CH1 Now online for all membership

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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).

True, but almost nobody knows about it. Trust me on this; people are very, very surprised when they learn this.

The only way people would know about it is if the Brethren said something about it, instead of simply putting it in the policies section. That is like signs posted according to law for zoning changes or whatever, with small print in legalese. Nobody reads these, but the government can rightly claim that it was open and legal. 

If the Brethren really want people to counsel with bishops before having elective contraceptive surgery, then it shouldn't be buried in the handbooks and never, ever (not even once) mentioned by GAs in more read/accessed venues. I have no problem whatsoever with the policy and counsel; I just think it is extremely poorly communicated in this case. 

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

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?

The accusation wasn't merely that the Brethren are "being Pharisaical," but that they were worse than the Pharisees.

A public accusation, by a member of the Church, on an LDS message board, that the leaders of the Church are worse than the people who conspired to murder Jesus Christ because they (the LDS leaders) have decided to limit distribution of an administrative handbook to several copies in every unit in the entire Church is a pretty serious thing.  It's about as "evil speaking of the Lord's anointed"-esque as you can get.  You understand that, right?

It's an adaptation of Godwin's Law.  But on steroids.

And it's all about an administrative handbook.

-Smac

Edited November 16, 2017 by smac97

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, rongo said:

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.

Thanks for further illustrating the problem.

There is no accountability. Members just have to suck it up and take whatever the leader dishes out because general leaders will "always" support local leaders. What a sham of an appeals process. And why would the church behave that way as an institution? To establish and maintain order of leadership over the members.

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

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 . . .  

So 20 years now makes something an "eternal" doctrine?   It seems we've really lowered the bar there.

[Tacenda]

21 minutes ago, rongo said:

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.

I can't even believe the church has the right to discipline. But guess that's what some people like about the church, when they can't control themselves they rely on someone else to.

[hope_for_things]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

Interesting.  That would lead me to believe that there are actual written instructions about how to handle requests from members with respect to wanting to read the handbook.  Do you think that's the case?  

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The accusation wasn't merely that the Brethren are "being Pharisaical," but that they were worse than the Pharisees.

A public accusation, by a member of the Church, on an LDS message board, that the leaders of the Church are worse than the people who conspired to murder Jesus Christ because they (the LDS leaders) have decided to limit distribution of an administrative handbook to several copies in every unit in the entire Church is a pretty serious thing.  It's about as "evil speaking of the Lord's anointed"-esque as you can get.  You understand that, right?

It's an adaptation of Godwin's Law.  But on steroids.

And it's all about an administrative handbook.

-Smac

You seem to be purposefully misconstruing his meaning in order to be able to take maximum offense.
 

Quote

Pharisaical | Define Pharisaical at Dictionary.com

www.dictionary.com/browse/pharisaical

of or relating to the Pharisees. 2. (lowercase) practicing or advocating strict observance of external forms and ceremonies of religion or conduct without regard to the spirit; self-righteous; hypocritical. Origin of Pharisaic.

 

I'm not saying I agree with what Stem said. But you can disagree with him without distorting what he said. Taking the maximum offense possible isn't an Olympic sport yet.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

True, but almost nobody knows about it. Trust me on this; people are very, very surprised when they learn this.

The only way people would know about it is if the Brethren said something about it, instead of simply putting it in the policies section. That is like signs posted according to law for zoning changes or whatever, with small print in legalese. Nobody reads these, but the government can rightly claim that it was open and legal. 

If the Brethren really want people to counsel with bishops before having elective contraceptive surgery, then it shouldn't be buried in the handbooks and never, ever (not even once) mentioned by GAs in more read/accessed venues. I have no problem whatsoever with the policy and counsel; I just think it is extremely poorly communicated in this case. 

It seems reasonable to assume in areas where little is publically discussed that the Church leaders prefer people going to counsel with God first and foremost rather than include the bishop in many, most, all family/individual decisions.  I have known of some who see the bishop that way, as the presiding authority in their family, not just the ward.  I think the guidelines of the nonpublicized topics are there because there are always some who will ask and insist on knowing what SL wants them to do, so the info is given to all leaders for those cases as well as those sincerely confused and seeking multiple input and support. 

