“Now Closed Sundays!” read the store marquee located prominently along the side of the road. A seemingly odd choice for a message…
Store owners make decisions about adjusting opening and closing times frequently, of course, and etiquette would suggest that it’s polite to inform store regulars of the new schedule for their convenience upon future visits. But that’s usually accomplished through a small note posted to the door as patrons enter, not on a huge public sign normally reserved for special sales or other important announcements aimed towards non-customers. Add in the curious use of the word “Now” appended to the front and you have a message that strikes a tone seemingly better suited for something such as “Now Open 24 Hours!”–one aimed at attracting new customers through some new product or service. It is a odd store, indeed, that would present a message as to when it is NOT open using a forum and phrasing better suited for advertisements rather than public service announcements.
Unless, of course, this store is located in Utah County, and it IS, in fact, an advertisement…
Under what circumstances would a store believe that announcing to people we’re-now-closed-on-Sundays-exclamation-point! would bring in MORE customers instead of less? Why, they must know something about the demographic in which they reside…
The idea behind not shopping on the Sabbath is fairly well accepted–if you can help it, you don’t require or encourage other people to have to work on Sundays to meet your needs (or wants).
More hotly debated is the idea that good Latter-Day Saints shouldn’t shop at places that are open on Sundays on any day of the week (the ‘boycott’ approach, if you will). This deserves more discussion: which method is actually more likely to encourage better Sabbath observance?
Let’s look at these two approaches from a mathematical perspective, using some basic charts.
Suppose we have two groups of people who frequent a particular store:
- Group X: People who shop on Sundays
- Group Y: People who do NOT shop on Sundays
Let’s assume for this model that the day of the week the people in these two groups choose to go shopping is evenly distributed over all seven days, and everyone in both groups spends approximately the same amount of money in this store each week.
What might the weekly financial report for this store look like? (After all, a store owner might not care about religious observance, but virtually all of them care about income and the bottom line…) If the people in Group Y don’t shop on Sundays, but still shop at this store on other days of the week, the weekly financial chart might look like:
The store owner can’t see the lines dividing Groups X and Y, of course, but the difference in the volume of sales between Sunday and the rest of the week are obvious. Any rational store owner would consider the fact that if Sunday sales are far below the daily average compared to other days, then financially it might not make much sense to remain open. Note that it’s the difference between the Sunday numbers and the other days that creates this thought pattern. And the larger Group Y gets (the more people who don’t shop on Sundays), the greater the difference becomes between Sunday sales volume and every other day, and the greater incentive that store owner has to think about closing. And this from a purely financial perspective, let alone a religious one. If few people are buying, why remain open?
Now, suppose Group Y takes the ‘boycott’ attitude. They won’t shop at this store at all because they are open on Sundays. With only Group X shopping at this store, what will the weekly financial reports look like now?
With these numbers, is this store owner more or less likely to consider closing on Sundays versus situation #1? Why would any store owner consider closing on Sundays if there’s no difference at all between Sunday and the rest of the week (and in real life, Sunday would be higher under this situation because we can presume more members of Group X would shop on the weekend versus a weekday) Contrary to Situation #1, the ‘boycott’ method seems to make it less likely the store will decide to close on Sunday in the future, since it’s removed the difference between Sunday sales and everything else. Isn’t that the opposite of the effect this ‘boycott’ was supposed to have?
“But wait,” the boycotters in Group Y protest, “we’re not just not shopping at the store… We’re also signing letters and petitions informing the owners that we’re not shopping at their store because they are open on Sunday. We provide the incentive to close on Sunday by letting them know how many people there are who would start shopping at their store Monday through Saturday if they would submit and close their doors on the Sabbath. Then the store owner knows he/she can offset losses from Group X Sunday sales through increased sales to Group Y people the rest of the week, and thus still has a significant financial incentive to close on Sunday.”
Except those supposed gains are imaginary, compared to the real, quantifiable losses from Sunday sales they’d be giving up. There’s no guarantee that all (or any) of the Group Y people will actually start shopping at the store if the store closes on Sundays. The store owner will have to guess what the increase on other days will become if the doors stay closed on Sundays. Without any proof, what owner would use imaginary data to dictate policy? After all, some of Group Y undoubtedly are already accustomed to shopping somewhere else and will continue to do so, even if the Sunday policy changes. Some of them perhaps never had any interest in shopping at the store to begin with, and just signed the petition on principle.
On the other hand, the numbers in Situation #1 are real–actual dollars in the accounting books, not just names on a piece of paper that might not have any relationship at all to future sales. In Situation #1, the owner already has hard data to support store closure on Sundays without depending on an imaginary influx of new customers that might or might not materialize. In Situation #1, those ‘new’ customers (and their money) are already there.
