Agree Or Disagree: Church Handbook Of Instructions: Book 1

[KevinG]

Oh, I was speaking as a nonLDS member.

Sorry - I can't speak for all Bishops but I suspect if you have a policy question many would be willing to share that information with you.

There is always the option of being Baptized. Stay active and you will probably get sucked into a leadership position sooner or later.

[seriously honestly]

Sorry - I can't speak for all Bishops but I suspect if you have a policy question many would be willing to share that information with you.

There is always the option of being Baptized. Stay active and you will probably get sucked into a leadership position sooner or later.

Haha...no, thanks. I was born and raised LDS but left 6 years ago when I was 18 (if someone wanted to get technical about it, they could say I'm just "inactive" since my name is still on membership records, but for all intent and purposes, I'm a former member). Up unitl just recently my dad served as the ward clerk and I was able to ask him questions, but I like the idea of having a handbook to look through at will.

[selek1]

Haha...no, thanks. I was born and raised LDS but left 6 years ago when I was 18 (if someone wanted to get technical about it, they could say I'm just "inactive" since my name is still on membership records, but for all intent and purposes, I'm a former member). Up unitl just recently my dad served as the ward clerk and I was able to ask him questions, but I like the idea of having a handbook to look through at will.

Then of what possible use is the CHI to you?

As a former-believer, you are neither bound by the Church's instructions, nor do you have a vested interest in what the Church demands of its people or leaders.

When I was in the Navy, I was bound by the Universal Code of Military Justice, and was legally and morally entitled to know what it contained. As an honorably discharged veteran, I have no need to be aware of what's in the UCMJ nor to demand unrestricted access to the same.

Other than a prurient and perhaps academic interest, what possible need would you have to unrestricted access to the Church's internal leadership regulations?

[KevinG]

Other than a prurient and perhaps academic interest, what possible need would you have to unrestricted access to the Church's internal leadership regulations?

Thanksgiving discussions with the family?

[selek1]

Haha...no, thanks. I was born and raised LDS but left 6 years ago when I was 18 (if someone wanted to get technical about it, they could say I'm just "inactive" since my name is still on membership records, but for all intent and purposes, I'm a former member). Up unitl just recently my dad served as the ward clerk and I was able to ask him questions, but I like the idea of having a handbook to look through at will.

When I worked for USWest/Qwest/Century Link, I was subject to their rules and guidelines and therefore had both right to need and know the company's proprietary internal guidelines and instructions.

Now that I work elsewhere, I have neither the need nor the right to that information.

It would do me no good- and I would have no conceivable legitimate reason to demand "unrestricted" access.

How are the Church's operating instructions any different?

Don't misunderstand me....I believe the members (and prospective members) should have access through their Priesthood leaders.

I simply can't conceive of a legitimate reason why an unrepentant former-member or non-member could or should be entitled to the same.

[selek1]

Thanksgiving discussions with the family?

Perhaps its because members of my family are almost invariably hot-headed and well-armed, but as a rule we avoid discussing contentious religious issues such as Coke/Pepsi, politics, or football over Thanskgiving dinner.

The last time we tried something like that, the Southern Branch of the family put it in the history books as "The War of Northern Aggression."

[Mark Beesley]

How do I have access to the first CHI?

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.

Really, in this day and age there is nothing that you can't find on the Internet. Part of the reason the Church put Part 2 online is because the brethren knew that it would become avaliable online anyway, just like the old handbook was. They surely are aware that Part 1 would be available as well, but decided for some reason or other not to put that on the Church site. Anyway, if you really want to read what's in Part 1, it's out there.

[selek1]

Seriously Honestly,

I want to clarify one more thing....

I might have come across as personally hostile or dismissive in my earlier posts. I want you to know that I have nothing but the highest personal regard for you.

I'd intended that my statements address the general/clincal "you" rather than any specific person.

I don't believe I hit that mark as squarely as I'd intended.