I also think often the people who write guidelines up effectively may be too fond of the living by guideline guided lives, so you have a sense at times from what is written the guidelines are to be first and last consulted, but the way they are generally employed and trained is as support in the background, to help with inspiration, not replace it.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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:

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

I'm familiar with the policy. I don't like to be questioned just like probably everyone. However, questioning is a necessary check on fallible leaders and should be encouraged. Certain leaders over the years have done some horrible things, like abuse, that could have been stopped or stopped sooner had the church allowed more questioning. It's frankly a case of wanting to be considered as infallible when they are not. Sure, if they were infallible and could be completely trusted, it would be a different case. But we know they are clearly men and act as such. Hence, they should be questioned.

Perhaps the non-questioning policy is one of those non-inspired policies that is a result of men acting as men and not as inspired leaders?

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I can't even believe the church has the right to discipline. But guess that's what some people like about the church, when they can't control themselves they rely on someone else to.

what should a church do if leaders believe a member is putting others at danger?

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

True, but almost nobody knows about it. Trust me on this; people are very, very surprised when they learn this.

And yet the information is readily available.  And has been for quite some time.

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

The only way people would know about it is if the Brethren said something about it, instead of simply putting it in the policies section.

Or an interested person could do a Google search for something like "lds position on vasectomy."  The first result is Section 21 of Handbook 2.

So I can't agree that "the only way" is for the Brethren to have "said something about it."  They put it in the Handbook so any interested person could have access to it.

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

That is like signs posted according to law for zoning changes or whatever, with small print in legalese. Nobody reads these, but the government can rightly claim that it was open and legal. 

It look literally ten seconds on Google to find Section 21 of Handbook 2.

And if that didn't work, the individual could ask the bishop.

There is no equivalent to "small print in legalese" here.  The Church's policies are readily accessible.

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

If the Brethren really want people to counsel with bishops before having elective contraceptive surgery, then it shouldn't be buried in the handbooks and never, ever (not even once) mentioned by GAs in more read/accessed venues.

We could second-guess the Brethren all day long this way.  The Church has stated positions on all sorts of topics, many of which have not been specifically addressed at General Conference.

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

I have no problem whatsoever with the policy and counsel; I just think it is extremely poorly communicated in this case. 

The Church's position on surgical sterilization procedures, they put it in the Handbook.  It's readily available to pretty much the entire world and has been for years.  Ten seconds on Google.  

I have an acquaintance who also had a vasectomy (for reasons similar to those you have described).  One of the first things he did was investigate whether the Church had a policy on that issue.  He then found the policy, and he and his wife consulted with their bishop and with his (my acquaintance's) parents for guidance.  Then my acquaintance and his wife made the final decision on their own (after prayer and fasting).  Finding the Church's policy was not difficult.  At all.

Meanwhile, I also have an acquaintance who was a surrogate mother for a couple.  As I recall, she was surprised that the Church has a policy about this (and since she was already pregnant by the time she found out, there wasn't much she could do anyway).  She said that she simply never thought that the Church might have a policy about this sort of thing, so she never bothered to inquire (not to her bishop, not to any other member of the Church, nobody).  But if she had, she would have found the Church's policy Section 21.4.16. 

I am not persuaded that specific topics like vasectomies and surrogate motherhood are appropriate for general conference, particularly when these issues are ultimately left to the discretion of the individuals involved.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Interesting.  That would lead me to believe that there are actual written instructions about how to handle requests from members with respect to wanting to read the handbook.  Do you think that's the case?  

There are a number of board members who have possession of or easy access to...ask them if you want something besides garbled memory.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I'm familiar with the policy. I don't like to be questioned just like probably everyone.

Per Elder Oaks:

Quote

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.)

The counsel about not speaking evil of the Lord's anointed is not about protecting the sensibilities of Church leaders, as you seem to imply ("I don't like to be questioned just like probably everyone").