Basically, if you support the Sabbath and want to encourage others to do the same, then just don’t shop on Sundays, period. Shopping anywhere you want the first six days and then staying home on the seventh both (1) maintains your own Sabbath worship and (2) provides a secular incentive to stores not to remain open on Sundays also. The boycott method of shopping seems to be misguided–from a financial perspective it does not promote (in fact, hinders) the result that the boycotters were ostensibly hoping for. (And this is without getting into the other issues of whether boycotts based on religious beliefs are prejudicial and exclusionary…)
A few years back, a new Harmons grocery store opened in the city of Orem. Petitions were passed around the local neighborhoods requesting a boycott of Harmons because they were open on Sundays. Soon after, Harmons announced that they were closing their doors on Sunday. A little while later, Harmons announced again that they had changed their mind and were now opening their doors on Sundays. I would love to have had some insider information and data on the internal discussions regarding both of these decisions. I suspect that they bowed to neighborhood pressure the first time, but then discovered that those purported gains from new “Group Y” sales turned out to be almost entirely imaginary, and then changed back.
Does this story mark a success of the ‘boycott’ method or a failure? Is Harmons more or less likely to consider closing on Sundays (again) in the future? Proper Sabbath observance is important, and can be accomplished and encouraged by very simple means–simply by not buying things on Sundays, without petitions and without having to select from only stores deemed ‘appropriate’. The fact that, against all logic, stores in Utah should still feel a need to advertise when they are CLOSED shows that we’re still sending them the wrong message…
I don’t want to overcomplicate this, but:
(1) I doubt that Sunday-ers and non-Sunday-ers are spending roughly the same amount. Those sabbath-breakers will generally have fewer mouths to feed. On the other hand, they may need to be less frugal, and would therefore be more likely to buy items with high profit margins. Plus, those who don’t observe the sabbath are significantly more likely to shop on Sundays than any other day of the week except Saturday. So hard to say what and how would balance out there.
(2) I would assume that on your first chart, the y bars should each be a little longer than the x bars, because those ys who don’t shop Sunday presumably shop there another day. (but see below)
(3) If this is Utah County, wouldn’t there be a lot more ys than xs? I thought it was 80/20 or somesuch. That seems to change things significantly.
Is whether “good” Latter-day Saints avoid shopping at stores that open on Sunday really hotly debated?
Let’s consider some extrapolation of the theme:
Let’s boycott airlines (or airports) that operate on Sunday.
Let’s boycott newspapers that publish on Sunday.
Let’s avoid television stations (including KSL) that broadcast on Sunday.
This is a quaint notion that was popularized in an old story about Joseph Fielding Smith traveling 20 miles to buy bread at a shop that closed on Sundays, but it just doesn’t work for any but the most Mormon of communities.
The only places of business that close for the Sabbath in my community close from sundown Friday through sundown Saturday. Perhaps I should do all my shopping in Borough Park or Williamsburg.
It’s an interesting idea, but what about the first word of your post: “Now.” The store you are questioning will have “Open 7 days” data to compare with their “Closed Sundays” data. If they see an increase in weekly sales after choosing to close on Sundays, then they will persist.
My wife and I worked at several different retail stores in Orem and Provo, all but one of which was open Sundays. Each of the stores that was open Sundays did so at a loss. So why did they do it? Because their competitors were also open Sundays, so closing wasn’t seen as saving money but as feeding the competition.
Yes. The Harmons issue was a big deal at the time, and I seem to remember there was a General Conference talk a while back that suggested the ‘boycott’ solution. Okay…maybe not “hotly” contested compared to gay marriage or other recent debates, but it’s still an issue of some controversy around here. (I suspect this is not an issue at all outside of Utah…)
The charts are HIGHLY simplified just for discussion–Julie’s points about the reproportioning of X and Y are valid. Of course there are MANY church members in Utah County who shop on Sundays so the difference between X and Y isn’t quite as large as 80/20 in my opinion.
That’s the vicious circle… The more people who shop on Sundays the greater pressure there will be on stores to stay open, especially if their competition also does. I suppose you can argue that shopping exclusively at ‘six day’ stores is for the purpose of rewarding those businesses and trying to keep them in business, instead of punishing the ‘wicked’ stores, which makes some sense, although that still doesn’t explain the need for petitions…
Wouldn’t the FCC take away the license of a station that didn’t broadcast on Sunday?
I think the dilemma becomes a little more clear in the case of say a book store in an largely LDS community that started to carry visually pornographic books on its stacks.
In order for the strategy to work effectively, there must be a different book store without the problem that one can patronize, and the first store owner must preferably be aware of the boycott, which should preferably start in concert, at an agreed upon time, so that he/she can measure the sales impact.
