New Handbook

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

That may well have been a reason, but I don’t think it’s the only one, and I don’t think it’s all that difficult to imagine what other considerations may have come into play. Handbook 1 (for bishops and stake presidents) has dealt with sensitive issues that potentially make the Church’s leadership targets for public carping from critics who are triggered by things of that nature. A desire to avoid such carping might have driven the decision to keep the handbook somewhat confidential — when it was still feasible to do so. 

Could be.

[bluebell]

34 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think another potential reason it may have been kept confidential is because of concerns that where members could turn to the handbook and get instruction for themselves, they might bypass visiting their bishop/spiritual adviser altogether in many cases.  I think there were probably concerns that potential for outside spiritual counseling and relationship with the bishop might be damaged.   

Which is kind of funny to think of because now they don't want members counseling with the bishop at all unless it's for unresolved sins or welfare needs.  The bishop is only someone's spiritual adviser now if they need to repent or need financial help.   

[pogi]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Which is kind of funny to think of because now they don't want members counseling with the bishop at all unless it's for unresolved sins or welfare needs.  The bishop is only someone's spiritual adviser now if they need to repent or need financial help.   

That's true.  It seems that relationship with the bishop is evolving - perhaps that's why they felt it appropriate to release the handbook, to give bishops a break.  When my dad was a bishop back in the day, he was basically the counselor/therapist for my entire ward (that was his occupation too).  I think that was kind of encouraged/expected back then.  

[HappyJackWagon]

36 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think another potential reason it may have been kept confidential is because of concerns that where members could turn to the handbook and get instruction for themselves, they might bypass visiting their bishop/spiritual adviser altogether in many cases.  I think there were probably concerns that potential for outside spiritual counseling and relationship with the bishop might be damaged.   

There will always be additional detail, direction, and guidance given to leaders on how to deal with situations. It's hard to imagine that every communication intended for leaders would be sent to the general membership. That probably feels like a "DUH" statement, but it does raise some possible pitfalls going forward.

IF additional direction is given to leaders, yet not maintained in a separate handbook, then it could create more misunderstandings amongst leaders and the average Joe and Jane member who have now been told they have access to the same handbook as leaders. It could actually double down on the "unwritten" order of things. But instead of being in a handbook that can be referenced, the additional communications/direction will be maintained by individual leaders, either in a kind of personal handbook (copies of emails and letters) or in their memory of what they were once told.

Not to be alarmist here (too late) but this could actually be worse.

OR the Leadership Communication System will become a new de facto handbook.

[pogi]

33 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

There will always be additional detail, direction, and guidance given to leaders on how to deal with situations. It's hard to imagine that every communication intended for leaders would be sent to the general membership. That probably feels like a "DUH" statement, but it does raise some possible pitfalls going forward.

I think there will always be unique situations that may require consulting hire-ups, but in general, leaders refer to the handbook for just about everything.  I don't think that will be any different than it is now.