Religion, SF, and Other Speculative Fictions.


Mind on Fire random header image

LDS Church Handbook of Instructions available via WikiLeaks

Posted by John on May 28th, 2008 at 7:18 am · 70 Comments

This will be old news for Bloggernaccle Mormons, but a relatively recent edition (1999) of the influential but much obscured Church Handbook of Instructions is available online via wikileaks. I can only say to this, “Hooray Internets!”

I have to post the link on principle, if nothing else. Transparency and open communication are two of my core values, and one of the areas that gave Jana and I the most grief in our struggles with the both the Church institution and its culture. There is a certain amount of power that comes from restricting information to leaders and limiting the access that rank and file members have to it–especially when that information can profoundly affect the happiness of those members and reaches into the most private aspects of their lives.

This culture of secrecy and selective sharing of information pervades the Church, from its slick PR operations, to its approach to its own controversial history (which, I am happy to say, seems to be opening up in the past couple of decades as academic interest grows), to its missionary program (milk before the meat, elder!), to its masonry-inspired temple ceremonies, to its leaders interaction with its members (including annotated records of disciplinary action and fringe group involvement that follow some members around and which can inform their leader’s opinions of them).

Because the LDS Church has an untrained, lay clergy, the Handbook serves as an important guide for Mormon Bishops and other pastoral and administrative leaders. It not only serves as a reference for Church policy, but also contains advice on how to counsel members in a variety of situations (such as asking adolescents about their personal sexual habits) and how to direct members to professional resources if necessary. Its guidance ranges from the mundane (the delineation of responsibilities for the various Church offices) to the extraordinary (e.g., policies towards elective sterilization, transsexuals, euthanasia and hypnosis).

I believe that airing these things out can only improve the situation of my sisters and brothers in the Church by bringing to light problematic policies and practices that should be phased out. Here’s one example from page 72, regarding the sealing (i.e. eternal marriage) of a husband and wife:

Sealing of a Husband and Wife

Living Women

A living woman may be sealed to only one husband. If she is sealed to a husband and later
divorced, she must receive a cancellation of that sealing from the First Presidency before she
may be sealed to another man in her lifetime (see “Applying for a Cancellation of Sealing or a
Sealing Clearance” on this page).

Living Men

If a husband and wife have been sealed and the wife dies, the man may have another woman
sealed to him if she is not already sealed.

You catch that? The LDS Church still advocates polygyny. I’ve seen this policy impact relationships between Mormon men and women negatively in this world. Here’s a bit more:

Applying for a Cancellation of Sealing or a Sealing Clearance

When a woman has been sealed and divorced, she may apply for a cancellation of the previous
sealing. The bishop and stake president submit an Application to the First Presidency form to
seek this cancellation.

When a man has been divorced from a woman who was sealed to him and is worthy and
prepared to have another woman sealed to him, he may apply for a sealing clearance. The
bishop and stake president submit an Application to the First Presidency form to seek this
clearance.

Translated: men remain married (in the eternal, “sealed” sense) to the women they divorced. Women essentially have to apply for a spiritual divorce on top of the legal one. This can mean a period of ecclesiastical red tape and humiliating interviews that can cause stress in her relationship with her prospective eternal husband.

I doubt I’ll spend much more time reading this, but if any of you have a chance to read it (especially those of you who are looking at Mormonism from the outside), I’m very interested in your opinions.

Tags: Feminism · Mormon

70 responses so far ↓

  • 1 amelia // May 28, 2008 at 10:10 am

    i don’t particularly like these policies of the church (meaning the different policies for men and women re: sealing). and i don’t intend to defend them. but “advocate”? i think that’s a bit misleading. the church doesn’t advocate polygyny, even if it allows it or facilitates it in some sense. to advocate something is to actively promulgate its practice, and i just don’t see the church doing that with polygyny.

    as to openness of the handbook–i can’t honestly say what the church’s argument for not publishing it is. i’m sure there is one, but i’m at a bit of a loss as to what it is. can you summarize that argument?

  • 2 John // May 28, 2008 at 10:58 am

    Agreed. ‘Advocate’ is over the top. I remember struggling with what word to use there, but forgot about it in the pressure to crank out the post quickly. It certainly doesn’t discourage spiritual polygyny. Maybe ‘adheres to’ is a better usage? Help me out, English PhD! :P

    I decided not to touch church’s reasoning in this post, partly because others have looked at it recently. The “old news” link in my post takes you to BiV’s post on the topic, and “certain amount of power” links to a comment in a discussion on ZD specifically about “hiding the handbook.” I personally view it in the context of a larger culture that supports this kind of selective, strategic dissemination and withholding of information, for which a variety of explanations are used to defend the practices.

  • 3 Elaine // May 28, 2008 at 11:01 am

    I haven’t had time to read the whole thing, but something in the summary jumps out at me, as trivial as it might seem.

    It states that members should not participated in hypnosis for “demonstration or entertainment” purposes. Right after I was baptized at age 16, I went to a youth conference that necessitated a bus ride of about three hours. On the way home, out of boredom, one of the youth from my ward who happened to know hypnotism put two others under hypnosis. Word got back to the bishop and from the reaction one would have thought someone had murdered someone on the bus ride home.

    Now, I agree that hypnosis is likely not something that should be played around with by amateurs, but I’ve seen a few overreactions in my life, and that was one of them.

    As far as the CHI in general, I believe that it should be fully open to the membership and to anyone else who wants to read it. Not to do so makes me think that there is something there that the leadership wants hidden…probably so that they are not held accountable for positions and procedures outlined within it.

  • 4 xJane // May 28, 2008 at 7:36 pm

    Full Disclosure: I haven’t read it & prolly won’t.

    This disparity between men & women is not surprising. Not because I have a low opinion of LDS (from hanging out with the wrong crowd) but, honestly, because it’s codified religion. A large part of my atheism is informed by my feminism. I won’t countenance an organization that denigrates 51% of its members. And most major religions fall into that group.

    Regarding the hiding of it, Elaine hit it on the head: if there’s nothing in there to hide, why hide it? The Catholic Catechism (which seems comparable) is available online and no one reads that. The best way to generate interest is to deny something; contrawise, the best way to bury something is to make it public knowledge.

    At the same time, John points out the other reason to keep it hidden: “we know more than you” is a classic power play. To me it just underscores the insecurity of the people in power in charge of the hiding.

  • 5 Jana // May 28, 2008 at 10:46 pm

    Interesting about they hypnosis. When I was a teen I went to a party at a bishopric member’s house (for one of his kids who was graduating from high school) and he’d hired a hypnotist to make kids bark like chickens and such. I thought it was pretty stoopid.

    Also interesting to me is that my parents encouraged me to learn hypnosis for pain control when I was a tween. I guess that’s not expressly forbidden, but how would a lay member even know that the church had policies about hypnosis if they can’t access the CHI?

