CH1 Now online for all membership

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

This would bring me back to the point of the Church out phariseeing the Pharisees.  If there is nothing noteworthy in the whole book, what's the point of it?  Are we trying to create a letter of the law observance that has outdone any group of religionists in history? 

And now we're reduced to having members of the Church publicly accusing the General Authorities of "out phariseeing the Pharisees" because . . . Handbook 1 is limited to multiple copies in literally every unit in the Church.

The mind reels.

-Smac

 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Good point, I think this is part of the reasoning.  

Sure seems so and the leader won't even have to say his decision (from the handbook) was inspired because it is heavily implied by the system.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

Just now, smac97 said:

And now we're reduced to having members of the Church publicly accusing the General Authorities of "out phariseeing the Pharisees" because . . . Handbook 1 is limited to multiple copies in literally every unit in the Church.

The mind reels.

-Smac

 

Don't they act as men sometimes? Shouldn't members be allowed to voice their opinions when they do act as men?

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

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!

I find that the church shouldn't rule people's lives, the people should.

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think you've forgotten that the internet doesn't have a "truth filter".

And yet it has LDS.org and many other reputable sources of information about the LDS Church.

And online research could be confirmed by the member asking the bishop if that research has yielded a correct response to the member's inquiry.

And if the member still wanted to see the Church's position spelled out in a formal publication, and if that position is spelled out in Handbook, the member can ask to see it.  Our bishop has done that several times.

And despite this, we now have accusations (by members of the Church, it seems) that the Brethren are maintaining a "secret" book (which, I again note, has multiple copies in literally every unit in the Church), that the Brethren want to keep the members in "ignorance," and . . . now here'sa real doosey . . . that the Brethren are "out phariseeing the Pharisees."

I find such accusations baseless and unbecoming members of the Church.  Characterizations beyond that I will keep to myself.

Quote

Also, the scriptures do not say, if any of you lack wisdom let him ask Google. Pretty sure I've heard those somewhere before.

The scriptures also say "seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith."  Books were the principal means of disseminating information in the 19th century.  Today, the Internet has joined (and probably surpassed) books as the principal means.  

So am I reading you correctly?  Are you suggesting that members of the Church should not use the Internet to study the Restored Gospel?  It sure sounds that way.  

Quote

Your argument is that the church limits handbook information to members because they can just google it and then ask their bishop. Baloney is right.

No, that is not my argument.  I have not offered a "because."  I cannot speak intelligently as to why the distribution of Handbook 1 is limited to several copies in literally every unit in the Church.  I only know that it is limited in its distribution.

I have also not publicly slandered the Brethren.  I have not imputed to them the worst possible motives.  I have not resorted to faultfinding and speculative gainsaying.

Quote

It's interesting seeing how you're tying yourself up in knots to avoid the obvious conclusion that it would just be simpler for the church to make the handbooks available to all.

I've done nothing of the sort.  I would have no objection to the Church making Handbook 1 available to the general membership.  

Quote

There really is no meaningful benefit to keep it "secret" unless it is their attempt to establish and maintain control of leadership

A spectacularly ignorant assumption, that.

I have watched the Brethren for a very long time (I have had numerous opportunities to informally chat with my sister's father-in-law, a member of the Seventy, and I have found him to be a very intelligent, down-to-earth, kind, well-informed kind of person).  They are not perfect, but they are good and decent and sensible men.  I think they are doing what they think it right and good and sensible.  I will not publicly speak against them.  I will not publicly slander them, or impute to them the worst possible motives, particularly when doing so from a professed position of ignorant speculation.  I will not publicly accuse them of "out phariseeing the Pharisees," or join in solidarity with those who do.

I will, instead, give the Brethren the benefit of the doubt.  I have never had difficulty in figuring out the Church's position on any given topic.  And only a handful of times have I needed to resort to Handbook 1 to do so (and even then it was to sort out particulars and minutiae).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 16, 2017 by smac97

[stemelbow]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And now we're reduced to having members of the Church publicly accusing the General Authorities of "out phariseeing the Pharisees" because . . . Handbook 1 is limited to multiple copies in literally every unit in the Church.

The mind reels.

-Smac

 

Ah..that wasn't my point.  But, it feels pointless to explain it now. 

[rockpond]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's a judgment call, I think.  I think the Brethren are not idiots.  I also do not think they are conniving, sinister villains bent on keeping members "ignorant."

