Can a District trump TV?

[triumphant1]

Ok...I asked this on another thread to no avail.

The Oklahoma District has had a resolution in its official by-law manual that says something to the effect of, "The OK Dist prohibits the use of TV for the propagation of the kingdom of God." This has been a part of the district policy since the late 70's.

I know that a district cannot pass a bylaw that contradicts the manual such as: "Be it known that the ***** District allows the use of the titles Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as an acceptable mode of baptism and does not encourage the re-baptism of trinitarian Christians".

BUT....there is a reason the OK Dist passed a by-law prohibiting TV. At the time this by-law was passed there was already in place a national prohibition. So why would they bother--seeing that there is no other holiness issue or prohibition mentioned in the Ok district manual with the exception of yout camp guidelines...all other standard issues that are covered in the national manual find no companion resolution in the OK manual...

My question now: Does a district policy like a prohibition against the use of TV trump a national allowance if the said policy doesn't actually "contradict" the national one?

For instance: If the national manual says you MUST use TV then a district prohibition would be in contridiction. But since the national policy gives the option to use TV or not, would a District have the right to say, "No TV in this District?"

And is this in fact the reason the OK District set this policy 30 years ago just in case KP and MH won?

Can someone check this out that has some parlimentary friends in the Organization?

[triumphant1]

One other question: If not, then would the OK District have to amend their policy as a result of a national yes vote?

Now that will be very interesting if that is the case....the OK District voting to rescend a 30 year district prohibition against the use of TV...

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by triumphant1

Ok...I asked this on another thread to no avail.

The Oklahoma District has had a resolution in its official by-law manual that says something to the effect of, "The OK Dist prohibits the use of TV for the propagation of the kingdom of God." This has been a part of the district policy since the late 70's.

I know that a district cannot pass a bylaw that contradicts the manual such as: "Be it known that the ***** District allows the use of the titles Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as an acceptable mode of baptism and does not encourage the re-baptism of trinitarian Christians".

BUT....there is a reason the OK Dist passed a by-law prohibiting TV. At the time this by-law was passed there was already in place a national prohibition. So why would they bother--seeing that there is no other holiness issue or prohibition mentioned in the Ok district manual with the exception of yout camp guidelines...all other standard issues that are covered in the national manual find no companion resolution in the OK manual...

My question now: Does a district policy like a prohibition against the use of TV trump a national allowance if the said policy doesn't actually "contradict" the national one?

For instance: If the national manual says you MUST use TV then a district prohibition would be in contridiction. But since the national policy gives the option to use TV or not, would a District have the right to say, "No TV in this District?"

And is this in fact the reason the OK District set this policy 30 years ago just in case KP and MH won?

Can someone check this out that has some parlimentary friends in the Organization?

I believe the Western Distrinct has taken an official stand against Video. This is why none of our official meetings are recorded on video or broadcast over the internet

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by triumphant1

Ok...I asked this on another thread to no avail.

The Oklahoma District has had a resolution in its official by-law manual that says something to the effect of, "The OK Dist prohibits the use of TV for the propagation of the kingdom of God." This has been a part of the district policy since the late 70's.

I know that a district cannot pass a bylaw that contradicts the manual such as: "Be it known that the ***** District allows the use of the titles Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as an acceptable mode of baptism and does not encourage the re-baptism of trinitarian Christians".

BUT....there is a reason the OK Dist passed a by-law prohibiting TV. At the time this by-law was passed there was already in place a national prohibition. So why would they bother--seeing that there is no other holiness issue or prohibition mentioned in the Ok district manual with the exception of yout camp guidelines...all other standard issues that are covered in the national manual find no companion resolution in the OK manual...

My question now: Does a district policy like a prohibition against the use of TV trump a national allowance if the said policy doesn't actually "contradict" the national one?

For instance: If the national manual says you MUST use TV then a district prohibition would be in contridiction. But since the national policy gives the option to use TV or not, would a District have the right to say, "No TV in this District?"

And is this in fact the reason the OK District set this policy 30 years ago just in case KP and MH won?

