CH1 Now online for all membership

[Thinking]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

That totals at least 124,734 copies of a book which you propose to describe as "secret."

Good luck with that.

124,734/15,882,417  ≈ 0.79% (or 1 in 127)

Less than 1% of the general membership has access to CH1.

[Calm]

Less than 1% has possession  at atime (given rotation through callings, my guess is at least 5% of membership has had possession of it over their lifetime); all have access since you can ask to read it.

Edited November 16, 2017 by Calm

[blueglass]

10 hours 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.

<1990 the kingdom had clear penalties.  Today if you write personal views regarding sec132, salt lake City will intervene and ask you to take it down, so leadership feels that freedom of the press has limits and considers members personal communications on the internet the same as setting up a press to destroy the church, and may declare the property a public nuisance and seek it's destruction.  

[blueglass]

10 hours 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.

The constraint is printed on page vi of HB1.  If asked to borrow the HB1 a priesthood leader should decline as per HB1 policy.

"This handbook has been prepared solely for use by General and local church officers to administer the Affairs of the church. It should not be duplicated or given to any other persons."

Only the stake or ward clerk may access the handbook which is kept in a secure location (locked) to perform his duties in finance or to aid the bishop or stake president.

 

Edited November 16, 2017 by blueglass

[rongo]

10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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

CFR. 

This ought to be good! Can't wait to see your list of "much" of CHI1 that "reads like a joke. A well-intentioned, misguided joke."

I can't for the life of me think of what you might possibly come up with, but there must be a lot of it, because so "much" of the handbook is a joke . . .

[rongo]

7 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

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

None of us would know the difference.  You could bluff it . . .

[Scott Lloyd]

58 minutes ago, blueglass said:

<1990 the kingdom had clear penalties.  Today if you write personal views regarding sec132, salt lake City will intervene and ask you to take it down, so leadership feels that freedom of the press has limits and considers members personal communications on the internet the same as setting up a press to destroy the church, and may declare the property a public nuisance and seek it's destruction.  

You’re talking gibberish. 

[Amulek]

43 minutes ago, blueglass said:

10 hours 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.

The constraint is printed on page vi of HB1.  If asked to borrow the HB1 a priesthood leader should decline as per HB1 policy.

"This handbook has been prepared solely for use by General and local church officers to administer the Affairs of the church. It should not be duplicated or given to any other persons."

I take that to mean you shouldn't give it to anyone, you know, for keeps. 

 

[blueglass]

8 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I take that to mean you shouldn't give it to anyone, you know, for keeps. 

 

The church is in possession of the brown genesis seer stone not Willard chase.  You know for keeps.  

[stemelbow]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You’re talking gibberish. 

I think everyone understood bluegrass's point quite well.  That can't possibly be considered gibberish on account of that. 

[blueglass]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think everyone understood bluegrass's point quite well.  That can't possibly be considered gibberish on account of that. 

1 Cor 14:2,6,13

Edited November 16, 2017 by blueglass

[Scott Lloyd]

40 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think everyone understood bluegrass's point quite well.  That can't possibly be considered gibberish on account of that. 

I think my point is understandable as well. 

Even if what he said is true, asking someone to take down an Internet posting is hardly the functional equivalent of interfering with someone’s freedom of the press or of destruction of a printing press. 

What he posted is absurd. At best it is overwrought hyperbole. 

Edited November 16, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[kllindley]

16 hours ago, blueglass said:

 

 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, blueglass said:

The constraint is printed on page vi of HB1.  If asked to borrow the HB1 a priesthood leader should decline as per HB1 policy.

"This handbook has been prepared solely for use by General and local church officers to administer the Affairs of the church. It should not be duplicated or given to any other persons."

I'm not sure that "not be duplicated or given" = "never show anyone ever."

The book is intended for limited distribution.  But there are still several copies in each ward.

2 hours ago, blueglass said:

Only the stake or ward clerk may access the handbook which is kept in a secure location (locked) to perform his duties in finance or to aid the bishop or stake president.

CFR, please.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Less than 1% has possession  at atime (given rotation through callings, my guess is at least 5% of membership has had possession of it over their lifetime); all have access since you can ask to read it.

Are bishops required to let any who ask read it, or is it up to their discretion? 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

CFR. 

This ought to be good! Can't wait to see your list of "much" of CHI1 that "reads like a joke. A well-intentioned, misguided joke."

