I've spoken to lots of members over the years and people have brought up queries and issues and they weren't sure how things were meant to be done in regards to church organisation or leadership etc. On several occasions I have suggested the Church Handbook of Instructions but often the answers were not to be found in book 2 and you needed to check book 1. I have had members horrified that I have read most of book 1
'but you're not a priesthood holder!'
I was like 'So?'
'That's only meant for Bishoprics and Stake Presidencies!'
Often I just gave a confused look and a polite nod and wondered off but I wanted to ask if this is often the perception or am I just surrounded by loons? Why shouldn't everyone know what the rules are?
Because, unless you are in leadership positions, you aren't even supposed to know about these "handbooks".
Of course, many of us do.
And, in most wards/branches, stakes, areas, it is a well known fact that the general membership isn't supposed to be reading the CHI, book one or 2.
IF you do an internet search, you may find a copy out there. But, normally, the church finds that web page and insists it MUST be pulled down, or there will be reprocussions for the host of the web page.
Why does the church like to keep these books a secret? Not sure. I don't really care. But I suspect it's because the church as a whole believes in OBEY YOUR ELDERS, even if they are wrong. And if the lay person doesn't have a copy of the rules, how can they point out that their "Elder" is wrong? But they CAN be disciplined for NOT following the advice of their "Elder".
Anyway, if you have access to the current book, ENJOY IT, copy it, and learn from it. The rest of the world is being kept in the dark.
We have three versions in the house, one from 2006, one from 2008 and one from 2010. I should check for changes...
If they don't want the general populace reading it then they shouldn't allow them to take them home because if you bring a book into my house you are pretty much guaranteed I'm going to read it
What Is Wanted:
It use to be up on WikiLeaks. I am not sure if it still is but initially Wikileaks told the church to suck it when they wanted it taken down
Nope, following the clicks... it was removed. But wikileaks did document the hassles as it went along.
I had a copy of the 2010 version, but lost it when my hard drive crashed. Prior to that, I had bishopric copies from 2006 and 2008. I think the reason the church doesn't want people to have it is that they don't want people to look for loopholes, or what NOT to divulge to leaders. It explains how to ecclesiastically deal with transsexuals, homosexuals, murderers and such. It condemns surgical birth control. I wish I had kept them.
Here is my theory to why they keep this hidden. The Bishop is supposed to lead the ward using the Spirit. When asked specific questions he is seen as a wise authority given "special inspiration." If the rank and file have the handbook, then two things can happen. First, you can look up the answer to specific questions and there is no need to consult the Bishop. Second, if you have the handbook, then you can use it against the Bishop if he makes decisions or judgments that you don't agree with.
It is part of the power hierarchy of the church and keeping people in their place.
I will long remember the first time I was in a bishopric and the cool feeling it was to actually have my VERY OWN COPY of the Handbook. Good grief.
I think the reason it is kept close-hold is because of the processes that are described in it and the sensitive issues. I suspect TSCC doesn't want their workings open to widespread scrutiny. Good luck with that.
I am trying to imagine the original church (that TSCC so pretends to be) filing a copyright infringement suit for the Sermon on the Mount.
Here is my theory to why they keep this hidden. The Bishop is supposed to lead the ward using the Spirit. When asked specific questions he is seen as a wise authority given "special inspiration." If the rank and file have the handbook, then two things can happen. First, you can look up the answer to specific questions and there is no need to consult the Bishop. Second, if you have the handbook, then you can use it against the Bishop if he makes decisions or judgments that you don't agree with.
It is part of the power hierarchy of the church and keeping people in their place.
Bingo. This is what I was going to say much less eloquently, but you got to it before I could. This is the first thought I had when I read this post.
2hrs and 9mins from my post to RationalGuys post saying the url was removed.
You know TSSC monitors this website.
They obviously do. It makes me wonder further, though, if anything said on here makes them question their own beliefs, or if they're just doing it for the paycheck.