Can someone check this out that has some parlimentary friends in the Organization?

Originally Posted by triumphant1

One other question: If not, then would the OK District have to amend their policy as a result of a national yes vote?

Now that will be very interesting if that is the case....the OK District voting to rescend a 30 year district prohibition against the use of TV...

Great questions! It seems that in the UPC that the local church Trumps all. Though not sure if that is the accually way it would go, but it seems as if the local church does what it wants to. (i.e. going way conservative) I know that there are churches out here in the UPC that does nothing but vote for officials and they do not give to missions unless it is one of "their" own missionaries. That is sad, but to me it seems that is how the local church does it so I would think that the specific district would try and override it. That is assuming that the organization would not pull out if tv was "made legal."

I know for example that there are places over seas like UPC Burma that a friend of mine is licensed with cause he from there and they do not make their ministers do an affirmation. They can go to movies and follow the belief of standards of dress does not send you to heaven. They are much more lacked than the mainland UPC. I have heard of this stuff happening like the Australia Tv thing mentioned on Aff before. So you never know....

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I believe the Western Distrinct has taken an official stand against Video. This is why none of our official meetings are recorded on video or broadcast over the internet

That is because they are weird!

[The Closer]

Originally Posted by triumphant1

Ok...I asked this on another thread to no avail.

The Oklahoma District has had a resolution in its official by-law manual that says something to the effect of, "The OK Dist prohibits the use of TV for the propagation of the kingdom of God." This has been a part of the district policy since the late 70's.

I know that a district cannot pass a bylaw that contradicts the manual such as: "Be it known that the ***** District allows the use of the titles Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as an acceptable mode of baptism and does not encourage the re-baptism of trinitarian Christians".

BUT....there is a reason the OK Dist passed a by-law prohibiting TV. At the time this by-law was passed there was already in place a national prohibition. So why would they bother--seeing that there is no other holiness issue or prohibition mentioned in the Ok district manual with the exception of yout camp guidelines...all other standard issues that are covered in the national manual find no companion resolution in the OK manual...

My question now: Does a district policy like a prohibition against the use of TV trump a national allowance if the said policy doesn't actually "contradict" the national one?

For instance: If the national manual says you MUST use TV then a district prohibition would be in contridiction. But since the national policy gives the option to use TV or not, would a District have the right to say, "No TV in this District?"

And is this in fact the reason the OK District set this policy 30 years ago just in case KP and MH won?

Can someone check this out that has some parlimentary friends in the Organization?

Lets see, from what I have been able to see, you are not in the organization here in Oklahoma, so really it would not matter to you and really would be none of your business in any way. I am sure that you will have some kind of twisted logic that makes it your business, but when you sent in the card, then the business of the Oklahoma District became none of yours, so what is the purpose of the question?

[Hesetmefree238]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I believe the Western Distrinct has taken an official stand against Video. This is why none of our official meetings are recorded on video or broadcast over the internet

You've got to be kidding me.

[Hesetmefree238]

Originally Posted by The Closer

Lets see, from what I have been able to see, you are not in the organization here in Oklahoma, so really it would not matter to you and really would be none of your business in any way. I am sure that you will have some kind of twisted logic that makes it your business, but when you sent in the card, then the business of the Oklahoma District became none of yours, so what is the purpose of the question?

I believe he just asked a simple question, and it's a legitimate question.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by The Closer

Lets see, from what I have been able to see, you are not in the organization here in Oklahoma, so really it would not matter to you and really would be none of your business in any way. I am sure that you will have some kind of twisted logic that makes it your business, but when you sent in the card, then the business of the Oklahoma District became none of yours, so what is the purpose of the question?

Oh brother....get a life. Nobody has to be in an organization to ASk questions about it, they certainly don't need anyone else permission.

[The Closer]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Oh brother....get a life. Nobody has to be in an organization to ASk questions about it, they certainly don't need anyone else permission.

Most of the time I might agree with you, but when you are one who has made it so very clear that the district and organization is so far out of it, then you need to learn to leave it alone, and you sir are the one who needs to get a life.