seriously honestly Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 You make it sound as if they were hiding it. Something has to be "towards the very back".LehiAh, no; Cal said it was in the first section, and naturally I thought that would mean it was towards the front. I was just stating that I found it, but not where I had thought it was going to be.
seriously honestly Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 Must not be very important way in th back like that.Point being? Where would you have put it?Why does that matter?
ERMD Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 Point being?Why does that matter?You were the one who initially made the point that it was "towards the very back...".Does that really need to be pointed out to you?
LDSToronto Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 More transparency is better than less transparency. There is nothing in CHI 1 that is secret or sacred.Do people here disagree with the publication of Handbook 2? If you say answer, "Of course I don't disagree with publishing Handbook 2", then, 2 years ago prior to it's public unveiling, would you have claimed that making Handbook 2 public was a good idea or a bad idea?H.
seriously honestly Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 You were the one who initially made the point that it was "towards the very back...".Does that really need to be pointed out to you?I was merely refrencing where I had found it in relation to where I had initially thought it would be. What was ERaryR's point of "it must not be very important then" comment? I couldn't tell if there was sarcasim there or not.
Calm Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 I was merely refrencing where I had found it in relation to where I had initially thought it would be. What was ERaryR's point of "it must not be very important then" comment? I couldn't tell if there was sarcasim there or not.I poorly phrased where it was...I meant the first section of that section that I had linked to....which was not the first section in the book, but the last iirc save for the index.No big deal that s.h. pointed that out. Precision in language is important, especially when it is all that is being communicated. S.H. was not making any comment about value or trying to hide it. The section itself is rather a misc. quick reference section in my opinion and therefore its placement at the back is ideal IMO.
ERayR Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 I was merely refrencing where I had found it in relation to where I had initially thought it would be. What was ERaryR's point of "it must not be very important then" comment? I couldn't tell if there was sarcasim there or not.Poor attempt at sarcasm.
cdowis Posted October 22, 2011 Posted October 22, 2011 (edited) Why would anyone want to. It's a "handbook" which means it is a guide and allows church leaders to make adjustments for individual cases. It's for leaders of the church and out of those hands people can use all kinds of wild interpretations.As executive secretary I made it my duty to learn it, as a resource to the ward leaders. On occasion I reminded the leaders that certain things were to be done in a certain way. For a long time the biggest issue was having activities where there was an "admission charge". No movies, no sports events, even camping trips where there was some fee involved, unless the ward paid all the fees. (With a few exceptions for the scouts and young women)I was a real party pooper. For years the stake RS held an event. It was fun, enjoyable but also involved a fee. I pointed it out to the stake president, and ..... sigh Edited October 22, 2011 by cdowis
Saints Alive Posted October 24, 2011 Author Posted October 24, 2011 More transparency is better than less transparency. There is nothing in CHI 1 that is secret or sacred.Do people here disagree with the publication of Handbook 2? If you say answer, "Of course I don't disagree with publishing Handbook 2", then, 2 years ago prior to it's public unveiling, would you have claimed that making Handbook 2 public was a good idea or a bad idea?H.Good point!
Calm Posted October 24, 2011 Posted October 24, 2011 (edited) I can think of both good and bad points for publishing book 1 or 2 and did so when this conversation came up in the past.The fact is though that I am not in the position where my opinion on the value or weight that should be given to each of these points in regards to the needs of the Church in general and the members specifically has any real value of its own. In a few areas I can make an educated guess based on logic and personal experience, but considering we are talking about the potential impact on over 14 million members I think the best people to judge are those who are dealing with the formulation and general authorities that can get feedback from all the church areas and populations as they see the need.I do know for a fact though that more transparency is not always better than less transparency, it can actually be even quite dangerous at times and it would seem that even LDS Toronto and Saints Alive feel this way with his less than transparent name choice. Edited October 24, 2011 by calmoriah
Saints Alive Posted October 25, 2011 Author Posted October 25, 2011 ...Saints Alive feel this way with his less than transparent name choice.What is that supposed to mean?
