Question On The Handbook Of Instructions

[Scott Lloyd]

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 temI've not seen the section on sterilization before now, but it looks to me like it doesn't provide much wiggle room. The language seems reminiscent of the prohibition of abortion, in fact, with exceptions very limited.

This is the first time I've seen the handbook section on sterilization (although I've heard it was in there), and I've got to say, it doesn't leave much wiggle room. It lists very few exceptions, and these are rather extreme. It reminds me of the policy on abortion in that respect.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[St. Bookmark]

I read both books regularly since I run into a lot of friends who need advice about anything the books cover and plus I like knowing the rules.

[Tony Frank]

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's hard enough to live the gospel, keep the commandments, and be temple worthy. Worrying about the handbook seems to be looking beyond the mark. Apostates seem to love hammering on the handbook, like it is somehow responsible for their apostate views.

[Coreyb]

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.

I had a bishop tell me something was in the handbook that wasn't. He didn't like that I didn't believe him. Thanks to wiki leaks I could've called him out directly, but I dint think that would be helpful.

[Kenngo1969]

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?

Again, we're accountable only for what we know.  Whatever your position is, a leader who is responsible for the organization you're in is responsible for seeing to it that, insofar as possible, what needs to be done under the guidance of an appropriate authority is carried out in that manner.  E.g., stake Relief Society presidencies are responsible for training Relief Society presidencies on the ward level, stake Sunday School presidencies are responsible for training Sunday School presidencies on the ward level, and so on. If someone is supposed to see to it that you're trained for your calling such that you know what the bishop needs to sign off on (or not) and doesn't do that, that's on him or her, not on you.  If one does something and wonders whether the bishop or someone else should have signed off on it before the fact, s/he should take that question to a leader responsible for his or her organization for clarification.  So, yes, we're accountable for what we know, but willful ignorance is something else.

[Kenngo1969]

I read both books regularly since I run into a lot of friends who need advice about anything the books cover and plus I like knowing the rules.

You should refer people to the leader responsible for their organization for such counsel.

[St. Bookmark]

You should refer people to the leader responsible for their organization for such counsel.

Sounds like good advice.

But from my experience, like the one I shared when I first joined the board, just because your a leader does not mean you have all the answers.

And people seem to go to those they trust when seeking advice.

[Tacenda]

The below is a c/p from an article about a family suing the church. A discussion board I read mentions a church hotline, something in the handbook that says members should call a hotline number before the police, or was this ever in the handbook, or a hotline at all?

"In most of these cases, the defendants either lost in court or settled the cases. Unfortunately, the defendant (Mormon Church) in the pending Jensen case seems to be winning.

Those who commit and conceal child sex crimes often use whatever legal maneuvers, loopholes and stratagems their clever lawyers can devise while at the same time purporting to be “caring shepherds.” Sometimes they win, sometimes they’ll lose.

Those who care about kids must at the very least expose corrupt or callous tactics by those who profess to be “men of God” and who intentionally frighten or discourage child sex abuse victims from exposing criminals in court."

- See more at: http://boz.religionnews.com/2015/04/17/victim-pay-sex-offenders-attorney/#sthash.t1QOgUOr.dpuf

[Duncan]

The below is a c/p from an article about a family suing the church. A discussion board I read mentions a church hotline, something in the handbook that says members should call a hotline number before the police, or was this ever in the handbook, or a hotline at all?

"In most of these cases, the defendants either lost in court or settled the cases. Unfortunately, the defendant (Mormon Church) in the pending Jensen case seems to be winning.

Those who commit and conceal child sex crimes often use whatever legal maneuvers, loopholes and stratagems their clever lawyers can devise while at the same time purporting to be “caring shepherds.” Sometimes they win, sometimes they’ll lose.

Those who care about kids must at the very least expose corrupt or callous tactics by those who profess to be “men of God” and who intentionally frighten or discourage child sex abuse victims from exposing criminals in court."

- See more at: http://boz.religionnews.com/2015/04/17/victim-pay-sex-offenders-attorney/#sthash.t1QOgUOr.dpuf

 

 

I have seen this before but I don't know why members just don't go the the police first and let them deal with these kinds of issues and then go to the Church. I know a guy who later served in a Temple Pres. who got away with some stuff but he's dead now and you can't hide your crimes from God (Alma 39:

[ksfisher]

The below is a c/p from an article about a family suing the church. A discussion board I read mentions a church hotline, something in the handbook that says members should call a hotline number before the police, or was this ever in the handbook, or a hotline at all?

"In most of these cases, the defendants either lost in court or settled the cases. Unfortunately, the defendant (Mormon Church) in the pending Jensen case seems to be winning.

