Question On The Handbook Of Instructions

[Meadowchik]

Since the Handbook of Instructions is not actual study material for all Church members, how are LDS faithful able to be accountable to it?

 

I've wondered this since over the years I've seen people refer to the Handbook when answering some sticky questions.  For example, it says that a husband and wife should, along with their doctor, consult with their bishop and prayerfully consider their choice regarding sterilisation.  However, what if they've never thought to go to the bishop about such a thing in the first place?  What if neither of them has been in a position to read (or for that matter, remember) the handbook?

 

It seems to me that the bishop and other leaders are given the Handbook as a guide in their pastoral leadership.  It's counsel they use to counsel.

 

So, do you think that such moral instructions in the handbook are only intended for those who seek out counsel from the bishop or whose issues are made known to him, or is it the bishop's responsibility to stay close enough to his members that he can provide these instructions at the moment they are needed?  Or something else?

 

Anyways, I think this is an interesting little leadership/membership issue.

 

Your opining is welcomed.

[HappyJackWagon]

You're exactly right. Of course Book 2 is available for everyone to read but Book 1 which is meant for bishoprics and stake presidencies are only available to those leaders. So can you be held accountable for not speaking with a leader to get their opinion about sterilization? Nope. You can't be held accountable for what leaders fail to teach you. Think about how weird that instruction to consult a priesthood leader about something like a vasectomy is.

 

Most people simply don't ask and leaders don't share because I don't think most of them want to counsel on such things any way.

 

The thing that worries me about the lack of transparency of handbook 1 to the entire membership is that leaders aren't accountable. A leader could say something like "The handbook teaches that you should never have a vasectomy." While it is true the handbook "discourages" a vasectomy, it is wrong to suggest that you should never have one. So this allows for a significant increase in leadership roullette. Different leaders interpret the instructions differently and the members are largely unaware of the instructions to even know what to ask or challenge.

[Meadowchik]

You're exactly right. Of course Book 2 is available for everyone to read but Book 1 which is meant for bishoprics and stake presidencies are only available to those leaders. So can you be held accountable for not speaking with a leader to get their opinion about sterilization? Nope. You can't be held accountable for what leaders fail to teach you. Think about how weird that instruction to consult a priesthood leader about something like a vasectomy is.

 

Most people simply don't ask and leaders don't share because I don't think most of them want to counsel on such things any way.

 

The thing that worries me about the lack of transparency of handbook 1 to the entire membership is that leaders aren't accountable. A leader could say something like "The handbook teaches that you should never have a vasectomy." While it is true the handbook "discourages" a vasectomy, it is wrong to suggest that you should never have one. So this allows for a significant increase in leadership roullette. Different leaders interpret the instructions differently and the members are largely unaware of the instructions to even know what to ask or challenge.

 

The bolded was something I hadn't even considered. Yes, that would be unfortunate when a leader misinterprets the Handbook, and could be quite painful for those he so instructs.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Meadowchik

[Buckeye]

Interestingly enough, in the few weeks I've noticed that some sections of Handbook 2 can only be viewed if I log in with my LDS account. I haven't researched when this practice began and which sections are now permission-only, but it is a little odd. 

[Kenngo1969]

You're right that we're accountable only for what we know.  In my view, the Church Handbook of Instructions exists so that our leaders will know how to counsel us on certain matters if we seek their counsel.  On the other hand, having been in charge of a bishop's schedule, I can tell you that if members were to seek a bishop's counsel on every personal or sensitive matter, and if the bishop were unwisely disposed to dispense such counsel in every instance in which it is sought, he'd better be prepared to quit his job, kiss his family goodbye for several years, and live in his office.  Conversely, because such a course would be (to put it mildly!) unwise, if I were to tell a bishop, "Bishop, my wife, and/or my family, and I prayed (and/or fasted and prayed) about what course of action to pursue, counseled together, and jointly made a decision we feel is best for our family," and that decision happens to be at odds with something that is in the Handbook, I think that both the bishop and the Lord are bound to honor that decision.  On the other hand, the Handbook isn't a magic talisman available only to those with magic decoder rings, and, in my view, bishops aren't supposed to play the role of fire-breathing dragons who prevent access to it by rank-and-file members: if you have a question about what the Handbook says about a particular topic, call your bishop or branch president's executive secretary, make an appointment with him, and ask to see it.

[ksfisher]

Just a couple of thoughts - members of the church are accountable to the Lord, not the handbook. The handbook cannot and does not cover every situation that a person faces in life. To that end church members are given the gift of the Holy Ghost to guide us. The bishop can help guide and counsel us in difficult situations, but in the end it comes down to our relationship with the Savior and our williness to listen to His counsel.