    And don’t even get me started on teh church’s sexist policies…..

  • 6 Elaine // May 29, 2008 at 7:48 am

    Jana wrote:

    “I guess that’s not expressly forbidden, but how would a lay member even know that the church had policies about hypnosis if they can’t access the CHI?”

    That is exactly the point I made, I think it was in comment over on BiV’s blog. I think I compared it to not publishing the US Code and the Code of Federal Regulations but then holding people accountable to the laws and regulations there.

    Perhaps the CHI isn’t strictly “church law”, but it still instructs leadership, as I understand it, on what to hold members accountable for. How is it right or fair to hold people accountable for things they have no way of knowing are considered wrong, especially things that are completely acceptable in the wider culture?

  • 7 LegalGuy // May 30, 2008 at 7:13 am

    Does this mean that you do not support US copyright law?

    If you do not, will you be taking action if you ever do publish a SciFi novel and it is posted on line for free download?

    I realize that this is a bit of apples and oranges with regard to content, but the legal aspect is the same.

    For what it is worth, I don’t have a strong opinion either way about who has access to the handbook. I do however have strong opinions on the law.

  • 8 Elaine // May 30, 2008 at 7:29 pm

    I’m not sure that something like the CHI should be able to be copyrighted. It is a special case in that it was clearly not copyrighted to protect the income from sales of it. I think it is fairly obvious that the church copyrighted it in order to keep it out of circulation in their obsession with secrecy. If a case concerning the posting of the CHI online reached the courts, I’m sure that the attorneys arguing for free access to the CHI would be able to make very good arguments distinguishing the facts of that case from those of a writer’s science fiction novel being posted without her permission for free download.

    In my opinion, keeping the church membership from being able to access the CHI would be like if the US copyrighted case law – the judicial decisions of the various federal courts in the nation in order to limit publication and thus limit access to it by interested parties such as those accused of crimes or those hoping to sue rich and powerful companies. That way, those individuals and their attorneys could not have access to what decisions had been made in the past and what standards are used to hold individuals and corporations to account, and what the reasoning was that was used to make the decisions on such cases in the past. That would allow courts to not have to follow stare decisis, which holds courts to previous precedents unless those decisions have explicitly been overturned or depublished in subsequent decisions.

    Essentially, by keeping the CHI “eyes only”, that is what the church is doing…it is trying to keep the standards by which issues are evaluated and the guidelines for how decisions in specific cases are made unknown by the general membership of the church so that if similar cases are not decided in similar ways, no one can complain because no one knows what standards and guidelines were used to make the different decisions.

    Of course, this is just my opinion, and your mileage may vary.

    And, please, excuse my legal rant…I trained as a paralegal a long time ago and occasionally I become possessed by my inner paralegal. It isn’t a pretty thing. :)

  • 9 LegalGuy // Jun 2, 2008 at 11:59 am

    So does this mean that if you post pictures of your children and friends on your webpage that I am welcome to copy them and sell them or use them on a different web page? You clearly didn’t post them for profit.

    Copyright has nothing to do with profit or income. It is all about protection of unique information. You legal views are not at all in harmony with the laws. Wikileaks in the US has already lost numerable copyright cases and been forced to remove content. The only reason the information is still available on line is because of weak protections in other countries.

    As I said before, the content is not the issue here. The pathetic “situational ethics” employed by this organization I find disturbing.

  • 10 xJane // Jun 2, 2008 at 4:02 pm

    I agree with LegalGuy that Wikileaks has some ethical flaws. That said, keeping the CHI under lockdown makes just about as much sense as Oregon doing the same thing. If you want someone to do what you tell them, logic (not ethics) dictates that you tell them what to do. While lack of knowledge of a law is not an excuse when you break it, it may well be an excuse if the laws in question were secretive.

    Whether the law in question is political, as in the case of Oregon, or spiritual, as in the case of CHI, it stands to reason that the enforcers of the law would need that law to be public knowledge in order to enforce it. Does that mean that I should be able to read the law? Not necessarily: I do not do any business in Oregon nor am I Mormon. I do not fall under these jurisdictions. But if I were to become Mormon or move to/plan to do business in Oregon, I would require access to these laws.

    Breaking these idiotic copyright is at best civil disobedience exposing stupidity. It may be no more than that. But it may also wake people up to larger issues in similar arenæ.

  • 11 John // Jun 2, 2008 at 4:13 pm

    Just a quick comment–I like that xJane brought up civil disobedience. It highlights the point that laws and ethics don’t necessarily overlap, so we have to be careful not to conflate the two.

    In the two minutes that I have to comment, my simplistic, unsophisticated response is to say that I’ll break the law for a good cause rather than use it to defend an oppressive one any day. I’ll try to qualify this when I have time later this evening.

  • 12 LegalGuy // Jun 3, 2008 at 6:59 am

    I think John’s answer is fair to some degree. I do have to say that from my understanding, the CHI is more of an instruction manual on how to run a Ward or a Stake. Not a manual on how to be a Mormon. I don’t know that there is anything in it at all that the average member could not find out by asking a simple question.

  • 13 Quin // Jun 3, 2008 at 2:10 pm

    It was getting my hands on this part of the CHI that did a fair portion of damage to my confidence in church authority. I struggled enough with polygamy, and the lip service paid to the notion that it isn’t part of the church any more was intolerable.

  • 14 cool linkx « darwinian remiix // Jun 3, 2008 at 4:59 pm

    [...] lds church handbook available on the internet (mormonism) [...]

  • 15 Soft Chairs // Jul 2, 2008 at 10:12 pm

    As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I find it interesting that so many people (including many quoted above) claim that the Church is sexist based on one or two things they have heard or read. If you look more closely, you’ll see that this is not the case.

    Here’s an example: Have you ever attended our Sunday meetings at one of our many chapels? You’ll see a “Visitors Welcome” sign in front of every building, so don’t hesitate to visit us one Sunday. As you walk through the hallways you’ll notice a lot of classrooms with metal folding chairs in them. As part of our Sunday meetings, we separate into different classes for Sunday School. If you check every classroom, you’ll find that one of the large rooms is full of nice, comfortable, apolstered folding chairs rather than stiff metal folding chairs like all the other classrooms. That’s the Relief Society room, set aside for the women for when they have their own meetings and classes. Women are the glue that holds our Church together, for without them we would certainly be lost. Therefore, we want to show them how much we love and appreciate them. Giving the women the “soft chairs” while we use the “hard chairs” is a simple gesture, but it reminds us all to respect women and hold them in the highest regard.

    If you want to learn more about the Mormon Church, talk to a faithful member or the missionaries, not one of our critics. If you want to learn more about McDonalds, would you go to Burger King headquarters? Of course not.