Those who commit and conceal child sex crimes often use whatever legal maneuvers, loopholes and stratagems their clever lawyers can devise while at the same time purporting to be “caring shepherds.” Sometimes they win, sometimes they’ll lose.

Those who care about kids must at the very least expose corrupt or callous tactics by those who profess to be “men of God” and who intentionally frighten or discourage child sex abuse victims from exposing criminals in court."

- See more at: http://boz.religionnews.com/2015/04/17/victim-pay-sex-offenders-attorney/#sthash.t1QOgUOr.dpuf

The hotline is for the bishops to call. A bishop, if learning about abuse from any source, is to call the hotline in order to assure that he follows all local laws. If he is informed by a victim or potential witness then, I believe, he always needs to inform the police. If his information comes from the perpetrator through a confession the he needs to be sure that he follows all the local laws. Many areas have laws regarding the sanctity of confession.

[Zakuska]

Quote

 21.4.16

Surrogate Motherhood

The Church strongly discourages surrogate motherhood.

Or when you already have a dozen kids.

So the law of the leverite and sariahs law no longer apply.

[Teancum]

It's hard enough to live the gospel, keep the commandments, and be temple worthy. Worrying about the handbook seems to be looking beyond the mark. Apostates seem to love hammering on the handbook, like it is somehow responsible for their apostate views.

Could you provide some examples of apostates doing this?

[ksfisher]

So the law of the leverite and sariahs law no longer apply.

Bishoprics have also been counseled to no longer stone adulterers.

[ERayR]

So the law of the leverite and sariahs law no longer apply.

 

I forgot the "trying to be funny" emoticon.

[Calm]

Many areas have laws regarding the sanctity of confession.

And by reporting it to the police, he may actually invalidate any evidence for the investigation that came from the phone call.

 

Do people really want a bishop's eagerness to help to screw up investigations and prevent prosecution?

 

In most of these cases, the defendants either lost in court or settled the cases.

 

It is usually cheaper to settle than to go to court and win, especially if the judge is making unreasonable demands for sharing of financial information even prior to establishing guilt as happened in one major case iirc.  Given that the money could be otherwise used for building up the kingdom, settling even when they could win makes prudent sense.  It is unfortunate our legal system is set up that one can be a big loser even when one wins a case because of the costs involved.

 

http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/advantages-settle-lawsuit-out-court.html

Edited November 1, 2015 by Calm

[Calm]

http://www.heraldmailmedia.com/news/tri_state/west_virginia/mormon-church-denies-lawsuit-s-claims-of-sex-abuse-coverup/article_609acc52-41c4-11e3-9c5a-001a4bcf6878.html

 

Among 12 causes of action, the lawsuit alleges fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, battery, civil assault, conspiracy and multiple instances of negligence.

In its statement, the church said it did not act negligently or cover up abuse.

“To the contrary, local church leaders were instrumental in reporting this matter to law enforcement authorities, imposing church discipline on the perpetrator and trying to get needed assistance to the victim families,” the statement said.

The church said they encouraged the victims and their families to report the allegations of abuse to police when they became aware of them. 

Local church leaders also reported the incident, the statement said.

The church noted that Jensen was immediately released from his mission when criminal charges were filed and sent home to face the legal process. 

Jensen was excommunicated and is no longer a church member, the church said.

“Anyone who engages in abuse is rightfully subject to both legal prosecution and to formal church discipline,” the church said in the statement.

 

 

[Rain2]

I ran into this more than 10 years ago. Competent medical advice had told us not to have children (we had 2 more after that). When I was pregnant with the last one we prayed over it. In no uncertain terms I got the answer that I should not have more children, so with my last c-section I had things taken care of permanently. Then a year or so later I became aware of the handbook. It REALLY bothered me. Nothing had changed about my choice. We still felt as strong as ever that I shouldn't biologically have more children. But it really bothered me that I was supposed to go to the bishop and that wasn't information readily available to let us know. So I made an appointment with my bishop and he read to me what it said and it wasn't written that way. (I could have sworn everything was written as quoted here, but didn't include prayer because I thought that was odd, but maybe I just don't remember the prayer part.)

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?

I think on the sterilization topic it is poorly written and should be rewritten. I can't answer for other topics where I have not seen what was actually written.

[Kenngo1969]

I've said it before, but, in a sense critics, skeptics, and the disaffected have the advantage: They know that sound-bite criticisms cannot be effectively refuted with soundbite responses; such responses require more depth and detail than many who are disposed to hearken to the other side are willing to invest.  Those who are critical, who are skeptical, and/or who are disaffected know this, and they take full advantage of it.

