DiscussMormonism.com

Posted: **Fri Jun 01, 2012 5:49 pm**

there is a debate on what "formalization institutionally" means.

When an Institution utilizes it membership records, to rally troops to man phone banks and to raise monies; When an institution sends its "executives" to coach and train and when an institution uses its own facilities for said training, etc, And last of all, when the Deputy CEO of an institution issues a call to arms, has this institution demonstrated "formalization institutionally"?

Or,

Do said activities merely evidence rogue "executives" who misappropriating funds, facilities, etc?

Posted: **Fri Jun 01, 2012 6:41 pm**

My guess is that not only were the GA's rogue, they got their stipends docked for doing so much personal work on church time.

They might have even had to personally reemburse the church for use of the statelite system to talk to random people gatherered at Mormon chapels in CA.

They are also being billed for the rental value of the CA chapels for to receive their personal broadcasts and organizing meetings since none of it was church related.

Hit'em in the pocket book. They'll know better next time.

Posted: **Fri Jun 01, 2012 6:45 pm**

To me, this notion of formal involvement began with the church's involvement in Hawaii and Alaska when those states were thinking of adopting same sex marriage laws.

Fighting gay marriage has been on the church's agenda for several years now. Prop 8 in California was merely the latest. They learned their lesson in Hawaii and Alaska and chose a different route with Prop 8. I.e, the membership being rallied to support the measure.

Did anyone else ever see this memo to Ballard discussing strategy to fight SSM? It's from 1997.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/0 ... DS-Church-

DiscussMormonism.com

Formalization Institutionally OR Apostles going rogue.

Formalization Institutionally OR Apostles going rogue.

Re: Formalization Institutionally OR Apostles going rogue.

Re: Formalization Institutionally OR Apostles going rogue.