Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Agree Or Disagree: Church Handbook Of Instructions: Book 1


Recommended Posts

Posted

How so? Large organizations are prime targets because of perceived "deep pockets".

how would having a limited distribution of CHI 1 affect those "perceived 'deep pockets'"

Private individuals have no or limited control over others, The church by contrast has some deal of control over its members, inasmuch that the CHI 1 proscribes limitations and guidelines as to how members may or may not act and accomplish certain things. It also proscribes how the leaders of the church may or may not authorize certain things that are of direct interest to general members.

Posted

how would having a limited distribution of CHI 1 affect those "perceived 'deep pockets'"

Private individuals have no or limited control over others, The church by contrast has some deal of control over its members, inasmuch that the CHI 1 proscribes limitations and guidelines as to how members may or may not act and accomplish certain things. It also proscribes how the leaders of the church may or may not authorize certain things that are of direct interest to general members.

It already has a limited distribution. That is what you all are complaining about. Ask any good lawyer how these things often spiral out of control.

Posted

[i have access to CHI book 1] legitimately, I am not going to say what calling [i have] because I don't want my postings here to reflect upon my calling or vice versa

What would be wrong about your postings here "reflect[ing] upon [your] calling." Or with "[your] calling reflect[ing] upon your postings here?"

I'm a bishop of four years and counting, and I'm trying to see a member of a stake presidency or bishopric (those with legitimate access to book 1) posting as you do, and it just doesn't add up to me.

It does tend to further add to the blowback you received about "transparency," in my view. You won't even post your calling on an anonymous message board while using a pseudonym.

Posted

What would be wrong about your postings here "reflect[ing] upon [your] calling." Or with "[your] calling reflect[ing] upon your postings here?"

I'm a bishop of four years and counting, and I'm trying to see a member of a stake presidency or bishopric (those with legitimate access to book 1) posting as you do, and it just doesn't add up to me.

It does tend to further add to the blowback you received about "transparency," in my view. You won't even post your calling on an anonymous message board while using a pseudonym.

Does seem a little odd doesn't it?

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...