[Calm]

More info on hotline and other info:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/421854/LDS-HOTLINE-TO-HELP-LEADERS-DEAL-WITH-ABUSE.html?pg=all

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/child-abuse

"The Church's official handbook of instructions for leaders states that the first responsibility of the Church is to help those who have been abused and to protect those who may be vulnerable to future abuse.

How does the Church do this? Since its founding, the core family concepts and doctrine of the Church have provided this support. Additionally, a Help Line was established in 1995 to provide bishops with immediate access to professional counselors to guide them in protecting abuse victims. Bishops are good people, but it is impossible for them to understand all the complexities of child abuse, including the different legal requirements of different states. What they can do is call the Help Line phone number immediately when a child is in danger. With just one phone call, they can receive guidance from seasoned professionals.

For instance, if a teenager makes her bishop aware of abuse, his first call is to the Help Line for resources to assist the victim and prevent further abuse. If the incident is criminal in nature, the bishop also receives instructions on how to report it to legal authorities. We know of no other church that provides professional assistance for ministers to aid abuse victims 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

Is it working? Yes. While no system is infallible, victims are receiving the protection and care they need.

President Gordon B. Hinckley, in an interview with Mike Wallace of CBS's 60 Minutes, said this: "I am deeply concerned about the victims. My heart reaches out to them. I want to do everything we can to ease the pain, to preclude the happening of this evil and wicked thing. . . . I know of no other organization in this world that has taken more exhaustive measures, tried harder, done more to tackle this problem, to work with it, to do something to make a change. We recognize the terrible nature of it, and we want to help our people, reach out to them, assist them."

Dealing with the Perpetrator

Simply put, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to child abusers. When abuse is suspected, the Church directs its members to first contact the legal authorities and then their local bishop for counseling and support. The Church cooperates fully with law enforcement in investigating incidents of child abuse and bringing perpetrators to justice.

Members of the Church found guilty of child abuse are also subject to the laws of God. President Hinckley has said: "Our hearts reach out to the offender, but we cannot tolerate the sin of which he may be guilty. Where there has been offense, there is a penalty." Convicted child abusers are excommunicated, the highest possible discipline our faith can impose. Excommunicated members cannot take part in Church meetings or hold responsibilities of any kind within the congregation.

Can child abusers who have paid the legal price for their crimes and gone through a rigorous repentance process with local Church leaders become members of the Church again? Yes. As Christians, we believe in forgiveness. But can they ever again, in their lifetime, serve in any capacity that would put them in direct contact with children? Absolutely not. Forgiveness does not remove the consequences of sin. Protection of the family is a first principle of the Church.

Since 1995 the Church has placed a confidential annotation on the membership record of members who previously abused children. These records follow them to any congregation where they move, thereby alerting bishops not to place them in situations with children. As far as we know, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was the first religious institution to create such a tracking mechanism. We hold the family sacred and protect its children. This explains why the Church is one of the few denominations that imposes formal ecclesiastical discipline on mere members (as opposed to official clergy) for sexually abusive conduct.

Our Church applies this tracking system because of our core beliefs. No court in the United States has held a religious institution responsible for failing to protect its members from abuse by other members. To do so would turn religious institutions into police instruments, its leadership into law enforcement officers. The Church voluntarily tracks its membership, not because of the law or fear of lawsuits, but out of its own concern for families and children.

The Obligation to Report

At the heart of many legal contests is when and whether notice of a potential abuse or abuser is reported. Church officials follow state law regarding when and how to report an act of child abuse to public authorities.

The more difficult moral issue is whether a bishop should report abuse information to public authorities when he has obtained that information in an official capacity in the privileged context of a private confession. Apart from the difficult religious issue involved, some churches and professionals believe that to force clergy to report a private confession makes it less likely that child abusers will come forward to get help. They will likely continue to abuse. Others argue that law enforcement needs to be involved quickly because of the high risk of repeat offenders. There is no consensus on this difficult issue.

The complexity of the problem is reflected in a wide variety of reporting laws from state to state. Twenty-three states have laws requiring clergy to report only when the information is not privileged. In these states, for instance, a clergyman who learns of abuse in a confidential communication, such as a confession, has no legal duty to report it to authorities, whereas a clergyman who personally observes abuse or has an independent reason to suspect abuse is required to report. In nine other states, clergy have a duty to report child abuse no matter what. And in the remaining 18 states and in the District of Columbia, reporting statues do not require clergy to report child abuse at all.

Bishops in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are taught that they have two primary responsibilities when they learn about a case of child abuse. First, they must protect the victim. Second, they must hold the perpetrator accountable for his actions. Even in states where the confidentiality of the confessional prevents clergy from reporting, bishops do all they can to prevent further abuse. Every effort is made to persuade the abuser to take responsibility for his actions, including going to the legal authorities. The very fact that a man has gone to his bishop with a confession makes it more likely that a respected Church leader can influence him to do the right thing.