Matter Unorganized:
I had a copy of the 2010 version, but lost it when my hard drive crashed. Prior to that, I had bishopric copies from 2006 and 2008. I think the reason the church doesn't want people to have it is that they don't want people to look for loopholes, or what NOT to divulge to leaders. It explains how to ecclesiastically deal with transsexuals, homosexuals, murderers and such. It condemns surgical birth control. I wish I had kept them.
This was something I learned after the fact. I had a vasectomy, then after was told that the church supported tubal legations, but not vasectomies. It was one of those, "why was it a secret before hand?" moments for me. I was told I had done something wrong, even though I didn't know the rule before hand.
It was also a WTF moment. We chose the vasectomy because it was cheaper. Why the sexist difference on who gets the surgery.
Matter Unorganized:
I had a copy of the 2010 version, but lost it when my hard drive crashed. Prior to that, I had bishopric copies from 2006 and 2008. I think the reason the church doesn't want people to have it is that they don't want people to look for loopholes, or what NOT to divulge to leaders. It explains how to ecclesiastically deal with transsexuals, homosexuals, murderers and such. It condemns surgical birth control. I wish I had kept them.
This was something I learned after the fact. I had a vasectomy, then after was told that the church supported tubal legations, but not vasectomies. It was one of those, "why was it a secret before hand?" moments for me. I was told I had done something wrong, even though I didn't know the rule before hand.
It was also a WTF moment. We chose the vasectomy because it was cheaper. Why the sexist difference on who gets the surgery.
Doncha understand, if you have the big V, then you can't propogate with other women?!?
If a woman has the big TL, then she is cast aside, or put to pasture while some young hen takes her place. Women are just mere possessions, and have a limited amount of childbearing life anyway, but you men, you can reproduce until the day you die (and even after that with the right urologist!).
But, guess what, unless it's the health of the mother, women are highly discouraged from being "snipped" too. It makes us no longer able to be worthy of bringing those special spirits to Earth!
Of course the top brass doesn't want to hear the news that even men's seed gets old, and after a certain age shouldn't be considered a real viable candidate for reproduction. Oh, well... what do we expect from the "OLD BOYS CLUB"?
When my dh and I discussed the options (when we thought we were 'done' with kids), I refused to get a tubal ligation or hysterectomy because of the muscular structure of the pelvic area. PLUS, I would have to have been down for at least 6 weeks for recuperation, and with littles around, I didn't have 6 weeks to spare.
Dh insisted he would get the big V after a 9th child. But has he? NOPE. He's a big scaredy cat, imo.
However, now we don't need to worry about the V... I no longer can carry children - something about ageing out. But the big H, is looming because of my health! What a twist.
Whoops! Had the big V a few months ago. Never knew about that rule. I was pretty much fully recovered in about 2 weeks. It did suck, but my wife had it worse giving birth a few times without painkillers. I'm glad I did the surgery, we are definitely done.
Matter Unorganized:
I had a copy of the 2010 version, but lost it when my hard drive crashed. Prior to that, I had bishopric copies from 2006 and 2008. I think the reason the church doesn't want people to have it is that they don't want people to look for loopholes, or what NOT to divulge to leaders. It explains how to ecclesiastically deal with transsexuals, homosexuals, murderers and such. It condemns surgical birth control. I wish I had kept them.
This was something I learned after the fact. I had a vasectomy, then after was told that the church supported tubal legations, but not vasectomies. It was one of those, "why was it a secret before hand?" moments for me. I was told I had done something wrong, even though I didn't know the rule before hand.
It was also a WTF moment. We chose the vasectomy because it was cheaper. Why the sexist difference on who gets the surgery.
This just makes me cross-eyed. Another classic example - of course the woman should bear the risk of surgery. Of course the man should not limit his ability to bear offspring. Hey, if the couple ever gets a divorce he can go on and have children with a new wife. But she's used goods and already had her chance, so let her take the surgical risk.