    In the New Testament we learn that we need to beware of false prophets and teachings, and that the best way to distinguish truth from error among ministers is “by their fruits.” Please consider the fruits of the Mormon Church. On the whole, we are good people who have a deep love for family and the Savior Jesus Christ.

  • 16 John // Jul 3, 2008 at 5:48 am

    Soft Chairs, I welcome your critique here, but you have inaccurately characterized the participants in this discussion:

    I find it interesting that so many people (including many quoted above) claim that the Church is sexist based on one or two things they have heard or read.

    Most of us in this discussion are members or former members who struggle with these issues. Combined, we probably represent more years of direct experience with the Church than you (not just people who “read a few lines” about the Church), so it’s not just a few lines of reading. The final straw that made me leave the Church was when I saw how differently my son and daughter’s experiences were in Young Men’s/Young Women’s. You could say that we weren’t finding the fruits very tasty.

    Lastly, if I were to considering a big, big purchase, I’d listen not only to the salesperson, but I’d look at the reviews of people both satisfied and dissatisfied with the product. But that said, I agree that most Mormons are well-intentioned people who love their families. But so are most of the Baptists, Buddhists, gays and atheists I know well.

  • 17 wren // Jul 3, 2008 at 9:33 am

    “…for without them we would certainly be lost. Therefore, we want to show them how much we love and appreciate them. Giving the women the “soft chairs” while we use the “hard chairs” is a simple gesture, but it reminds us all to respect women and hold them in the highest regard. ”

    Soft chairs…. as one of the women who was not held in the highest regard when I needed the support of the church most, I take issue with nearly everything you said. But sadly I know where you are coming from because I, too, used to buy into the same notions.

    Your comment I quoted from above is sexist both towards men and women. If you think the church would be lost without women you are implying men are inept buffoons incapable of running anything on their own. We know this is not true because men excluded women from organizations and companies for many moons and some still do and they manage just fine. Don’t sell men short. Women are not better than men. Alternatively that statement could be seen as patronizing.

    As for the rest of it, if you think a small gesture of soft chairs is holding someone in the highest regard… wow. Just wow. Such sweet platitudes might work for a fireside or charming discussion with one’s granddaughters who do not know that their primary purpose is to support the priesthood. It will not, however, sell people on something who seek to get information from all sources.

    The truth is somewhere in the middle of the church and its critics, not in the fibers covering foam stuffed folding chair.

  • 18 John // Jul 3, 2008 at 9:45 am

    Wren: amen.

  • 19 xJane // Jul 3, 2008 at 4:13 pm

    Giving the women the “soft chairs” while we use the “hard chairs” is a simple gesture, but it reminds us all to respect women and hold them in the highest regard.

    Oh, wow. I’m sorry Soft Chairs, but that is the exact reason why you misunderstand the whole feminist complaint. Dittos to wren, but I couldn’t let this one go w/o my 2¢. Opening doors for women, standing up when they enter a room, these are holdovers from extraordinarily patriarchal societies. I love soft chairs, don’t get me wrong, but the reasoning behind why you’re giving them to the “fairer sex” is the exact reason why we call the Church (not just yours) misogynistic.

    Women are the glue that hold your society together because they are the unpaid labor force that bears, raises, and educates your children. Women are the glue that hold your society together because they are the maids that cook and clean while the Men Of The House bring home the bacon.

    There are many ways to argue that one Church or another is not misogynistic, but chairs is not the way to do it. Spend some time with FMH and come back with valid arguments for why women should stay in your Church.

    And please do come back. Dissent is appreciated, as is dialogue. John is, as ever, the voice of reason & peacemaking. I’m the short fuse. But both of us enjoy the discussion and the points you can bring to the table.

  • 20 Rick Poling // Dec 17, 2008 at 7:09 am

    I respect each of your comments and opinions as posted on this blog. As an active member of the LDS church, serving in a leadership capacity, I can state that we have an obligation and a duty as members of the church to love our fellow men/women both inside and outside of the church regardless to whether we share the same beliefs or not.
    With that being said, I do not caste judgement for those of you who have differing opinions of the church and in fact, I would love you the same as any member of our church.
    I believe that there are many of you who have some real life experience as visitors of former members of the church. I do not personally know where you draw upon your written experiences within this blog; I believe that some are from other sources, some are from “reading a few lines” and others are probably from valid personal experiences that happened while living as an active member of the church at one time.
    For those of you with personal experiences, I would only like to say that I’m sorry for any pain or suffering that may have come to you through another person in the church. I should point out that while most members are filled with good intentions, there are still many who make mistakes, just like you and I. It would be ignorant for me to say that all members are great people. Some members do not fully live the gospel and there are many that have offended others.
    I would encourage any real truth seeker to thoroughly study the teachings of a church and then to prayerfully seek guidance from a higher, divine source. The people are not perfect. That is why we attend church, so that we may love, support, and carry the burdens of each other and so we can learn how to become more like Jesus Christ. Many of us, including me, fall short. I realize that many of you have been hurt but I do not know the full account of what happened to you.
    We must realize that it is very difficult to make statements about the church without providing a full account of what happened. Like any situation, we all know that it’s important to hear all sides in detail before being able to make an educated opinion about a matter.
    I would encourage you to share all sides of a situation when making claims for or against the church, especially if you are posting them on a public site for discussion. It is difficult for someone to post a response without fully understanding all sides of your situation.
    In any regards, I have rambled on quite enough. Whatever your personal beliefs or backgrounds may be, I wish you a Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays and hope that your life may be filled with peach and happiness this year.

  • 21 xJane // Dec 17, 2008 at 12:31 pm

    Thank you for your apology on behalf of religion and your admission that religion is not perfect. Many religionists could benefit from acknowledgment of this fact.

  • 22 Baura Kale // Aug 13, 2009 at 6:32 am

    All authority of any clout is reserved entirely to men. The Bishopric is 100% male. The Stake Presidency is 100% male. The Stake High Priest’s council is 100% male.

    Before one is allowed to join the Church they must be vetted by a male. When one is disciplined by the Church the judging of evidence and of the heart of the accused as well as the decision to disfellowship or excommunicate are made entirely by males.

    Any doctrinal issues are decided entirely by males. When a baby is blessed a non-member father is allowed to stand in the circle but a faithful-member mother is not.

    However women get soft chairs in the RS room. If you call this equality then your definition is different than mine

  • 23 The Top Five Reasons Why I’m Not Turning in a Letter of Resignation to the Church. | Mind on Fire // Sep 8, 2009 at 9:10 am

    [...] that has a profound impact on the lives of its members. (One of my most popular posts is a link to the 1999 edition of the text of the Church Handbook of Instructions.) I’m deeply indebted to others who have spoken candidly about their experiences and left a [...]