I assume the Brethren have their reasons for limiting the distribution of Handbook 1.  I give them the benefit of the doubt.  I do not reflexively attribute to them the worst possible motives.

I don't do this.  And the disagreement isn't with me.  I have nothing to do with the limited distribution of Handbook 1.

That said, I think the accusations and speculation being bandied about here are absurd.  There are plenty of interesting and substantive LDS-related topics to discuss.  Public accusations against the leaders of the Church of "secrecy" and keeping members "ignorant" about a handbook which is mostly bland administrative stuff are overwrought and uncivil (and unbecoming members of the Church).

-Smac

Agreed - the Brethren are not idiots.  Nobody here has said or even suggested such.  Nor have I seen anyone even imply that they are "conniving, sinister villians".  Secret was an observation, not an accusation. Your hyperbole aside...

At a time when the easiest path would be to just publish the handbook to all members via established channels, someone has decided to keep it restricted.  Language in the handbook itself supports that idea that they don't want it easily accessible to general membership.  I don't fault anyone here for wondering why.

If you don't consider this to be an interesting and substantive thread, I wonder why you are participating so actively.  But I guess that's your call.

[hope_for_things]

26 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Sure seems so and the leader won't even have to say his decision (from the handbook) was inspired because it is heavily implied by the system.

Inspiration is de facto part of the process.  Bishops have authority, so what they say is by default expected to be inspired, and the handbook has the imprimatur of prophets.  The culture does not condone the questioning of these things, that would be a sign of deficient faith.  

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Don't they act as men sometimes? Shouldn't members be allowed to voice their opinions when they do act as men?

Yes, members should voice their opinions.  But in the proper time, place and manner.  

I submit that members of the Church publicly accusing the Brethren of maintaining a "secret" book (which, I again note, has multiple copies in literally every unit in the Church), of wanting to keep the members in "ignorance," and of "out phariseeing the Pharisees" is inappropriate and unbecoming.  These seem to be getting close to (or simply are) "evil speaking of the Lord's anointed."

I direct you to Elder Oaks' excellent treatise on this topic, "Criticism," which was published in then February 1987 Ensign.  A salient excerpt:

Quote

I have given the following counsel to Church members—those who have committed themselves by upraised hands to sustain their church leaders:

“Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. Jude condemns those who ‘speak evil of dignities.’ (Jude 1:8.) Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true. As Elder George F. Richards, President of the Council of the Twelve, said in a conference address in April 1947,

“‘When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.’ (In Conference Report, Apr. 1947, p. 24.)” (Address to Church Educational System teachers, Aug. 16, 1985.)

There is nothing new about this counsel. Even though King Saul sought to kill him, David would not allow his companion to strike the king, saying, “for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lord’s anointed, and be guiltless?” (1 Sam. 26:9.) The prophet Isaiah denounced those who “make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate” (Isa. 29:21; see also 2 Ne. 27:32.) (Those who reproved in the gate in Isaiah’s time were the religious leaders.) This modern revelation from the Doctrine and Covenants is to the same effect:

“Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them.” (D&C 121:16.)

The counsel against speaking evil of Church leaders is not so much for the benefit of the leaders as it is for the spiritual well-being of members who are prone to murmur and find fault. The Church leaders I know are durable people. They made their way successfully in a world of unrestrained criticism before they received their current callings. They have no personal need for protection; they seek no personal immunities from criticism—constructive or destructive. They only seek to declare what they understand to be the word of the Lord to his people.

President David O. McKay said this about what he called “murmurers” and “faultfinders”:

“‘Speak not against the authorities.’ What does it mean? Be not a murmurer; that is what it means. It is one of the most poisonous things that can be introduced into the home of a Latter-day Saint—this murmuring against presidents of stakes, high councilors, Sunday School superintendents, etc. …

“Better stop murmuring and build. Remember that one of the worst means of tearing down an individual is slander. It is one of the most poisonous weapons that the evil one uses. Backbiting and evil speaking throw us into the class of malefactors rather than the class of benefactors.” (Gospel Ideals, Salt Lake City: Improvement Era, 1953, pp. 142–43.)

President McKay’s teaching against speaking evil of others is a principle of Christian behavior that applies to all people. But his companion counsel against “murmuring” is a teaching that applies uniquely to Church members and Church leaders.

