The Trouble With Patience

Originally Posted by Ferd

or how about a step futher, any departmental change in structure should first require a vote one year to have a vote the next year.

that way they cant bring a last minute change, but they cannot "work" on the change without everyone knowing what is going on....

Unfortunately a large number of people neither pay attention to difficult issues, nor do that have the brains to keep up with debate.

In the last General Conference, a resolution was introduced from within the Executive Comittee that fits the description that Pastor Poster provided.

The body was free to reject it. It did not. Neither was there any discussion. I was with men who this affected personally and who were very interested in the question who were not favorable to it but who did not debate it. They were aware it was in the works, but did not have an suffcient argument against it. If there were more time to consider it apart from some details of who would fill the office, etc., surely it would have been seen even more favorably by the larger body.

People inside the organization who are departmentally conntected always have opinions and very distinct views on these matters but that does not mean that a legal introduction of legislation is, in and of itself, wrong.

I would hate to entertain the idea that government needs to be changed, just because things happened as a result of due process that we did not personally appreciate.

The formation of the Division of Publication was a good idea, in my view. Some did not like how it occured, and know personalities involved which color their thinking on the matter. Still, if General Superintendent Kenneth Haney is to be commended for organizational restructuring, even if every financial detail were not glistening with profitability, then this executive movement is also commendable. Having our publications all under single leadership is a very good idea.