When Cases Go to Court

Does the Church ever find itself in court over child abuse cases? Yes. The Church has settled a small number of cases over the past decade when suggested by the merits of the claims. In virtually all cases, the Church offers counseling for the victim.

Child abuse is not only a problem for churches, however. It is a societal problem, and like the rest of society, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' understanding of the complexities involved has deepened since the early 1980s when child abuse began to emerge as a serious issue. Since then, the Church has been confronted with a dilemma. How does it protect its children, deal effectively with perpetrators, and yet defend itself in court when charges are misleading and when cases have no merit?

In an attempt to better position themselves with potential juries, a few lawyers have gone so far as to accuse the Church of intentionally providing a safe haven for child abusers. Such accusations are unbelievable to Church leaders and members and are utterly without merit. The assertion that Church leaders would harbor an abuser in their midst, putting their own children at risk, is absurd.

Let's put this into perspective. Many hundreds of child abuse cases are filed every year against churches in the United States. While even one case is too many, relatively few are filed against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — far below what one would expect based on its more than six million U.S. members. One of the reasons for this is the Church's aggressive effort to address the problem over the past 20 years. Most cases brought today involve abuse that allegedly occurred well before the Church implemented its present policies and training programs.

Another critical point deserves emphasis. Clergy abuse cases that exploded across the nation in 2002 involved accusations of churches covering up for abusive priests and ministers. In contrast, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is almost never sued for abuse perpetrated by its bishops. Instead, cases brought against the Church typically involve one member who has abused another. Often, the alleged abuse did not even occur on Church property or in connection with any Church activity.

And so, in these cases, the Church will defend itself not because it has something to hide, but because the Church has something precious to protect — the children."

[mfbukowski]

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.

One should never follow any leader blindly

Ask your bishop, pray,take his advice or not but always follow the spirit.

There are many ways to interpret anything.

And the handbook is not infallible

It is an administrative manual which sets policy, and is to be used only as directed by the spirit.

[Meadowchik]

I ran into this more than 10 years ago. Competent medical advice had told us not to have children (we had 2 more after that). When I was pregnant with the last one we prayed over it. In no uncertain terms I got the answer that I should not have more children, so with my last c-section I had things taken care of permanently. Then a year or so later I became aware of the handbook. It REALLY bothered me. Nothing had changed about my choice. We still felt as strong as ever that I shouldn't biologically have more children. But it really bothered me that I was supposed to go to the bishop and that wasn't information readily available to let us know. So I made an appointment with my bishop and he read to me what it said and it wasn't written that way. (I could have sworn everything was written as quoted here, but didn't include prayer because I thought that was odd, but maybe I just don't remember the prayer part.)I think on the sterilization topic it is poorly written and should be rewritten. I can't answer for other topics where I have not seen what was actually written.

Yup, I can relate. It is jarring to feel like I with my husband prayerfully made a deciding we felt was right, to then find out, according to some, we should have known to decide with the Bishop.

But, I concluded that, since we felt correct and inspired in our choice, enough to not seek out counsel from the Bishop, the handbook's advice wasn't meant for us.

For me, this could be called a "gap," but I think it is an example of not having institutional strictures domineering every aspect of our lives. Even though the guidance is there if sought, it's not "in our face." We're to prayerfully work out things and then, if needed, seek help. Perhaps the apparent "gap" is the sign of a strength, and of a balancing of pastoral care with spiritual self-reliance.

Edited November 1, 2015 by Meadowchik

[Zakuska]

I think the steralization thing comes from a salvation of the species fear. Lets say a nuclear holicost happened and 3 women and one man servived. We would need the man to be fertile for the species to survive.

[Meadowchik]

I think the steralization thing comes from a salvation of the species fear. Lets say a nuclear holicost happened and 3 women and one man servived. We would need the man to be fertile for the species to survive.

If I had to guess, it's merely to prevent an extreme measure that could frustrate God's plan for a family. Sterilisation is serious stuff with huge consequences.

[Zakuska]

If I had to guess, it's merely to prevent an extreme measure that could frustrate God's plan for a family. Sterilisation is serious stuff with huge consequences.

And when one has a family of twelve sterilization shouldn't be considered an option?

After 4 children my mother had a historectomy because of hemeraging that would not stop. She never asked her bishop it was between her, the DR, and the Lord.

My wife also had a historectomy after we had three. She had other female issuse that lead to the deccision made between her and her Dr. Should we really be inviting a bishop into the Dr. patient relationship?

Edited November 2, 2015 by Zakuska

[mfbukowski]

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?

Right!