However regardless of whether the strategy is effective, I think there is a moral principle that one should avoid the direct or indirect promotion of evil, wherever possible. (e.g. avoid the very appearance of evil)
“Mark B.” and I are different people by the way.
This is a very Utah-centric discussion, that’s for sure. Are there any other areas in the U.S. (maybe down South) where retail establishments close on Sunday? I used to spend a lot of time in Switzerland and remember how completely the country shut down on Sundays. Germany too, I believe. Ironic that two such utterly secularized nations would retain that tradition.
With all due respect, any Mormon who would seriously debate whether to boycott stores that open on Sunday is a Mormon who needs to travel more. You might be able to shut down the grocery store in Orem on Sunday, but how does that change the world?? Does the 11th Article of Faith have any application here?
My wife worked at the Orem Harmons when it re-opened on Sundays. I worked there both before and after the change, but not when the change was made. My wife defected to Maceys immediately.
I think the reason they gave the employees was that it was for the sake of uniformity with the rest of the company. But if they thought that staying closed on Sundays was good for the bottom line, I bet they would’ve stayed closed, uniformity be darned. I seem to remember that my brother, who managed at that store after the change and now manages at a Harmons in St. George, said that closing on Sundays didn’t give them any boost at all. I think that that store remains the least profitable of all of Harmons’ ten or so stores.
That Harmons has a rough time of it. The 800 N. Maceys is not far away and is well beloved by the North Oremites. Harmons made a big deal about matching all of Maceys’, Alberstons’, and Smiths’ advertised prices, but they still didn’t seem to attract many of Macey’s customers, despite the fact that Harmons is by far a cleaner, more attractive store. I think they just came to the party a bit late. Maceys had already won the community’s loyalty by being cheap and overzealous-Mormon-friendly.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard the issue hotly (or even mildly contested) in all my time in Utah. Maybe it’s a Utah County thing. I moved to Utah several years ago from Texas, where it was a non-issue among church members. Coming onto the Utah scene from outside, it was as big a deal as the Baron is making it out to be. At least not in Salt Lake County.
I just don’t want our non-Utahn friends here in the ‘nacle to believe that the notion of boycotting sabbath-breaking stores is a big issue here. I had all kinds of notions of what “Utah Mormons” were before I moved here, which were promptly debunked when I arrived.
Baron needs to get out more!! This study was probably done about 20 years ago when Sunday shopping was becoming leagl everywhere else and they figured out he following:
1. The X’s, when Sunday shopping is allowed by law, change their distribution completely to at first, once the law has been implemented, save most of their shopping until Sunday so that Saturday can be a day off, and then when everone realizes that everyone else will do the same, the distribution changes again back to either Saturday or even Friday and Sunday shopping actually lessens it’s effect making the Sunday shopping adventure a complete waste of time anyways.
2. Opposing can be best done by staying away, but that is wasted protest too because you are not going to get everyone to agree with you anyways and so there will always be peiople that want to shop on any day of the week no matter if they are Mormons or not!
3. Effectively, the only way you are not going to have stores open on Sunday is if it goes through legal means to keep it that way. There is a recent case in Nove Scotia, Canada where they wanted to re-introduce Sunday closings at the legal level, but it failed as the main department and grocery store chains simply stayed open in spite of the bill, prior to the new law, banning Sunday shopping and so the bill was dropped and Sunday shopping continues. What could they have done to force these stores to close? Fine them? How much? No good! Close the stores and unemploy the workers and lose the retail business and employment of the communities involved? No, and so the bill was dropped!
Correction:
“Coming onto the Utah scene from outside, it was as big a deal as the Baron is making it out to be.”
This line should read “Coming onto the Utah scene from outside, it was not as big a deal as the Baron is making it out to be.
You know what should be a hotly contested issue? Adding a spell-checker and an edit feature to this message board!
Each of the stores that was open Sundays did so at a loss. So why did they do it? Because their competitors were also open Sundays, so closing wasn’t seen as saving money but as feeding the competition.
Many of them also have no choice. I think many people would be surprised to learn that the leases many retail businesses sign (especially in shopping/strip malls) dictate the hours of operation, require the stores to be open on Sunday, and levy fines if not complied with.
and I seem to remember there was a General Conference talk a while back that suggested the ‘boycott’ solution.
This seems somewhat hypocritical, considering that many Church officials, up to and including Pres. Hinckly often travel long distances on Sundays. I’m sure they are not flying the planes themselves. I know thats not exactly related to “shopping on Sunday” but having to do with the “causing others to work on Sunday” issue. And the missionaries in the MTC don’t go hungry on Sundays either.
