately attributed authorship to those who made the comment.]
So far one of the few voices of reason by the T&S permabloggers comes from Ardis Parshall in comment 244.
I’m reminded of a classic exchange from Footloose, something like:
English Teacher to the Reverend: You know it doesn’t take long for corruption to take hold.
Reverend to the English Teacher: Oh, and how long is that . . .as long as it takes for compassion to die?
Hopefully cooler heads will prevail, so that truth may once again at least have a place over there.
Update, Julie Smith has responded as well in comment 255. And Wilfried in comment 259.
Margaret Young, former permablogger and BYU Professor has responded in comment 257. Kaimi has responded in comment 261. Adam Greenwood finally responds in comment 279. And, Russell A. Fox, has voiced his concern by thankfully shutting down the comments. (Well, they were shut down until Matt reopened them.)
July 6, 2007 at 10:45 pm
and Bro. Marriott called a …
Actually, it feels all the more egregious to me since he’s Elder Marriott.
Note Julie’s latest comment, which at least has drawn some boundaries somewhere.
July 6, 2007 at 10:49 pm
m&m, You are correct, and I have modified my original post to reflect that fact. Thanks.
July 6, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Our first prophet was content to be called Brother Joseph.
July 6, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Bill, that’s right. I wish we could move back to that form of address for each other. It certainly has a more family feel about it.
July 7, 2007 at 1:11 am
“Without so much as affording the Marriott family or anyone from the Marriott Corporation an opportunity to respond, or present their side of the story”
Guy, the Marriotts have been pressed to respond to this issue for years and years. The quote where J. W. Marriott defended selling pornography because it’s economically necessary is seven years old, for pete’s sake.
The issue is new to you but it’s not new to them or me.
July 7, 2007 at 1:42 am
I guess the hotel business is a pretty sad business to be in if one of the major factors that separate the profitable from the unprofitable is the willingness to sell porn to traveling businessmen looking for a thrill or two while out of town and away from the wife. Maybe they should print up a directory containing the phone numbers of local call girls at each hotel embossed with the catchy title, “The Marriott Recommends…”.
Or maybe the use of the word “recommend” on the cover would be treading on really thin ice.
July 7, 2007 at 3:04 am
While I don’t agree with everything that’s been said over at Times and Seasons, I want to emphatically endorse Matt’s opening paragraph. If the primary goal is money, legal technicalities allow selling pornography. If the primary goal is building up the kingdom of God, basic Christian standards prohibit selling pornography. You “cannot serve God and mammon” (Matt. 6:24).
Five prophetic thoughts (ordered by date) seem relevant to this discussion:
1. Spencer W. Kimball on Church members vigorously opposing pornography in their communities and beyond:
“Important as it is, building stronger homes is not enough in the fight against rising permissiveness. We therefore urge Church members as citizens to lift their voices, to join others in unceasingly combatting, in their communities and beyond, the inroads of pornography and the general flaunting of permissiveness. Let us vigorously oppose the shocking developments which encourage the old sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, and which defile the human body as the temple of God.” (Ensign, Nov 1977, p. 4.)
2. Dallin H. Oaks on professed Christians who traffic in pornography:
“Some who profess to be Christians seek to earn their living by systematically victimizing their neighbors. Some seize wealth by trafficking in … pornography.” (Ensign, Nov 1986, p. 20.)
3. Gordon B. Hinckley on opposing pornography:
“There is so much of filth and lust and pornography in this world. We as Latter-day Saints must rise above it and stand tall against it.” (Ensign, Aug 1997, p. 3.)
4. James E. Faust on refusing to patronize merchants who sell pornography:
“It would also help if all of our members refuse to patronize stores that sell pornographic materials.” (Ensign, Oct 1997, p. 2.)
5. Gordon B. Hinckley on making our voices heard:
“Let our voices be heard. I hope they will not be shrill voices, but I hope we shall speak with such conviction that those to whom we speak shall know of the strength of our feeling and the sincerity of our effort. Remarkable consequences often flow from a well-written letter and a postage stamp. Remarkable results come of quiet conversation with those who carry heavy responsibilities.” (Ensign, Sep 2004, p. 2.)
July 7, 2007 at 7:13 am
Matt:
What you did over at T&S is incomprehensible–and I think indefensible. You used an otherwise well respected and likely the most read and highly visible LDS blog on the planet to whip up a frenzy while at the same time demeaning and possibly even defaming a good and decent family and a general authority of the Church.
No one in the Bloggernacle is going to defend the pornography industry; however, there is a time, a place, and an appropriate manner for what you would like to accomplish. I don’t think your thread was a good time, place or manner.
Your suggestion that I think this is a new issue is silly. What is new is the your shameful use of Times and Seasons to go after the Marriotts like you did.
Mark N:
Maybe, you should not reduce what is likely a rather complex equation to 2+2.
R. Gary:
I have no argument with the quotes you presented here and in your comment over at Times and Seasons. Like you I am troubled by how the issue was presented, and what was said over there.
July 7, 2007 at 7:28 am
heh, even the most educated and “learned” can still get caught up in the frenzies of witch hunts.
July 7, 2007 at 8:32 am
Guy,
Matt’s comment went up at 9pm on a Friday night. Your post here went up an hour later. (Assuming the time zones on both sites are the same?) The wheels move slowly at T & S because we work on a consensus model and all of us aren’t online all the time. If something like this were to happen again, it would be nice if you gave us a little time to react before you criticized us. If it stood uncorrected for a day or two, then a post like this would be most appropriate.
July 7, 2007 at 9:13 am
Julie,
Thank you for your comment. I’m sorry if you feel I’ve been too critical of the post, or even too quick with my criticism; however, as you know, the original post went up sometime in the very early morning hours on 7/6/07. The original post language, which still remains on Times and Seasons accuses a general authority of the Church of being a leading pornographer.
I’m sorry, but to me pornographers are folks like Hugh Hefner, Bob Guccione, and Larry Flint. Not people like the Marriotts.
Frankly I thought, and still think the entire post was in poor taste, from the minute it went up. Things only went down hill from there. Even Matt’s contrition comment (number 283, isn’t all that contrite). It’s clear this is a topic about which he has great passion. I just think the tone and wording from the original post itself and throughout the comments were inappropriate and unfortunate.
I think Times and Seasons is a wonderful blog, and for the most part defends the faith and the Church well. In this one particular case, I thought my criticism was valid.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts.
July 7, 2007 at 9:43 am
Thanks for clearing that up, Guy. I thought you were objecting to the comment that you mention in your post (which, as you know, has been redacted and an apology issued) and not the post itself.
I didn’t have a problem with the post itself, except where it veered close to a personal attack. I do think it appropriate to call the Marriotts pornographers _if_ the information that we have is accurate and complete.
July 7, 2007 at 10:02 am
Julie,
You are right, I did object to Matt’s original wording in his comment 202; but, on a broader level I object to the entire post. Certainly you and others are entitled to their opinions by labeling the Marriotts as pornographers; but, such a simplistic conclusion is not only premature, but problematic when you consider the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve as prophets, seers and revelators have called Elder Marriott to his current Church calling. That would give me just a bit of pause before carelessly flinging that particular label at someone.
July 7, 2007 at 10:40 am
Guy,
I don’t think the label has been carelessly flinged, is simplistic, or is premature. We know what they sell (three PPV movies for every five rooms) and a quoted statement on the record justifying it on economic grounds.
I have no idea what the 1P was or was not aware of when the calling was extended. For all we know, there could be a Nephi-Laban thing going on here (“You want me to call WHO to WHAT when he sells WHAT?!?”) with some higher purpose that the Lord wants played out here. Time will tell.
July 7, 2007 at 10:41 am
Er . . . carelessly flung?
July 7, 2007 at 10:54 am
“I didn’t have a problem with the post itself, except where it veered close to a personal attack.”
Calling a GA a pimp is not “close” to a personal attack. It is a personal, personal attack.
July 7, 2007 at 11:02 am
I think the problem has been blown WAY out of proportion, first of all. Is Elder Marriot taking the movie and putting a movie in someone’s hand? No. Then how is he individually enabling anyone to purchase pornography? If anyone wants to take the remote and order a pornographic film in his hotels, as a service INCLUDED (but not required) by a company he may or may not have contracted himself, then that’s on the person with the remote. Even if he did personally contract the company that provides the PPV service, that still doesn’t bother me. As long as Elder Marriot, a man of God, isn’t the one WATCHING it, what are people really getting so worked up about?
The world is what it is, people are what they are. We have been endowed with agency to exercise it. We have just as much responsibility to “allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may,” even if that means allowing them not to worship at all. We can provide our councel and the Gospel (which I’m coming to in a moment) but we cannot force anyone to follow the Commandments? Elder Marriot NOT forcing people to follow our standards is more of an example than some Saints might be willing to accept.
Back before I was baptized, I stayed in a Marriot with a close friend and her family. I was then in a crisis about how to deal with the fact that my boyfriend was LDS, and I wasn’t. I opened the bedside drawer and I saw it– the Book of Mormon. I hadn’t known at the time that the Marriot was owned by a General Authority. All I knew was, I was lost, and here was the lifeline that I was being handed over and over and over again. And the Marriot Hotel was a part of that.
