Abortion and human rights.

[omegaseamaster75]

My apologies for coming across as condemnatory. Believe it or not, that wasn't my intent.

 

1. The point in my mind wasn't so much the copyright as the idea that we have two handbooks, or rather, that the handbook is in two parts: A public-facing part and a private part. If our leaders have seen fit to put part of the handbook in a private part not generally accessible, it seems reasonable to respect that distinction.

 

2. No, but official policy should generally come through official public channels.

 

3. I agree there is nothing secret in the handbook. But it is private; otherwise, the Church would simply openly publish Handbook 1. It does not, which clearly implies that it is not meant for public consumption.

 

Again, I apologize for my condemnatory tone. It was not intended so.

No offense taken, my view point is that if we are going to discuss these topics and the information is available why shouldn't we use it. Should handbook 1 be made for public consumption? I don't know, but would the brethren have us speculate about church policy? 

 

Like most of HB1 the wording is very ambiguous and leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

[The Folk Prophet]

In my opinion, it ought not be quoted in open forum by anyone claiming to sustain the prophets, and not at all on this site.

 

I personally think that this is a bit over-the-top as a theory.

 

The only thing I have been able to find concerning the availability of HB1 to the general public is per Michael Otterson -- that members "might decide they don't need to go see their bishop," if it was too widely read.

 

I'm not sure quoting it in an open forum in direct response to a related subject qualifies and putting in into a state of too widely read.

[Saul Hudson]

Captain Awesome, on 06 Dec 2014 - 2:51 PM, said:

 

 

1. Are the folks who say "It's my body, it's my choice" aware that they are violently taking that choice away from another human life (the baby)?  If your body is your choice, why would you just go and kill the baby and take that choice away from him or her?

 

 

No they are not aware of that. In fact, it's called pro-choice because they do not want to think about the baby at all. It isn't called pro-end your babies life. They don't call it what it really is. Satan has deceived them into thinking the issue is about a woman having her rights violated if she can't kill her own baby. So they try to convince women that they should be able to do whatever the want with their own bodies and that a "MAN" has no right to tell them what to do, but our laws are replete with rules about what men and women cannot do with their bodies. So millions die every year so a woman can live the lie that she is free because she has the right to kill the baby. Pointless slaughter of unwanted babies. At least the Aztecs sacrificed their babies for a reason.