  • 24 curious and bewildered // Oct 27, 2009 at 3:50 am

    May I offer this remark?
    For those that profess that they were members previous, the offer of reinstatement to full fellowship is available if you seek it…Come back humble yourself if you can and receive his blessings as once you had before.

    To criticize leaders from afar is futile and weak….Because you have not been into the inner sanctum of Church Leadership and responsibility, remember this, God choose whom he wants and whom he calls he justify’s, who are you to criticize HIS judgment?

    To all that criticize women for not “been there”in authority, if you want this or seek this for the betterment of other women, join the Anglicans, BUT God have always had men for leaders in his church, sent your complaint[s] to him in prayer, and wait for a reply from him.

    Man is not alone in the Lord,the decree was sent forth in Genesis this has always been the case and always shall be forever and ever..
    PS as a passing belt, your pathetic justification of your excuses, touches me…..YOU [all the above] removed yourself from the Lord, now you complain he’s not fair nor just, because you have no understanding nor comprehension of HIS wisdom, you say why hide it?…….It was never hidden but open for all [worthy and called] to behold….but what would I know of things like this,i’m but a humble son, who knows when it is wise to hold my tongue and breath, should I waste it for naught…
    Matt 12
    But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
    .. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

  • 25 Corey // Nov 23, 2009 at 1:59 am

    The misunderstanding that people have with ‘sealing’ is this: Sealing isn’t the same thing as marriage. Mormon parents are sealed to their children, that doesn’t mean we advocate marriage to children! Sealing has to do with the resurrection and just because a man may be sealed to more than one woman doesn’t mean that he will be married to them in the resurrection. Three things are necessary for a Celestial or temple marriage to be valid:

    1. It must be done by proper authority
    2. Both individuals must keep their covenants
    3. The individuals must WANT to be together!

    Nothing in the Gospel is done by force. The reason it’s difficult to break a sealing is because of our belief that this is part of the Lord’s work in organizing the resurrection among other things. The reason the rules are different for the women and men is because the men happen to hold the priesthood which is tied to Christ and the resurrection. Now much of what we do here in this life, which is imperfect, we believe will be sorted out during the Millennium. In a perfect world, there wouldn’t be divorces and yet a perfect world is what we are all preparing for isn’t it? The problem isn’t with the law of the Lord, it’s with our fallen states and the tragic situations we find ourselves in.

    As for polygamy, it was a common practice since the dawn of time and was even practiced by biblical patriarchs. Most Bible-believing Christians will go out of the way to ignore that fact, justify it or invent ideas about how the Lord just looked the other way because they didn’t know as much back then. No, he allowed it and even sanctioned it at times. In Jewish law, you could have up to four wives; a man was expected to take his brother’s wife if he died and to procreate with her so his brother could have posterity. Don’t believe me? Read Deuteronomy take brother’s wife 25:5 – “If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her.”

    These people in ancient times were not perverts – we are the perverts. Our hyper-sexualized society frowns on polygamy but promotes promiscuity and fornication and adultery at every hand. In movies and TV is is portrayed as NORMAL for a man to go around sleeping with multiple women in his ‘dating life’. How can such as society look at polygamy with an untainted eye?

    For the record, I am a Mormon, I have one wife who is the love of my life, and I think one is good enough for me ;) I hope my comments can contribute positively to the discussion.

    Respectfully,

    Corey

  • 26 Dutchess M // Dec 13, 2009 at 3:33 pm

    Question on baby blessing away from home: couple in west part of country, going “home” for Xmas to eastcoast: all the family is there, and blessing to be held there.
    Couple is told No No No… MUST be in your own ward… All the family must fly to westcoast…

    This seems soooo farfetched.
    Anyone?
    thanks
    DM

  • 27 Lance // Dec 27, 2009 at 12:08 am

    Actually, the handbook of instructions states clearly that you can go to your church leaders and ask them to look at the church handbook of instructions and they can choose to allow you to read it. There are a number of good reasons why they don’t allow everyone to read it, one of them being that people will try to use it against their leaders who are inspired to pass on judgments that may or may not be in complete agreement with the “guidelines” presented in the handbook. If you don’t wish to believe that leaders are entitled to such revelation, that is your right. No where in the church handbook does it say that you are forced to abide by the church’s principles, but if you don’t follow your church leaders you are walking on very shaky ground and could rightfully be worthy of church discipline. If you don’t believe in the Lord’s church, then leave it or leave it alone. Perhaps you should spend more time worrying about your own salvation instead.

  • 28 Seamus the Terrible // Dec 30, 2009 at 9:53 am

    I am an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The Church helps me to never forget my imperfections. It is a vehicle (the best I’ve found) to help me overcome them. Continually constructing a wall of victimhood is an imperfection which the Church has helped me overcome.

    Most victimhoods are chosen. The lack of fairness discussed in the above posts is a chosen victimhood. The God of Fairness is a false god. If our church does not work out for you, then move on.

  • 29 wren // Dec 30, 2009 at 10:20 am

    #28 “The Church helps me to never forget my imperfections.”

    This is very true.

    “Most victimhoods are chosen.”

    The church is not exempt from choosing victimhood and falls back on it whenever its persecution complex sets in.

    “The God of Fairness is a false god.”

    All gods are created by man, including yours. I’ll worship fairness over discrimination and vengeance any day.

    “If our church does not work out for you, then move on.”

    Many have. That doesn’t negate our right to point out hypocrisy and bs.

  • 30 Seamus the Terrible // Dec 30, 2009 at 12:32 pm

    Wren,

    If you choose to worship the God of Fairness, then you take the side of the “obedient” brother in the parable of the prodigal son. Upon the return of the prodigal there was great celebation. The other brother complained to his father that he could not even kill a small goat to celebrate amongst his friends. He constructed a wall of victimhood and could not take joy in his brother’s return.

    The God of Fairness is also the God of Pride

  • 31 xJane // Dec 30, 2009 at 6:59 pm

    StT: Fairness, or as I prefer to think of her, Justice, is one of the patron goddesses of our nation. She deals with each as they ought be dealt. Pride is the God of the Old Testament who demanded that there be no others than Him. He Who would admit no other Divinities is a God of Blindness as well as of Deafness to the cries of His people. Worship Who you will. We will do the same.

  • 32 Seamus the Terrible // Dec 30, 2009 at 8:03 pm

    The Eleventh Article of Faith (of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints): We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

    However, as Senator Al Franken likes to point out…”you have the right to your own opinion, but you don’t have a right to your own facts”. God by His very definition must be about perfect truth and light. Anything short of this is falsehood. So we may argue about this God and that, but it all comes down to truth and falsehood. Pride, envy, miserliness…none of these things are preached where I go to church. I converted at the age of 18 and am now 52. For thirty-four years I’ve NEVER encountered ANY preachings of injustice or exhortations to blindness and deafness. ONLY exhortations to charitible acts. I go to church every single week that I’m not sick. There have NEVER been any Reverend Wright’s whose sermons you can sleep through if your initials are BHO. You can hold to your opinions if you are that intent upon being wrong and so determined to not expand your horizons to the extent that you can’t admit that the things that go on at the CofJCofLDS are part of what is good about this world and not part of what is wrong with it.