I refuse to take part in “the witch hunt,” simply because I know better. And I hope that the other Saints will put their pitchforks down and remember the Savior’s councel, “BE ONE, FOR IF YE ARE NOT ONE, YE ARE NOT MINE.”
July 7, 2007 at 11:36 am
Julie,
Yes, it is clear that one who stays at a Marriott hotel might be able to purchase morally questionable entertainment. I don’t know what the policy is in every Marriott world wide. I do know that certain states, Utah one of them, severely restricts what types of movies are sold within the state–even on the Internet or over cable.
Where I quibble is with the “they” you use. Who is selling this? Elder Marriott personally? Likely not. It should come as no surprise that an American corporate entity will look to the profit and loss statements as the bottom line in terms of running their corporation–even one which happens to be headed by a prominent Mormon.
I think the issues are just a bit more complex than Matt has elaborated them in his post. I also think it highly inappropriate to suggest a fellow Saint is a pornographer as has been done here, and under these facts–general authority or not. As I suggested earlier to Matt there might be better ways of approaching this issue (see Michelle’spost here as an example) than labeling a prominent Mormon and his family as pornographers. I believe that is premature and careless.
Nor I, as they never share such things with me. However, I dare say the FP and Q12 combined likely have more air travel miles and have likely stayed in more Marriott hotel rooms than most of the rest of the planet combined. I find it hard to believe that none was aware of what is offered in most major hotel chains, including Marriotts.
Just what are you relying on as your definition of pornography? Justice Stewart’s I know it when I see it definition? The Church’s definition? (though to be honest, I don’t think they have one). Your definition? What might that be?
I dare say from my life’s limited experiences there are likely as many definitions of what is pornography as there are people. Should the Marriott hotels not allow R rated movies? As you know that is a very standard (though IMHO mistaken) Mormon cut off of what is or isn’t appropriate.
This is an endeavor much more complex than that the hotel shows dirty movies, therefore the Marriott family are pornographers.
Yeah that construction sounds bit better.
July 7, 2007 at 11:39 am
Paradox,
I think like you the key is that Elder Marriott is not personally involved in this. And, we don’t really know the extent to which he can control the situation in a major world wide hotel chain such as the Marriott chain.
July 7, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Re #16:
“The post” means the original post by Matt, which didn’t use that language. The comment with the inappropriate language was something that I objected to on the thread, behind the scenes, and here.
July 7, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Guy,
Just an FYI: J. Willard Marriott Jr. is NOT a “general authority.” He is an “area authority,” which is the local position that replaced regional representatives. In 1995, President Hinckley extended an honorable release to all regional representatives and announced “a new local officer to be known as an area authority”:
This doesn’t change my frustration with the Marriott family who DO control hotel environment irregardless of property ownership. Isn’t it ironic that the family can place the Book of Mormon in rooms, but supposedly “can’t” remove the porn!
July 7, 2007 at 5:01 pm
[...] What Should Marriott Do About Times and Seasons? One can only describe Matt Evans’ tirade over at Times and Seasons, that has now descended below the common […] [...]
July 7, 2007 at 7:05 pm
R. Gary,
General authority or not, all I know is that I sustain him and the rest of the brethren every general conference, just like you do. I won’t quibble with you over the definition of a general vs. an area authority. He is what he is, and he deserved better than he got over at T & S yesterday.
July 7, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Guy,
It’s misleading to call Matt’s post a position taken by the T&S “gang”, and it’s equally misleading to suggest that co-bloggers weren’t calling him on his over-the-top rhetoric from early in the comments.
July 7, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Re #20:
Right
Sure
July 7, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Kaimi,
In Matt’s original post, he labels Elder Marriott as a pornographer. No one to this moment from the T&S permabloggers has taken issue with that characterization, or requested that it be changed. As I explained to Julie above, I took issue with the entire post from its inception because of Matt’s simplistic conclusion about Elder Marriott.
Yes, the permabloggers did begin to voice concern somewhere after comment 202 (which is not anywhere near “early in the comments) after Matt added pimp to his characterization.
We may disagree on the merits of the post; but, I see it as totally inappropriate because of Matt’s characterizations–hence my criticism, of this particular post. As I also said to Julie, I think T&S is an otherwise fine blog which for the most part defends the Faith and the Church.
July 7, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Guy,
Thanks for providing a reasonable, non-judgmental voice to the conversation. I’ve always been uncomfortable with the way members of the Church publicly ridicule prominent LDS for their perceived flaws.
Whether you agree with the Marriotts or not, I can’t think of any reason to judge them or call them names in a public forum.
I think Jesus said something about that whole judging thing.
July 7, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Guy,
What is your objection to labeling someone who makes millions of dollars selling pornography, and defends the sale of pornography, a pornographer?
Neal Maxwell made no distinction between porn producers and distributors when he flatly condemned those profiting from porn.
July 7, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Guy,
Tomorrow, in just about every bishop’s office across North America, some poor schlub will be put under church discipline for viewing the sorts of movies that Marriott provides on its adult channels. In fact, some of them probably watched it in a Marriott hotel. It is wrecking people’s lives and destroying temple marriages. Why do you think those who provide it should get a free pass?
People who sell pornos are routinely denounced from the pulpit in the strongest of terms. I am baffled as to why you think those denunciations don’t apply to a hotel operator just as much as they apply to the local dirty book store.
You appear to be arguing that it would be impossible for a pornographer to be called as a GA, therefore it is impossible for a GA to be a pornographer. Matt has made a credible assertion that Marriott makes $50,000,000.00 per annum on the sale of adult movies, which makes it the third largest distributor of adult movies in the U.S. That record is certainly nothing to be proud of, no matter what you may want to call it. You object to the label of _pornographer_, so what name, exactly, would you call someone who makes that kind of money selling movies featuring nekkid people?
You objected to Matt’s approach, saying it was the wrong time, place, and manner. However, you did not suggest what you think would be an appropriate time, place, and manner. Guy, this is already out in public – the issue didn’t start with T&S or Matt Evans. This issue hurts the church every day it goes without a response.
July 7, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Steve M.
I agree the name calling is the least helpful in all of this discussion. I’m not adverse to having the discussion; but, like you, I’ve been extremely disappointed in its tenor and tone.
Matt,
My objection is that you apparently equate Elder Marriott with Hugh Hefner, Bob Guccione, Larry Flint, and the like. I’m not certain the comparison is accurate. (Actually, I think it is quite inaccurate and unfair). And, I certainly think under the circumstances and the limited facts as we know them it is highly inappropriate.
I applaud your passion for this issue. I think it’s a legitimate discussion to have, in terms of the moral and ethical issues involved. But, don’t you think we could have that discussion without the labels you have thrown out and without publicly denigrating a good family and their name?
July 7, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Guy,
You want to know where I was when this was happening?
Let’s see. I was teaching two four-hour classes, one on Thursday and one on Friday. I was prepping for those classes. I was making a few comments calling Matt out on other things that he was wrong about in his post. And I was going on a date with my wife.
Sorry, I just don’t spend all that much of my time going over blog posts with a fine-toothed comb. A lot of them, I don’t read at all. That’s life.
You know where to find us. You’ve got full ability to make your criticism in a comment to the post, or to e-mail the bloggers, to e-mail me and say, “I didn’t like that post.” You know how to give feedback.
You don’t seem interested in giving actual feedback. I never got your e-mail asking about this. Instead, this post. You apparently want to stand around and imperiously call T&S to repentance in the most public way possible — shouting out, “where was Russell? Where was Kaimi? Where was Jim?” — rather than actually trying to give feedback.
If you had genuine interest in the post, you could have said something in the comments, or in a private e-mail. The self-aggrandizing approach you took instead suggests quite a bit about your motivation.
July 8, 2007 at 5:17 am
sheesh Kaimi, get with the program! You’re supposed to be there every second of the day!
July 8, 2007 at 7:01 am
“[Y]ou apparently equate Elder Marriott with Hugh Hefner, Bob Guccione, Larry Flint, and the like.”
Elder Neal A. Maxwell, the apostle, in General Conference, made no distinction between porn producers and distributors when he condemned those profiting from pornography. You think that equivalency is unfair, he doesn’t.
In his same conference talk, Maxwell condemned “nonjudgmentalism” as “fashionable” and said it “accelerated” lewdness.
I implicitly condemned J. W. Marriott’s decision to make millions from pornography and his explanation: they’d make less money if they didn’t. In your eyes that made my post a “tirade” and “witch trial,” but unless one engages fashionable nonjudgmentalism, I do not believe Mormons can avoid condemning J. W. Marriott’s choice and rationale.
How do *you* judge the decision to make millions of dollars from porn, and the defense that they sell it because they’d make less money if they didn’t?
July 8, 2007 at 8:10 am
Mark IV:
I don’t, and have never made such a claim.
