Why is the Manual of Instructions not public?

[Aquilifer]

It's my understanding that it isn't made public because it is a procedural manual for people who have specific responsibilities in running the Church. But many of these "procedures" are carried out under inspiration. Perhaps one downside to making it more available to Church members would be that Church members would turn to the CHI for answers and guidance instead of talking to their Bishop.

But the downside of keeping it private is that there may be things in there that members inadvertently disregard because they don't even know there's a policy! For example, I've had several post-vasectomy friends express surprise (and amusement) when they find out that there is actually counsel in the CHI about such an operation. They didn't even know to ask because it's never taught, and only mentioned in a manual they haven't read.

These are my two biggest arguments for and against keeping the CHI under wraps. There's a balancing act, and when faced with balancing the Church will always veer towards what it sees as the safer option. I can get on board with that without much problem, but how can you hold anyone responsible for violating a policy that they didn't know about? That's a wee unfair.

What good is a policy that no one knows about? Seems like the proverbial tree falling in the forest with no one around to hear it.

[ERayR]

These are my two biggest arguments for and against keeping the CHI under wraps. There's a balancing act, and when faced with balancing the Church will always veer towards what it sees as the safer option. I can get on board with that without much problem, but how can you hold anyone responsible for violating a policy that they didn't know about? That's a wee unfair.

What good is a policy that no one knows about? Seems like the proverbial tree falling in the forest with no one around to hear it.

First who is holding who resposible for what? A litle hyperbolic don't you think? I have never seen a church disciplinary council convened for a vasectomy.

[BCSpace]

The issue is, why to hide it at all?

So people don't become given to second guessing the Bishop or Stake Pres. etc. There are many guidelines and some absolutes but yet the leadership has leeway to judge on a case by case basis. For example, if something is "strongly discouraged", it doesn't mean that it can't be done at all or righteously justified.

[Malc]

The issue is, why to hide it at all?

So people don't become given to second guessing the Bishop or Stake Pres. etc. There are many guidelines and some absolutes but yet the leadership has leeway to judge on a case by case basis. For example, if something is "strongly discouraged", it doesn't mean that it can't be done at all or righteously justified.

Is it the second guessing that is the problem, or is it allowing members to know about actions that are strongly discouraged by the church?

If the former, why not simply publish the descriptions of such actions without publishing instructions to Bishops and Stake Presidents etc? Perhaps that would overcome some of the objections to the "secrecy" while avoiding some of the drawbacks of publishing everything. It would also avoid the situation where a member unwittingly does something that s/he later finds out is strongly discouraged. I imagine that some members may become quite distressed to find out after the fact that they have done something that they would have avoided if they had only known earlier.

If the latter, are members not to be trusted with the knowledge of what actions are strongly discouraged?

[ERayR]

Is it the second guessing that is the problem, or is it allowing members to know about actions that are strongly discouraged by the church?

If the former, why not simply publish the descriptions of such actions without publishing instructions to Bishops and Stake Presidents etc? Perhaps that would overcome some of the objections to the "secrecy" while avoiding some of the drawbacks of publishing everything. It would also avoid the situation where a member unwittingly does something that s/he later finds out is strongly discouraged. I imagine that some members may become quite distressed to find out after the fact that they have done something that they would have avoided if they had only known earlier.

If the latter, are members not to be trusted with the knowledge of what actions are strongly discouraged?

How about, it is a book of organization, procedure and instructions for Stake Presidencies and Bishoprics. It is not a book of things that are strongly discouraged. The strongly discouraged come in the form of letters from the First Presidency and are read over the pulpit.

[mfbukowski]

If you ask your leaders to read it, and they refuse and you go up the chain and everyone refuses, then you can return and make all these claims about how it was not available to YOU. But some of the rest of us have asked to read it and done so. So it is tough to understand your argument. The church doesn't see any point in spending the money to give copies to everyone (though a few years ago it did spend the money to publish True to the Faith, which outlines a number of church positions). In addition, the manual is GUIDANCE, and we do believe in personal and institutional revelation within our stewardship, so sometimes leaders don't do what is suggests. Sure it would be easier if the church had an online link to it so that when members wanted to know the official position on cremation or whether you can attend singles before the ink is dry on your divorce papers, you can look it up yourself. But whether that ease outweighs the possible negative uses of the material is another question.

Better yet, let's automate the Bishop.

You go online with your password and fill in some forms. The program automatically gives you the proper advice, authorizes a recommend for you, prints you a food order, or disfellowships you if you answer incorrectly. If you have really messed up, it's excommunication for you! Quick, clean, and without the false mercy you probably don't deserve anyway.

Perfect fairness for everyone! Equality and uniform enforcement of every possible commandment! And everyone will know every guideline, and know exactly what to do in case of an abortion due to incest! What a great idea!

That's the greatest idea since sliced bread!!

What do we need all this middle management for in the first place?

In fact, who needs a prophet? Can you imagine how much tithing money he wastes flying around dedicating temples? All of that could be given to the poor!

[mfbukowski]

I don't see as a justification for keeping the CHOI from people who want it. They are instructions that affects us all and I don't think it is justifiable to keep them from people just to not create stir.

