Neighborhood leader "invited" to fall into line

[_zeezrom]

Being invited in this context says the following to me:

"We don't want you to continue on your current path. We want you to go a different way. We believe our status provides us sufficient authority to make our desires come true, despite any efforts from you. We also believe that you would never dare continue on your current path once you realize we have a different plan and have no intention whatever to modify it. We believe that a polite sounding invitation will look good to the public, so we will invite you to change course. Please change now. Thank you!"

[_harmony]

Being invited in this context says the following to me:

"We don't want you to continue on your current path. We want you to go a different way. We believe our status provides us sufficient authority to make our desires come true, despite any efforts from you. We also believe that you would never dare continue on your current path once you realize we have a different plan and have no intention whatever to modify it. We believe that a polite sounding invitation will look good to the public, so we will invite you to change course. Please change now. Or else.Thank you!"

There. I fixed it for ya, Z.

[_harmony]

Amazing how quickly he rolled over when the letter from the church arrived. I'm guessing not an alpha male

Considering he works for BYU I will give him credit for having the balls to bring it up in the first place. I'll bet the COB was pissed that they even had to waste their time to write a letter to some low life rank and file member. Who the hell did he think he was?

+1

[_harmony]

Heck, even Obama tells you what to do in secular matters. The difference is that the Church does not take away your agency.

Just your eternal salvation ....

Which they have no power or authority to do, but the average member doesn't realize that.

[_malkie]

Being invited in this context says the following to me:

"We don't want you to continue on your current path. We want you to go a different way. We believe our status provides us sufficient authority to make our desires come true, despite any efforts from you. We also believe that you would never dare continue on your current path once you realize we have a different plan and have no intention whatever to modify it. We believe that a polite sounding invitation will look good to the public, so we will invite you to change course. Please change now. Thank you!"

It should probably also say to you that you ought to know better than to blab about this invitation, and should understand that blabbing is almost as bad as refusing the invite. No?

[_bcspace]

Subtly threatening people's employment and their standing in the church is just as coercive as secular law. It's like you have this weird "bc" filter by which information and reasonable discussion turns into gibberish, as long as it supports your beloved institution.

It's more like you have a strange intellectual dishonesty filter. He is an employee who has been engaged in trying to thwart the desire of his employer. Any company would fire such an individual.

[_Bob Loblaw]

It's more like you have a strange intellectual dishonesty filter. He is an employee who has been engaged in trying to thwart the desire of his employer. Any company would fire such an individual.

If his employer made an agreement with him and then reneged on that agreement, he should try to thwart the desire of his company. Once again, blind loyalty and stupidity from you is like death and taxes, one of life's certainties.

[_bcspace]

Heck, even Obama tells you what to do in secular matters. The difference is that the Church does not take away your agency.

As the highest ranking government leader, he presides over secular America. To put this in church terms, he holds the keys to preside over your secular life. Just as you would not expect Obama to meddle in ward callings, you wouldn't want the church meddling over property issues.

Gibberish and non sequitur. The President is sworn to uphold the constitution which allows employers to fire employees who work to thwart them as well as prevents the government from interfering in religious life.

If his employer made an agreement with him and then reneged on that agreement, he should try to thwart the desire of his company.

And he may then suffer the consequences that any employer would reasonable administer such as loss of job. Was there some legally binding agreement? No, there wasn't.

[_Bob Loblaw]

And he may then suffer the consequence that any employer would reasonable administer such as loss of job. Was there some legally binding agreement? No, there wasn't.

That's what I love about the LDS church. As long as a promise isn't "legally binding," they don't have to honor it. Just more evidence of the amorality of that institution and its defenders, like you.

Besides, verbal agreements can be legally binding in some cases. Someone who was fired because his employer violated an agreement would have good grounds for a lawsuit.

[_Dr. Shades]

The biggest mistake here is to think that things can be separated into "strictly secular" or "strictly ecclesiastical". Those are as impossible to separate in the same fashion as religion and politics are impossible to separate.

They're easily separated. Secular matters are those that deal with day-to-day life and have nothing to do with one's salvation, like whether or not you should plant daisies or petunias. Ecclesiastical matters are those that have to do with salvation and nothing to do with life on earth, like whether or not you should conduct Family Home Evening.