No. Rather, I’m arguing we aren’t in a position to be calling the Marriotts, any of them pornographers. While we have heard Matt’s version of the facts, we have not heard Marriott’s. We have heard only Matt’s and others’ versions of the Marriotts’ facts.
This particular individual I would address as either Brother or Elder Marriott. Why is it your job, and by what authority do you get to label him a pornographer?
Kaimi,
Clearly I’ve irritated you, which is not at all what I wanted to do. I wanted to express my displeasure with Matt’s post. That’s still what I want to do.
I am a little baffled why you think it’s appropriate for T&S to allow one of their permabloggers to label a prominent Mormon and his family as pornographers in the most public way possible and on the largest, most popular and widely read LDS blog (both within the bloggernacle and outside it); but, that it is somehow inappropriate for me (running a blog with not nearly the exposure of T&S) to criticize T&S for this particular post. I just don’t get it.
Believe what you want about my motivation. I’ve told you very clearly why I object to the language and tone used in Matt’s post. It is clear most of the T&S permabloggers have approved of the language that still remains on the blog. I disagree with that decision. I disagreed that it should have been used in the first place.
To me it was and is inappropriate to label the Marriotts as pornographers. It’s really that simple.
July 8, 2007 at 8:45 am
“While we have heard Matt’s version of the facts, we have not heard Marriott’s. We have heard only Matt’s and others’ versions of the Marriotts’ facts.”
Guy, if you’re expecting to get facts about the Marriott’s porn business directly from J. W. Marriott, unfiltered by those who’ve seen porn in his hotels and by journalists who track the industry and have quoted Marriott’s own admission and defense of his decision to sell porn, you’re not waiting for facts, you’re avoiding them.
One person emailed me yesterday, “I have already had one LDS person tell me I was lying when I related some
details to them–they claimed that if it was true, than it would be on the
front page of TIME magazine, furthermore Pres. Hinckley would be a false
prophet since he had to have known Something…”
It’s been my experience that lots of Mormons experience cognitive dissonance upon learning that the Marriotts make millions of dollars selling porn, and struggle to face the facts squarely. I certainly didn’t like it when I first learned about it, either, and it strains some people’s ideas about church leadership to learn that they’re not perfect. My guess is that when they called him to be an Area Authority, J. W. Marriott did not mention that he makes millions of dollars selling pornography.
Confirmation bias is a powerful and very real phenomenon. The gospel challenges us to overcome it and seek to understand things as they really are. Not as we wish they were.
July 8, 2007 at 9:02 am
I should add that I suspect J. W. Marriott doesn’t consider himself a pornography distributor, either. To maintain his self-regard he probably distances himself psychologically from the pornography sales by attributing them to his subcontractor. Compartmentalizing Maxwell’s sobering warning to those who facilitate or profit from pornography distribution would be harder.
The whole situation is befuddling, because though the tens of millions he’s made from porn would be a lot to us, I wouldn’t think it would be worth it to a multi-billionaire.
July 8, 2007 at 9:08 am
Why was the T&S post removed?
July 8, 2007 at 9:30 am
Matt,
Where I differ with you, Matt, is your linkage of Marriott the individual as a porn distributor. I am not disagreeing with Elder Maxwell. I’m disagreeing with you, making that link to Marriott. I’m not sure your conclusion is supportable by what little facts are actually known.
For example, from Friday’s Deseret News, in part:
A few questions come to mind, Matt:
1. Can Marriott impose his personal religious beliefs on Marriott International? Does he have the power to do so? Can he as chairman and CEO of Marriott International overrule his board of directors if a majority of them vote to offer objectionable entertainment in the hotel rooms? Do we know whether this vote has ever occurred, and do we know the results of such a vote?
2. Assuming Marriott International owns only 12 hotels, with the remaining as franchises, what corporate control does Marriott International hold over those franchises? What control does Marriott as CEO and his board have over those franchise hotels? Can they dictate their entertainment options? If not, is your conclusion supportable?
3. Assuming the entertainment contracts which provide the television entertainment require carrying objectionable content to underwrite the other movies and free TV, is Marriott Corporation required to chose between no TV and what they carry? Do we know what their contract requires? Is it the same as say Omni or Ritz? Can Romney as CEO override what his BOD might desire in terms of economic benefits for the corporate entity?
4. What is your definition of pornography? Are you including all R rated movies, just some? Are you including objectionable PG 13 or other similar offerings? Is Marriott International obligated to accept your definition of pornography, and if so, why? Has the Church defined pornography? If so, is that definition able to be implemented on the corporate scale required for Marriott International?
I don’t see your conclusion, i.e., Marriott the individual and the corporate entity are pornography distributors in the same vein as Hefner, Guccione, Flint, and the like as easily supportable as do you.
July 8, 2007 at 9:33 am
“I do know that certain states, Utah one of them, severely restricts what types of movies are sold within the state–even on the Internet or over cable.”
Guy, this is no longer the case, in part because of Marriott. The last time a Utah municipality tried to uphold the Supreme Court’s “community standards” against a video store (around 2001 against Movie Buffs) the video chain argued that, because other porn providers, including the Provo Marriott, carried hardcore porn similar to that they were being prosecuted for, the “Utah standard” was no longer the “community standard.” The court agreed. Marriott’s porn distribution helped lower Utah’s legal obscenity standard to match the rest of the country.
July 8, 2007 at 9:35 am
Justin,
I’m sorry, I don’t know. It was up this morning earlier. I’m certain that it’s still out there in cyberspace cache somewhere. This is the first I’ve seen that it has been removed.
July 8, 2007 at 10:43 am
“No. Rather, I’m arguing we aren’t in a position to be calling the Marriotts, any of them pornographers.”
Guy of course is right, but as well it is not right to be calling the Marriotts “pimps,” which Matt did.
Nor is it right for the other permabloggers to hide behind paper walls (“we can´t read all posts,” “we need days to correct the libels,” “we work democratically, and well, these things happen slowly,” blah and blah). The group is you, and if that is uncomfortable for you, please change the system or the members of the group or leave the group.
July 8, 2007 at 10:52 am
It has indeed been removed.
July 8, 2007 at 10:58 am
“Has the Church defined pornography?” It is not for “the Church” to define pornography, Guy.
Until about fifty years ago, modesty and chastity constituted the standard of decency among Christian denominations throughout the world. For many centuries, these principles also determined the English definition of pornography. For example, an old definition from England held that obscene meant “immodest; not agreeable to chastity of mind.” (Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language, London, 1755.) As far as I can tell, every dictionary of the English language published anywhere in the world before 1957 equates obscenity with offensiveness to modesty and/or chastity. Many standard dictionaries today continue to give variations of that definition. Modern legal definitions of pornography are not the result of modern enlightenment, they are the result of moral apostasy.
Using apostate legal definitions, Marriott justifies selling sordid, vile filth in its rooms.
“Can Marriott impose his personal religious beliefs on Marriott International? Does he have the power to do so?” He can and does! He places copies of the Book of Mormon in those same rooms!
July 8, 2007 at 11:13 am
I have two copies of the Times and Seasons post. The first was taken with 273 comments at 2:06am Eastern time yesterday before some of the editing. The second was taken with 284 comments at 8:45pm Eastern time yesterday after comments were closed.
July 8, 2007 at 1:08 pm
As I asked in my comment on Times and Seasons (which has since disappeared, of course), why are the Marriotts being singled out at this time? Could it be that those doing the singling out are hoping for some of that sweet, sweet publicity that comes with a presidential campaign?
Anyway, why aren’t we pressuring the Marriotts to stop selling alcohol and coffee in their hotels? We’ve been counseled to stay away from them, too. That’s the same kind of fundamentalist logic that’s behind this call for yet another anti-porn witch hunt, this time aimed at fellow Mormons.
It’s kind of sad and pathetic that Times and Seasons took down the whole thread. As if that would make it disappear down Orwell’s “memory hole”, and Google cache didn’t exist. A church leader was called a “pimp” on your blog, folks. Face up to it, and come to grips with the overzealousness that was made so obviously apparent.
July 8, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Its funny. This ad-hominem about the Marriots has been around at least 5 years or more. Personally, it disgusted me when I first heard it, and it disgusts me now. I didn’t see the original post, but it saddens me that there was “gang-banging.” We’re better than that.
July 8, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Guy,
To respond to your issues:
1. As Chairman and CEO of Marriott, J. W. Marriott can do almost anything. He controls the board. The board chooses the CEO and charges him with leading the company. The only realy power the board has over the CEO (except for major decisions like dissolution of the corporation or a merger) is the ability to replace him if they don’t like the way he leads the company. Most routine business decisions, and the structure of a media contract would be a routine decision, do not need board approval.
I believe Romney when he says he doesn’t think the pornography issue was brought before the board. It’s the kind of issue that would normally be handled by the management, which means the decision was J. W. Marriott’s.
It’s also important to note that it was J. W. Marriott himself who defended their decision to sell porn on the grounds that they’d make less money if they didn’t.