The article goes on to provide extensive guidance on how to property "voice {one's} opinions."  I encourage you to give it some real consideration.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

As I understand it, for many, it hasn't been a request to have them take down what is on the internet, but a "do it or else Church discipline".  If using threat to get people to not publish is not interfering with freedom of the press then I don't know what is. 

Of course the reference to the printing press was for effect, Scott.  That hardly makes the whole of it gibberish.  It brings the point home. 

The premise of your complaint here is that people are entitled to Church membership/fellowship no matter what they do. That’s not true. Choices have consequences. And the Church is not the federal government. It’s a private entity. 

If you come into my home and behave in a way I don’t like, I have the right to boot you out. It’s not interfering with your rights if I do. 

And I called his post gibberish because he was making absurd and over-the-top claims. That ought to be clear enough. To use your words, it was “for effect,” “to bring the point home.”

By the way, what’s with the scare quotes around “do it or else church discipline”?  Whom are you quoting there? 

Edited November 16, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree.

Put another way, it's to keep the people from holding their leaders accountable. If the members don't know that the handbook instructs leaders to conduct interviews in a specific way, a member can't really complain or question the leader if they behave improperly. If the member doesn't know the process for their disciplinary process, they can't hold leaders accountable if they fail to follow the established patterns.

It's all about establishing and maintaining a power dynamic within the wards and stakes.

I don’t see it as trying to keep leaders unaccountable, but trying to keep members from second-guessing everything a leader does that they disagree with.

I think it’s a valid concern (armchair quarterbacks are annoying and rarely useful) but not a good enough reason to keep the handbook confidential. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I think everyone understood bluegrass's point quite well. 

Not me

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Agreed - the Brethren are not idiots.  Nobody here has said or even suggested such. 

No.  The suggestions here have been worse.  The suggestion is not that the Brethren are stupid, but that they are conniving.  That their behavior is worse that those who conspired to murder Jesus Christ.

And these accusations are being made publicly.  To the entire world.  By members of the Church.

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Nor have I seen anyone even imply that they are "conniving, sinister villians".  Secret was an observation, not an accusation. Your hyperbole aside...

You apparently missed the public accusation, by a member of the Church (apparently), that the Brethren are "out phariseeing the Pharisees."

The Pharisees, you see, were conniving and sinister villains.  They conspired to murder Jesus Christ.

And in this thread the Brethren are accused, publicly, by a member of the Church, of doing worse than that.

The Brethren's unexplained decision to limit distribution of an administrative handbook to several copies in literally every unit in the Church is, by your compatriot's reckoning, worse than the conspiracy to murder the Savior of the World.

That, my friend, is "hyperbole."

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

At a time when the easiest path would be to just publish the handbook to all members via established channels, someone has decided to keep it restricted. 

Perhaps so.  I'm ambivalent on that issue.  I'm fine either way.

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Language in the handbook itself supports that idea that they don't want it easily accessible to general membership.  I don't fault anyone here for wondering why.

Including when that "wondering" includes baseless public slandering of good and decent men, it seems.

I get it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I personally think it's about trying to keep members from armchair quarterbacking their bishops and stake presidents.

Also it could set up members to expect only one approach and thus reject an inspired adaptation for a local unit or family.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No.  The suggestions here have been worse.  The suggestion is not that the Brethren are stupid, but that they are conniving.  That their behavior is worse that those who conspired to murder Jesus Christ.

And these accusations are being made publicly.  To the entire world.  By members of the Church.

You apparently missed the public accusation, by a member of the Church (apparently), that the Brethren are "out phariseeing the Pharisees."

The Pharisees, you see, were conniving and sinister villains.  They conspired to murder Jesus Christ.

And in this thread the Brethren are accused, publicly, by a member of the Church, of doing worse than that.

The Brethren's unexplained decision to limit distribution of an administrative handbook to several copies in literally every unit in the Church is, by your compatriot's reckoning, worse than the conspiracy to murder the Savior of the World.

That, my friend, is "hyperbole."

Perhaps so.  I'm ambivalent on that issue.  I'm fine either way.

Including when that "wondering" includes baseless public slandering of good and decent men, it seems.

I get it.

Thanks,

-Smac

You've made some ridiculous leaps about the flow of the discussion.  But it's not worth my time to try to walk you through it.

[bluebell]

Just now, Calm said:

Also it could set up members to expect only one approach and thus reject an inspired adaptation for a local unit or family.

Yes, I was thinking of that too.  

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

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!

It doesn't read like a joke, just an inconsistent message. Eternal identity and purpose hasn't always been taught consistently.