Good. Well you are wasting your time talking to us about this. March yourself straight over to your Bishop's office and demand to see it and tell him that this secrecy is not justified.

None of us can do anything about your fixation with this. I mean one should stick up for one's principles!

[Bernard Gui]

Another reason not to make it available is that it is constantly being updated, changed, revised,

expanded by means of letters to stake presidents and bishoprics. Leaders are to keep track of

the changes by writing them in the manual and passing the it on to their successors.

This avoids constantly printing new editions.

Bernard

[Malc]

How about, it is a book of organization, procedure and instructions for Stake Presidencies and Bishoprics. It is not a book of things that are strongly discouraged. The strongly discouraged come in the form of letters from the First Presidency and are read over the pulpit.

I don't believe that I suggested that it was a "a book of things that are strongly discouraged", only that it has been said (by other posters) that there is information therein about actions that are strongly discouraged.

If I want to strongly discourage something I would try to think of a reliable mechanism to convey to the members what that something is. Simply reading a letter over the pulpit might not do it.

[Malc]

Another reason not to make it available is that it is constantly being updated, changed, revised,

expanded by means of letters to stake presidents and bishoprics. Leaders are to keep track of

the changes by writing them in the manual and passing the it on to their successors.

This avoids constantly printing new editions.

Bernard

Is it the case that actions that are strongly discouraged are "constantly being updated, changed, revised, expanded"?

[Jeff K.]

As I walked out and saw the wet grass early this morning I thought "Much adew about nothing".

[urroner]

[David T]

I have a feeling much of this conversation will be rendered moot when the new revised handbooks are distributed in November, especially if what my Stake President reported to us is true that Book 1 "Stake Presidents and Bishops" is being shrunk down considerably, and Book 2 "Administering the Church", is being designed to be far more expansive, widely distributed and, readily available to members.

[Bernard Gui]

I have a feeling much of this conversation will be rendered moot when the new revised handbooks are distributed in November, especially if what my Stake President reported to us is true that Book 1 "Stake Presidents and Bishops" is being shrunk down considerably, and Book 2 "Administering the Church", is being designed to be far more expansive, widely distributed and, readily available to members.

Amen.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

Is it the case that actions that are strongly discouraged are "constantly being updated, changed, revised, expanded"?

The Handbook is a source of administrative procedures and policies. Of course it changes.

Bernard

[Aquilifer]

First who is holding who resposible for what? A litle hyperbolic don't you think? I have never seen a church disciplinary council convened for a vasectomy.

In the abstract if an organization has X policy, it has the power to hold members responsible for abiding by policy X. Whence a policy without enforcement capability? I don't see that as hyperbolic, I see it as the logical inference of having a handbook full of policies. I've never heard of a council called over a vasectomy either, but I also didn't know that there was a policy regarding vasectomies in the CHI. The things one learns on MADB....

[Aquilifer]

Better yet, let's automate the Bishop.

You go online with your password and fill in some forms. The program automatically gives you the proper advice, authorizes a recommend for you, prints you a food order, or disfellowships you if you answer incorrectly. If you have really messed up, it's excommunication for you! Quick, clean, and without the false mercy you probably don't deserve anyway.

Is there an app for that?

[mfbukowski]

Is there an app for that?

Coming Soon!

[ERMD]

I'll pay double for it than it costs to produce it. Would the Church agree to that?

You can buy anything in this world with money.

[Aquilifer]

You can buy anything in this world with money.

[Jeff K.]

Is there an app for that?

OK, my hat is off to you on that one.

[elguanteloko]

Good. Well you are wasting your time talking to us about this. March yourself straight over to your Bishop's office and demand to see it and tell him that this secrecy is not justified.

None of us can do anything about your fixation with this. I mean one should stick up for one's principles!

I said that "They are instructions that affects us all and I don't think it is justifiable to keep them from people just to not create stir" to make a distinction between someone's very personal bank accounts, etc, and things that pertain to all members of the Church. This information could be of much use for everybody in the Church as to how certain issues are viewed and managed. I am convinced that the number one reason why these things are not released to the general public is to not create stir... but if there is not much to hide, then to hide it seems to me even more problematic. There are many more things in Church's history that create much more discussion than what the HOI could bring about. I find it comparable to not publishing "Preach My Gospel" just because people would realize some things are not being done as the GAs suggested in that manual.

[elguanteloko]

I have a feeling much of this conversation will be rendered moot when the new revised handbooks are distributed in November, especially if what my Stake President reported to us is true that Book 1 "Stake Presidents and Bishops" is being shrunk down considerably, and Book 2 "Administering the Church", is being designed to be far more expansive, widely distributed and, readily available to members.

I sincerely hope that happens.

[elguanteloko]

So people don't become given to second guessing the Bishop or Stake Pres. etc. There are many guidelines and some absolutes but yet the leadership has leeway to judge on a case by case basis. For example, if something is "strongly discouraged", it doesn't mean that it can't be done at all or righteously justified.

Don't you think people are capable of understanding the manual is not an absolute unchanging thing... even when the same handbook says it several times?

[thesometimesaint]

elguanteloko:

Heck, we tell people that about the Scriptures all the time, and they still don't believe us.