Notice too the irony of your post: You’re giving a pass to the Chairman and CEO of Marriott CEO for making millions of dollars for selling porn through his hotels in the very post you castigate my fellow bloggers for failing to control their blog! I guarantee that J. W. Marriott wields far more power at Marriott than any of our bloggers wield at T&S. Our group has no heirarchy, no charter, no corporate bylaws saying who gets the final say. J. W. Marriott has the final say at Marriott.
Given your condemning the collective decision makers at T&S, you and I would apparently agree that we must condemn J. W. Marriott and the whole Marriott board.
2. The Marriott franchise agreement would certainly give Marriott control over the services their franchisees sell. Franchisee contracts like these are exceptionally narrow, and the news reports about Marriott’s porn contracts show that Marriott negotiates the porn contract on behalf of the whole system. Marriott recently announced that its hotels would no longer provide smoking rooms, meaning their franchisees don’t even have the right to permit their guests to smoke in their rooms.
3. The fact that Omni Hotels and Ritz-Carlton have negotiated agreements with their PPV providers that exclude porn shows that Marriott’s it’s possible to do. (In case anyone thought it was impossible to not sell porn in hotels.) And of course I hope you would agree that even if the only way J. W. Marriott could keep from selling $50 million a year in porn was to give up PPV altogether, he should give up PPV altogether. That is clearly what Neal Maxwell expects Mormons to do.
4. Pornography is what Marriott calls “Adult” on their TV menu.
July 8, 2007 at 3:55 pm
.
R.W. Rasband,
“Why aren’t we pressuring the Marriotts to stop selling alcohol and coffee in their hotels?”
I think there are many answers to your question. Here is one.
The very existence of pornography in a community contributes to the community standards which, in turn, are then used to justify pornography’s existence as being consistent with those standards. “Contemporary community standards” is the legal term used in obscenity law. If we don’t speak out, the pornography that is allowed under the law will continue become more explicit and more pervasive. For this reason,
One Marriott in Cincinnati has eliminated pornography
I found the following story on one of RAAP’s web sites.
We speak out against pornography so others, including the law, won’t interpret our silence as approval.
July 8, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Cincinnati has, hands down, the most vigilant, organized and successful anti-obscenity crusaders in the country. Utah isn’t nearly as good as one would think, given the church’s influence and unequivocal stand against pornography.
July 8, 2007 at 9:57 pm
R. Gary,
I don’t think we have much disagreement. I’m not defending the pornography industry. I’m just saying let’s not label fellow Saints as pornographers because we disagree with their business practices, particularly when we don’t have all the facts. And, when we really aren’t in an ecclesiastical position to do so.
As far as placing Books of Mormon in the rooms, I think it is a good practice, and I’m glad it happens. Though, I must confess I don’t know how that decision was made, and what consent was required. I also don’t know what would be required to address the issue of “adult” entertainment. I’m not sure the two are necessarily equivalent in terms of how the ultimate decisions are made, and what might be required to make them.
R.W.,
Given the recent media reports, there appears to be a political element in some of this, yes.
Sherpa,
Indeed we are.
Matt,
I’m giving a pass to no one. I disagree with your characterizations of the Marriott family and their business.
And you know this how? Sorry Matt, you’re saying so doesn’t make it so. Have you read their corporate by laws, their charter? What’s the point of a board if the CEO decides everything all the time?
Again, you know this how? You’ve read each and every franchise agreement?
I’m not sure we’re really getting anywhere Matt. You seem to think I am defending pornography or the industry or its distribution. My issue all along was certain characterizations you made about the Marriotts, fellow Saints in the Kingdom–nothing more. That issue has now been resolved with the removal of the post.
There are grand canyons of difference between the Marriott Corporation, the Marriott family, their business offerings, and what, and least I consider, to be the pornography industry and its distributors. If you choose not to see that or take that into consideration, I seriously doubt there is much if anything I will say or do that will convince you otherwise.
If my original post, choice of language, or methods of disagreeing with your post was offensive to you, or any other Times and Seasons bloggers, I apologize. That was not my intent. I was admittedly angry at what I saw unfolding over there, and what I read. I repeat, I think highly of Times and Seasons and their bloggers.
July 8, 2007 at 11:43 pm
… let’s not label fellow Saints as pornographers because we disagree with their business practices, particularly when we don’t have all the facts.
Nobody (mortal, at least) ever has all the facts about anything; we usually end up making our own conclusions based on the few facts we have access to, even when they are limited to something as simple as knowing that 2 + 2 really does equal 4. I suppose there are animals that walk like a duck and quack like a duck that aren’t ducks themselves, but we pretty much have to go with the facts we’re given and the facts that we already know. If I decided that I should go into the cigarette sales and delivery business as a convenience to my neighbors who smoke, would my bishop be right in questioning my motives? Would I be justified in saying, “Hey, look Bishop, I may be bringing the cigarettes into their homes but I’m certainly not lighting their matches for them”? If I decide to deliver other items (in addition to my already-flourishing cigarette-business) that do not contain addictive substances, does the new effort to expand into other areas of business somehow offset or undo whatever damage I’m causing by continuing to deliver cigarettes to those who want them?
I’m not sure what the answer is to that myself, but I’m sure lots of people are sure about what they believe the right answer to be on both sides of the question.
July 9, 2007 at 4:27 am
It is being claimed that we don’t have all the facts. But some facts are known.
Fact: The Church opposes pornography.
Fact: The Church encourages members to join with like-minded citizens of all faiths to eliminate pornography in their communities.
Fact: The Church as an institution is a founding member of the Religious Alliance Against Pornography (RAAP) and a General Authority (not stake president or area authority) sits on RAAP’s board of directors. RAAP affiliate, the National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families, went after pornography in a Cincinnati-area Marriott Hotel and successfully had it removed.
Fact: Citizens for Community Values opposes pornography and is one of the largest local grassroots organizations of its type in the nation.
Fact: The Church as an institution participates with such groups, thus providing an example for its members.
Fact: “Marriott is a major pornographer” said Phil Burress, president of Citizens for Community Values in a national AP news story. The comment was printed in newspapers all over the country, including the Deseret News.
Fact: It has been claimed that it is highly inappropriate to suggest Marriott, “a fellow Saint,” is a pornographer.
Question: What difference does it make where Marriott is on Sunday? If one of the largest anti-pornography groups in the nation feels he is a “major pornographer” why should we not want to help remove the pornography?
Those who actively opposes pornography on the national level might be qualified to quibble with the designation “major pornographer.” The rest of us should probably just get more involved.
July 9, 2007 at 4:48 am
RE: 39
Just a quibble. It was the perverts and porn consumers in Utah county that lowered the obscenity standards there, not Marriott. If Marriott did not provide the porn, the citizens of Utah county would have watched/viewed their porn from somewhere else. Let’s keep the focus where it belongs: the citizens of Utah county who can’t control their urges and seek out porn. Thanks to them, Utah county is just like any other county in the country in terms of available porn. (I believe the Movie Buffs case hinged on actual porn use, not simple availability.)
July 9, 2007 at 7:22 am
Guy,
Everyone who’s both Chairman and CEO has almost complete control over routine business decisions. The only time a board will elect the Chairman to also be the CEO is when they *want* the person to have almost complete control.
Corporate boards are comprised of outsiders, people like Mitt Romney who have 100-hour jobs in Boston and so board meetings are scheduled rarely. The primary job of the board is to hire the management team, and after that, to answer big questions like mergers and selling divisions.
If it wasn’t the management who chose to sell pornography, and Marriott Hotels sells porn only because the board forced J. W. Marriott to do so, Romney would definitely remember that issue coming before the board. Only in extreme circumstances would a board overrule a business decision of the CEO. A board meeting where the Chairman and CEO was overruled on a business decision would be extremely contentious. And very memorable. That’s why I believe Romney when he says the decision to sell porn was not made by the board. It would be highly unusual for the board to make that decision.
I actually have read many franchise agreements. (If eight or ten is many.) Companies like Marriott have very restrictive franchise agreements and franchisees actually *want* it that way. The reason they sign up with Marriott, rather than go independent, is because of the power of the brand, and they realize that the brand is powerful because Marriott HQ controls what the *other* hotels in the chain do. Marriott franchisees don’t want renegade Marriott hotels offering Hot Dog On a Stick and skee ball in the lobby. They accept strict adherence to HQ because they know it benefits the brand, and the strength of the Marriott brand is what they came for.
I know you’re not defending pornography, you’re just trying to give someone a pass because they do their acts behind the corporate veil. There is no moral difference between someone selling pornography themself and their selling it through a corporation. Corporations are legal fictions. They are not moral fictions. (Lots of articles have been written about the way managers feel shielded from their acts because they do them in someone else’s name.)
Otherwise we couldn’t even say Hugh Hefner is a pornographer: he hasn’t made a dollar from pornography. It’s Playboy Inc that’s made all the money! Hefner was simply Chairman and CEO of Playboy. If we think it’s fair to say that Hefner made millions selling pornography, even though he always acted through a corporate entity, then we can’t avoid concluding that J. W. Marriott has made millions from selling pornography even though he’s sold it through his corporate entity. If you’ll read Maxwell’s talk, I think you’ll agree that Maxwell did not believe someone could get a pass acting through a corporation.