[Meadowchik]

You're right that we're accountable only for what we know.  In my view, the Church Handbook of Instructions exists so that our leaders will know how to counsel us on certain matters if we seek their counsel.  On the other hand, having been in charge of a bishop's schedule, I can tell you that if members were to seek a bishop's counsel on every personal or sensitive matter, and if the bishop were unwisely disposed to dispense such counsel in every instance in which it is sought, he'd better be prepared to quit his job, kiss his family goodbye for several years, and live in his office.  Conversely, because such a course would be (to put it mildly!) unwise, if I were to tell a bishop, "Bishop, my wife, and/or my family, and I prayed (and/or fasted and prayed) about what course of action to pursue, counseled together, and jointly made a decision we feel is best for our family," and that decision happens to be at odds with something that is in the Handbook, I think that both the bishop and the Lord are bound to honor that decision.  On the other hand, the Handbook isn't a magic talisman available only to those with magic decoder rings, and, in my view, bishops aren't supposed to play the role of fire-breathing dragons who prevent access to it by rank-and-file members: if you have a question about what the Handbook says about a particular topic, call your bishop or branch president's executive secretary, make an appointment with him, and ask to see it.

 

Or if you discover after-the-fact that you've unknowingly done something independently of the bishop's guidance when the handbook says the bishop should have been involved, don't sweat it.  Focus on trying to do what is right now, and do seek counsel regarding the past event if you feel it is needed. Right?

[ksfisher]

Interestingly enough, in the few weeks I've noticed that some sections of Handbook 2 can only be viewed if I log in with my LDS account. I haven't researched when this practice began and which sections are now permission-only, but it is a little odd.

The handbook is available to all without logging in.

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church?lang=eng

[JAHS]

You're right that we're accountable only for what we know.  In my view, the Church Handbook of Instructions exists so that our leaders will know how to counsel us on certain matters if we seek their counsel.  On the other hand, having been in charge of a bishop's schedule, I can tell you that if members were to seek a bishop's counsel on every personal or sensitive matter, and if the bishop were unwisely disposed to dispense such counsel in every instance in which it is sought, he'd better be prepared to quit his job, kiss his family goodbye for several years, and live in his office.  Conversely, because such a course would be (to put it mildly!) unwise, if I were to tell a bishop, "Bishop, my wife, and/or my family, and I prayed (and/or fasted and prayed) about what course of action to pursue, counseled together, and jointly made a decision we feel is best for our family," and that decision happens to be at odds with something that is in the Handbook, I think that both the bishop and the Lord are bound to honor that decision.  On the other hand, the Handbook isn't a magic talisman available only to those with magic decoder rings, and, in my view, bishops aren't supposed to play the role of fire-breathing dragons who prevent access to it by rank-and-file members: if you have a question about what the Handbook says about a particular topic, call your bishop or branch president's executive secretary, make an appointment with him, and ask to see it.

 

Right. I don't know any Bishop who would not let you know what the handbook says about a certain issue. I don't think members need to worry so much about what's in it. More than 90% of what's in there is pretty much boring stuff about procedures and protocol on how to run a stake or ward. Most of the other 10% are things that we learn about in our regular church meetings anyway. 

[Meadowchik]

Right. I don't know any Bishop who would not let you know what the handbook says about a certain issue. I don't think members need to worry so much about what's in it. More than 90% of what's in there is pretty much boring stuff about procedures and protocol on how to run a stake or ward. Most of the other 10% are things that we learn about in our regular church meetings anyway. 

 

Except for perhaps a few snippets' worth.

 

Pun intended

[rockpond]

Except for perhaps a few snippets' worth.

 

Pun intended

 

Ha!  

 

To go back to your OP...

 

I suspect that much of what is in Handbook 1 came about because they get the same questions repeatedly coming from local leaders so they (the Brethren) started documenting those answers in the handbook.  It's the FAQ's of church leadership.

 

Having served as a bishop's counselor for a quite a few years now, I can tell you that the handbook seems to be so loosely followed that I wouldn't stress over not knowing/following what is in it.  It is there to help your bishopric/stake presidency.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Since the Handbook of Instructions is not actual study material for all Church members, how are LDS faithful able to be accountable to it?

 

I've wondered this since over the years I've seen people refer to the Handbook when answering some sticky questions.  For example, it says that a husband and wife should, along with their doctor, consult with their bishop and prayerfully consider their choice regarding sterilisation.  However, what if they've never thought to go to the bishop about such a thing in the first place?  What if neither of them has been in a position to read (or for that matter, remember) the handbook?

 

It seems to me that the bishop and other leaders are given the Handbook as a guide in their pastoral leadership.  It's counsel they use to counsel.

