quoting from the Church Handbook of Instructions

[Guest mysticmorini]

Is it appropriate for someone who has access to the CHI to quote from it on a site like this? I know i'm guilty of doing it. the church is pretty strict with who has access to this manuel, is it ok to quote sections from it for unofficial purposes?

[Maureen]

I believe it is not okay to quote from the CHI. You can paraphrase, but no quoting or linking. The mods can correct me if I'm wrong.

M.

(Editing to add: A miracle has happened. I can post replies at work without all the gobballygook that happened before.) :)

Edited February 16, 2010 by Maureen

[Wingnut]

The Church keeps a tight leash on the CHI when it comes to copyright infringement. In the past, whenever it has been quoted from (or linked to) on this site, the post has been moderator-edited. I have seen exceptions to that if it's only one or two sentences, and directly related to the topic at hand.

[sog61]

Why isn't not appropriate to quote from CHI ?

[pam]

It's copyrighted material.

[NeuroTypical]

Cool - so as long as we follow copyright rules, we're fine?

That means we can quote from it?

Excellent.

LM

[Guest mysticmorini]

aside from copyrights does or would the church approve of it?

[pam]

Perhaps MOE or someone that has been or is a Bishop could better answer the question. I'm just looking at it from a copyright perspective. I do know that the Church has requested certain websites to take down their posting of the entire Church Handbook from their sites.

[Guest mysticmorini]

I think there is a difference between posting the whole book and quoting from sections but i think the principle is the same.

[MarginOfError]

There's a delicate balance to be had with wide distribution of the Church Handbook of Instructions (CHI). The CHI is a very administratively focused book. It's purpose is to guide and instruct on the majority of administrative issues that are likely to be seen by local ecclesiastical leaders so that the Church can operate in a consistent and appropriate manner throughout the world.

The big downfall of the CHI is that it is so administratively focused that it's easy to get caught up in the technicalities of the administration and lose sight of the spirit of ministering in the Gospel. The purpose of the book, however, is to reduce the amount of time that church leaders must spend administering so that they may focus their time on ministering.

If the CHI were to be widely distributed, it would be easy for people to get the impression that the Church is not guided by the spirit, but is heavily dictated by bureaucratic policies from Salt Lake. In trying to prevent this perception, the Church has limited the distribution of the book to those that need it. Ironically, this has created the same criticism they hoped to avoid.

Still, for the general membership, it's probably best that it not be available as 1) it isn't usually needed, 2) it isn't an interesting read (mind numbing is more like it), and 3) it offers very little in the way of spiritual upliftment. Until administrative issues are at hand, the CHI is really just a distraction from the Gospel.

So, when discussions about limited availability of the CHI come up, just remember that it's a tool for administration of Church policy and is meant to complement that spiritual mission of the Church. The CHI will tell a leader how he should handle a situation about 95% of the time. But he or she must still be open to the spirit to know when to apply exceptions.

As for quoting the CHI, by copyright, as long as you cite the publisher, author, page, and date of publication, you should be fine. But if you want to stick with the spirit of the Church's policy, we would be best to focus on doctrine as much as possible and avoiding policy when we can (admittedly, I'm really bad at this part...I blame it on being a clerk).

[pam]

As for quoting the CHI, by copyright, as long as you cite the publisher, author, page, and date of publication, you should be fine. But if you want to stick with the spirit of the Church's policy, we would be best to focus on doctrine as much as possible and avoiding policy when we can (admittedly, I'm really bad at this part...I blame it on being a clerk).

I wonder about this though MOE. We on lds.net are not allowed to even post an entire talk taken from lds.org per copyright laws. We can post a paragraph and provide a link but we are not allowed to post the entire article etc. Even if we do post author, page etc...without written permission from the Church.

[Saguaro]

I'm no lawyer, but just because something is coprighted doesn't mean you can't quote it or even link to it. It does mean you can't claim it as your own or try to sell it.

I know of no reason why it should not be permitted to be quoted here (I have to admit I have quoted or at least referred to it here before.) There's nothing in it that the church is trying to hide, it's mostly administrative stuff. If you want to know what's in the CHI or have a question that may be answered by it you can simply ask your Bishop and I'm sure he'll be glad to help you. I think it would be beneficial for members of the church to have more access to it.

On a couple of occasions the bishop in my ward has held a 5th Sunday combined PH/RS meeting in which all he did was address topics of interest in the CHI, stuff that the members would not normally hear but would be of great interest. Those have been some of the best and informative meetings I've attended.

[Dravin]

I wonder about this though MOE. We on lds.net are not allowed to even post an entire talk taken from lds.org per copyright laws. We can post a paragraph and provide a link but we are not allowed to post the entire article etc. Even if we do post author, page etc...without written permission from the Church.

I'm fairly sure MOE is talking fair use type stuff. A paragraph here or there. You are correct that one couldn't reproduce the entire work even with attribution.

[Guest mysticmorini]

i thought the main reason access was denied to general members was because it is a guide and nothing in it is set in stone so to speak. which would also be a good reason not to quote from it, many bishops however would be very reluctant to stray from its guidelines.

[hordak]

If the CHI were to be widely distributed, it would be easy for people to get the impression that the Church is not guided by the spirit, but is heavily dictated by bureaucratic policies from Salt Lake. In trying to prevent this perception, the Church has limited the distribution of the book to those that need it.