And yes, everything you’ve written so far has been a pass for J. W. Marriott, and the rest of the Marriott board, to continue doing what they’re doing.
July 9, 2007 at 12:12 pm
I want to know if Matt Welch is sorry he used the word “pimp” to describe the head of the Marriott hotels; and does he agree with the “Times and Seasons” decision to take down his post, and if not, why not.
July 9, 2007 at 2:42 pm
RWR,
you can contact Matt at matt at times and seasons dot org
July 9, 2007 at 8:33 pm
R. Gary, #44,
Could you send me a copy of the 8:45 PM, 284 comment version of the thread? Thanks. The email is adam at times and seasons dot org
July 9, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Mark N:
The only facts we have really, from the T&S thread is Matt Evans’ spin without any response whatsoever from the Marriott corporation or family. Without that, I would not make the same characterizations that were made.
Your point here, Mark, is I think the critical one. The issue would really between your bishop and you, at least in terms of your standing in the Church. It should not be a matter for public consumption on the LDS blogs.
R. Gary:
My problem with with the characterization by T&S, or even the largest anti-pornography group. My objection with with the loose, one sided and self serving characterizations. I don’t object to the discussion itself. It is a discussion that can take place without what the types of accusations Matt made.
rb:
Thanks for reminding us that we need also to focus on those who make these purchases.
Matt:
Ok, Matt. Believe what you will. I guess J. Willard and I will just have to turn ourselves into our respective Priesthood leaders at the earliest possible convenience.
July 10, 2007 at 3:01 am
.
Guy,
One of the largest grassroots anti-pornography groups in the nation thinks Marriott is a major pornographer.
Therefore, clearly Marriott IS a major pornographer.
And, in my opinion, unless you are actively involved in fighting pornography on the national level, you can’t claim it is a one sided or self serving characterization.
July 10, 2007 at 8:29 am
One of the largest grassroots anti-pornography groups in the nation thinks Marriott is a major pornographer.
Therefore, clearly Marriott IS a major pornographer.
One of the largest anti-cult groups in the nation thinks that Church X is a major cult.
Therefore, clearly Church X IS a major cult.
One of the largest pesticide companies in the nation thinks that a spider is an insect.
Therefore, clearly a spider IS an insect.
July 10, 2007 at 8:46 am
Let the record show that this is the first, and I hope only, time I have ever taken issue with Justin.
Justin, to be fair, I think we need to recognize that the church itself would use the word pornography to describe whatever it is that comes through a Marriott’s adult PPV channels.
July 10, 2007 at 8:58 am
I completely agree, Mark IV. Still, I don’t don’t know how much weight we should attach to the fact that CCV labels Marriott a major pornographer.
July 10, 2007 at 8:59 am
Mark,
But that’s not what Justin said; it’s probably safe to assume that what comes through Marriott’s adult PPV channels is pornography (although I have no firsthand knowledge with which to confirm or deny it, and I intend to continue to lack such first-hand knowledge).
It does not, ipso facto, follow that Marriot is a major pornographer. At this point, we’re adding another definition. He clearly doesn’t make pornography, or produce it. It’s distributed through channels he appears to have control over, but if that makes him a major pornographer, I’d have to assume Time Warner and Comcast (both through their cable companies and internet access) are bigger pornographers, as is Verizon, etc.
Basically, this grass-roots anti-porn group has decided on a definition of “pornographer” that includes Marriott. But, as Justin cleverly and concisely demonstrates, just because they label him as such doesn’t make it so.
July 10, 2007 at 9:00 am
Sorry–that last comment is me, not Mark. I was looking at his post when I typed. Sorry, Mark.
July 10, 2007 at 9:13 am
LOL! That’s funny Sam – no harm done. I’ve done the same thing myself.
Would be be more comfortable saying that Marriott distributes a large amount of pornography? That seems to me to be a factual statement that is beyond dispute. So now, instead of calling him a prominent pornographer, we just say that he is a prominent distributor of pornography.
I’d really like to know what goes on at the Deseret News, and to what extent the editorial process is influenced by the church. This morning the DN published an editorial decrying Marriott’s and Romney’s involvement is the adult movie biz. I guess that pretty well settles all the arguments that anyone rasing this question was just exhibiting religious bigotry against Mitt and trying to derail his campaign.
July 10, 2007 at 9:53 am
Mark,
Even though it’s just a matter of semantics, I can get on board with saying that Marriott distributes a lot of pornography. I prefer it, because it doesn’t assume a result. With that as a baseline, I think the question of what to do (boycott? complain? ignore, because it’s just business?) can come into a sharper relief, because there’s not an underlying he’s-an-evil-pornographer to the discussion.
As for that discussion, I’m no more likely to boycott the Marriott chain than I am to boycott Time Warner (although I actively hate Time Warner, whereas I’ve found Marriott hotels, on those few occasions I’ve stayed at one, to be fairly nice).
July 10, 2007 at 10:27 am
R. Gary, #44,
Could you send me a copy of the 8:45 PM, 284 comment version of the thread as well? Thanks. The email is joshuamadson at gmail dot com. The google cache has only 5 comments.
July 10, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Oh, that poor, poor Marriott corporation. Twelve billion dollars in revenues last year, over half a billion in net profit, but it can’t speak for its side of this pornography distribution issue. It’s just not fair that people like Matt Evans and the Deseret News editorial writer have so much power to write whatever they want while the Marriott corporation is forced to remain silent.
July 10, 2007 at 7:58 pm
R. Gary,
I think Justin’s comment essentially answers your criticism about labeling Bro. Marriott a pornographer. I do believe such characterizations by single interest groups like the one you reference are in fact self serving.
Mark IV
I would agree this is probably true. But, I also agree with Justin that fact in and of itself does not justify the labeling Bro. Marriott a pornographer.
But, you will note that the DN editorial did not label either Mitt Romney or the Marriotts as pornographers or distributors.
Sam B.
This is very true, and is what I think is one of the major problems with the label as applied to the Marriotts.
John Mansfield:
No, I think what is unfair are the characterizations Matt attributed to the Marriotts. Furthermore, what Matt wrote and what the News printed in its editorial are not even remotely the same.
Other random thoughts:
As I’ve thought about this over the last few days, I’ve pondered some of the following:
1. Marriott Corporation is in the hotel or accommodation business. Their primary product or service is not pornography or its distribution–it is hotel rooms. As Sam B. points out Marriott does not create or produce pornography. When one goes to a Marriott hotel, it is not likely with the primary goal of purchasing pornography. When one walks into a Marriott there is not an adult moving playing in the lobby. There are not naked women on the sign outside the hotel, or on any of the Marriott websites. Their focus is on accommodations, not pornography. On the other hand, Hefner, Guccione, Flint, and the like have only one product they create, sale and distribute in the marketplace. That product is pornography. Their magazines, web sites, stores, etc. are rife with pornographic images, and use them to entice their products purchase.
2. Matt’s original post, and/or some of the comments, as I recall, implied that the label of pornographer was part in parcel tied to Bro. Marriott’s worthiness. There was some implication that perhaps he should not be sustained as an area authority. If that’s the case, what about his Church membership? Are those who label Bro. Marriott a pornographer suggesting that he be tried in a Church court for his membership? Are they publically proclaiming that they do not sustain him as an area authority? If he is a major pornographer on the same par as Guccione, Hefner and Flint, is there any other logical conclusion? And, are those who are Marriott’s critics on this issue in any position to make these judgments?
3. How far can this argument be extended? Many folks would consider R rate movies as pornography, whether hard core or not. Is this sufficient? What about PG 13 movies, or PG? As Sam B. argues, if Marriott is a major pornographer, what about Time Warner, Comcast, Verizon and the like? If you own stock in those companies, or Marriott for that matter, are you also a pornographer? If not, why not?
4. What about members whose business interests involve making money from activities or products prohibited by the Church, such as, tobacco, alcohol, gambling, or owning stock of companies that make money from such things? Are these members at risk in terms of their temple worthiness or Church membership? If not why not?
July 10, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Justin,
Cults and spiders indeed! Your clever manipulation of words is mere sophestry.
We respect CCV’s warning that “Marriott is a major pornographer” because we are committed by our religion to the anti-pornography battle and we respect those who are in the trenches.
Are YOU fighting pornography on the national level?
July 10, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Guy,
The DN editorial urges Marriott to quit distributing blue movies. In the priesthood lesson I taught to the YM in my ward last Sunday, we read words of prophets stating that you cannot touch pornography without becoming dirty. As the editorial says, it stains everything it touches. We are seventy comments deep into this thread now, and it isn’t clear to me that you attach any approbation whatsoever to in-room PPV adult movies. Do you think that making pornography accessible in that manner is morally reprehensible? Speaking only for myself, it isn’t something I would be proud to tell my mother about.
July 10, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Mark IV
I agree the DN editorial certainly implies he should; but, it stops far short of calling Bro. Marriott a pornographer or a major distributor of porn.
I agree that porn stains everything it touches. I am not defending the pornography industry or the distribution of pornography.