 

So, do you think that such moral instructions in the handbook are only intended for those who seek out counsel from the bishop or whose issues are made known to him, or is it the bishop's responsibility to stay close enough to his members that he can provide these instructions at the moment they are needed?  Or something else?

 

Anyways, I think this is an interesting little leadership/membership issue.

 

Your opining is welcomed.

It was probably in response to this concern that most of the church policies that directly effect members were moved from handbook 1 into handbook 2 a few years back (I think it was the same time that they published handbook 2 online):

 

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies?lang=eng

 

In particular, permanent sterilization is discussed here:

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies?lang=eng#21.4.15

[Duncan]

The bolded was something I hadn't even considered. Yes, that would be unfortunate when a leader misinterprets the Handbook, and could be quite painful for those he so instructs.

 

I've heard it said that handbook 1 is answers to questions no one asks! I don't know anyone who would seek advice from their bishop concerning a medical procedure, unless he was a Dr. of course. It seems out of line. I know 3 members, active, faithful guys who've had vasectomies and one served as a bishop!

[Okrahomer]

 

Having served as a bishop's counselor for a quite a few years now, I can tell you that the handbook seems to be so loosely followed that I wouldn't stress over not knowing/following what is in it.  It is there to help your bishopric/stake presidency.

 

So, what you're saying is that it's more "guidelines" than actual "rules."

[Nofear]

So, what you're saying is that it's more "guidelines" than actual "rules."

 

No, the handbook is more rules than guidelines. Indeed, current policy and practice is governed by the handbook. If for example, the handbook says something different about Church discipline than the D&C does, the handbook applies. While not canon, the handbook is thoroughly vetted to be the will and voice of our latter-day prophet concerning Church policy.

 

It is true that local leadership sometimes don't follow the handbook well. Indeed, I mildly annoyed my bishop when I pointed out a policy in Handbook I which he was not familiar with. The Church leaders are encouraged to be very familiar with it.

[ERayR]

So, what you're saying is that it's more "guidelines" than actual "rules."

 

Yes

[Buckeye]

 

I've heard it said that handbook 1 is answers to questions no one asks! I don't know anyone who would seek advice from their bishop concerning a medical procedure, unless he was a Dr. of course. It seems out of line. I know 3 members, active, faithful guys who've had vasectomies and one served as a bishop!

 

I also know bishops who have had the procedure. It's pretty easy to abide by the handbook when you only have to consult with yourself. 

 

FWIW, I pulled the relevant section on vasectomies (and surrogacy) and pasted it below. I don't recall there being this much detail in the policy as when I looked at it a few years ago. My memory back then was that it just said "counsel with your bishop" but did not give any guidance as to what to counsel about. Now at least bishops have some principles to discuss. 

 

For surrogacy, in contrast, there's no particular guidance. Just a statement that it's strongly discouraged.

 

In my experience, members are either generally unaware of these policies or easily justify using the procedures if they find them beneficial. It's kind of like how artificial birth control was in the beginning. It's widely reported that some of Mitt Romney's grandkids were born through surrogacy. And I recently was part of a mass email from an older couple asking all the members of the church they know if they would be willing to be a surrogate for their daughter. I was frankly surprised (and impressed) because this couple is ultra TBM - like, 8 kids who all served missions and were temple married, the couple served several missions themselves, 2 years foot storage, learned hebrew and greek to teach gospel doctrine, etc. They're amazing people. And I'm sure they know of the church's opposition to surrogacy. But they have no problems going forward with a mass email asking for this help for their daughter because everything else has failed.

 

FWIW, there are some policy statements that can bring peace as well. The statement on suicide, for instance, says that church buildings can be used for funerals, and members can even be buried in temple clothing, even if the death was by suicide. 

 

 

21.4.15

Surgical Sterilization (Including Vasectomy)

 

The Church strongly discourages surgical sterilization as an elective form of birth control. Surgical sterilization should be considered only if (1) medical conditions seriously jeopardize life or health or (2) birth defects or serious trauma have rendered a person mentally incompetent and not responsible for his or her actions. Such conditions must be determined by competent medical judgment and in accordance with law. Even then, the persons responsible for this decision should consult with each other and with their bishop and should receive divine confirmation of their decision through prayer.

 

 21.4.16

Surrogate Motherhood

 

The Church strongly discourages surrogate motherhood.

 

[Okrahomer]

No, the handbook is more rules than guidelines. Indeed, current policy and practice is governed by the handbook. If for example, the handbook says something different about Church discipline than the D&C does, the handbook applies. While not canon, the handbook is thoroughly vetted to be the will and voice of our latter-day prophet concerning Church policy.

 

It is true that local leadership sometimes don't follow the handbook well. Indeed, I mildly annoyed my bishop when I pointed out a policy in Handbook I which he was not familiar with. The Church leaders are encouraged to be very familiar with it.

