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're being unfair. Let's say Mak gets fired and his "retirement plan" (lawsuit) works out. He gets to enjoy a long and wealthy retirement, completely alienated from his family, friends and community - you really think *anyone* would choose that?
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.
Peace, Ceeboo
Really? Here's what I know, real people are struggling with this policy. Some probably will take their lives because of this policy. Families will certainly be torn apart from this policy. Mark supports the church through his employment, tithing and service hours. He says he's against this policy but continues to support the church through his employment, tithing and service hours.
Tell me again how he's taking a stand that will have any influence on the change of this policy?
Fence Sitter wrote: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.
Sanctorian wrote: Oh please. Try putting your neck out there and then we'll talk.
Ahhhh..................... He already has, Sanctorian!
(This is bizarre)
Peace, Ceeboo
I've already stated that if he is taking a stand, he has my respect. He doesn't even need to prove to me that he is taking a stand. Only Mak can answer that question. What I am suggesting is that if his "stand" is merely agreeing with the popular position that it is a bad policy, why give him kudos for that? Mak is a big boy and can answer for his own consciousness. He doesn't have to prove anything to anyone on this board. I'm merely highlighting that we shouldn't give him praise for simply saying something on a board that has no impact one way or the other. His simple statement here does not have any impact on his life or the lives of others.
I'm more of a lurker than a participator here, but I wanted to jump in to say a couple of things.
1. While not always agreeing with his views, I respected mak before this, and his willingness to be public (yes, despite most of our anonymity, he is public here) about his disagreement with this policy greatly increases that respect.
2. It is ridiculous that this thread even exists. When it comes to the Book of Abraham or biblical research or apologetics, sure, start a thread that attacks mak's views, and he can defend his views. But this thread solely exists to attack mak about a policy that he had no input in framing, and, as is obvious, does not reflect his views. Is the point to make him defend the policy, or simply to attempt to belittle him at a time when, like many intellectual Mormons, he's upset about the Church's actions?
3. Unrelated to mak, I'm with Kish. I haven't been active in a while, but this policy is leading me to resign membership. It's a small protest that will be ignored, but a person has to be principled about some things.
Ceeboo wrote: 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.
Peace, Ceeboo
Really?
Yes! Really! - Really!
Here's what I know
What you know is not enough!
And - what you know - is being heavily clouded by your poor vision.
Tell me again how he's taking a stand
I don't need to tell you how he is taking a stand. You can read it for yourself - On this very thread - on more than one occasion.
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're being unfair. Let's say Mak gets fired and his "retirement plan" (lawsuit) works out. He gets to enjoy a long and wealthy retirement, completely alienated from his family, friends and community - you really think *anyone* would choose that?
Seriously? First, Mak would not be alienated from anyone. His taking the position that is already popular. IF the church REALLY fired him, he would have MORE support than he would know what to do with. He hasn't done ANYTHING hard by speaking out against an unpopular policy. The people that are doing hard things are those that are resigning on their own accord and aren't being forced out.
nevazhno wrote:I'm more of a lurker than a participator here, but I wanted to jump in to say a couple of things.
1. While not always agreeing with his views, I respected mak before this, and his willingness to be public (yes, despite most of our anonymity, he is public here) about his disagreement with this policy greatly increases that respect.
2. It is ridiculous that this thread even exists. When it comes to the Book of Abraham or biblical research or apologetics, sure, start a thread that attacks mak's views, and he can defend his views. But this thread solely exists to attack mak about a policy that he had no input in framing, and, as is obvious, does not reflect his views. Is the point to make him defend the policy, or simply to attempt to belittle him at a time when, like many intellectual Mormons, he's upset about the Church's actions?
3. Unrelated to mak, I'm with Kish. I haven't been active in a while, but this policy is leading me to resign membership. It's a small protest that will be ignored, but a person has to be principled about some things.
Your number 3 is what I'm talking about. You deserve respect for that. Mak also deserves respect, but not for his simple statement on this board that has no ramifications to anything. If he really were to lose his job or face some sort of discipline for his statement, then yes, that would be respectable. Until then, he hasn't done anything like your number 3.
Sanctorian wrote: Seriously? First, Mak would not be alienated from anyone. His taking the position that is already popular. IF the church REALLY fired him, he would have MORE support than he would know what to do with. He hasn't done ANYTHING hard by speaking out against an unpopular policy. The people that are doing hard things are those that are resigning on their own accord and aren't being forced out.
So you know Mak's family and extended family, and his church friends and work colleagues, and you can categorically say that he wouldn't be alienated from them by filing a lawsuit against the church?
I don't understand why you're gunning for him. I've got believing family and friends standing up for these changes all over my Facebook feed. I think it's refreshing to see an active member dissenting. I would have found it very difficult to voice dissent when I was an active member.
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.