I don’t purchase pornographic movies when I stay at a Marriott or any other hotel for that matter. Nevertheless, I don’t see Marriott or other major hotel chains in the same vein as major porn distributors as those I’ve mentioned, and those who we all know exist.
The Marriotts don’t make these movies. They don’t finance these movies. They don’t actively promote the purchase of these movies in their hotel rooms. They don’t promote them on their websites where their rooms are advertised. They don’t entice consumers to purchase them or force the consumer in any way to purchase the movies. When you walk into a Marriott room, the movies are not playing on the television as you walk in the door. The movies are there, if you look for them, and take affirmative steps to make the purchase with what that entails. The consumer must choose and then act upon that choice to purchase the product.
Do I consider the Bro. Marriott’s actions morally reprehensible? No, I can’t say that I do, if you mean that he is somehow unfit to fulfill his calling in the Church, or that he should be tried for his membership.
If you don’t mind, may I ask you some questions?
Do you consider Bro. Marriott’s conduct morally reprehensible and on a par with Hefner, Guccione, Flint and the like? If so, are you suggesting he is unfit to serve the Church in his current calling? Are you saying you would not sustain him in General Conference? Do you currently sustain him in the position to which the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have called him? Are you suggesting a Church court should be convened?
If Bro. Marriott is in fact a morally reprehensible individual don’t you think that is what should happen? If he is as morally cupbable as Hefner, Guccione, Flint and the like when it comes to pornography, and its distribution don’t you think the Church authorities should take some action? Is that what you are saying?
Something that you may not be proud to tell your mother about, may not be on the same par as something that is morally reprehensible, don’t you think?
July 10, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Note:
The following was comment 244 on the original Times and Seasons thread. It was made by Ardis Parshall, one of the current Times and Seasons permabloggers. As best as I can recall, it was the first comment by a T&S permablogger to question the appropriateness of the post. I repost it here so that my original post here will be context as it was before the original post was pulled by the T&S administration. Ardis wrote:
July 10, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Note: The following was comment 255 on the original Times and Seasons thread. It was made by Julie M. Smith, one of the current Times and Seasons permabloggers. Julie wrote:
July 11, 2007 at 12:02 am
Note: The following was comment 259 on the original Times and Seasons thread. It was made by Wilfried, one of the current Times and Seasons permabloggers. Wilfried wrote:
July 11, 2007 at 12:05 am
Note: The following was comment 257 on the original Times and Seasons thread. It was made by Margaret Young, a former T&S permablogger. Margaret wrote:
July 11, 2007 at 12:15 am
Note: The following was comment 261 on the original Times and Seasons thread. It was made by Kaimi, one of the current Times and Seasons permabloggers. Kaimi wrote:
July 11, 2007 at 12:23 am
Note: The following was comment 279 on the original Times and Seasons thread. It was made by Adam Greenwood, one of the current Times and Seasons permabloggers. Adam Greenwood wrote:
July 11, 2007 at 4:43 am
Guy,
The above comment 7 was posted here and on the original Times and Seasons thread as comment 273.
If you have no argument with the quotes, (1) What is wrong with “vigorously opposing pornography in our communities”? (2) Why are you offended when Matt opposes “professed Christians who traffic in pornography?” (3) Why can’t you join with others who “stand tall against pornography?” (4) Why can’t you support a call to “refuse to patronize merchants who sell pornography?” and (5) Why can’t you support a call to “make our voices heard?”
Removal of the legal barriers against pornography has been the result of society’s moral apostasy. Both the the huge moral decline and the resulting explosion of pornography have been universally condemned by modern prophets.
[Edited for content] Jail time for selling pornography would indeed be prima facia evidence justifying a Church disciplinary council.
The standards that allow Marriott to sell pornography are the standards of Sodom and Gomorrah.
July 11, 2007 at 5:01 am
[Edited for Content to reflect disagreement with a prior comment above] see 73 above.
July 11, 2007 at 5:47 am
iow, Matt got it right, deal with it.
This is none of my doing.
Whoever said it was?
July 11, 2007 at 5:51 am
R. Gary,
As I said here, I have no quarrel with your comment number 7 above. I am, however, unwilling to make the link you have with Bro. Marriott and his company. I have stated several reasons why.
I am not offended that Matt opposes pornography. I disagreed with some of Matt’s comments and characterizations. I think Matt is a good and decent person, and I agree with many things he does and says. This was not an occasion where I agreed with him or his characterizations.
I have no problem with anyone boycotting any business they want, or advocating such a boycott. That can be done, however, without the characterizations that occurred during the previous discussion. In short, you and I disagree on the moral culpability of Bro. Marriott as it relates to pornography.
I edited a portion of your comment that I felt was inappropriate to appear here.
Chino Blanco,
I edited your comment as well. I felt it was essentially a personal attack on an individual rather than a comment or critique on that individual’s position or comment.
July 11, 2007 at 5:58 am
Guy, please permit me to say that virtually everyone involved in that thread has good reason to wish he or she could modify his words. That is true of me, too, in the comment you have resurrected here as 73.
I stand by my regret that an individual rather than p*rn itself was made the target of attack in that thread, and I remain disturbed that a forum with which I am associated published such harsh and unjustified condemnation of church leaders’ decisions about church income and expenditure. I recommit myself to personal civility in my online discourse and encourage that in others’ participation.
However, I was too harsh and critical of my cobloggers, and wish I could retract or severely rewrite my final paragraph. I had been out on that Friday night for more than three hours, and returned to discover the disastrous turn taken in that thread — rather than assuming my cobloggers were aware of what was being said and giving assent by their silence, I should have realized that many of them were, like me, away from their computers and neither knew about nor approved of the course of events. I apologize to those among my cobloggers whom I unjustly condemned with my final paragraph.
July 11, 2007 at 6:00 am
Guy, your blog rocks, but you’re on the wrong side of this particular spat. Sorry. I’ve seen no compelling argument yet to persuade me otherwise, or maybe I just missed it in the flurry of redactions and deletions …
July 11, 2007 at 6:06 am
Ardis,
Thank you for your further clarification on your comment above. I agree with your clarification and your point that an individual was the focus of the prior thread, rather than porn itself.
Like you I wondered whether my criticism was too harsh, which is why I publicly apologized to Matt, and all bloggers over at Times and Seasons, including you if any had taken offense by my post. My intent was never to offend any of the bloggers and T&S. Rather, I was, like you, unhappy with some of the tenor and tone of the post and some comments.
July 11, 2007 at 6:12 am
See, Ardis rocks, too. Somebody (kudos, Guy) just needed to keep the tap on long enough to allow for the superfluous emotions to subside and real discussion to begin … So we disagree, but darnit, like Bushman said:
“As long as we’re all polite to one another, there isn’t going to be true understanding.”
Maybe some of us are beginning to understand that consensus is not going to be forged within the space of one day’s blogging session …
July 11, 2007 at 6:13 am
Chino Blanco,
Thanks for your comment #84 and 86. I understand there is considerable disagreement over many of the issues in this discussion. I respect your right to disagree with me and with others. I only ask that we try not to personalize it further than it was. I think Ardis makes a good point that we should:
July 11, 2007 at 6:37 am
Re 87, I’m gonna ramble and then I’ll let be …
I suppose it’s the form that such encouragement takes that concerns me, but hey, thanks for letting me type away about my concerns, I think that’s all anyone in the comments community really expects of their fave blogs, that chance to weigh in without being arbitrarily banished. If not here, where? I mainly keep hanging around because I enjoy the general lack of vulgarity on display in the ‘nacle. Maybe some thought Matt was vulgar, I thought it could’ve been sorted out in the thread where it all started, flushing it down the memory hole means nothing and looks ham-fisted and amateurish. Anyway, I still dig that Bushman quote, and think that this’d be even more fun if we could all develop thicker skins rather than rely on trigger-happy admins to settle our nerves.
July 11, 2007 at 6:42 am
We respect CCV’s warning that “Marriott is a major pornographer” because we are committed by our religion to the anti-pornography battle and we respect those who are in the trenches.
By “respect,” I take it you mean “wholeheartedly endorse.” You appear to be assigning some type of infallibility to CCV.
July 11, 2007 at 7:23 am
Guy,
In your comment # 72 you said:
Do I consider the Bro. Marriott’s actions morally reprehensible? No, I can’t say that I do…
That helps explain many of our differences here.
As to your questions about church courts, worthiness, etc., no I don’t think any of that is necessary. If a man in my ward were running a business that dumped untreated toxic waste into a river, I could publicly challenge him and call him a polluter and try to get him to stop that practice without calling his worthiness or membership into question. And I could, I hope, still remain on friendly terms with him. And if, over seven years time, the only response I got from him was a very lame letter saying that it wouldn’t be financially feasible to stop the practice, I would be justified in believing he doesn’t really care how much damage he causes.
July 11, 2007 at 7:45 am
Mark IV,
Well, you gave only a portion of my answer. You did not quote it in its entirety. I’ll repeat it again for clarity:
I don’t really think your comparison of a toxic polluter to a pornographer is really equivalent, if that is the comparison you are trying to make. You haven’t really addressed any of my questions with any specificity. I would genuinely be interested in your candid responses to them.