[Cobalt-70]

You make a good point here. I wonder if there would be a temptation on the part of some members to try and "self counsel" if they had the handbook in situations where a discussion with an ecclesiastical leader would provide more support.

Here's the problem: what if I have no idea that something is in the manuals, so that I wouldn't know whether or not to ask my bishop about it? For example, some people might not even think about asking their Bishop whether they can be cremated after they die, whether they can ask a general authority for an autograph, whether a married man can give a married woman friend a ride to church, or whether they can attend a hypnotist show.

[KevinG]

Here's the problem: what if I have no idea that something is in the manuals, so that I wouldn't know whether or not to ask my bishop about it? For example, some people might not even think about asking their Bishop whether they can be cremated after they die, whether they can ask a general authority for an autograph, whether a married man can give a married woman friend a ride to church, or whether they can attend a hypnotist show.

You are pretty safe asking the question if it is or isn't in the manual.

[Cobalt-70]

You are pretty safe asking the question if it is or isn't in the manual.

But as a practical matter, I cannot keep the Bishop's number on my speed-dial and ask him for permission for everything I do. Isn't it better if the church "teaches us correct principles and lets us govern ourselves"?

[sunstoned]

What harm would it cause to make the handbook available to the members? After all it is their tithing that helps run things. The rank and file should have an idea of how things are run. I feel there is too much secrecy (or at least the perception of secrecy) in the church. If you have full disclosure, then there is nothing to hide, and it keeps things honest. It is kind of a built in check system. Would also takes away much of criticism that the church gets. It's kinda like choosing between North Korea and the US system.

Let’s have full discloser on the financials, the history, and how things are run. Let converts and members know what they are getting into. Our conversion numbers might go down, but so would our inactivity rates.

[selek1]

What harm would it cause to make the handbook available to the members?

I believe this thread has already establisged that the members ALREADY have access to the handbook. The question at hand is whether or not they should have unfettered access- or whether its sufficient that they can peruse it essentially on demand through their Priesthood authorities..

After all it is their tithing that helps run things.

Other than the implication of Mormons being witless dupes, of shadowy conspiracies and secret dealings made in the dark of night in smoke-filled rooms off-limits to "normal" Mormons, I honestly can't think of any way this observation relates to the subject at hand.

The rank and file should have an idea of how things are run.

Do you have any substantive evidence which suggests that the rank-and-file DO NOT know how things are run- let alone that they are actively prevented from knowing? I, for one, would love to see such evidence. It would go a long way towards substantiating a lot of anti-Mormon rhetoric that has- thus far- been delightfully fact free.

I feel there is too much secrecy (or at least the perception of secrecy) in the church.

We thank you for your opinion- but it has already been established that members DO and should have access to the CHI.

What else then (and yes, I know I'm opening the door to the usual greivance litany) would you like to see exposed to public review? Disciplinary hearings, perhaps? Confessionals between ward members and their Bishop? The menu at the cafeteria at the super-secret, Apostle-only cafeteria at the COB? The number of pairs of socks that President Monson takes on a trip? The ingredients list to President Uchtdorf's secret teeth-brightening cream?

In point of fact, the rank-and-file seem largely content with how things are being done. Why then the demand for change?

If you have full disclosure, then there is nothing to hide, and it keeps things honest. It is kind of a built in check system.

Yep. Saw that one coming. The war cry of every police state is: "If you have nothing to hide then you can't possibly object to our searching you."

It's amazing how readily people forget the principle of "Innocent until proven guilty" and the dictum against unreasonable searches when it comes to their favorite hobby horses.

In point of fact, neither you nor any other critic of the CHurch has any substantive evidence of wrong-doing. But that's not enough to stop you from demanding the right to comb through Tommy Monson's sock drawer in the hopes of finding something "incriminating".

Would also takes away much of criticism that the church gets.

