Rollo Tomasi wrote:I won't post a link to avoid Shades' getting into trouble, but download it while you can (the pdf copy is not the best, but it is legible) before the Church's legal bulldogs get an injunction. Enjoy!
.
.
....
BUMP for those who haven't seen this yet.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
bcspace wrote: In other words, a lot of these are for people who can't govern themselves to the extent they must ask for guidance. There is no doctrine on the matter but the Church's opinion is such and such. If there was an actual doctrine about getting a vasectomy, I think it would be printed in a manual don't you?
No. Besides printing it in a manual doesn't make it doctrine, now does it BC?
I think it is wrong for the church to feel the need to hide the CHI, and more wrong that it is leaked and even more wrong that people use it against church.
Elective sterilization is covered by DMBA (church benefit administrators) for church employees if one of two conditions are met (1) the couple has 5 or more living children or (2) the wife is age 40 or older. Mine was pre-approved with minimal difficulty. One person thought both conditions needed to be met. When I pressed it with a supervisor it was clarified as one condition needing to be met.
Zippy Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:52 pm
When the church has you over a barrel, financially, free agency isn't anywhere in site. Teach them correct principles - but then go ahead and make the choice for them anyway . Don't church employees also have tithing extracted directly from their pay checks, whether or not they feel inclined to tithe or what the individual has come to determine what THEY consider is their increase?
I don't expect to see same-sex marriage in Utah within my lifetime. - Scott Lloyd, Oct 23 2013
Imwashingmypirate wrote:I think it is wrong for the church to feel the need to hide the CHI, and more wrong that it is leaked and even more wrong that people use it against church.
Pirate, if someone uses the CHI against the church, they are well within their right to. Moreso, the publication of the 2006 CHI will give legal help to those who previously had to attach a legal disclaimer to their citations from the 1999 CHI.
By Wikileaks publishing this they are giving hope to those who have been disenfranchised, molested, cheated and generally crapped upon by MormonCorp.
And crawling on the planet's face Some insects called the human race Lost in time And lost in space...and meaning
Mercury wrote:By Wikileaks publishing this they are giving hope to those who have been disenfranchised, molested, cheated and generally crapped upon by MormonCorp.
Hope? How?
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Mercury wrote:By Wikileaks publishing this they are giving hope to those who have been disenfranchised, molested, cheated and generally crapped upon by MormonCorp.
Hope? How?
Maybe not for the church but hope to those that have been wronged by it.
You can't be that stupid.
And crawling on the planet's face Some insects called the human race Lost in time And lost in space...and meaning
Mercury wrote:Maybe not for the church but hope to those that have been wronged by it.
You can't be that stupid.
Exactly what hope does it give them? What do you expect them to do exactly with this new information?
I can't see how it gives hope to anyone.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
. Don't church employees also have tithing extracted directly from their pay checks, whether or not they feel inclined to tithe or what the individual has come to determine what THEY consider is their increase?