Do you consider Bro. Marriott’s conduct morally reprehensible and equivalent to those of Hefner, Guccione, Flint and the like?
July 11, 2007 at 8:38 am
Guy,
I think you and I must have a talent for talking past each other.
Yes, I do consider the distribution of pornography through in-room PPV to be morally reprehensible. So does at least one editor of the Deseret News. That does not mean that I think J.W. Marriott is indistinguishable from Larry Flynt. I don’t think I every said anything about their behavior being equivalent.
I believe it is possible to strongly disagree with somebody’s politics or business practices without calling for a church disciplinary council. I think you do this all the time yourself. You take (in my view) a distorted position on something Mitt has said and present it in (in my view) the worst possible light, but you have never called for his excommunication, and you have never said he is no different from Hitler. You may think that I am taking a distorted view on Marriott’s porn biz. There is a possibility you may be right. I know we are certainly approaching this with different assumptions.
July 11, 2007 at 9:11 am
Mark IV
Fair enough. I’m not really trying to talk past you. I’m really trying to understand exactly what you are saying about Bro. Marriott and his corporate actions vis a vis the in room movies they provide at their hotels.
I seem to have heard, perhaps not specifically from you, but possibly others that there is essentially no difference between what Bro. Marriott’s company does and what other major pornographers or porn distributors do. I just don’t see that link. And, perhaps you are not claiming that Bro. Marriott is a pornography distributor or pornographer.
If an individual is a pornography distributor, and if that individual’s actions as such a distributor are morally reprehensible, and if that individual is a professed member of the Church, I don’t see how you can escape the conclusion that individual’s standing in the Church may be in jeopardy, given all the pronouncements that have been shared in this and other threads on that topic. It seems a little like having your cake and eating it too.
FWIW: I like most of what Mitt Romney has done either as a Governor, or businessman, and with the Olympics. The only real quibble I have with Mitt is his position on the Iraq war, prisoner interrogation and detention. Other than that, I could probably support his candidacy.
July 11, 2007 at 10:49 am
Guy M.,
I don’t appreciate you resurrecting my critical comment here at all. I don’t see any point for it, except to imply that somehow I disagree with you. I don’t. I think you’re making excuses for reprehensible behavior by the Marriott Corp. and by extension the Marriotts who run the company and own a decisive amount of voting stock. I think you’re excuses are feeble.
July 11, 2007 at 10:55 am
The Church-owned Deseret News weighged in Tuesday…
DESERET MORNING NEWS
Salt Lake City, Utah
July 10, 2007
(Editorial)
The nasty taint of porn
Pornography taints everything it touches. Mitt Romney should have understood that. So should the Marriott Corp. and other hotel owners who offer hard-core movies in hotel rooms.
Romney caught a bit of flack last week because he spent nearly 10 years on the Marriott board and yet never tried to reverse the company’s policy of providing pornography on demand, something J.W. “Bill” Marriott Jr., defended in a 2000 letter as being economically important. The corporation controls only a few of the hotels with its name on them.
For a presidential candidate who has railed against pornography, this is not entirely insignificant. Even if the subject never came up at a board meeting, one can argue that at least part of the $25,000 plus stock he was paid annually for his board membership came from the money some hotel guests paid for access to the films.
Make no mistake about pornography’s influence on society. A recent report from the American Psychological Association drew strong ties between pornography’s pervasive influence and the “sexualization” of girls and women. This, the report said, has resulted in greater societal sexism; “fewer girls pursuing careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics; increased rates of sexual harassment and sexual violence; and an increased demand for child pornography.”
Romney seemed to understand this when he told graduates at the Christian-owned Regent University that pornography poisons “our music and movies and TV and video games.”
But it is indeed lucrative.
Interestingly, several hotel chains have decided to forego the extra money out of a sense of moral obligation. The Web site cleanhotels.com helps travelers locate these. The site includes what it calls, “The Clean Hotels Pledge.” Among other things, this pledge recognizes, “the addictive nature of pornography” … “that marriages, families and careers have been devastated because individuals have developed an addiction to pornography after being lured into viewing a pornographic movie in the privacy of their hotel room,” and that children can accidentally be exposed to images that “can have a lasting negative effect.”
That lasting negative effect can be like the stains you get from playing with a barrel of paint. Even if you don’t like the color, it tells the tale of where you’ve been.
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,680197653,00.html
July 11, 2007 at 11:11 am
Adam Greenwood,
I re-posted only the few select and non-inflammatory comments that I originally linked to in my post–not just yours. I did so to return the original context to my post, which evaporated when the post was removed from Times and Seasons.
They are out there in the public domain. You made them in a public forum (much more so than this one). I mean no disrespect to you, and do not want to anger or upset you.
I am not implying that you agree or disagree with me or anyone else. You speak (as only you can) for yourself.
Frankly, I thought the questions you raised in your comment on the T&S thread were quite good when you posted the comment, and remain so. If you have any modifications you want to make, you are certainly free to do so, as did Ardis with her comment.
July 11, 2007 at 11:21 am
I don’t mind seeing the Deseret News editorial posted here, but I didn’t post it and I think the newspaper’s claim is ludicrous that “The corporation controls only a few of the hotels with its name on them.” According to the Marriott web site, they control 2,700 properties in 70 countries. They wouldn’t be a multi-billion dollar company if all they owned was the name.
July 11, 2007 at 11:23 am
.
Justin,
It’s nice you can just sit back and criticize groups like CCV who are actually doing something about pornography.
CCV doesn’t have to be “infallible” to be believable. People with actual experience in the national fight against pornography probably wouldn’t use such deliberate exaggeration to express disgreement with CCV.
July 11, 2007 at 11:27 am
.
Guy,
Regarding your editing: The truth is that under centuries-old anti-obscenity law, [a lot of people] would be criminals and would be in jail right now.
Removal of those legal barriers against pornography was the result of society’s moral apostasy and resulted in an explosion of pornography. This has been universally condemned by modern prophets.
July 11, 2007 at 1:52 pm
The president of the American Decency Association heard about our controversy and emailed me. A copy of the letter he received from J. W. Marriott justifying their decision to sell pornography can be found at http://coldsquid.googlepages.com/j.w.marriottlettertoamericandecencyassoc
Key facts:
(1) J. W. Marriott justifies selling pornography because they’d make less money if they didn’t
(2) J. W. Marriott says they have a Marriott pornography standard to keep out the “most extreme” pornography.
(Movies approved under the Marriott Pornography Standard have included: Young As They Come, Springbreak Pantyhoes, Maximum Ram, Kinky Kouples Sex Games.)
The ADA president also sent me a link to the blog of this hotel industry expert who believes pornography is available at all of the Marriott Hotels owned directly by the Marriott Family Trust:
“I know for a fact that at least one (and probably all) of the Marriott properties owned by the Marriott family trust offers a full array of entertainment options, including adult.”
http://resources.lhonline.com/blog/?p=171
July 11, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Guy said (#34): “While we have heard Matt’s version of the facts, we have not heard Marriott’s.”
Okay…. Having now read Brother Bill’s “Best personal regards,” I’d say: So much for that argument.
July 11, 2007 at 3:09 pm
So, apparently the corporation DOES have the ability to refuse to allow movies it judges to be offensive.
“Your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you.”
July 12, 2007 at 7:38 am
“apparently the corporation DOES have the ability to refuse to allow movies it judges to be offensive.”
Exactly. And in his final paragraph Marriott makes plain that his guiding principle is dollars. In the same breath he says he has the power to block pornography, he admits he sets the Marriott pornography standard to kick in only after they’ve ensured “the economics of the [PPV] system.” Ka-ching!
The letter is truly jarring after one reads the recent profile of the Marriott family from the Washington Post. It plays the Marriott’s carefully crafted public image, such as “the Marriotts still cling to the values [the hotel] represents, even in a business climate where hip trumps wholesome.”
Marriott even shares the letter he received from his father upon assuming the business, “Dear Bill, . . . A leader should have character, be an example in all things.”)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/26/AR2007062601413.html
July 12, 2007 at 9:03 am
Matt:
Thanks for the link to the letter which you claim shows:
That’s not what the letter says. It says those providers of the entertainment package utilize the pornography to underwrite the other offerings they provide–apparently for less than market value.
It does not establish a Marriott pornography standard. It seems to suggest that the Marriott Corporation tries within the system in place to do what it can to exercise its options to keep out certain selections that it can. Your recitation of the movies that were available does not at all mean J.W. Marriott or the corporation approves of the content of those titles. Your suggestion to the contrary is without merit.
The letter also points out they have restrictions in place for those who do not approve of the adult entertainment options. No one is forced to view this entertainment or purchase its content in any Marriott hotel room.
R. Gary,
A three paragraph letter written 7 years ago to The American Decency Association not begin to present the Marriott side of this issue. Your suggestion that it does cannot be taken seriously.
Mark IV
I would not be surprised that there are certain elements of choice available in the entertainment option package for which the Marriott Corporation contracts. That is not the same thing that under the contract the Marriott Corporation has complete control over the content on that package.