I'm sure they would love to stick with, 'have all the children god gives you no matter the risk' but I think from a societal angle they just can't get away with that anymore. I know that growing up I was told that in cases where the mother's life was at risk she may be able to abort, but should pray about it first and of course her leadership must be consulted... and the general tone of that particular MIA class discussion was, well really, she would be awfully selfish to deprive the baby of life - after all, the spirit needed a body, and since she was going to live forever in the afterlife anyhow, what did it matter if she died now or later?
This was of course before correlation, when people were freer to tell the truth about the church's viewpoints.
First on the handbook, I let me wife read mine (when I had it) - she was appalled and taken back by much in it. It is accurate that if the "Spirit" provides, then a handbook like this wouldn't be necessary.
It's funny how people don't see the oxymoron isn't it? Guided by the Spirit, as long as you're within "these lines"?
Also, this is something that many forget, or are not aware of and it absolutely astounds me . . . the Mormon church and it's "board" are a 501(c) correct? Most know that . . .
BUT, did you know that when a Bishop is appointed he becomes part of the "board"? And as such, is not able to be sued?
That's right folks, despite all of the bad advice, stepping out of bounds, or even breaking the law (I've seen this when it comes to personal information) he is given limited immunity. So when the 1st and 2nd counselors act on the Bishop's behalf, they don't have this "clery protection".
Another reason to keep Book 1 out of everyone's hands . . .
Okay, on the to the Big "V". When I was in a Branch Presidency, despite knowing the church's stand - I had it done, for our family. (my wife, at that time, had serious mental health issues). Besides, I figured it was none of their business.
ALSO, I had it reversed after our divorce. With the initial V, I was down for one day tops, with the reversal I was lying flat with an ice bag on my groin for nearly a week. NOW THAT WAS PAINFUL!!! Microsurgery and all . . .
We had two children after that reversal.
Now I've had the Big "V" done again, because of my age and don't regret it in the least.
Besides, we all know this, Spencer Kimball stated in the '70s that birth control was an abomination and now the Mormon church has changed their tune . . .
. . . as they will with most things in the near term future.
First on the handbook, I let me wife read mine (when I had it) - she was appalled and taken back by much in it. It is accurate that if the "Spirit" provides, then a handbook like this wouldn't be necessary.
It's funny how people don't see the oxymoron isn't it? Guided by the Spirit, as long as you're within "these lines"?
Also, this is something that many forget, or are not aware of and it absolutely astounds me . . . the Mormon church and it's "board" are a 501(c) correct? Most know that . . .
BUT, did you know that when a Bishop is appointed he becomes part of the "board"? And as such, is not able to be sued?
That's right folks, despite all of the bad advice, stepping out of bounds, or even breaking the law (I've seen this when it comes to personal information) he is given limited immunity. So when the 1st and 2nd counselors act on the Bishop's behalf, they don't have this "clery protection".
Another reason to keep Book 1 out of everyone's hands . . .
Okay, on the to the Big "V". When I was in a Branch Presidency, despite knowing the church's stand - I had it done, for our family. (my wife, at that time, had serious mental health issues). Besides, I figured it was none of their business.
ALSO, I had it reversed after our divorce. With the initial V, I was down for one day tops, with the reversal I was lying flat with an ice bag on my groin for nearly a week. NOW THAT WAS PAINFUL!!! Microsurgery and all . . .
We had two children after that reversal.
Now I've had the Big "V" done again, because of my age and don't regret it in the least.
Besides, we all know this, Spencer Kimball stated in the '70s that birth control was an abomination and now the Mormon church has changed their tune . . .
. . . as they will with most things in the near term future.
I'm not a lawyer so take this with a grain of salt.
It is my understanding that legal organizations like corporations and even 501(c)(3) organizations are legally bound by their "policies and manual." The CHI would fall into that catagory. If a bishop acts in ways that are in violation of the CHI, I believe the Church itself can be held accountable. Even though the bishop himself may be legally exempt it doesn't mean the church is legally exempt. Making sure the handbook isn't available for common perusal helps obfuscate potential legal liabilites and thus lawsuits.
Besides, I think most rank and file members would be offended by a lot of the info there.