The Harmon’s example almost completely undermines your mathematical model. Their the boycott *did* work, except that the store discovered that there weren’t a lot of people in Group Y, or that most of the people in Group Y weren’t participating in the boycott. So the real lesson isn’t your too-cute-by-half conclusion that boycotts don’t work, but the entirely uncontroversial one that boycotts only work if people participate in them.
Also, I’m having a hard time understanding why its bizarre for the business to advertise that its closed Sunday. Being closed Sunday is a feature some customers like, and its advertising that feature. Big deal. Maybe you’re thinking that its irrational or immoral for people to care whether stores are open on Sunday, but I don’t think thats tenable. There has to be some point at which it makes sense to not want to be associated with an enterprise, even if your business isn’t directly funding it. Suppose, for example, that Harmon’s dedicated 10% of its Wednesday profits to NAMBLA. No one would seriously argue, I think, that it would irrational or immoral for customers to stop shopping there period, not just on Wednesday’s. So you’re real beaf with customers who care about Sabbath observance has to be just that you think Sabbath observance isn’t very important. Fine. Just say so and try and advance some argument for that proposition (and good luck).
Hotly contested? I don’t know. Growing up in north Orem, it was certainly an issue. My memories of it are all vague, so I don’t know if boycotting was talked about in church meetings or if it was just a community thing, but people did pay attention to which stores were open on Sundays and did pay lip service, at least, to shunning them or whatever. It was always seen as a shame when a store decided to open on Sunday. I’m pretty sure, though, that there wasn’t concerted mobilization through church channels to punish sabbath breakers. I think it was just a busybody thing, and if there’s anything that Utah Valley has a lot of, it’s busybodies.
I don’t live in Utah anymore, but I suspect that as Orem and Provo have gotten bigger and bigger, it’s become less of an issue. I don’t think my mom worries about it anymore.
That’s funny that this is turning into a debate over the phrase “hotly contested” and not over actual Sabbath boycotts.
On the bright side, though, that means everyone seems to be in agreement with me on the basic thesis: Sabbath boycotts are bad. (First time for everything…)
“On the bright side, though, that means everyone seems to be in agreement with me on the basic thesis: Sabbath boycotts are bad.”
What a shame.
I am an active member of my ward who unabashedly shops on Sunday. This is in part due to my profession and work schedule. I do try to do our family grocery shopping on other days of the week, and I don’t go out on Sundays to shop for things I don’t need. But if I’m cooking Sunday dinner and I realize I forgot to buy half of the ingredients, I’m ok with running to Wal-Mart. In fact, it seems I find myself there quite often on Sundays. Here are some things I have observed at my local Salt Lake area Wal-Mart on the Sabbath:
1- The store is PACKED. Mostly people doing general grocery shopping or buying electronics/entertainment. Most look like they haven’t showered or gotten officially dressed for the day.
2- I don’t see a lot of families shopping together on Sunday. This is a regularity during the week. But on Sundays it’s usually individuals or couples. Very rarely do I see a whole family.
3- I have seen people from the ward and stake occasionally, but not often. Mostly they’re there to grab that stick of butter or gallon of milk they forgot earlier in the week. This is a rather funny occurance, because they are visibly uncomfortable and extra vigilant. They come in and get out quick. Sometimes when I recognize somebody from the ward or stake, I purposely walk down the same isle just to bump into them and comment on their awesome sunday school lesson. It’s absolutely hilarious. But again, and much to their credit, it doesn’t happen often.
On a side-note I do most of my shopping at Macey’s, mostly because they are the nicest people on the planet, and I like that I don’t have to “bag my own savings” like I have to at Wal-Mart. Macey’s employees also tend to speak English, another plus, and are actually capable of answering the customer’s questions- another thing Wal-Mart lacks. But along with my willing Sunday visits to Wal-Mart, there are times when a Sabbath trip to an open store is unavoidable- like when my kid has the nerve to get a fever on the Sabbath and I’m fresh out of children’s Tylenol. At those times, it’s nice to have an open store ready to meet my needs.
Adam, why? Mark B. makes a great point–I live in an area heavy with Orthodox Jews. Supposing that they decided to boycott stores that were open on the Sabbath and that their boycott succeeded in causing all (or many) such stores to be closed on the Sabbath, what would I do? I work crazy hours during the week, and I observe a Sunday Sabbath, which means, among other things, I don’t shop. I can generally only get to the grocery store late Friday night (like after sundown) or Saturday.