I doubt it. The recent trailer park kerfuffle over Monson's alleged lies in General Conference is quite sufficient to show that no amount of reason or rationale thought is sufficient to satisfy those who lust to undermine a/o destroy the Church and its leaders.

It's a fact of life- "haters gonna hate".

Criticism of the CHurch has been amply demontrated to be a bottomless well of poison. No matter how many criticisms have been taken away, the haters always come up with more.

It's kinda like choosing between North Korea and the US system.

Thank you for the Godwin's law violation. I think the hyperbolic and inflammatory comparison demonstrates quite clearly where your bias lies.

Let’s have full discloser on the financials, the history, and how things are run.

We already have two out of the three. To say otherwise is to engage in the usual rhetoric of which anti-Mormons are so fond and of the very revisionist history of which they accuse us.

As to the third- the financials- we have the reports of indendent auditors and the oversight of the state and Federal governments to assure us that things are being handled in a legal and responsible fashion- and that seems to be enough for the rank-and-file faithful.

Let converts and members know what they are getting into. Our conversion numbers might go down, but so would our inactivity rates.

Uh-huh. Do you have any facts to back up the allegation that the Church does otherwise?

[Cobalt-70]

I believe this thread has already establisged that the members ALREADY have access to the handbook. The question at hand is whether or not they should have unfettered access- or whether its sufficient that they can peruse it essentially on demand through their Priesthood authorities..

I don't think that is established. The manual itself says that is not to be given to anyone other than general and local church officers.

[selek1]

I don't think that is established. The manual itself says that is not to be given to anyone other than general and local church officers.

There is no small difference between having access to the manual, and ownership of a copy of the manual.

No one can reasonably conclude that I don't have access to the latest edition of Jane's Fighting Ships simply because the nearest copy resides in the Reference Section at the Salt Lake Public Library.

It is equally silly to argue that I don't have access to the CHI simply because the nearest copy resides in my Bishop's office.

The posts on this thread have established that members do have access to the Church Handbook of Instructions through their Priesthood leaders- essentially upon demand.

You are apparently arguing for something more.

It is clearly your preference that each member have thier own copy, if that is their wish. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion on the matter.

But that preference for unfettered access does not contradict the simple fact that members ALREADY have access to those materials.

Edited October 14, 2011 by selek1

[Saints Alive]

I just want to point out a few things:

1. is it established that the Bishop has to grant you access to CHI 1? could he refuse? and if he can refuse to show you, is that really access to CHI 1?

2. What would be the harm in providing CHI 1 on LDS.org? is there really anything in the manuel that would harm the church? (the answer is no from what I have read of CHI1.)

3. I think there is a fundamental difference between protecting individuals rights to unwarranted searches and seizures and a members right to access documents governing the organization he/she is a member of

4. Of course you can always ask your bishop for guidance but you don't always think to ask him or know that something is wrong. Riding in the car with a married woman who isn't your spouse is an example, cremation, vasectomies, and hypnosis are also examples where the average member might not know that there is anything wrong and wouldn't even think to ask about.

[seriously honestly]

Then of what possible use is the CHI to you?

As a former-believer, you are neither bound by the Church's instructions, nor do you have a vested interest in what the Church demands of its people or leaders.

When I was in the Navy, I was bound by the Universal Code of Military Justice, and was legally and morally entitled to know what it contained. As an honorably discharged veteran, I have no need to be aware of what's in the UCMJ nor to demand unrestricted access to the same.

Other than a prurient and perhaps academic interest, what possible need would you have to unrestricted access to the Church's internal leadership regulations?

Well like I said, if it is never made public and I don't see it then that's ok. Some of my wanting to see it is a matter of curiosity of something unknown, and some is a just a matter of reference, especially when a non (and never has been) members becomes insistant on something that is blatantly incorrect.

I know I'm not bound to the LDS Church's instructions, but I do still have some vested intrest in the church. It was a huge part of my life, and friends and my family are still very active (exstended family as well). I don't have authority to tell the church what to demand of its members, but I still like to know what's going on and keep up.

