Maureen Posted September 12, 2016 Report Share Posted September 12, 2016 Back in March I posted information from Handbook 1 from a pdf file I found online. Within minutes of my posting my post was deleted and replaced with this information: Quote As has been stated, any publication of Handbook 1 outside of its intended audience is not sanctioned by the Church. Do not paste or post its contents here. I am non-LDS, so of course I am not a leader with access to Handbook 1, but I was still able to find the information online. After my post was deleted, I created a new post with the section numbers, so other posters could find the information easily. This was also deleted. In my investigation of what is acceptable or not on this forum with Handbook 1 I came across this post, which was posted weeks after I had posted mine: Quote My source is the current edition of the church handbook #1, section 6.13.2 "Records of Disfellowshipped Members and Those Reinstated to Full Fellowship" from which the italicized portion above is a direct quote. This post mentions Handbook 1 and the section. This post was not deleted and the moderator that deleted my post, Liked this post. I have also found several other posts with quotes from Handbook 1 and section numbers mentioned. So, I would like clarification on the Handbook 1 rule. Are those posters who have access to Handbook 1 in real life allowed to post Handbook 1 information on this forum, while those who do not have access in real life are not allowed? Or is the rule to not post Handbook 1 information to be followed by all posters? I really just want to know and it would be helpful if the rules were posted somewhere on the forum. Thank you. M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted September 12, 2016 Report Share Posted September 12, 2016 Maureen, nothing from the CHI1 should be copied and posted here on this forum. I will bring this up again in the moderator section so that we are consistent with this ruling. Maureen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted September 12, 2016 Report Share Posted September 12, 2016 I appreciate you bringing this up. Thank you. Maureen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted September 12, 2016 Report Share Posted September 12, 2016 Indeed... we encourage all posters to report (using the report post function) posts they think violate the rules, guidelines or are otherwise offensive. No matter who posts it or who "likes" it However if you don't report the post with the tool designed for that, but instead choose to use another method... It is basically saying "you got a Needle in your hay stack good luck finding it." (Even more so if it is Months or Weeks old) Its not really helpful in correcting what had been done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted September 12, 2016 Report Share Posted September 12, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, pam said: Maureen, nothing from the CHI1 should be copied and posted here on this forum. I will bring this up again in the moderator section so that we are consistent with this ruling. My twisted lawyer brain can't resist: . . . nothing from the CHI1 should be copied and posted here, or otherwise reproduced verbatim on this forum. I'll punt to Pam as to whether it's OK to--for example--say "the answer to your question is found in CHI-1, Section 1.2.47, which I read as saying that open flames should not be lit in church buildings". Edited September 12, 2016 by Just_A_Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpframe Posted September 12, 2016 Report Share Posted September 12, 2016 I'm not a moderator, but I feel like even if a bunch of people with allowed access to the document (like, a buncha bishops) talking about a subject and referencing the document to each other in a public forum... would not be in the spirit of the rule. If I'm not mistaken... we support the stance that the document is for church leaders eyes only, so even just to reference the document would be to encourage readers to go search for the document themselves... which would not be helping that cause. Sunday21 and Just_A_Guy 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted September 12, 2016 Report Share Posted September 12, 2016 4 hours ago, rpframe said: I'm not a moderator, but I feel like even if a bunch of people with allowed access to the document (like, a buncha bishops) talking about a subject and referencing the document to each other in a public forum... would not be in the spirit of the rule. If I'm not mistaken... we support the stance that the document is for church leaders eyes only, so even just to reference the document would be to encourage readers to go search for the document themselves... which would not be helping that cause. Perhaps; but my understanding was that while we hoi polloi church members aren't allowed to possess the book; most bishops are pretty open about letting lay members come in and look up a particular topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted September 12, 2016 Report Share Posted September 12, 2016 6 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said: Perhaps; but my understanding was that while we hoi polloi church members aren't allowed to possess the book; most bishops are pretty open about letting lay members come in and look up a particular topic. Then perhaps the correct answer is... "That information is found in HB1 so go ask your bishop for the answer" rpframe, Just_A_Guy, Sunday21 and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpframe Posted September 12, 2016 Report Share Posted September 12, 