CH1 Now online for all membership

[filovirus]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I'm just striving to be accurate.  I'm not as on board as you on this.  I'm sure much like the Pharisees of old, many feel it is their responsibility to judge other's actions.  But that really wasn't my point anyway.  I pointed out how the letter of the law is often taken to an extreme in Mormonism.  I object, sir.  No offense to anyone.  I simply think the Church is wrong on this.  I dont' see it as helpful. 

"Letter of the Law" mentality and the hypocrisy of the Pharisees are two separate issues that are often conflated as one issue. So by saying that the church is "far more pharisaic then the Pharisees ever were" is basically calling the church and it's members hypocrites using self-righteous judgement. Jesus never condemned the Pharisees for following the law.

 

[filovirus]

41 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And it's distribution is controlled to prevent the other roughly 15,757,683 members from reading it.  While I agree that it is known that the book exists, I was stating that calling it "secret" isn't incorrect since, per your figures, less than 0.8% of members currently have access to it while the remaining 99.2% do not.

Just curious, if a member without access CH1 asked the bishop to see it and read it, would the bishop comply? If yes, your argument holds no ground. If no, you have a point.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've just learned from a highly reliable source that the accessibility of Handbook 1 was an error that has now been rectified.

Any information about whether or not it was a genuine mistake vs. an intentional leak? 

 

57 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Secrecy restored! 

It was up long enough for the Wayback Machine to snag a couple of captures, so it will be accessible for the foreseeable future.

Then again, how "secret" is something when all you have to do is ask to take a look at it?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Any information about whether or not it was a genuine mistake vs. an intentional leak? 

 

 

The Deseret News has now gone online with a story:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865692818/LDS-Church-corrects-technical-error-that-briefly-put-handbook-of-instructions-online.html

[Amulek]

35 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Deseret News has now gone online with a story:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865692818/LDS-Church-corrects-technical-error-that-briefly-put-handbook-of-instructions-online.html

Thanks!

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Any information about whether or not it was a genuine mistake vs. an intentional leak? 

It was up long enough for the Wayback Machine to snag a couple of captures, so it will be accessible for the foreseeable future.

Then again, how "secret" is something when all you have to do is ask to take a look at it?

The thing about Handbook 1 is that is is for leaders to counsel members, not for members to presume how leaders will actually counsel them if and when the time comes. If, for example, a member isn't concerned enough about a decision to ask a leader for counsel about it, there is no more reason for the member to look up the topic in the Handbook than it is for the leader to consult it when approached by the member. When it says things like, "members should consult with their priesthood leader" it applies only when the leader,whether by inspiration or by first- or second- or third-hand report hears that the member is facing an important decision. Then of course he should seek them out in the spirit of ministering to them. Otherwise the members have the Holy Ghost to guide them. The other thing about Handbook 1 is that it isn't a list of codes for either the leaders or members to live by -- those who consult it for the letter of the law are using it wrong and not in the spirit in which the Church leaders intended. One more thing about it: not many members familiar with its contents actually end up speaking with their priesthood leaders about issues of importance, but assume the Handbook has made the decision for them, which is not a good thing and not the intent of the Brethren who created it.

[cinepro]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Just browsing through the church discipline section and its fascinating to see a list like this and see how odd that certain items are included in this list.  These items all require First Presidency Approval to consider reinstating a member who has been disciplined.  

I highlighted the two items that just don't seem to belong in this list.  Crazy to me that these two items are essentially morally equivalent with the egregious crimes of the other items listed.  Shows me how messed up priorities are with respect to certain topics.  

Having them on the list doesn't imply "moral equivalency."  It just implies that there is a certain standard below which certain activities will qualify someone for excommunication.  Some of those may be far worse than others.

 

It would be like me being a college basketball coach and saying "There are certain things that will get you kicked off the team.  Two of those things are murder, and stealing sunglasses."

That's isn't saying that murder and stealing sunglasses are morally equivalent.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Any information about whether or not it was a genuine mistake vs. an intentional leak? 

 

It was up long enough for the Wayback Machine to snag a couple of captures, so it will be accessible for the foreseeable future.

Then again, how "secret" is something when all you have to do is ask to take a look at it?

Yeah, if people really want to know a little effort will produce results.  

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Having them on the list doesn't imply "moral equivalency."  It just implies that there is a certain standard below which certain activities will qualify someone for excommunication.  Some of those may be far worse than others.

 

It would be like me being a college basketball coach and saying "There are certain things that will get you kicked off the team.  Two of those things are murder, and stealing sunglasses."

That's isn't saying that murder and stealing sunglasses are morally equivalent.

Technically you’re correct, but doesn’t this exemplify the absurdity?  It’s like giving someone 15 to life for j-walking or for Murder.  Nobody thinks they are morally equivalent but if the punishment is the same for both we’d be effectively treating them as equivalent in practice.  Actions speak much louder than words.  