And if you tell me there aren’t a whole lot of Orthodox Jews and Seventh-Day Adventists in Utah, I have two replies:
1. There aren’t (proportionally) a whole lot of Mormons in New York City; and
2. What a shame.
Spoke too soon…
If the boycott ‘worked’, Harmons would still be closed on Sundays, wouldn’t they? The boycott did not ‘work’ because they did not provide the proper incentive for Harmons to *stay* closed on Sundays beyond that initial trial period. Even without inside information, I can virtually guarantee Harmons reopening their doors on Sunday was due to financial reasons–the loss of Sunday income was not offset by gains on the other six days due to people coming back to Harmons AFTER the boycott.
Thus the failure had nothing to do with the boycott having too few people participate… It had to do with too many people unofficially CONTINUING the boycott even after the policy had changed. Had the people of Orem followed the “after a reproof, show an increase of love afterwards” philosophy and supported Harmons financially Monday through Saturday I don’t believe they would have switched back.
And this is the point: encouraging stores to close on Sunday is done by *shopping* there Monday through Saturday, not by *NOT* shopping there Monday through Saturday, as I believe the Harmons experience indicates…
And that’s the question: why IS this a feature some customers like, and should they? Does that attitude actually create fewer ‘Sabbath-breaking’ stores, or more?
You’ve just made my point at greater length. Your post argues that boycotts can’t communicate information, such that a store would respond by closing on Sunday. But this one did. Your post is wrong, Q.E.D.
You are exactly right that the problem is that not enough people stopped boycotting after they closed on Sundays, but this doesn’t support your post, which was about not boycotting at all.
“Why IS this a feature some customers like, and should they”
I addressed this in my first comment.
SamDB,
1) I don’t see what’s so shocking about Orthodox Jews wanting to live in areas that keep their Sabbath. Yeah its tough on you, but so what? I’m not some kind of minoritarian who thinks the majority should be discomfited for my convenience and neither should you be.
2. And if you tell me there aren’t a whole lot of Orthodox Jews and Seventh-Day Adventists in Utah,
Just so, the obvious response. I’m glad you thought of it.
I have two replies:
1. There aren’t (proportionally) a whole lot of Mormons in New York City; and
So what? Irrelevant.
2. What a shame.
But I’m Mormon. I don’t see there being a lot of Mormons around as a tragedy. You’ll have to do better than that.
“Thus the failure had nothing to do with the boycott having too few people participate… It had to do with too many people unofficially CONTINUING the boycott even after the policy had changed”
Incidentally, there’s no way of knowing this. If Harmon’s sales do not rise significantly after the Sunday closing, it could be because a significant number of boycotters are still boycotting, or it could be that not very many people were boycotting in the first place.
Adam,
The thing is, Orthodox Jews I know aren’t interested in whether I keep their Sabbath. They are interested, as a chosen people, in keeping it themselves. I have not seen them boycott purveyors of non-Kosher food, those open on the Sabbath, etc. I don’t see why, as a chosen people, we would want to either. You don’t think the majority should be discomfited for the minority; I disagree, but fair enough. Can you explain to me how it discomfits you by having a store open on Sunday? (Potentially, if it required you to work against your will on Sundays, that could be the case. But let’s suppose that, instead, the 20%-50% of non-LDS Utah residents, or the 0.01% hypothetical Orthodox Jews and Seventh-Day Adventists could be staffing the stores without objection. I’m happy to stipulate that it’s bad if it forces a Sabbath-observer to work on that person’s Sabbath).
As for, “What a shame,” the shame isn’t having lots of Mormons around. It’s that they don’t get to interact with lots of Orthodox Jews and Seventh-Day Adventists (or whomever).
SamDB,
Part of the attraction of the Sabbath is the universality of its peace. Modern thinking makes it hard for us to wrap our minds around the idea that our devotions should have any public component, but they should nonetheless. And, on a practical level, public norms help educate.
I could say a lot of sarcastic things about your ‘shame,’ but I’ll refrain, because I ultimately do think that its nice to have a wide variety of experiences and exposures to different sorts of people. Its not very important, but its nice. Its also nice to be around like-minded people so that one can live in a community way and not just as a collection of individuals. Ultimately, I’m content to have a country where some groups and their vision of life predominate in some areas and some groups in others, and no groups in yet others still. You aren’t.
Here’s a different example:
You have a non-member as a neighbor. This neighbor has some habits you don’t approve of: say, he visits strip clubs regularly or something.
You (and your other member neighbors) can:
(1) Be friends and fellowship with him, although make it clear you won’t be participating in behavior that goes against your standards–you won’t accompany him to the strip club, but you will accompany him to a neighborhood barbecue, or invite him to your place for dinner and game night, for example.
(2) Inform him that because of his bad habit you and everyone else in the neighborhood will not talk to or associate with him in any way until he ‘changes’.