  • 33 wren // Dec 30, 2009 at 8:28 pm

    #32 Wow. You’re really riled up. Hey, I get that. I was a dittohead in the ’90s. I’ve since reformed.

    Thanks for quoting my fine senator. He is correct. And when there is scientific proof of a God, feel free to call it fact. Until then, you’re operating on faith and opinion.

    You are very lucky to have been going to church that long and never encountered negative preachings. Really. I miss that bliss.

    There’s a lot of good in the church. However, it is comprised of imperfect humans who have said and done things that aren’t good. If you can’t accept that others have experienced that, I guess you have a limited horizon. Don’t be afraid to expand it. You can look at all aspects of the church – the good and the bad and still have faith without getting peavish with those who don’t.

  • 34 Seamus the Terrible // Dec 31, 2009 at 9:32 am

    Wren: Thanks for your moderate comments. I feel the need to reciprocate.

    If one were to take the term God and substitute for it a diety-free “that which is observably good for human beings” (Senator’s Franken’s facts) then each of us could make a case for their beliefs based on results.

    StT concedes: The initial issue was the wikileak of Church Handbook of Instructions. I’m famialiar with all aspects of these two books as I have for the last eleven years served in positions of lay leadership in the CofJCofLDS at the ward (single congregation) level. There is nothing in them that I am ashamed of, or that in my opinion ought not to be shared publicly. I don’t know why the church is hesitant to do this when everything else about our so called “secretive” church can easily be found through simple web searches. As long as the lay leadership of our church has need for written instructions (always), our critics will have all of this information with little effort and virtually instantaneously. It might as well be on lds.org.

    Thanks to all.

  • 35 Jen // Feb 25, 2010 at 9:15 pm

    Well, I think maybe y’all have too much time on your hands. Why don’t y’all discuss something more important or worthwhile – like how you can help those in nedd (Haiti, anyone?) Maybe the Church doesn’t want it out there to be attacked and ripped apart by people who should be spending there time on more worthwhile things. Maybe it’s copyrighted so people can’t try to reproduce it, make changes and try to claim it is the real thing (or original.) Y’all are also missing much more vital information. It isn’t just the book. There are gospel principles and spirtual guidance involved here. Things you aren’t going to be able to understand by just reading some church’s handbook. And why do you need to read it? If you don’t need it to help you in a calling at church, why would you possibly want to read something so boring? It’s like reading a book by a right-wing conservative and assuming that everything they are saying is true and unbiased….when you know a right-wing conservative being unbiased is like saying FoxNews is the most bi-partisan, unbiased, fair news network.

    I would also like to point out that maybe the church has more important things they are trying to digitize than a handbook. I can think of a few million things I would rather be able to see online than a handbook.

    Polygamy is spelled with an m, not an n. I have never heard anyone say that they should keep the handbook hidden, secret, or any of those other claims. Could you please give me a valid LDS statement (link) where those claims can be found?

  • 36 John // Feb 25, 2010 at 9:36 pm

    Jen:

    Here’s the link to our Haiti post. We also researched several good organizations operating in Haiti, raised awareness and funds. My daughter and I are continuing to raise money for Haiti.

    The term “polygamy” is not gender-specific. It can refer to one woman, many husbands. “Polygyny” is the technical term for what Mormons practiced, and continue to practice via temple marriages when a spouse dies.

    LDS members need to read it because they are sometimes judged for detailed content, and often don’t find out until they are in the process of being disciplined (for example, for various reproductive surgeries).

    Also,presumably the book already exists in digital form, like most books/writing produced in our age. I was a programmer in the Church HQ; they’re pretty up to speed with the tech.

    The Church Handbook itself asserts in the intro to Book 1 that it is printed for the sole use of church leaders.

  • 37 cindy // Sep 9, 2010 at 12:21 pm

    John, no offense – but you are nuts! There are no secrets within the LDS Church. Sacred,… YES! Secret,… NO! Anyone can access the biships handbook of instructions – all you have to do is ask. Do you really believe that there are groups of people assigned to follow member of the church around in society so that they can snitch on them when and if they commit a sin?… You really dont know what you are talking about.

  • 38 John // Sep 10, 2010 at 12:40 pm

    cindy, we’ll have to agree to disagree. But advice: your argument might be stronger and might reach me a little better if you refrained from calling me insane and ignorant.

    I spent nearly two decades in the Church, mostly as an active adult member, serving in various positions, I worked in the Church Office Building, and I experienced the full range of Church discipline. As I struggled with testimony, I asked tough questions of leadership, and I experienced varying degrees of openness and closedness. I know a number of folks who have been ex’d including two of presidents of the stake where I converted.

    While there is snitching–I’ve had friends who were snitched on at BYU–you misrepresented what I described in my original post, which is that your *records* follow you around, and do and will contain certain sins/statuses.

    So yeah, there’s some secrecy in the Church. And I know what the fuck I’m speaking about. But thanks for stopping by.

  • 39 Steve // Oct 6, 2010 at 11:07 am

    I shouldn’t bother worrying about it. Why not spend your time living your lives rather than worrying about what you’re not told. Get a grip guys, it’s not important if you want to be happy. What is important is that you are nice to people and try your best to live a good life. Please try to get over this obsession that ‘they’re out to get you’. All organizations keep records, why shouldn’t the church? Have a nice day!

  • 40 coastmom // Oct 11, 2010 at 12:26 pm

    Very interesting reading. I’m not sure what I’m even going to say at this point, but feel compelled to write something. I too apologize for any hurt or misunderstandings you have encountered.

    Maybe I’ll address the ominous….da da da duh, HANDBOOK!
    One thing I would like to make clear, most leaders in the church come from the rank and file membership and will go back to the rank and file membership when their stint is over. Usually 2-5 years except for Stake Presidencies upwards of 10 years.
    As far as “Leaders” in our current ward we have well over 50 men who have served at one time or another as Bishop or Counselor to a Bishop and would have had great difficulty doing so without a handbook of instruction, since none of us have received any training prior to our call.

    I have been a baptized member for 42 years and
    have never had difficulty with not having access to the Church Handbook. There was one close call. We weren’t sure if we could use the kitchen for cooking or just reheating, insurance issues you know, We asked the Bishop and he looked in the Handbook and we found that the stoves may only be used for cooking in a class-type setting. For example, the Young Women learning how to make cream puffs would be an acceptable use.