Calm Posted October 25, 2011 Posted October 25, 2011 I'm assuming your parents didn't name you Saints Alive. If not you must think that there's a valid reason not to be fully transparent with your own information. 1
ERayR Posted October 25, 2011 Posted October 25, 2011 I'm assuming your parents didn't name you Saints Alive. If not you must think that there's a valid reason not to be fully transparent with your own information.Hear Hear amen
Saints Alive Posted October 25, 2011 Author Posted October 25, 2011 I'm assuming your parents didn't name you Saints Alive. If not you must think that there's a valid reason not to be fully transparent with your own information.So you are comparing one persons anonymity to a large organizations privacy practice regarding its policy manuel? apples and oranges.
Calm Posted October 25, 2011 Posted October 25, 2011 (edited) I'm not the one who compared them. The person who made the absolute, unqualified statement "more transparency is better than less transparency" lumped everything into one category and more or less said let's pull all those blinds up! Complain to him for expecting you'd want to tell everyone your real name....but since you stated "good point" I just assumed you agreed with him....except of course then both of you engaged in a significant piece of non transparency which it we took it at it's transparent meaning would have you both hypocrites, but I'm going to assume it's hyperbole and not hypocrisy. Edited October 25, 2011 by calmoriah
Saints Alive Posted October 25, 2011 Author Posted October 25, 2011 (edited) I'm not the one who compared them. The person who made the absolute, unqualified statement "more transparency is better than less transparency" lumped everything into one category and more or less said let's pull all those blinds up! Complain to him for expecting you'd want to tell everyone your real name....but since you stated "good point" I just assumed you agreed with him....except of course then both of you engaged in a significant piece of non transparency which it we took it at it's transparent meaning would have you both hypocrites, but I'm going to assume it's hyperbole and not hypocrisy.No you are obfuscating the issue. I think that it was clear that the "more transparency is better" argument was clearly in reference to large organizations. In general it holds true, I think we can think of exceptions to almost anything but thats not the point of this dialogue and your attempt to shift the conversation towards a clearly different matter is apples and oranges. Edited October 25, 2011 by Saints Alive
ERayR Posted October 25, 2011 Posted October 25, 2011 No you are obfuscating the issue. I think that it was clear that the "more transparency is better" argument was clearly in reference to large organizations. In general it holds true, I think we can think of exceptions to almost anything but thats not the point of this dialogue and your attempt to shift the conversation towards a clearly different matter is apples and oranges.Why is it good for large organizations and not good for individuals? Clearly transparency in your motives in this matter would be germain here.
Saints Alive Posted October 25, 2011 Author Posted October 25, 2011 It should be clear that private individuals are more vulnerable than large organizations.
Calm Posted October 25, 2011 Posted October 25, 2011 I'm not trying to shift anything, you should really be more cautious in your analysis of my comments.I am making a point that absolute rules such as you and ldstoronto apparently believe in to a certain extent even though you also recognize their lack of worth at times aren't all that useful in a discussion that is specifically examining what should and shouldn't be exceptions in specific context.I could draw some conclusions on why two obviously intelligent writers would intentionally employ such an ineffective phrase, but I prefer to be a little more circumspect about jumping to conclusions about others' motives.
rongo Posted October 26, 2011 Posted October 26, 2011 Ray: its a matter of principle for me, I do have a copy of both CHI 1&2What is your calling in the Church, Saints Alive?I'm wondering if you have a copy of CHI book 1 legitimately, or illegitimately.
subgenius Posted October 26, 2011 Posted October 26, 2011 It is understandable why the handbook would not be left on a table in the lobby for anyone to browse through. It is likely a distraction and more cause for various interpretations not being made with the benefit of the members in mind. I don't need the PDR left on a table in the lobby of my doctor's office, but he would likely let me see it if i asked. Having not seen part 1 (only 2 as i am a lowly EQP) i am curious if there is a policy which restricts me from asking the Bishop to see a copy.That being said, it is interesting to examine why i would want to see the book at all.
Saints Alive Posted October 26, 2011 Author Posted October 26, 2011 What is your calling in the Church, Saints Alive?I'm wondering if you have a copy of CHI book 1 legitimately, or illegitimately. Its legitimately, I am not going to say what calling because I don't want my postings here to reflect upon my calling or vice versa
ERayR Posted October 26, 2011 Posted October 26, 2011 It should be clear that private individuals are more vulnerable than large organizations.How so? Large organizations are prime targets because of perceived "deep pockets".
Recommended Posts