Which method is more likely to result in a positive–and permanent–change? In the second, you may ‘scare’ him into thinking that he’ll remain friendless and isolated and thus change out of fear…with the implication that once he does change, everyone will instantly be his friends. Suppose they don’t? Suppose (predictably) some people are slow to fellowship him even after he changes (it’s not that easy, after all, to flip a switch and immediately treat with charity and love someone whom you had previously decided was not worth associating with). How likely is it those ‘imaginary’ gains aren’t going to materialize to the expected extent and he’ll simply decide to go back to the way he was?
Or…by being friends from the beginning, but NOT as far as the strip club visits go, you invite a direct comparison: he now can choose between activities with lots of friends that meet their standards, and activities without them. Without having to make a moral judgment on visiting strip clubs at all, this neighbor now has a direct incentive to consider and choose those ‘good’ activities…but this incentive only exists because you DIDN’T ‘boycott’ him entirely beforehand.
Harmons appeared to have changed initially out of fear…and/or was enticed by those imaginary gains in customers or goodwill from making the switch. Predictably, many potential customers were probably already accustomed to just going to Macey’s instead or still considered Harmons ‘unworthy’ (not being able to ‘flip that switch’ easily) and never started shopping there afterwards. Thus the change was temporary…and now I don’t believe Harmons will EVER consider closing on Sundays again.
You can argue that if more people had started shopping there after the boycott ended, things would be different–and that’s probably correct. I submit that if more people had started shopping there Monday through Saturday WITHOUT the boycott, things might have been different too. And, who knows, perhaps in that case, the change would have been more likely to become permanent instead of temporary…
Corporations aren’t neighbors. Their motivations are financial, not relational. Any model of influencing corporations that tries seeing the corporation as a friend or neighbor is orthogonal to reality. You don’t take that model in your initial post, because you’re sane.
“I submit that if more people had started shopping there Monday through Saturday WITHOUT the boycott, things might have been different too.”
You were arguing that boycotts don’t work in theory. This chastened, modified version of your post I find much more likely.
Adam,
I don’t understand what you mean by “our devotions should have [a] public component,” or who needs to be educated by what. And actually, I still don’t understand how non-observance of the LDS Sabbath can (or should) discomfit me. The fact that others–my neighbors and friends even–shop on Sundays doesn’t impact my observance.
I’m appreciate community; I find it essential for personal and theological reasons. But I don’t find others’ beliefs divisive to that community until they want me to do something that I’m unwilling to do. I generally don’t eat meat when I have dinner with my Hindi neighbors, and wouldn’t dream of asking them to feed me meat when they’ve invited me over. But they know I eat meat, and that hasn’t hurt my relationship with them (although, on a tangent, their two-year-old once asked me, “Do you eat chickens? Do you eat cows?” Responding to that was awkward, I must say).
All this basically to say that I disagree that causing stores to be closed on Sundays adds any public component to our worship or helps to educate. Which is not to say that Maceys should open on Sundays, but is also not to say that the majority in Utah should attempt to force others to be closed, too.
“I’m appreciate community; I find it essential for personal and theological reasons. But I don’t find others’ beliefs divisive to that community until they want me to do something that I’m unwilling to do.”
Then you and I have a different definitinon of community. I find your definition pretty thin, something along the lines of ‘people who associate with each other.’
That would be because you don’t know my definition. Suffice it to say that my definition of community involves people who, in spite of (sometimes fundamentally) different values and views live, play, and work together and commune with one another. I would find any community of people who all agreed with me to be pretty thing.
/threadjack
Turns out I knew your definition after all. ‘Community’ is defined in liberal terms as everyone keeping their values private.
Where do you get that from? I know the values of my community, even where I don’t share those values, and they know mine, whether or not they agree. I agree that I define community in liberal terms, although I don’t consider that to be as perjorative as you apparently do.
“We are the Borg, you will be assimilated…..into our community, where Sunday shopping is prohibited”
An addendum–if you’re seriously suggesting that true community cannot exist between people who believe differently than one another (and whose beliefs at times may be at odds), then I am uninterested in community; if that were what community meant, it would hold no attraction to me.
However, that leads into a long, laborious attempt at defining community, so if your definition excludes what I consider to be community, I leave you to yours, and will find myself a new word for what I mean.
Talon, lol.
In Davis county there is a store called Bowmans that people in the area use. Many people I know shop there for two reasons, they close on Sunday and don’t sell alcohol. Even though there is an Albertsons across the street, many people (including my parents), choose to shop at Bowmans. The thing is, even if Albertsons stopped opening on Sundays after a boycott, and got rid of the alcohol, I don’t believe anyone would switch. Why should they, they already have Bowmans.
The only way I see it working is if you are in a small town. A single store opens, and you boycott by driving an extra 30 miles to another store until they promise to close. Then you would have to start patronizing the newly reformed store right away so they saw an increase in $.