But, thanks for the stroll down Pres. Tyler memory lane.
Matt:
Again that’s not what the letter says. And, unless you’ve read the specific contract under which the Marriott Corporation is obligated in terms of its entertainment options, any suggestions you offer in that regard are pure speculation.
The fact that people who chose to purchase pornography in Marriott hotel rooms or anywhere else does not mean the Marriotts are devoid of values as you seem to suggest. I am somewhat baffled at your continued efforts to taint the Marriott name and business.
July 12, 2007 at 9:43 am
Guy,
J. W. Marriott’s desecrated his name far above our poor ability to add or detract.
Marriott does not need to distribute porn. We know that because Omni Hotels doesn’t, and the Ritz-Carlton doesn’t. Whether that’s because they negotiated that restriction with their PPV provider or decided to forego PPV altogether, we know it’s possible because it’s been done. I can’t believe you continue to suggest that selling pornography might be necessary (as though someone pointed a gun at Marriott to get him to deal with the PPV providers who say porn or no deal.)
If it’s true that PPV isn’t a money maker unless porn is included (and notice that Marriott muddied the water by saying R-rated and porn movies together make the system profitable; for all we know it would be profitable with rated movies only), then Marriott chose to sell pornography rather than forego the money he’d lose dropping PPV altogether. At best his letter is a defense of his decision to profit from pornography rather than give up PPV.
Marriott does not establish the Marriott Pornography Standard in the letter, he simply acknowledges it when he says they, apparently, view the offerings to ensure they don’t sell the “most extreme” porn. Marriott will earn money from extreme pornography but draws the line at the “most extreme” stuff. (And I mocked his commitment to “wholesome” values!) : )
The specific details of the PPV contract are immaterial to the point of this criticism because it was Marriott who negotiated the contract. Whatever other contractual conditions he agreed to when he agreed to profit from the sale of “extreme” pornography are irrelevant to my complaint that he’s agreed to accept millions of dollars from the sale of pornography.
Your final paragraph simply show you have still not read Elder Maxwell’s talk. Once you’ve read it you will no longer be baffled. I have never criticized Marriott because people choose to purchase pornography in his hotels; I’m sure they call 900 numbers, find porn on the web, etc. I’m criticizing Marriott for *selling* pornography.
July 12, 2007 at 9:52 am
Guy,
In your comment # 104, you said to Matt:
“I am somewhat baffled at your continued efforts to taint the Marriott name and business.”
The opening line of the Deseret News editorial says:
“Pornography taints everything it touches. Mitt Romney should have understood that. So should the Marriott Corp.”
Do you disagree with the DN?
July 12, 2007 at 10:34 am
Mark IV,
Is there any reason that the DN should have any credibility? (Kind of a smiley-face here; I haven’t read its editorial, and so neither agree nor disagree with it, but the DN is way down on my list of entities to which I make an appeal to authority.)
July 12, 2007 at 10:37 am
Matt, I don’t see a link to the Maxwell article. Would you mind posting it?
Thanks.
July 12, 2007 at 10:45 am
FWIW, I fully agree with Guy in comment 69, and what I’ve read to be his views on this thread. Pornography is a horrible thing, demeaning to too many people on every side. But as bad as pornography is, there is no excuse for incivility and for questioning another’s worthiness. There’s nothing productive in labeling Marriott a pornographer, other than the self-satisfied patting of oneself on the back. But beyond that, it seems to me to do little to open a dialogue with Marriott hotels, or anyone else.
When someone attacks me personally, I personally tune them out. Whether or not that person has a good point. If I were Bro. Marriott, and were reading the inflamed, and inflaming, things being written about him, I would completely ignore them, because I would know myself, know that their characterization of me was wrong, ergo their suggestions would appear, to me, to be invalid. Frankly, I’m not him and that’s how I feel after reading several people’s comments.
July 12, 2007 at 3:08 pm
.
Guy,
There was a complaint about the company’s “choice of in-room movies.” That is exactly what some of us bloggers are complaining about. Marriott International responded by mail.
The letterhead identifies its author as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, who tells the Marriott side of the story precisely as he wants it told.
But because YOU don’t like his answer, it doesn’t count? What kind of logic is that?
July 12, 2007 at 4:40 pm
I stand by my regret that an individual rather than p*rn itself was made the target of attack in that thread
I guess the problem here is that people recognize that p*rn doesn’t just grow up through the cracks in the sidewalk, unbidden. It shows up where it shows up because a bunch of people make decisions that since there is money to be made from p*rn, it will not be disallowed or actively discouraged. It’s all about the money: “You can have anything in this world for money”, and as Hugh Nibley has noted, the implied threat is that without it, you can have nothing.
July 12, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Mark IV,
I agree that pornography taints everything it touches. The second sentence is a bit unfair, because the implication is that Marriott and Romney must not understand this. I think they do. I don’t consider what Marriott does makes him a pornographer. I would also note the editorial does not label him such. I think the recent news coverage of this issue is political in nature, as is this editorial.
R. Gary,
No. What some bloggers did and said went way beyond complaining about movies people choose to buy in the privacy of a hotel room. The three paragraph letter Matt posted doesn’t begin to address the issues surrounding this controversy. I never said anything about whether I did or did not like his answer.
Mark N.
No, I think the problem with many of the comments is that some have taken them beyond that which is necessary to make a point that pornography is not a good thing. Your comment implies that Bro. Marriott does not actively discourage porn. I don’t believe that is true.
July 15, 2007 at 6:03 pm
“Your comment implies that Bro. Marriott does not actively discourage porn. I don’t believe that is true.”
No doubts Marriott discourages pornography when performing his church callings, or in other venues where he can’t benefit financially from porn sales, but his influence in those venues has an infinitessimal impact on the pornography industry compared to his incentivizing porn producers with hundreds of millions of dollars.
July 15, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Matt,
Can you please post the link to the Maxwell talk?
Thanks!
July 15, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Instead of a meta-discussion (talking about talking), those who actualy disagree with hotels offering x-rated movies should do something. Such as actively patronizing hotels/motels that do not offer such movies, and write the owners/managers of hotels who do offer such fare, and tell them why you aren’t staying at their establishment.
Then, write a post on your own blog encouraging others to make their opinion known, and to patronize “clean” hotels.
Make a suggestion to Marriott Corp at:
https://www.marriott.com/suggest/suggest.mi
Customer Support: 1-801-468-4000
Group & Event Planning, USA & Canada: 1-800-831-4004
Marriott Reservations, USA & Canada: 1-888-236-2427
At http://WWW.CLEANHOTELS.COM, I did a search for hotels in Indianpaolis, and these came up. Some are very high class and rival or exceed the Marriott chain. Some are actually owned or operated or licensed by Marriott. Me, I’m more of a Days Inn or Super 8 kind of guy, so apparently I don’t have to worry about the temptation.
Best Western.
Clarion Inn and Suites.
Comfort Inn.
Comfort Suites.
Days Inn.
Drury Inn.
Super 8.
Quality Inn.
Ramada.
Signature Inn.
Knights Inn.
Omni Severin.
Ramada Limited.
Radisson.
And even some with the Marriott name:
Courtyard by Marriott.
Residence Inn by Marriott.
Fairfield Inn by Marriott.
Towneplace Suites by Marriott.
July 15, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Bill Marriott has what looks like a personal blog here:
http://www.blogs.marriott.com/
It looks like its open to public comments.
Have at it, Matt Evans, R. Gary.
July 16, 2007 at 6:30 pm
.
I hereby invite some constructive criticism from my fellow bloggers about this post before I send it to Marriott via the online comment form and blog as suggested by Bookslinger in #115 and #116. I’ve always benefitted in one way or another from your comments.
August 19, 2007 at 2:52 am
[...] just prior to the episode airing. But this episode clinched it. The ‘nacle recently buzzed with a dustup over the Marriot Hotel chain (controlled by prominent Mormons) and its practice [...]
October 30, 2007 at 7:37 pm
I have personally struggled with porn addiction for years. My pornography addiction cost my tons of money, countless hours of time, my first marriage and a good job. I recently started coming back to church and am working with my bishop and stake president to get my life back in order. In addition, I have needed to attend support groups and get lots of therapy. It is a very difficult addiction to over come. I am deeply disturbed that a seventy in the church encouraged me in my weakness and made money off of it. I remember hearing Brother Marriott speak on 60 Minutes about there being a Book of Mormon in every hotel room. He didn’t mention that there was also hard core pornography. I remember being very surprised by that as I really didn’t expect to find porn in a Marriott. Pay per view porn is the worst kind of porn in my opinion because you can view it in the privacy of your room without fear that anyone else will ever know about it. It ensnares a lot of people who wouldn’t be caught deed in an adult bookstore, moviehouse or strip club for fear someone might see them. I really wish Marriott would get out of the business like the Omni Hotel chain did a few years ago and Travel Lodge did just recently.
October 30, 2007 at 7:40 pm
I really don’t see how Bill Marriott can be against porn and make tens of millions of dollars off of it at the same time. No man can serve two masters as Jesus puts it.