I don't know your actions beyond this board which is why I said if you are taking a stand you have my respect. If all you are doing is taking the position that this policy is bad which is the overwhelming position of just about everyone, member and nonmember alike, don't come on here and say "see, I was against it the entire time". The majority is against it. No brownie points for just being against it.
I am not sure what it would take for people to even begrudgingly admit what Mak is doing goes well beyond this board.
He works at the COB, he posts here under his own name, and how simple would be for anyone with a grudge against him to draw attention to the public statement he just made to one of his superiors?
Comparing him to any other member against this policy fails to take into account his employment.
I don't know your actions beyond this board which is why I said if you are taking a stand you have my respect. If all you are doing is taking the position that this policy is bad which is the overwhelming position of just about everyone, member and nonmember alike, don't come on here and say "see, I was against it the entire time". The majority is against it. No brownie points for just being against it.
I am not sure what it would take for people to even begrudgingly admit what Mak is doing goes well beyond this board.
He works at the COB, he posts here under his own name, and how simple would be for anyone with a grudge against him to draw attention to the public statement he just made to one of his superiors?
Comparing him to any other member against this policy fails to take into account his employment.
Kudos Mak
There is no way his employment is at risk. Could you imagine the second round of bad PR for the church firing someone for being against this policy let alone the lawsuit the church would face. He has no risk and any perceived risk is made up. Hell, I wish I worked for the church and got fired over this. I'd be laughing all the way to the bank. Maybe this is Mak's retirement plan.
What lawsuit? Church fires him for publicly contradicting the brethren, after pulling his temple recommend, a conditon upon which his employment is contingent.
This is the joy of working for a religious organization in the US.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.
Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality. ~Bill Hamblin
You are just posting that you find this policy troubling, harmful, and not divinely inspired because you just want to have a fall-back position for yourself. A safety net for Mak. It's all about you. It always is.
I don't buy anything you have posted in this thread! How can I be certain that it's even you posting it? Show me all of your personal discussions that you have had over the last 8 days.
Post pictures of you, your wife, and your children having these discussions that you claim you had.
I ain't buying any of the BS you're tossing around!
Post your bank statements, you coward!
Show the board you Facebook messages! Go ahead - we are waiting.
I call BS on you, your entire posting history here and I call BS on your existence.
And - why did it take you 5 days to come and answer MDB's question? I find that to be pretty "convenient".
Pathetic!
You suck!
Peace, Ceeboo
All you have to do is take the popular position on a controversial subject to gain the respect of anonymous posters that also have this same position? Got it.
Sanctorian wrote:There is no way his employment is at risk. Could you imagine the second round of bad PR for the church firing someone for being against this policy let alone the lawsuit the church would face. He has no risk and any perceived risk is made up. Hell, I wish I worked for the church and got fired over this. I'd be laughing all the way to the bank. Maybe this is Mak's retirement plan.
You haven't the foggiest idea whatsoever what you're talking about.
Sanctorian wrote:member and nonmember alike, don't come on here and say "see, I was against it the entire time". The majority is against it. No brownie points for just being against it.
Do you have some suggestions for me of what I might do. I jumped on Mak in my frustration for a minute ... didn't help.
its typically me that has thoughts fly right over my head.
SteelHead wrote:What lawsuit? Church fires him for publicly contradicting the brethren, after pulling his temple recommend, a conditon upon which his employment is contingent.
This is the joy of working for a religious organization in the US.
A lawsuit can be filed for just about anything. I'm not suggestion a winner on either side based on the law, but a settlement out of court can still do the bank account wonders.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Nov 11, 2015 4:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sanctorian wrote:There is no way his employment is at risk. Could you imagine the second round of bad PR for the church firing someone for being against this policy let alone the lawsuit the church would face. He has no risk and any perceived risk is made up. Hell, I wish I worked for the church and got fired over this. I'd be laughing all the way to the bank. Maybe this is Mak's retirement plan.
You haven't the foggiest idea whatsoever what you're talking about.
Oh please. Try putting your neck out there and then we'll talk.
Sanctorian wrote: All you have to do is take the popular position on a controversial subject to gain the respect of anonymous posters that also have this same position? Got it.
Forgive me for having to point this out to you - but - you seem to be having serious trouble grasping even the most basic understanding of an enormously complex scenario.
Sanctorian wrote: There is no way his employment is at risk. Could you imagine the second round of bad PR for the church firing someone for being against this policy let alone the lawsuit the church would face. He has no risk and any perceived risk is made up. Hell, I wish I worked for the church and got fired over this. I'd be laughing all the way to the bank. Maybe this is Mak's retirement plan.
Given the Church is digging in its heels on this, it is abundantly clear they are not concerned with bad PR. And who says they have to fire him over his statement to punish him? His boss could simply stop giving him good opportunities and make his workplace more difficult in a variety of ways. He also faces the disapproval of coworkers who will not agree with and approve of him making a public statement.
Firing him isn't the only consequence he can face.
It is pretty clear you are just looking for ways to condemn him in spite of the fact he has taken a public stance against his own employer.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
All you have to do is take the popular position on a controversial subject to gain the respect of anonymous posters that also have this same position? Got it.