[seriously honestly]

Seriously Honestly,

I want to clarify one more thing....

I might have come across as personally hostile or dismissive in my earlier posts. I want you to know that I have nothing but the highest personal regard for you.

I'd intended that my statements address the general/clincal "you" rather than any specific person.

I don't believe I hit that mark as squarely as I'd intended.

No worries, Selek. And your regard is sincerely appreciated

[thesometimesaint]

Saints Alive:

I'm just a regular member of the Church. In my 40 years in the Church, in various Wards and Branches around the US, I've never once been denied access to the CHI in any of its iterations. All I've ever had to do was ask.

The answer is that the CHI is subject to change without notice, and is modifiable on the local basis on the needs of that congregation. IE; A singles Ward has little, to no, need for a Primary. Would you require a Primary for a singles Ward? It's there in the CHI.

You as a member DON'T have the right to the CHI. It is by permission only. That permission is freely given, but by permission none the less.

I've found that the best way to find out something that I don't know is to ask. That goes back to the fact that the CHI is subject to change without notice, and is always subject to the Divine Inspiration of your Bishop or Branch President. IE; In the US we prefer to bury our dead, in Japan not so much.

Edited October 14, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Saints Alive]

Thats all fine and good, how hard would it be to include a disclaimer saying just that in the front of the CHI?(i believe it says something to that effect anyway) You could still provide it openly and still be allowed to have Divine Inspiration. The CHI doesn't have to be the final word but it could give a frame of reference to many members.

[thesometimesaint]

Saints Alive:

The only "Final Word" is what the Spirit tells you to do. You alone are responsible for what you do with that inspiration.

I have no idea as to what that disclaimer would/should be. There already provisions within the CHI that allow for differents needs, being met differently.

The Church, as an established body, has rules on how to form it various subdivisions, conduct its meetings, and general policy statements. Those rules are contained in the CHI. The CHI was never intended nor designed to be the "Final Word" on anything.

[ERayR]

How do I have access to the first CHI?

Why, as a non-LDS would you have any interest in the CHI?

[ERayR]

The rank and file should have an idea of how things are run.

It is the rank and file who run things. They are the priesthood quorum leaders. They are the relief society leaders. They are the primary leaders. They are the young men and young womens organization leaders. They go over at least one section of the "CHI every week. At least in my ward that is how it is done. Every one of them has a copy of the CHI.

[ERayR]

But as a practical matter, I cannot keep the Bishop's number on my speed-dial and ask him for permission for everything I do. Isn't it better if the church "teaches us correct principles and lets us govern ourselves"?

The Church does teach correct principles. They come from The Bible, The Book of Mormon and The Pearl of Great Price not from the CHI.

[rongo]

I have no idea as to what that disclaimer would/should be. There already provisions within the CHI that allow for differents needs, being met differently . . . The CHI was never intended nor designed to be the "Final Word" on anything.

This is important. *Nothing* in the handbooks are set in stone in a canonical way that cannot be overruled by priesthood keys.

This has been an issue in my stake recently. I'm a bishop, and there was an interpretive disagreement regarding book 1 between me and the two counselors in the stake presidency. The stake president agreed with me, but acquiesced to his counselors in the name of "domestic tranquility." Which resolved the issue, once he definitively spoke on that. In the course of communicating about this, I noted that even where the handbook is much more explicit than in our particular disagreement, there are exceptions (e.g., men being sealed to more than one living woman, women being sealed to more than one man, etc.). I pointed out that they were aware of this because of succesful applications to the First Presidency from our stake (and from my ward) that they were aware of. In other words, even where the handbook say something cannot be done, the First Presidency can and does grant exceptions. What matters is not the handbook engraved on stone tablets, but the proper priesthood authority acting in its station in applying the handbook in its ministry in its area.