3 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

However, questioning is a necessary check on fallible leaders and should be encouraged.

In the proper time, place, and manner, yes.

Again, Elder Oaks goes into some detail on this issue.

3 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Certain leaders over the years have done some horrible things, like abuse, that could have been stopped or stopped sooner had the church allowed more questioning.

Such as?

3 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

It's frankly a case of wanting to be considered as infallible when they are not.

I disagree.  The Brethren do not want that.  They specifically disclaim such a notion.

Again, Elder Oaks addresses this issue.

3 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Sure, if they were infallible and could be completely trusted, it would be a different case. But we know they are clearly men and act as such. Hence, they should be questioned.

In the proper time, place, and manner, yes.

For example, I submit that a member of the Church publicly accusing the Brethren's decision to limit distribution of an administrative handbook to several copies within every single unit of the Church as somehow being worse than the behavior of those who conspired to murder Jesus Christ . . . has not "questioned" leaders in an appropriate time, place, or manner.

Again, Elder Oaks addresses this issue at length.

3 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Perhaps the non-questioning policy is one of those non-inspired policies that is a result of men acting as men and not as inspired leaders?

There is no "non-questioning policy."

You plainly did not read the article by Elder Oaks.  Here it is again.  Here's the money quote:

Quote

So what do we do when we feel that our Relief Society president or our bishop or another authority is transgressing or pursuing a policy of which we disapprove? Is there no remedy? Are our critics correct when they charge that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are “sheep” without remedy against the whims of a heedless or even an evil shepherd?

There are remedies, but they are not the same remedies or procedures that are used with leaders in other organizations.

...

There are at least five different procedures a Church member can follow in addressing differences with Church leaders—general or local, male or female...

Elder Oaks goes on to describe in some detail the appropriate ways that members of the Church can "question" or express differences with Church leaders, including General Authorities.

So your statement about a "non-questioning policy" is a fabrication.  A falsehood.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So 20 years now makes something an "eternal" doctrine?   It seems we've really lowered the bar there.

No, eternal means it has always been the doctrine. If you stopped random people on the streets of Deseret or Utah Territory and asked them if we were male and female in the pre-existence, I think you would have had 100% of people say that we were. I don't think there would have been any "nuanced" people saying that we really don't know.

President Smith's statement is an anomaly. He was very conservative and predictable, theologically. I'm as surprised as anyone that he expressed this thought. But I think you would also be the first to say that just because someone says something doesn't make it doctrine.  

[Tacenda]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

what should a church do if leaders believe a member is putting others at danger?

Call the cops.

[HappyJackWagon]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And yet the information is readily available.  And has been for quite some time.

Thanks,

-Smac

As long as members don't expect to get information about their church directly from the church, but instead from Google, then you're right. It's out there. They just have to be willing to look at outside sources and then not feel betrayed when they realize the church could have told them directly but chose not to.

[smac97]

47 minutes ago, rongo said:

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.

I don't understand.  How is this problematic?

47 minutes ago, rongo said:

This was annoying for all involved, and we understood the handbook as well as he (and better, in my opinion).

Isn't it part of the job, though?

47 minutes ago, rongo said:

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."

That's a sensible generalized position.  In the U.S. legal system, appellate courts leave fact-gathering to the well-exercised discretion of the trial court.  In other words, the trial court has a lot of discretionary authority.

Similarly, the bishops and stake presidents have a "boots on the ground" perspective, such that "Salt Lake" gives them a lot of discretion.  But that discretion is not unlimited.  Avraham Gileadi had his excommunication set aside.  Helmut Huebner's excommunication was voided due to local leader error as well.

47 minutes ago, rongo said:

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.

Well said.  Local leaders are still left with lots of discretionary authority, though.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

No, eternal means it has always been the doctrine. If you stopped random people on the streets of Deseret or Utah Territory and asked them if we were male and female in the pre-existence, I think you would have had 100% of people say that we were. I don't think there would have been any "nuanced" people saying that we really don't know.