I always thought it was to keep people like me from

"Nah Bishop Jones, it's cool, i only went this far on this issue, the book draws the line after it, a step further which i didn't cross, so no need to sweat it:smokindevil:"

[pam]

I'm fairly sure MOE is talking fair use type stuff. A paragraph here or there. You are correct that one couldn't reproduce the entire work even with attribution.

I've never had a problem when a paragraph or two has been quoted. But as an overall statement, I think we should curtail ourselves to the limited times we have quoted it and not do it on a regular basis. One for copyright purposes and the other because it was meant for leaders as a reference and not meant for the general public.

[Saguaro]

But if you want to stick with the spirit of the Church's policy, we would be best to focus on doctrine as much as possible and avoiding policy when we can (admittedly, I'm really bad at this part...I blame it on being a clerk).

MOE, you make some great points, but I want to address the issue of doctrine and policy. The problem is that there is not always a clear cut line between doctrine and policy, and sometimes I think it's important to be educated about both.

A case in point is abortion. Doctrine says 'thou shalt not kill' so abortion is a sin, however church policy as outlined in the CHI gives three exceptions, in cases of rape or incest, health of the mother is in jeopardy, and severe birth defects that will cause the baby to not live beyond birth. So the policy is necessary in order to understand the full picture.

Another example is the priesthood ban for blacks. For many years it was taught as doctrine that blacks were less valiant fence sitters in the pre-existence and bore the curse of Cain and therefore could not hold the priesthood. David O McKay said the ban wasn't doctrine but rather policy that was subject to change, and eventually under Spencer W Kimball the ban was lifted and all previous policies and/or doctrines were nullified.

In my experience what the average member sees as policy is as good as doctrine or commandment from their perspective. As an example, a friend of mine got a vasectomy a few years ago, he prayed about it, discussed it with his wife, and felt good about the decision. Afterwards, he found out that the church (as discussed in the CHI) discourages sterilization and that anyone considering it should talk to their bishop. He's a very faithful member and would have discussed it with his Bishop had he known about the church's stance and probably would not have had it done. But the average member may not know the church's stance on that issue because it is buried in the CHI and is not generally talked about in our regular church meetings.

[pam]

Afterwards, he found out that the church (as discussed in the CHI) discourages sterilization and that anyone considering it should talk to their bishop.

I've never heard this. Sterilization is a form of birth control and per lds.org decisions about birth control rests solely with each married couple.

[pam]

But then this is getting totally off topic.

[Dravin]

I've never heard this. Sterilization is a form of birth control and per lds.org decisions about birth control rests solely with each married couple.

I have. I think the deal is because it's permanent, so they want you to make sure you fully understand the Lord's will in the matter. You can stop taking the pill, using a condom or a diaphragm if you get remarried or various other situations. Sterilization is a little more permanent and thus a little more... serious? Probably not the best word, but the consequences are further reaching.

Note, from my understanding it isn't sinful to do it. They just discourage it in practice (kinda like how adoption for teen mothers is encouraged but keeping the child certainly isn't a sin) and want you to seriously consider it.

Another note: I'm not commenting on whether I think sterilization is okay, or if one should discuss it with your Bishop before hand. I'm just commenting on the policy and my understanding of it.

Edit: Sure, talk about getting off topic before I can comment.

[pam]

I just know when I was considering having my tubes tied, I asked my Bishop and he said that was something he would never advise on as it is a personal decision to be made between my husband and myself. He also assured me that it would have no bearing on my eternal salvation unless I was doing it for totally selfish reasons. Whewwwww.

[Saguaro]

But then this is getting totally off topic.

I didn't intend to start a discussion about birth control, I was merely using it as an example. But, since we're here, I think the church looks on sterilization a little stronger than just regular birth control. The CHI says on page 188, "The Church strongly discourages surgical sterilization as an elective form of birth control." It goes on to say that it should only be considered if life or health are seriously jeopardized, or the person is mentally incompetent and not responsible for their own actions, even then they should consult with their Bishop and receive divine confirmation of their decision.

Pam, you helped prove my point, not everyone knows church policies and may have inaccurate assumptions that can be resolved with information found in the CHI.

[Saguaro]

I just know when I was considering having my tubes tied, I asked my Bishop and he said that was something he would never advise on as it is a personal decision to be made between my husband and myself. He also assured me that it would have no bearing on my eternal salvation unless I was doing it for totally selfish reasons. Whewwwww.

Regardless of what the CHI says or how one interprets it, I agree with your Bishop and I personally would never question anyone's person decision on such a matter.

My point in my last post was merely to show what the CHI says on the subject.

[pam]

Well at least I asked my Bishop about it first. I should get points for that. :)

[NeuroTypical]

If the CHI were to be widely distributed, it would be easy for people to get the impression that the Church is not guided by the spirit, but is heavily dictated by bureaucratic policies from Salt Lake.

One comment - I don't think you can find a page in the handbook that doesn't contain the phrse "seek guidance from the spirit" or something similar. At first, it was sort of surprising to see. I've been reading policy manuals for much of my professional career - and wasn't expecting so much "go ask God" in the book.

LM