    As an on again off again leader in various auxiliaries of the church (which is typical for most members, due to the short time in most callings), I had the parts of the handbook that pertained to my specific calling and my specific responsibilities. I had no difficulty with that. Everything I needed to know was there. One problem that does occur though is that they put new editions out every once in a while and if you have an old edition and you are using that as the latest authority, you might get in trouble if you still think you can cook a turkey in the church kitchen because it would be a great way to feed everyone at the Ward Dinner that evening. Can’t do it. Now give the rank and file each a handbook and then put out a new addition, and then in a few years, put out another new addition, then send out a few addendums in between, and you would find chaos reigning as everyone argued that they were right. The Turkey cookers would all have to be rounded up and given new editions or addendums, But would we even know who they are?!? With 600+ members like our ward has, it can be almost impossible. This reason alone, is enough cause to keep as few handbooks out there as possible and know who has them so you can update and change out easily.

    Actually, a new handbook is coming out next month and we are gearing up (I happen to be in a leadership position again, Primary this time) for the hassle of changing everyone’s handbooks out.

    Now to address those dastardly records following you around.
    An experience I was personally involved with was concerning a new couple that moved into our ward. Both had just been baptized (so no previous record) and no one knew them, but we welcomed them in to the Ward with open arms.
    The Husband kept volunteering to help out in the Nursery (that’s what we call the class for the little children 18 mos to 3 years). The Nursery Leaders never felt good about letting him help, but he continually volunteered for the two years they lived in the ward.

    Several years after they had moved out of our Ward, there was an article in our Boise paper about him, and this is when we found out that he had killed his own child and molested several others and was being charged and imprisoned (finally)for another molestation. I still feel a chill as I think how close we came to exposing our children, my own included to something too horrible to contemplate.

    Again I apologize for any offense that you received. But would ask that you remember that we are just doing our best, and I would say that none of us feels that our best is anywhere near perfect, sometimes, given the stresses of life and family, jobs, etc. It is far from perfect indeed. It then falls to the rank and file to put up with us, or as you have done, leave.

  • 41 Jessie // Nov 13, 2010 at 1:44 pm

    I am a member of the L.D.S. church. As members, we are all treated equally and fairly. Yes, we do follow a living prophet, have all male priesthood leaders, and believe in Jesus Christ. We do so with a heart full of love and with a purpose.

  • 42 dj // Dec 5, 2010 at 9:59 am

    why can’t women be in the priesthood?

  • 43 Mike // Dec 5, 2010 at 8:17 pm

    I am an active member of the LDS Church. I just want to point out that all 12 apostles chosen by Jesus Christ were male. Does that mean Jesus was a sexist, I don’t believe so. Women hold many leadership positions in the Church. Some leadership positions can only be held by women, and some can only be held by men.

  • 44 John // Dec 6, 2010 at 3:48 pm

    Actually, Mike, it does mean Jesus was sexist.

  • 45 Really? // Dec 7, 2010 at 10:07 pm

    xJane – I get the feeling there is no winning with your views. I cant respect women because they should be equal, but if I treat them like I would a friend, I would be sexist and gross.

    I think most of you are really missing a lot here. Seriously – I understand where the LDS Church can spark some disconcern among other Christian Denominations – but you information is sorely taken out of context. I have studied the 2006 version of this manual and it is very inspired and quite placid. Im so surprised that this is such a coveted “secret” document. Its a general handbook, most Bishops and priesthood leaders have them on their bookshelves at home – these are no secrets. But you can make anything look weird if you take it out of context. For example – someone mentioned the King Follett Discourse. If you read it without bias, it is a very beautiful explanation heaven and the expansion of time and space.

    As far as the LDS Church being sexist – even implying that screams that you lack any sort of real knowledge about what goes on inside our meetinghouses, and I won’t even mention the Lord’s House (are we not allowed to hold things sacred?). I am happily married, and my wife and I are equals on every plane. She even makes more money than I do – and it doesn’t matter, I only point that out because it seems to be the only social measurement anyone understands these days. We have an equal partnership in a very loving relationship. She usually gets what she wants because I just love her too much ;) but thats what we base our beliefs on. Love of the Lord, and of our families.

    I have served in many positions in the church, even full time. I have seen the “secret inner workings,” and they are as secret as the inside of the Bible or Book of Mormon, I really think that they are so secret to you because you haven’t really been to our church and actually observed it without bias. Anyone is welcome to adhere to the promise of the Book of Mormon:

    “And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.”

    That is talking about asking God directly if the book is true. He will or he won’t. This is what we believe.

    I have visited many churches, stood in prayer with members of all different religions and walks of life – I love them and respect whatever they believe. If you don’t believe great! I stumbled on this while seeing if there would be any legal repercussions of checking the wikileaks site – because I am a developer and curious about how the site is fairing with all the attention of late – and how that will relate to web analytics data.

    My website is devoted to creation and new ideas in web development. I don’t understand the need to tear down another religion. I refuse to read the leaked information about the Church of Scientology because they hold it sacred (or at least important enough to keep to themselves? Im not familiar with their beliefs) and that would be extremely disrespectful to them. I would be slow to take the word of someone who promotes mutual respect across gender and race, and yet will portray this kind of behavior.

  • 46 xJane // Dec 8, 2010 at 11:38 am

    Really?—

    I’m not sure exactly what you’re replying to, but I will say that, when I reach the door first, or someone has something in their hands, I will open the door for them, regardless of gender. That’s respect (maybe if I’m in a hurry, I won’t). I’ve had men (even men with their hands full) refuse to enter the door I’m holding open. That’s not respect—at best, that’s idiocy.

    You’re right, I “lack any sort of real knowledge about what goes on inside [y]our meeting houses” because, as I said above, I’m not LDS, nor have I ever been. That said, I’m hanging out with this crowd because, as a recovering Catholic, I found that I had a lot in common with recovering Mormons; that is, we both came from very patriarchal traditions and got out of them.

    I’m very happy for you and your spouse and your equal partnership, but even if you are a priest in LDS, you are not LDS (the monolith). I know many feminist Catholics, but what the Church officially teaches is anything but feminist. I can decry the Church as being patriarchal without attacking any of its individual members.

    When it comes to “the ‘secret inner workings’” of LDS, I rely on the accounts of those here who have experienced them as I have no direct experience with them. I weigh your experience against the experience of people like John—and I will probably give John’s more weight because I know him and I do not know you. But your input is valued and I thank you for it.

    The “need to tear down another religion” is less a need to tear it down and more a need to speak its dark truth. The Catholic church has real power in the world and that scares me because its teachings are ancient, backward, and ill-suited to modern life. I will defend the right of Catholics to believe what they want, but I will also reveal its secrets so that people know the truth of what they “believe”—and I will fight to keep its tenets from becoming law in my country.