A store that changes would have to be rewarded for change, why else would they do it?
And on a personal note, I go to stores that open on Sunday on purpose for one reason. I want them to stay in business. A screaming child with a fever can either be miserable until Monday, or have me break the sabbath so they can get much-needed sleep.
“if you’re seriously suggesting that true community cannot exist between people who believe differently than one another”
Not true community, thick community. You do have something in common with the people around you and thats (1) your mutual liberalism, your agreement that values and beliefs are private and subjective/personal and (2) your basic humanity and basic human experience. This is community, just thin is all.
“(and whose beliefs at times may be at odds), then I am uninterested in community; if that were what community meant, it would hold no attraction to me.”
Sure. If beliefs and values aren’t fundamental, but are a sort of brand preference and so on, it would be wierd and cultish to want to be around people who all choose the same as you.
Remember that General Conference story one of the GAs told about how he forgot to fill the gas tank, and his dad ended up walking miles to church instead of buying more gas.
I admire that. I advocate that we all cultivate that spirit toward our religious beliefs and obligations.
But realize that this isn’t the 1930s anymore.
Our society is much different now than it was then. Our task is to find a way to incorporate the spirit of that father’s actions into the realities of modern society.
Sorry, one last question, because now I’m intrigued. Are you suggesting that my relationships with practicing Catholics, practicing Jews, and relatively practicing Hindis cannot constitute true (or, to use your terminology, thick) community? That I can only commune with practicing LDS?
I’m not being facetious here, or dismissive, although you seem to be dismissive of my beliefs and relationships. (Which is fine, because you don’t know me except through three or four comments here.) I’ve just never heard anyone assert, repeatedly, that the only communities that are strong (or valuable, or real) are those between likeminded persons. A Catholic would not be part of my narrow religious community, but my religious community is not (and should not be) the only one to which I belong.
If you do feel that community can only exist between people who see eye-to-eye on everything (or virtually everything), then I understand better why you would want to make every LDS belief normative, because that’s the only way any semblance of community could exist. The reason I don’t see a need for a community to require stores to be closed on Sundays is because I don’t find difference to inherently divide a community (although a sufficient level of difference, with nothing shared, would not be a community).
Walked miles? So what is more important, not buying gas on Sunday, or not going to your meetings and not partaking of the sacrament?
“Are you suggesting that my relationships with practicing Catholics, practicing Jews, and relatively practicing Hindis cannot constitute true (or, to use your terminology, thick) community?”
“the only communities that are strong (or valuable, or real)”
It’s not just a difference in terminology, friend. It’s a difference in meaning. Strong is not the same as valuable which is not the same as true/real. You’re thinking a binary state (community, not community) and I’m thinking a continuum.
I do believe that the more aims and understanding a community shares, the deeper and richer its community is. A community in which LDS beliefs are normative has something valuable that other communities won’t (although I would say that LDS beliefs are always normative, I understand that you’re using the term in a different sense here). You don’t see Sabbath observance as something that divides community. My response to that is probably the same as I made to the Baron–I conclude that on some level you don’t see Sabbath observance as very important.
Adam,
I agree with you that the more aims and understanding a community shares, the deeper and richer it is. However, I don’t agree that aims and understanding are synonymous with beliefs and acts. A community where everybody is striving to be Christlike can be at the highest level of your spectrum, even where some are going about it in a different way than others.
This isn’t relativism, either; I believe equally with you that the Church is the only true Church. But I also believe that many of the commandments we live are commandments in light of our Church membership, not normative rules for non-members to follow. As an example, I don’t consider it a sin for my coworkers to enjoy a beer after work, although it would be sinful if I did. Likewise, Sabbath observance is a sign of a covenant people. As such, I find it essential for my good and the good of my coreligionists. But I don’t think it is incumbent on non-LDS to observe the Sabbath, and specifically to observe the Sabbath in the way I would. I don’t consider it divisive any more than I consider the fact of others’ moderate drinking divisive.
There are some commandments that are not covenant people commandments, including, clearly, the prohibition on murder. I don’t know yet where I draw the line between covenant commandments and universal commandments, but it doesn’t concern me too much because I’m responsible for both sets.
So please don’t tell me that I don’t see Sabbath observance as very important. I see my Sabbath observance as very important, I would consider yours as important except that I don’t know you well enough to understand your motivations (when I see you at the store, for all I know you have a sick child), but I don’t consider it important that Muslims and Jews change the day of their Sabbaths to match up with mine, or that the Platonic Sabbath observence eschews going to stores (I’m frankly not familiar enough with Protestant and Catholic thought on the matter to know what they believe constitutes Sabbath observence, and once we get past the go-to-church, don’t-go-shopping-or-to-the-beach, we’re pretty hazy on it, too).