President Smith's statement is an anomaly. He was very conservative and predictable, theologically. I'm as surprised as anyone that he expressed this thought. But I think you would also be the first to say that just because someone says something doesn't make it doctrine.  

That would be quite the limited sample wouldn't it? It would limit to a specific place, time, and culture and therefore proves nothing even if your 100% is accurate which I doubt.

It's strange that the president of the church is an anomaly about this eternal doctrine. Doesn't inspire much confidence.

Eternal doctrine= whatever we currently believe to be doctrine.   Disclaimer: All eternal doctrines subject to change

[rongo]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Or an interested person could do a Google search for something like "lds position on vasectomy."  The first result is Section 21 of Handbook 2.

That's the Google generation. They google stuff, but often won't read it if it involves any non-sound-bite/meme/Wikipedia distillation effort.

It look literally ten seconds on Google to find Section 21 of Handbook 2.

See above. So, why don't most members know this is even a policy?

There is no equivalent to "small print in legalese" here.  The Church's policies are readily accessible.

You're being intentionally obtuse here. I'm not claiming there is a 1:1 correlation; I'm saying that putting a policy wanting members to counsel with bishops and never, ever talking about this anywhere else is like (similar to, akin) the posting of zoning changes. Yes, in both cases, the information is "readily accessible." And, in both cases, people are unlikely to read it. Yes, they can if they want to. But this state of things is why almost no one knows about it. 

Meanwhile, I also have an acquaintance who was a surrogate mother for a couple.  As I recall, she was surprised that the Church has a policy about this (and since she was already pregnant by the time she found out, there wasn't much she could do anyway).  She said that she simply never thought that the Church might have a policy about this sort of thing, so she never bothered to inquire (not to her bishop, not to any other member of the Church, nobody).  But if she 

had, she would have found the Church's policy Section 21.4.16. 

I am not persuaded that specific topics like vasectomies and surrogate motherhood are appropriate for general conference, particularly when these issues are ultimately left to the discretion of the individuals involved.

Surrogate motherhood is even stranger not to emphasize, because there are potential temple and sealing consequences involved. The position is stronger on this than it is for surgical sterilization. But again, most people know nothing about it. They don't even know to look.

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, Gray said:

You seem to be purposefully misconstruing his meaning in order to be able to take maximum offense.

A member of the LDS Church who comes to an LDS message board and publicly accuses the leaders of the LDS Church of being worse than ("out phariseeing") the people who conspired to kill Jesus Christ is looking to give maximum offense.

25 minutes ago, Gray said:

Quote

Pharisaical | Define Pharisaical at Dictionary.com

www.dictionary.com/browse/pharisaical

of or relating to the Pharisees. 2. (lowercase) practicing or advocating strict observance of external forms and ceremonies of religion or conduct without regard to the spirit; self-righteous; hypocritical. Origin of Pharisaic.

I'm not saying I agree with what Stem said.

Stem, ostensibly a member of the Church, did not publicly accuse the Brethren of being "Pharisaical."  He publicly accused them on an LDS message board of being worse than the Pharisees ("out phariseeing the Pharisees").

And the nefarious behavior that triggered this accusation was . . . that they have limited the distribution of an administrative handbook to several copies in every single unit of the entire Church.

Quelle horreur!  Oh, the humanity!

I don't agree with Stem, either.

25 minutes ago, Gray said:

But you can disagree with him without distorting what he said. Taking the maximum offense possible isn't an Olympic sport yet.

If a fellow went to a Jewish message board and accused the leaders of a local synagogue of "out-naziing Hitler" because a rabbi had made an unpopular - but still plainly discretionary - administrative decision, I think the observant Jews on that board would understandably take exception to that.

Stem's comment are pretty much on par with that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand.  How is this problematic?

It isn't. I was just relating an anecdote about how handbook access could sometimes result in "legal wrangling" with leaders about decisions, procedures, and outcomes.

Isn't it part of the job, though?