Edited November 16, 2017 by hope_for_things

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Technically you’re correct, but doesn’t this exemplify the absurdity?  It’s like giving someone 15 to life for j-walking or for Murder.  Nobody thinks they are morally equivalent but if the punishment is the same for both we’d be effectively treating them as equivalent in practice.  Actions speak much louder than words.  

If removing a person from its association is the stiffest penalty an organization can impose, it stands to reason that a wide spectrum of offenses would warrant that penalty in the absence of a more severe punishment. It would be different, I suppose, if the Church had fines, incarceration, confiscation of property and the death penalty at its disposal, but the reality is it doesn't.

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If removing a person from its association is the stiffest penalty an organization can impose, it stands to reason that a wide spectrum of offenses would warrant that penalty in the absence of a more severe punishment. It would be different, I suppose, if the Church had fines, incarceration, confiscation of property and the death penalty at its disposal, but the reality is it doesn't.

Fair point, I’m grateful the church doesn’t have that kind of power today.  Thankfully we are a few hundred years removed from capital punishment for apostasy in the Christian tradition.  

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

It's funny that the same section indicates that birth control decisions should be left up to the parents and then it suggests involving the Bishop in your vasectomy decision.

But... I know quite a few guys who have had vasectomies and never talked to the Bishop about it.

Crucify them!

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Dang.  Has anyone ever explained why handbook 1 is kept from members except when they hold certain callings or they have permission from their bishop?

I think it must be the centerfold.

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Crucify them!

Much of what’s in the handbook reads like a joke.  A well intentioned, misguided, joke.  

[smac97]

4 hours ago, blueglass said:

Well at least 9 of the 124,734 copies are accessible by women.   That makes perfect sense right?

I am not aware of any constraint against any Ward member asking the bishop 2 let them review handbook 1. That being the case, handbook 1 is accessible to pretty much everyone in the church.

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, filovirus said:

Just curious, if a member without access CH1 asked the bishop to see it and read it, would the bishop comply? If yes, your argument holds no ground. If no, you have a point.

I think that depends on the Bishop. 

When I had a copy, I would have shared it with anyone... but I don’t think every leader feels the same as me. 

[rockpond]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am not aware of any constraint against any Ward member asking the bishop 2 let them review handbook 1. That being the case, handbook 1 is accessible to pretty much everyone in the church.

That’s quite an assumption. 

If today demonstrated anything it’s that if church leadership wanted to share Handbook 1 with membership, it would be VERY easy. 

[Tacenda]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That’s quite an assumption. 

If today demonstrated anything it’s that if church leadership wanted to share Handbook 1 with membership, it would be VERY easy. 

Yes, it's been copied and many have the PDF of it. I'm sure now the church will just put it online again so people don't get any ideas that something needs to be hid.

[Calm]

10 hours ago, Amulek said:

I was wondering that myself, since it appears that there isn't yet a way to navigate to it without using a direct link. 

It's also missing the audio and download links which are present everywhere else, so my guess would be that they are still working on getting it completed (and this was just accidentally published a bit early).

Compare it it to online handbook 2, is there a difference with that?

If asked and answered already, ignore, behind in reading.

update:  nevermind as this appears to be an error

Edited November 16, 2017 by Calm

[Gray]

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree, embezzlement is a serious issue and I think it belongs on the list, not one of the items I highlighted.  Apostasy and transgender surgery(they need to update their wording of that term).  

Oh okay, gotcha!

[Calm]

4 hours ago, filovirus said:

Just curious, if a member without access CH1 asked the bishop to see it and read it, would the bishop comply? If yes, your argument holds no ground. If no, you have a point.

I have asked bishops to read it.  No one said no.

[Duncan]

I've heard there is a Handbook 3. Sections include how to train Temple security attack puppies, what to do with leftover General Conference flowers and how to regift Elder Bednar's pickles

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Deseret News has now gone online with a story:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865692818/LDS-Church-corrects-technical-error-that-briefly-put-handbook-of-instructions-online.html

Makes me more confident that the November policy change was put online prematurely if they can accidentally make public the whole handbook so easily.  (And if so, we will never know how the policy would have read or been finetuned, training received with it, etc. due to it being immediately leaked ).

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I have asked bishops to read it.  No one said no.

What planet do you live on Calm, I could never feel comfortable asking to read it. Calm you have guts! 

Edited November 16, 2017 by Tacenda

[MiserereNobis]

11 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Would you be interested in staring a new thread on the matter?

Sorry, I don't think so, mainly because I'm not an expert on Canon Law (there are Canon Law lawyers!!) and perhaps I'm too lazy to become one