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don’t see it as trying to keep leaders unaccountable, but trying to keep members from second-guessing everything a leader does that they disagree with.

I think it’s a valid concern (armchair quarterbacks are annoying and rarely useful) but not a good enough reason to keep the handbook confidential. 

I had a former priesthood leader who had been disciplined quote extensively from CHI1 in an attempt to get me and his stake presidents to minimize or amend his terms of discipline. He also appealed extensively to the Brethren, and had a lengthy interview with a member of the Seventy. This was annoying for all involved, and we understood the handbook as well as he (and better, in my opinion). The long and short of it is that Salt Lake will always strongly support local leaders unless they are way out of line. In one of the parts of this saga, he contested interpretation from the terms in his decision letter with how it was being applied, and the answer that came back from Salt Lake was "it's whatever your bishop says it is."

The purpose of the handbook is so that there is a uniform system for administering the Church. Exceptions to policy can and do happen, but they are granted by higher authority.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You've made some ridiculous leaps about the flow of the discussion. 

I have not.  There really have been (repeated) public accusations that the Brethren, in deciding to limit the distribution of Handbook 1, are behaving worse than the Pharisees did ("out phariseeing the Pharisees").

The Pharisees did a lot of bad things, but the pinnacle of their terribleness was their conspiracy to murder Jesus Christ.

According to your compatriot, limiting the distribution of Handbook one to several copies in every single unit of the Church, makes the Brethren worse than those who murdered the Savior.

The Brethren have also been ignorantly and unjustly accused in other bad ways, as well.

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But it's not worth my time to try to walk you through it.

I quite understand.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Not sure what else I can do to satisfy your CFR, perhaps Calm can ask her bishop if I could borrow his copy?  

I did not say borrow a copy.  My understanding is when permission is given (and I don't know if there are limitations or not, been too long since I had that discussion) they are to read the Handbook in the presence or office of the bishop.

Edited November 16, 2017 by Calm

[smac97]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

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.

The Church's policy about vasectomies is found in Section 21.4.15 of Handbook 2.  That book is literally available to anyone with access to LDS.org (in other words, most of the world).

The Church's general position on pretty much all social/moral issues is usually pretty easy to figure out.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Pharisees, you see, were conniving and sinister villains.  They conspired to murder Jesus Christ.

 

They actually weren't villains at all, although they're certainly painted as villains in parts of the NT.

I suspect you understand though, that when people say that someone is being Pharisaical, the inference is that the person is obsessed with rules and minutia, not that they're murderous villains. You understand that, right?

Edited November 16, 2017 by Gray

[rongo]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It doesn't read like a joke, just an inconsistent message. Eternal identity and purpose hasn't always been taught consistently.

This is true. But I've always believed it,   and it is and has been doctrine for over 20 years now. I think it was doctrine long before that, too; President Smith's views notwithstanding. It isn't the first thing I disagree with him on . . .  

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

And now we're reduced to having members of the Church publicly accusing the General Authorities of "out phariseeing the Pharisees" because . . . Handbook 1 is limited to multiple copies in literally every unit in the Church.

The mind reels.

-Smac

Ah..that wasn't my point.  But, it feels pointless to explain it now. 

Yes, why bother explaining how limiting distribution of an administrative handbook makes the Brethren worse than those who conspired to murder Jesus Christ?

I mean, the truth of your accusation is self-evident, right?  No need for an explanation.  At all.

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don’t see it as trying to keep leaders unaccountable, but trying to keep members from second-guessing everything a leader does that they disagree with.

I think it’s a valid concern (armchair quarterbacks are annoying and rarely useful) but not a good enough reason to keep the handbook confidential. 

But we are not objects simply to be acted upon. We should be involved with our leaders while things are happening. If they are the quarterback then we are at least teammates. The quarterback is responsible for his team and should be responsive to his team. If he's the only one with power, then there is an inequity and the team is doomed to failure. Imagine a quarterback who wouldn't share the plays with the rest of the team but then held his receivers accountable for not running the correct routes. That's kind of what is done when the quarterback (church leader) has a handbook with important details about things like proper interviewing and disciplinary actions, but doesn't share with those he is serving. It makes no sense.

After a bad game, team mates should be able to give each other feedback. The receiver should be in a position to recognize a weakness in the quarterback's performance and hopefully help to improve it. We would not call that receiver an "armchair quarterback" as if the quarterback is beyond criticism