At the end of July my brother came out to Utah to visit as he does every year. While he was in Salt Lake City he visited some church museums and also stopped to check out the famous church-owned City Creek Mall. He came across this little gem – see picture below – featured at the City Creek. The image was not for a particular store but for the City Creek Mall itself. As you can see, the woman is holding a glass of wine and really pushing the modesty hot buttons with her bare shoulders and low-cut shirt. Shield your eyes! Another like image is also found on the church owned website KSL.com shown below. It is interesting to me to see how hard the church works to instill the teachings of the word of wisdom to our youth not only to have it all thrown aside here, but seemingly encouraged. The church has also been extremely careful to set a standard in modesty, even to the extent of photoshopping cap sleeves on little girls and covering up angels in classic paintings. So what happened here?
The Church vs City Creek
by Pablo | Oct 7, 2012 | Featured, Mormonism | 20 comments
20 Comments
Submit a Comment Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
I was in a tough spot with the church when I took this picture. I had attended your ward Paul and thought, “The church in Utah is a different church than what I attend in Oregon.” I decided then that I would not attend church when I visit Zion in the future.
The following Monday Cathy and I took mom and Maygan out for lunch on our way back to Oregon. Maygan had limited time due to work, and so Cathy thought the best place to go out to eat would be Kneaders Cafe and Bakery at City Creek Mall. I hated the idea.
It is no secret that City Creek and I don’t have a loving relationship. I understand the reason for the mall. There is/was a concern with revitalizing downtown SLC and by doing so, protect Temple Square; I get it. It just hurts so much to see how much money went into building the mall, when those resources could have gone somewhere else. This is a mall for the wealthy; it seemed as if we built a mall over the widows mite. Ugh. I felt like a hypocrite eating there that Monday. Then I saw that darn picture at the mall.
My friend, Brian Hall, had texted me a picture of the same advertisement about a month prior when he was in Utah. It irritated me, but not as much as when I actually saw it. It quickly became obvious that it was not an advertisement for a particular store at City Creek (which I would have no problem with), but for LDS church-owned City Creek itself. It really angered me. It seemed so hypocritical that as an institution, modesty, and alcohol consumption are taught in very particular ways, and this advertisement just disregarded those teachings. “Oh ya, you shouldn’t drink booz, keep your shoulders covered, and don’t show cleavage – unless you need to make a buck,” seemed to be the message.
I then came to the realization that it was probably some dilweed advertisement schmuck that came up with the advertisement, not some church committee and I calmed down a bit. Am I raging against my church? NO!!! I am saying that as members, when things like this get a little side-ways, we are obligated to say something. It should bother us. For all I know, the hierarchy of our church, didn’t recognize the tension that this advertisement creates.
Mike, I thought some dilweed ad schmuck came up with it too. But then I saw it on KSL.com as well. Almost same exact ad. WTF??? KSL is owned and operated by Deseret Digital Media, the media branch of the arm that also owns MormonTimes, Deseret Book and Deseret Media. What gives? Why are they allowing this ad to go?? Someone has to propose it, design it, aprove it and post it. All of this is done by church employees. All of them should know the mission of the church and it’s message and see the conflict it creates.
As soon as it pops up again I’ll grab the image and put it up here to compare the two.
Here is the ad:
http://rationalfaiths.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CityCreek1.png
The text on the right stays put but the picture actually pans bottom to top. Looks like the same image as the one in the window. If not, it’s certainly close. They have another one on the front page as well once in a while.
And Garret, it shouldn’t take a GA to enforce church policy. That’s what they delegate things for.
I’m going to include this in the post Jon. Thanks!
I just included the home page ad in the post as well
And PS, I love how on the screenshot it has “LDS General Conference audio and video on demand” at the top. Then a link to go get some drinks and “discover” City Creek… Double standard/message much??
that’s a very big noticeable banner
Jon, I completely agree that a GA shouldnt have to enforce it. i was simply mentioning that the leaders of our church have definitely seen the ads and havent done anything…more irony than anything.
Jon Barker,
I originally thought that it was wine in her glass. Then I realized that it was sparkling apple cidar. Then I thought about the shoulders and the cleavage showing. I realized that she was simply being an object lesson to teach the man in the picture a lesson. She quickly covered up soon after once her point was made.
On a more serious note, when I first heard about City Creek Mall I thought…why should I care what the church does with its money when it is investing. Then I realized that the church’s money is actually money that originated from its members. Then I realized how many lives could be affected if that $2billion investment had gone elsewhere. Sure, I understand they want to make downtown SLC look pretty…but is that really the best option we had with those $2billion. So many other “revitalization” efforts could be made in many other places that would have made a much bigger impact.
Now, onto the wine/modesty issue with the advertisement. I agree with where Jon is coming from on his assessment. This is something that some church employee had to pass off on at some point. Why are we sending the extreme message on one side of the coin and then on the other coin completely ignoring it. I’m sure at least 1 general authority has seen this ad…and that should be all that is needed to get it removed. In all honesty, the ad itself doesnt bother me much from an advertising standpoint…I dont find her outfit immodest and I dont care if people decide to drink wine or not. I do care, however, that the church is allowing the message to go through when they have been pushing so hard for strict obedience to the rules.