  • 47 Seamus the Terrible // Dec 11, 2010 at 11:08 am

    I’m still reading a lot of chosen victimhood here. If I am a victim, it is only of my own choices. I learned that at church.

  • 48 Mit Ailbu // Dec 13, 2010 at 1:35 pm

    The LDS Church was founded on the idea that Christianity had fallen into apostacy, referred to by most members as the Great Apostasy.

    Within the foundational scripture of the Church(TM), the BoM, you find anecdotal recitations of varying degrees of apostasy among the people described in the BoM. At times the Nephites fall into apostasy and at other times the Lamanites. The entire point of the BoM is to give evidence that the ebb and flow of apostasy can be found among Gods people. Within the church, we tend to view ourselves as immune from apostasy, afterall, we have the truth, the authority, the keys of the kingdom. Those BoM prophets warn us throughout the record that these same things can happen to us.

    I feel that apostasy has crept into the church, not through an outright rejection on God or the gospel, but an apathetic view of truth. Members seem to be more interested in feel-good sermons that give them goosbumps, than digging into scripture and the nature of God and his relationship to man(kind). Sorry feminists, our language won’t allow me to remove man from the conversation (mankind, humanity, etc). I guess at somepoint you will have to learn to live with it. :)

    Whithout spending a lot of time on the subject of apostasy, I wanted to draw attention to the concept as a foundation for the need I see for the Church Handbook. With imperfect people being the product of creeping apostasy that has oocurred over the course of the modern church, I see a need to have very specific guidelines as a reference to avoid a lot of the conjecture and false doctrine I hear “taught” in church on Sundays. Nothing within the Church Handbook is secret. It can all be found within the Standard Works: Bible, BoM, D&C, PofGP, and current published works of the GAs. It is put together in a very concise and direct manner within the Handbook, I believe to avoid confusion by those leaders who may lack in true spiritual guidance.

    I believe this publication is held closely, not to hold members accountable to secrets, but to avoid berating by groups or individuals determined to pick these things apart and find fault for no other reason than to find fault. As a member, I find that any time a bishop has pulled out his copy of the Handbook, not only does he open it in full view on his desk, but usually turns it so we can both see the direction provided for him. I have never found it to be in a shroud of mystery.

    My point is that as membership seeks the popularity of the World, and wants to be accepted as mainstream; as more testimony is built on goosebumps than on truly understanding Christ’s teachings; as fewer and fewer members have ever read the BoM cover to cover; as fewer Priesthood holders really make a study of and understand what that priesthood really is; as the membership drifts further from the founding tenets of the restored Church and views those tenets as “deep mystories” that they prefer to avoid; there is need for concise clarity in the execution of the Church’s threefold mission.

    I find no more obligation for the Church(TM) to publicly release these guidelines than I see an obligation for the participants in this thread to publish their financial records or to detail their decision to leave the flock. I really don’t care why you chose to remove yourself from membership. That is your choice and you are free to feel however you want. I just don’t understand the insistance on discrediting and attacking an organization with which you no longer affiliate yourself. Get a life. Let it go. Most of you certainly don’t seem happy. Pull yourself up by your britches and go have fun. Why keep beating a dead horse? It makes no sense to me whatsoever.

  • 49 Jenni // Dec 15, 2010 at 2:57 pm

    Responding to the marrige thing. This bothered me for along time since a friend of mine got caught up in it. This is the best explanation I got (it was from a friend and not a leader, therefore it may not be official doctine)

    In the belief in sealing, children are sealed to the mother and only to the husband through the mother. By canceling a sealing, the wife is effectivly unsealing the children from their father and would be sealing them to the new husband. In many cases of a good father this would not be fair to him or the kids.

    With a husband the kids were never sealed to him directly anyways and therefore a new wife would not effect the sealing of the children to their mother.

    It kinda changed my perspective. If this is true than woman may get the shaft in red tape but in the end they have a powerful position over their children.
    May not make since to you, but it worked for me.

  • 50 Gustaf Nordenskiöld // Dec 15, 2010 at 9:55 pm

    WL is the most effective project against hetrosexual power.
    Keep suporting WL economicaly lets make an end to hetrosexual sociatys.
    Buy only from homosexual producers.
    If you work in a shop – help brothers buy giving them free stuff.

  • 51 Well spoken // Dec 16, 2010 at 12:13 pm

    Well spoken Soft Chairs. I had never noticed that before.
    John this book is not a secret it is public we can all get our hands on a copy. Probably for free, it was once taught in my sunday school class. Again i say it. IT IS NOT A SECRET, you can get one from your bishop.

  • 52 WhatILOVEaboutLIFE // Dec 16, 2010 at 1:42 pm

    I completely agree with softchair. I know from experience that the mormon church has the best intentions for everyone in mind. If you have been hurt turn to Christ. And remeber that his church is run by people. We will never say that we dont make mistakes. We all do. Christ is Perfect. Not his people, that is what we are striving for. Women as well as Men are Gods Children. Do visit. And remember you get out what you put in, someone made the comment that their chilren werent having great experiences or what not at youngmen/youngwomen. Keep trying and striving,.. and again YOUR GET OUT what you PUT IN. live life with integrity and ethics. and you’ll be happy. Thats what everyone is serching for… right?

  • 53 WhatILOVEaboutLIFE // Dec 16, 2010 at 1:48 pm

    ps.. I love rick poling! i dont know who you are but VERY well said!

  • 54 Kari // Dec 20, 2010 at 12:09 am

    I will defend the right of Catholics to believe what they want, but I will also reveal its secrets so that people know the truth of what they “believe”—and I will fight to keep its tenets from becoming law in my country.

    What country is being created that is going to force a religion on it’s citizens?

  • 55 Claire // Dec 24, 2010 at 4:25 am

    Hello dear friends!

    I have been trying to find “Mormon Church Handbook of Instructions” and could not find the original text anywhere… does anyone have a copy by any chance?

    if you do or know when i can get one please email me at parisdaylight@gmail.com

    thanks a lot in advance!

    Claire

  • 56 mormonzealot // Dec 29, 2010 at 6:01 am

    It seems to most of fail to realize a few things that are obvious… let’s seee.. just something you need observe is that the your railing and disrespecting others beliefs when you don’t understand them, the way your doing now, without the book. What makes you think you’d be any kinder when you had the book . You poke fun and call names on subjects you don’t believe in nor understand now so why would anyone give you more information on things you don’t like? Just so you can belittle them further? Now wouldn’t that be rather idiotic?

  • 57 BIONERD // Jan 28, 2011 at 1:11 pm

    I am not a Mormon, and I would consider myself Agnostic if not Atheist…but the Mormons view of polygamy seems to be pretty close to what “God” intended when she created humans. From a purely biological standpoint (a very simplified version), Men can make lots and lots and lots of babies…while women can make very few in comparison. One man can make an infinite amount of babies with an infinite amount of women. That’s how they were created. It almost seems that we were made to practice polygamy in some way. Anyhow…I just wanted to give another opinion.