 

Sorry.  I was trying--not successfully of course--to add a little humor to the discussion.  Hence the link.

[ksfisher]

 

Having served as a bishop's counselor for a quite a few years now, I can tell you that the handbook seems to be so loosely followed that I wouldn't stress over not knowing/following what is in it.  It is there to help your bishopric/stake presidency.

 

My experience has been exactly the opposite.  The counsel given by President Monsen in the World Wide Leadership Training Meeting after the new handbooks were issued was to follow the handbook. 

[rockpond]

My experience has been exactly the opposite.  The counsel given by President Monsen in the World Wide Leadership Training Meeting after the new handbooks were issued was to follow the handbook. 

 

That was 2010, right?  Based on the usual length of service, most current Bishoprics and about half of the Stake President's wouldn't have been in their current positions at the time of President Monson's address (though, admittedly many might have been in some leadership calling).

 

That said, while we reference it often, there are certain things in my stake that are not followed and some that are flatly contradicted by leadership actions within the stake.

 

Some of the counsel, like the vasectomy example given earlier, is widely ignored by just about every couple I know... including those in leadership.

[JAHS]

Sorry.  I was trying--not successfully of course--to add a little humor to the discussion.  Hence the link.

I got it. Some people take things a little too seriously here.

 

No, the handbook is more rules than guidelines. Indeed, current policy and practice is governed by the handbook. If for example, the handbook says something different about Church discipline than the D&C does, the handbook applies. While not canon, the handbook is thoroughly vetted to be the will and voice of our latter-day prophet concerning Church policy.

 

It is true that local leadership sometimes don't follow the handbook well. Indeed, I mildly annoyed my bishop when I pointed out a policy in Handbook I which he was not familiar with. The Church leaders are encouraged to be very familiar with it.

Could we say they are rules than can be bent a little according to a Bishops right to revelation for things specific to his ward members?

[HappyJackWagon]

That was 2010, right?  Based on the usual length of service, most current Bishoprics and about half of the Stake President's wouldn't have been in their current positions at the time of President Monson's address (though, admittedly many might have been in some leadership calling).

 

That said, while we reference it often, there are certain things in my stake that are not followed and some that are flatly contradicted by leadership actions within the stake.

 

Some of the counsel, like the vasectomy example given earlier, is widely ignored by just about every couple I know... including those in leadership.

Leaders are also encouraged to "adapt" the programs as necessary for their local needs. So the handbook is both a rule book, and a general guidelines in different areas. There are many ways the handbook can be very flexible and some areas in which it isn't flexible at all.

[bluebell]

I knew about the handbook's rules about surgical sterilization and my husband and i still didn't counsel with our bishop.  I honestly couldn't see the reason to do such a thing.

[ksfisher]

Leaders are also encouraged to "adapt" the programs as necessary for their local needs. So the handbook is both a rule book, and a general guidelines in different areas. There are many ways the handbook can be very flexible and some areas in which it isn't flexible at all.

 

Chapter 17 outlines where such adaptions are appropriate and where uniformity should be maintained. 

 

"17.1 Where Uniformity Is Required

To know which adaptations might be appropriate, leaders must first understand the doctrines, ordinances, and practices that are established by the scriptures and the teachings of latter-day prophets and apostles. These are to be uniform throughout the Church.

 

Stake presidents, bishops, and other local leaders have a sacred obligation to maintain the uniformity and purity of the Church in all of the categories outlined below. This need for uniformity is based on the scriptural principle of “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5; see also Mosiah 18:21)."

 

The items referenced in paragraph two above as areas requiring uniformity are: scriptures, commandments and standards, purity of doctrine, sacrament meetings and Sunday meeting schedules, conferences, temple work, disciplinary councils, records and reports, ordinances, and curriculum

 

 

17.2 outlines the areas where adaption to local circumstances is permitted:

 

1. In the staffing and programs of the auxiliaries
2. In the format and frequency of leadership meetings
3. In the format and frequency of activities

Edited October 30, 2015 by ksfisher

[ERayR]

Quote

 

21.4.15

Surgical Sterilization (Including Vasectomy)

 

The Church strongly discourages surgical sterilization as an elective form of birth control. Surgical sterilization should be considered only if (1) medical conditions seriously jeopardize life or health or (2) birth defects or serious trauma have rendered a person mentally incompetent and not responsible for his or her actions. Such conditions must be determined by competent medical judgment and in accordance with law. Even then, the persons responsible for this decision should consult with each other and with their bishop and should receive divine confirmation of their decision through prayer.

 

 21.4.16

Surrogate Motherhood

 

The Church strongly discourages surrogate motherhood.

 

Or when you already have a dozen kids.