The message of “lets go shopping” could have been much different. Its sad to see that many people that truly are in need will have many long lonely nights and empty nets when the church could have helped them make those nights not so lonely and helped them fill those nets.
Advertise? that’s what corporations do.
😉
As I remember it, we did the blog post series when we thought that A&F would be paying the church for space in the mall. We wrote letters asking why? And we were responded to. Why don’t we do the same thing with this? Do we still have contact information to do this and is it a battle worth fighting?
I don’t mind the pictures… I mind that we are so hypersensitive about modesty we cover up the angel and children’s shoulders using photoshop. I mind that the WoW started as a suggestion, but now you must obey it strictly or you are deemed unworthy to enter in the temple. Why can’t we govern ourselves. Give us the choice to “bridle our passions”. I have a bigger issue with that.
In a previous life, I had some knowledge of the church’s financial affairs. The money spent on that mall was profits from their commercial ventures. You may argue that those ventures were initially purchased with tithing dollars, and you may be correct. But the initial seed money has long ago been repaid and probably several times over.
Steve, the funds for the mall is a whole different discussion. The church has done very well in their investments. This is just a poke at how this ends up as an advertisement when the Church carefully filters everything it produces.
Oh it looks like you might have been replying to Garrett’s comment… so ignore what I just wrote to you 😉
Regardless of where it came from…poor choice of money for $2billion of funds…terrible choice
Elder Oaks, October 2012 General Conference: “Childhood abuses or neglect of children that occur after birth are more publicly visible. Worldwide, almost eight million children die before their fifth birthday, mostly from diseases both treatable and preventable.4 And the World Health Organization reports that one in four children have stunted growth, mentally and physically, because of inadequate nutrition.5 Living and traveling internationally, we Church leaders see much of this. The general presidency of the Primary report children living in conditions “beyond our imaginations.” A mother in the Philippines said: “Sometimes we do not have enough money for food, but that is all right because it gives me the opportunity to teach my children about faith. We gather and pray for relief, and the children see the Lord bless us.”6 In South Africa, a Primary worker met a little girl, lonely and sad. In faint responses to loving questions, she said she had no mother, no father, and no grandmother—only a grandfather to care for her.7 Such tragedies are common on a continent where many caregivers have died of AIDS.”
We can do better.
I understand the concern that the money could have done better else where, but I also happen to know that City Creek’s construction provided tons of jobs for contractors/skilled laborers who lost jobs or would have lost jobs during the worst of the economical collapse. Many of the businesses in it have opened up new job oppurtunities for people struggling for work. I was even being told by a business professor that the mix of stores in the mall was very clever. Having stores that appeal to all levels of customers is always good, but also putting in a good mix of high end stores that are sure to bring customers from out of state, increasing local revenues without requiring locals to support it. Now I’m no business expert, but being a local that sounds like a good thing to me. I feel critics are far to harsh when it comes to this business endeavor by highlighting the potential bad and over looking the actual good.
This is not a new attitude whatsoever. Prior to being the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, Joseph F. Smith was the CEO of the Church-owned ZCMI:
“Some of our pretended pious people, a few years ago, were shocked and horrified by seeing the symbol of the All-Seeing Eye and the words ‘Holiness to the Lord’ in gilt letters over the front of Zion’s Cooperative Mercantile Institution.
“Especially was this the case with some of our brethren when they found these letters over the drug department of Z.C.M.I. Why was it? Why some of these pious Mormons found that Z.C.M.I. UNDER THE SYMBOL OF THE ALL-SEEING EYE AND THE SACRED WORDS, ‘HOLINESS TO THE LORD,’ SOLD TEA AND COFFEE AND TOBACCO and other things possibly that Latter-day Saints ought not to use; and at the drug store, Z.C.M.I. KEPT LIQUORS of various kinds for medicinal purposes.
“It was terribly shocking to some of the Latter-day Saints that UNDER THESE HOLY WORDS LIQUOR SHOULD BE KEPT FOR SALE. Has it injured me, in any sense of the word, because Z.C.M.I. drug store kept LIQUOR for sale? Has it made me a drunkard? Have I been under the necessity of guzzling liquid poison? Have I made myself a sot because liquor was KEPT FOR SALE BY Z.C.M.I.? I am not the worse for it, thank the Lord. And who else is? No one, except those pious Mormons who in open day or under the cover of night would go into the drug store and buy liquor to drink. . . .
“Those who were the most horrified at seeing the All-Seeing Eye and ‘Holiness to the Lord’ over the front door of Z.C.M.I., I will guarantee are the ONES THAT HAVE BOUGHT THE MOST TEA AND COFFEE, TOBACCO AND WHISKEY THERE. . . .
“It does not matter to me how much tea and coffee Z.C.M.I. sells, so long as I do not buy it. If I do not drink it, am I not all right? And if the poor creature that wants it can get it there, that ought to satisfy him. IF HE COULD NOT GET IT THERE, HE WOULD NOT PATRONIZE Z.C.M.I. AT ALL, BUT WOULD GO SOME WHERE ELSE TO DEAL.”
(“Conference Report,” April 1898, p. 11, quoted under the headline, “Joseph F. Smith Justifies the Sale of Coffee, Tea and Liquor at the Mormon Store ZCMI (He was president of ZCMI when he said this),” at “Drinkin’ & Smokin’ Prophets,” emphasis added)