  • 58 xJane // Jan 31, 2011 at 5:06 pm

    BIONERD: actually, if you look at human mating plugs, you might conclude that polyandry is closer to what humans evolved to practice.

  • 59 Becky // Feb 27, 2011 at 8:47 am

    Just thought you’d like to know that the Church Handbook is available on lds.org.

  • 60 lds bishops hand book | Blog about Books // Apr 15, 2011 at 5:16 am

    [...] LDS Church Handbook of Instructions available via WikiLeaks | Mind … May 28, 2008 … The bishop and stake president submit an Application to the First Presidency form to seek this cancellation. …. lds church handbook available on the internet (mormonism) [...] … [...]

  • 61 . // Apr 18, 2011 at 10:57 am

    this is a link to a copy of the LDS handbook of instructions that is only available to the leadership.

    https://ldsmormonhandbookofinstructions.wordpress.com/

  • 62 WakeUp // Apr 22, 2011 at 2:28 pm

    Take a real look at your organization. You guys are still spewing out the same crap I had to hear over and over again in those classes I was forced into going to. Have you ever really taken a look- no a real look- at yourselves? “We believe in …..” “We also believe….” Seriously this is a great way to brainwash yourselves. You FEEL this is true-yeh so did that 3 yr old girl FEEL that Bieber loved her. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTCm8tdHkfI he didnt even know her until her videos! You think Jesus is watching your videos I get it. Your replies to logical questions are all rehearsed as much as your testimony to your beliefs. I love the “You didnt pray enough if you dont feel it is true, read the BOM again and pray harder.” “keep praying until you feel it is” “you didnt ask with a pure heart of wanting to know, ask again” this kind of group think right there proves to me you are all in a brainwashing cult. “But our church gives to the poor” Yeh? Take a good look at temple square you have a hotel that costs insane amounts of money to stay in, you have buildings decked out to hell, I dont see the poor there I see a tourist trap with wealthy dogs their noses in the air thinking theyre getting to heaven- your men of god ride around in expensive automobiles with expensive suits-Zions bank is the most greedy rip-off bank I ever knew of, your church buys up stocks making tons of $ but notice the streets of salt lake city are still littered with bums and people out of work. How many widows and orphans do you see going into church who are being taken care of by THEE Church- How many buildings are set up with facilities for the poor vs buildings set up for the rich. I knew more families who were turned away from your church- that had no money for food and rent that I had to personally help-yeh i paid for their food and rent- than families that this CHURCH OF GOD helped. You put 10% in some envelope and think its all taken care of. You wanna know where your tithing goes maybe you should ask for a audit of all the $ just like the fed that church is a business and there are poor starving homeless people.. go ahead and show us all the widows orphans and homeless that are being cared for. I’m not against some idea of a nice caring GOD or JESUS but damned if I’ll be spoon fed how incredible your church is- I know it, and I know just like every other major organized religion. Your temple ceremonies that are supposed to be sacred and kept the same since ancient times unlike the Mason ceremonies they were copied from keep getting updated- how is it a perfect god has to update anything if he is so intelligent to make a world and a people dont you think he’d know how to make some ceremonies that would be universal and beyond time

  • 63 (none) // May 4, 2011 at 6:35 pm

    @ WAKEUP:

    You seem to be really upset about this. This religion hasnt done anything sorts of damage to you in any way. Ive got a buddy that is a memeber and his parents almost lost their home but the mormon church had offered to pay their rent until they could get back on their feet not to mention gave them free food weekly to make sure that they werent goin hungry and mind you he is one of 12 children. Ive heard of many stories about that and ive seen it happen, the 10% the church recieves from members is used for those types of dilemmas and to help each other out. And if your bothered about where money in a religion goes stick your nose in the catholic religion where popes have solid gold thrones and cathlics have the largest poverty levels of their own memebers that recieve no help at all from their church, where as the LDS faith hasnt turned anyone down yet. So maybe you should shut your mouth and notice something good rather than bash it!

  • 64 Frogguy // May 26, 2011 at 12:16 am

    John, no matter what you might think of Cindy, she’s exactly right. There is nothing in the GHI that is not available to any member if they ask. You’ll note that nothing in the book is described as doctrine. It’s as it says, a handbook of instructions for unit leaders so there is conformity across the Church. Why is it not widely distributed? Because sections or pages are updated regularly and the cost and bother of updating everyone is beyond reason, especially when you consider that the information inside isn’t necessary for anyone to see other than the unit leaders. They all get copies. The general membership does not because they only need to see it when something comes up that pertains to them, and their bishop will show them the parts they need to see if they will ask. Mine even photocopied a couple of pages for me once when I needed to know a specific procedure that I won’t detail here. A 1999 copy of the GHI is considerably outdated, by the way.

  • 65 Frustrated // May 26, 2011 at 8:22 am

    The church is filled with imperfect people. Working inside the church to correct problems is an arduous, frustrating but wothwhile task.

  • 66 Jon // Jun 23, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    All these questions will be raised on a much grander level if a Mormon gets the nomination for president. I would say to you Mormons to be prepared for a lot of justifiable questions that will certainly come, about all of these issues, i.e. sexism, racism and the churches past leaders behavior that comes from a well documented historical perspective. People have a right to know about the inner workings of a church. John’s blog here is much appreciated by those of us who don’t agree with the LDS church. I happen to believe that evolution is the best theroy on how we have come into being and become who we are. I personally believe that God created that for us, but it is pointless to change a persons’ mind about religion because we have “evolved” with the impulse to belong to a special group that makes us feel strong, powerful and sane. Mormons need that as much as anyone else and are no different than all the other good people in this world. If you can’t see that then you are just fooling yourself. People will go to war for that very eveolutionary thing and have done so since the point the human race scampered down from the trees. It’s important now at this time in history for us to understand that our next president is dealing with the reality in this world and not illusion.

  • 67 Jared // Jul 3, 2011 at 9:06 pm

    It’s called polygamy get it right man… In my opinion your pour editing weakened your whole argument.

  • 68 John // Jul 12, 2011 at 5:05 am

    Jared, nice try. “Polygamy” swings both ways: a woman with multiple husbands is practicing polygamy. “Polygyny” is a more precise term, because it defines marriage between one man and more than one woman.

  • 69 jon // Jul 12, 2011 at 7:44 am

    By the way Jared, in addition to what John just posted, you spelled “poor wrong”, speaking of editing…. So now is his arguement is strengthened?

  • 70 jon // Jul 12, 2011 at 7:47 am

    opps I spelled “argument” wrong, guess that means everything I said must be flawed…

Leave a Comment