Originally Posted by Archaea (Post 297569)

My daughter's bf is currently serving in South America, current location disguised to protect the guilty.

Nonetheless, after querying numerous books and mothers of missionaries as to what was proper to send, my daughter sent a package to her missionary bf including small items for the twenty-five days of Christmas. To her great embarrassment and disappointment, the South American mission president opened the bf's mail, confiscated items he deemed according to his own wisdom as "contrary to his undisclosed and personal interpretation of mission rules", so that the bf was to receive only three of the twenty-five items.

The girl's mother is not a wallflower such as the girl's father. The mother went into action calling SLC finding who was in charge and researching the law of the South American country to determine which laws he had broken, and apparently he had broken several. She found the person in charge, a relative of a ward member, btw, and informed him that he, the MP or the Church would replace the items free of charge. Or there would be Hades in North and South America. Knowing her mother like I do, I suggest they pay attention.

Who says women don't govern the Church.

Originally Posted by Archaea (Post 297596)

Funny, I thought the MP's superior was addressed because he ignored his own breach, after the MP was given an opportunity to recant. In a chain of command structure, one usually addresses misdeeds within the chain of command. The camel approach to command failures is a great recipe for success. Just ask George Bush.

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 297618)

Just the fact that you use these terms illustrates the problem.

Originally Posted by Archaea (Post 297619)

You ignore the failings of your own analysis. Classic.

Originally Posted by barnes (Post 297604)

This threads reminds me of when I was a freshman in Heleman Halls. All the males recieved a postcard advertisment for Playboy magazine. I assume the school sells its student list but that list fell through the cracks of its use policy. Anyway, BYU could not remove the ads (because of federal law) from the students mail cubbies in the Cannon Center.

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat (Post 297895)

I'm pretty sure it is common practice for missionaries' mail to be screened at the mission office. Which I think is acceptable in some circumstances. For example, I would find it perfectly acceptable for the office to intercept an obvious love letter from someone within the mission.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters (Post 297897)

???

Laws are laws. Privacy is privacy. You don't go ripping open peoples letters and packages.