I can't for the life of me think of what you might possibly come up with, but there must be a lot of it, because so "much" of the handbook is a joke . . .

Wish I had access to it to give some more examples, but I can only point you to the items mentioned earlier in this thread.

Things like vasectomies and having the FP approval for reinstatement of apostasy or transgender people.  

The overarching tone also graded on me, that’s hard to express without the ability to quote from it which I don’t have unfortunately.  Not sure what else I can do to satisfy your CFR, perhaps Calm can ask her bishop if I could borrow his copy?  

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Are bishops required to let any who ask read it, or is it up to their discretion? 

Maybe they need to add a new section to the manual that explains how to handle requests to read the manual and what kinds of people should be permitted to read it.  I’m guessing apostates and the LGBT community should be excluded of course.  

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Are bishops required to let any who ask read it, or is it up to their discretion? 

They could refuse, but how would that look? That would look secretive and stonewalling, wouldn't it?

I suspect most would be fine letting people read it, but they aren't supposed to take it with them. It would have to be a "reading room" or "special collections" situation.

There are no smoking guns or skeletons. It's a policy manual. 

[HappyJackWagon]

13 hours 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.

Except excommunication isn't simply removing someone from an organization. It is cutting them off from exaltation by nullifying their saving ordinances. At least that's what the church claims are the effects of excommunication.

So the church is treating these things as moral equivalence in that the consequences for each is eternal damnation should the person not repent.

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Wish I had access to it to give some more examples, but I can only point you to the items mentioned earlier in this thread.

Things like vasectomies and having the FP approval for reinstatement of apostasy or transgender people.  

The overarching tone also graded on me, that’s hard to express without the ability to quote from it which I don’t have unfortunately.  Not sure what else I can do to satisfy your CFR, perhaps Calm can ask her bishop if I could borrow his copy?  

Nah, I consider the CFR fulfilled. And you could quote from it, you know. It's available in lots of places (black market).

What about vasectomies read like a joke to you? As a bishop who had a vasectomy while he was a bishop, it wasn't a joke. It was something my wife and I wrestled with (she is on high doses of blood thinners for life, and cannot safely have a baby in any fashion. Nor can she have surgery because of the bleeding risk). The point is well-taken that this policy is not well-known at all.

What reads like a joke that FP approval is needed for reinstatement of apostates? Having apostatized, shouldn't the Church be careful about perfunctorily allowing readmission?

Elective transgender surgery permanently tampers with what the Church regards as "eternal identity and purpose." You may disagree with this doctrine, but it is the Church's doctrine, and it's a serious one. Does that read like a joke just because you disagree with it?

Can you at least try to describe what you find in the "overarching tone" that reads like a joke?

Thanks!

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

They could refuse, but how would that look? That would look secretive and stonewalling, wouldn't it?

I suspect most would be fine letting people read it, but they aren't supposed to take it with them. It would have to be a "reading room" or "special collections" situation.

There are no smoking guns or skeletons. It's a policy manual. 

I know.  Most people probably know the gist of what's in it.  I think the issue is that the church doesn't treat it like a policy manual, and that's just kind of weird.  Not weird because it seems like a sham but weird because it really is just a policy manual so why go to such lengths to keep it from members from accessing church policy?

It would be like my husband and I writing a policy manual for our family, letting the kids read it in our bedroom if they specifically asked, but not letting them have access to otherwise.  What would the point of that be?  It would be a weird thing to do.

[Jane_Doe]

9 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

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

 

Lol-- that about the lawyers was actually going to be more point!  

Edited November 16, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[HappyJackWagon]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

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

Did you sit in the bishops office or did he let you take it home with you? Did you ask to read the whole thing or was there a section you wanted to review? If there was a specific section, how did you know to ask for a specific section or did you just ask him if there was anything in the handbook about topic xyz?

[smac97]

9 hours ago, Thinking said:

124,734/15,882,417  ≈ 0.79% (or 1 in 127)

Less than 1% of the general membership has access to CH1.

Less than 1% has possession of CH1.  "Access" is, I think, a distinct matter.

If someone in our ward had a question about an issue addressed in Handbook 1, our bishop would let that person review the contents of the book.  I've seen him do this on a number of occasions.

It is absurd to suggest that a book that has multiple copies within literally every unit of the Church is "secret."

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

It's hilarious that people are issuing CFR's about details of a handbook the church won't make available to the individual being CFR'd.