Part One--Lose lose scenario -- Mamusz' Restoration Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 22:30:18 09/18/11 Sun
Author: Lois
Subject: Part One--Lose lose scenario
In reply to: George 's message, "Silencing of Richard Price -- Part One" on 12:21:27 09/18/11 Sun

(Lois) This is the game. First O.C. Hinson berates Richard Price for not going directly to the leadership, First Presidency, and asking them directly about the things they write and say. I have sure heard that very argument on the boards myself. "How dare you quote these people, you must go talk with them first."
------

O.C>. Well, Richard from your perspective, (2) but as I understand it, you've never gone to any one of these men and asked them a question.(3) (4) What you have done is you have taken what you...'ve found from something they have said and written and given it an interpretation to it according to your own personal point of view. I think there's where part of this business comes in...the polarization that I'm talking about.

RICHARD Do you think that if I went and talked to them that they would see it differently and that they would change their, uh, course and, uh, their, uh, beliefs, their ...what they're printing.
-------

(Lois) Then later on O.C. Hinson lets Richard Price know that he wouldn�t be allowed to talk to the leaders anyway because everything �has to go through channels�.
-------

O.C>. . . .Presidency have stated or have expressed as direction for the church, it isn't that the Presidency call that man and ask him to come in. They don't have a tendency to do that. Uh, they don't defend themselves. That's not been their general policy. On rare occasion they might, but that is not their general policy. If anybody is going to test the water in that particular area, or if anybody really feels that they've got a case, they, the administrator closest to the situation, is the person who deals with that.

RICHARD All right

O.C> Now, that will eventually, of course, go back to the First Presidency through the channels. But it doesn't go direct from the person out here directly to the First Presidency.
------

Do you see the game being played?

Submitted by Lois

PAPER #5,The First Presidency (of Community of Christ), January 9, 1979, 4:15 p.m.
COPING WITH CONFLICTING MESSAGES
It seems that it is difficult for persons who feel compelled to express their divergent views to discriminate between the lawful powers given to the First Presidency for the sake of the church and the privilege they have as individual members of the church to express their point of view. There certainly must be opportunity to express dissent and dissatisfaction and this should be done directly with the officer or officers involved. The First Presidency are willing to give a hearing to responsible criticism. Members do not have a right, however to directly circularize the church with a point of view or style which conflicts with the program emphasis being presented to the church.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: Part One--Lose lose scenario -- George, 23:16:16 09/18/11 Sun