Yeah. It's what we get paid the big bucks for!  

Well said.  Local leaders are still left with 

lots of discretionary authority, though.

Which is as it should be. I loved the support of "it's whatever your bishop says it is."  

 

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

As long as members don't expect to get information about their church directly from the church,

False.  They can ask the bishop.  They can ask to read the Handbook.

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

but instead from Google, then you're right. It's out there.

The Church's policies are not hard to find.  Most are on LDS.org.  They are in Handbook 2.  Or on newsroom.lds.org.  Or in the manuals.  Or in the First Presidency letters.  Or in General Conference talks.  

And then there are plenty of reputable websites that members can and should use.  FAIR is a good secondary resource.  So is Jeff Lindsay.  And Scott Woodward.  And Daniel Peterson.  And MormonInterpreter.  And content hosted at byu.edu.

And even then, if there is still confusion, the individual can . . . ask his or her bishop.

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

They just have to be willing to look at outside sources and then not feel betrayed when they realize the church could have told them directly but chose not to.

Oh, brother.

-Smac

[Pete Ahlstrom]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Per Elder Oaks:

The counsel about not speaking evil of the Lord's anointed is not about protecting the sensibilities of Church leaders, as you seem to imply ("I don't like to be questioned just like probably everyone").

In the proper time, place, and manner, yes.

Again, Elder Oaks goes into some detail on this issue.

Such as?

I disagree.  The Brethren do not want that.  They specifically disclaim such a notion.

Again, Elder Oaks addresses this issue.

In the proper time, place, and manner, yes.

For example, I submit that a member of the Church publicly accusing the Brethren's decision to limit distribution of an administrative handbook to several copies within every single unit of the Church as somehow being worse than the behavior of those who conspired to murder Jesus Christ . . . has not "questioned" leaders in an appropriate time, place, or manner.

Again, Elder Oaks addresses this issue at length.

There is no "non-questioning policy."

You plainly did not read the article by Elder Oaks.  Here it is again.  Here's the money quote:

Elder Oaks goes on to describe in some detail the appropriate ways that members of the Church can "question" or express differences with Church leaders, including General Authorities.

So your statement about a "non-questioning policy" is a fabrication.  A falsehood.

Thanks,

-Smac

Criticism should be public if the mistake is public, at least. Also, I think it would promote harmony if a leader, who made a public mistake, would actually apologize publically. No one should be above anyone else. Sorry E. Oaks, I have to disagree and say that the church should apologize if appropriate.

Going to the leader in private and not being able to go public promotes leaders being able to hide or unreasonably justify error. Also, knowing that public criticism might happen should act to properly focus the leader on maybe thinking things through prior to acting or saying something inappropriate. Further, criticism shouldn't be a one way street where leaders can publicly rebuke but not expect it in return.

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A member of the LDS Church who comes to an LDS message board and publicly accuses the leaders of the LDS Church of being worse than ("out phariseeing") the people who conspired to kill Jesus Christ is looking to give maximum offense.

Stem, ostensibly a member of the Church, did not publicly accuse the Brethren of being "Pharisaical."  He publicly accused them on an LDS message board of being worse than the Pharisees ("out phariseeing the Pharisees").

And the nefarious behavior that triggered this accusation was . . . that they have limited the distribution of an administrative handbook to several copies in every single unit of the entire Church.

Quelle horreur!  Oh, the humanity!

I don't agree with Stem, either.

If a fellow went to a Jewish message board and accused the leaders of a local synagogue of "out-naziing Hitler" because a rabbi had made an unpopular - but still plainly discretionary - administrative decision, I think the observant Jews on that board would understandably take exception to that.

Stem's comment are pretty much on par with that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Wow, this is really off the rails.

[blueglass]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Yes, I was thinking of that too.  

The local adaptation section in HB2 sec17 was a lifesaver and one of the better parts of the 2010 changes and really helped us feel empowered locally to be creative with organizing home teaching in the Spanish branches I was working with.  I'm glad they decided to lift the classification level on it and release the information to all.