“I agree with you that the more aims and understanding a community shares, the deeper and richer it is. However, I don’t agree that aims and understanding are synonymous with beliefs and acts. A community where everybody is striving to be Christlike can be at the highest level of your spectrum, even where some are going about it in a different way than others.”
Aims and understanding correlate with beliefs and acts. And, I would add, you can’t separate ‘striving to be Christlike’ with one’s beliefs about Christ and his commandments.
“But I also believe that many of the commandments we live are commandments in light of our Church membership, not normative rules for non-members to follow.”
In other words, these commandments are inherently about right and wrong, but are instead constitutive of community.
Correct, kind of. They are constitutive of a community. But if everybody followed those rules because they didn’t have a choice, that would not contribute to community. Just because my neighbor doesn’t shop on Sundays doesn’t strengthen our sense of community; if he doesn’t shop on Sundays because of his devotion to God, it may strengthen community. However, I can establish a stronger community with him if he aspires to be Christlike, serves others selflessly, and, nonetheless, shops on Sunday than I can if he refrains from shopping on Sundays by necessity and beats his cat on Thursdays.
That’s why I don’t see the community-building of boycotting stores until they close on Sundays. I can understand the strengthening of community if our neighbors choose not to shop on Sundays because of their similar values, but if they don’t have similar values and don’t shop on Sundays because the store is closed, that doesn’t promote community in any functional way.
So I agree with Kevin; boycotting stores because they are open on Sundays probably doesn’t change their business practices. Also, like you, Adam, I appreciate community. But I doubt, very strongly, that causing all of the stores to be closed on Sundays will contribute to a meaningful sense of community.
“But if everybody followed those rules because they didn’t have a choice, that would not contribute to community. Just because my neighbor doesn’t shop on Sundays doesn’t strengthen our sense of community;”
Disagree, on three counts. First, shared experience does contribute to community. Second, shared experience is educational–it leads to shared values. Third, community as such, to be more than persons in association, has to have community values.
And I woudl rather those community values were more than just a decision to make values private and, in a sense, subjective.
jjohnson,
He left the house a few hours early to do it. But you’ll need to read or hear the talk before drawing conclusions about it. The main point was the powerful lesson of honoring the Sabbath that was impressed upon the young mind of the GA giving the story. Nitpicking it misses the point I was making.
#13 nails an important point — my wife’s business partners have a mall kiosk that obligates certain hours of operation, 7 days a week, and someone there to staff it.
Interesting twist – Is it bad to shop online on the Sabbath? Is it bad if the website doesn’t disable itself on the Sabbath?
#13 and #48: Correct: some stores have no choice–such as one of the mall stores where I worked. Operating hours in the mall were set by 2 out of 3 of the big anchor stores. All of the other stores where my wife and I worked chose to remain open Sundays for the reason I mentioned in #3.
queno, #48: “Is it bad to shop online on the Sabbath?”
I choose not to, because I think it’s bad for me. It has nothing to do with making others work and everything to do with how I focus my attention on the Sabbath.
“Nitpicking it misses the point I was making.” Actually, it wasn’t nitpicking, in my view. He was raising a legitimate question to which you took unreasonable offense. Boo Hoo.
FWIW, some friends and I bought a franchised hair salon a few years ago. Sunday was the slowest day and business built steadily through the week to a very big Saturday. This made scheduling our stylists very tricky. We decided to close on Sunday to keep the Sabbath and expected that it would concentrate the weekend traffic on Saturday, which would make scheduling more difficult.
We found instead that the Sunday traffic mostly moved to Monday and Tuesday, evening out the week and making scheduling much easier. Also, avg weekly sales for the 6 weeks after closing on Sunday were slightly higher than the 6 weeks before.
We sold that salon last year to a couple of the stylists and they kept it closed on Sundays.
On the other hand, I have no regret about working on Sundays when I was a hospital aide.
clearly too much time on your hands. why not go do your home teaching instead?
In Nova Scotia, Canada, there is a law forbidding stores from being open on Sunday. This was due to a referendum vote where a majority of Nova Scotians (where there are very few LDS by the way) voted in favour. The government actually sends out investigators and will lay charges if stores are open on sunday.
well,
your error here is that the ‘Sabbath’ is *NOT* Sunday at all – but Friday evening to Saturday evening, biblically….
The Sabbath is on Saturday (Friday a few minutes before sunset to Saturday about 45 minutes after sunset). Has been since the beginning of time.
The early Christians gathered together on Sunday to do church business and such because they were already booked up for every Saturday for the rest of their lives…