2016 13 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said: Perhaps; but my understanding was that while we hoi polloi church members aren't allowed to possess the book; most bishops are pretty open about letting lay members come in and look up a particular topic. Sure but... We aren't currently in the business of verifying the identities of forum members as current bishops so... 9 minutes ago, estradling75 said: Then perhaps the correct answer is... "That information is found in HB1 so go ask your bishop for the answer" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted September 12, 2016 Report Share Posted September 12, 2016 Sure; my thought was merely that letting people in the know say "specifically, you should look at section X.Y.Z", might expedite things a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 13, 2016 Report Share Posted September 13, 2016 Apparently there are those who have obtained Handbook 1 by unsanctioned means, and put it out to people who want to have it in their possession for any number of purposes, (most, presumably nefarious, considering they're okay with keeping something they're not supposed to have). That's my hesitation with giving someone a map to where they can find something in Handbook 1. Many wouldn't go to a bishop, they'd google and find an unapproved source so they could read that portion. Of course that's about them and their agency and integrity; and I suppose someone so motivated would go looking until they found what they wanted, anyway. Do we want to help them? It seems like a bishop would happily help someone find what they're looking for, if they approached him and asked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted September 13, 2016 Report Share Posted September 13, 2016 6 hours ago, estradling75 said: Indeed... we encourage all posters to report (using the report post function) posts they think violate the rules, guidelines or are otherwise offensive. No matter who posts it or who "likes" it However if you don't report the post with the tool designed for that, but instead choose to use another method... It is basically saying "you got a Needle in your hay stack good luck finding it." (Even more so if it is Months or Weeks old) Its not really helpful in correcting what had been done. But then this isn't about a @NeedleinA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted September 13, 2016 Report Share Posted September 13, 2016 30 minutes ago, pam said: But then this isn't about a @NeedleinA. Oh please... everything is about @NeedleinA Sunday21 and zil 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunday21 Posted September 13, 2016 Report Share Posted September 13, 2016 13 hours ago, estradling75 said: Oh please... everything is about @NeedleinA Isnt that an article of faith? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zil Posted September 13, 2016 Report Share Posted September 13, 2016 5 minutes ago, Sunday21 said: Isnt that an article of faith? We believe in being Needled? Sunday21 and mirkwood 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeedleinA Posted September 13, 2016 Report Share Posted September 13, 2016 What is going on over here? geez, haters gonna hate...word! zil 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 13, 2016 Report Share Posted September 13, 2016 (edited) 19 hours ago, pam said: But then this isn't about a @NeedleinA. Actually, it was. Wasn't it? Edited September 13, 2016 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeedleinA Posted September 14, 2016 Report Share Posted September 14, 2016 15 hours ago, Carborendum said: Actually, it was. Wasn't it? Excusez-moi? Anyone looking for a scapegoat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 14, 2016 Report Share Posted September 14, 2016 32 minutes ago, NeedleinA said: Excusez-moi? Anyone looking for a scapegoat? My mistake. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie123 Posted September 14, 2016 Report Share Posted September 14, 2016 On 13/09/2016 at 1:21 AM, Eowyn said: Of course that's about them and their agency and integrity; and I suppose someone so motivated would go looking until they found what they wanted, anyway. The genie came out of the bottle the day the Internet went public. Even the Temple endowment ceremony isn't secret anymore: the text has been available online for over a decade, and I've even seen a clandestinely recorded video of it posted on YouTube (though I didn't watch more than a few seconds of it - it didn't seem right). NeedleinA and zil 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted September 14, 2016 Report Share Posted September 14, 2016 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Jamie123 said: The genie came out of the bottle the day the Internet went public. Even the Temple endowment ceremony isn't secret anymore: the text has been available online for over a decade, and I've even seen a clandestinely recorded video of it posted on YouTube (though I didn't watch more than a few seconds of it - it didn't seem right). I don't think the issue with the CHI--or the temple endowment--is really about keeping the information secret per se; I think it's about cultivating a certain attitude about these things within the lay membership. With regard to the CHI: Once we get members treating it as a legal code, we set bishops up to be legal arbiters and/or adversaries; and that's counterproductive to the feeling of a "ward family" that the Church wants to create. I look at the lay membership's right to view the CHI, as roughly analagous to a teenager's right to view his parent's bank account ledger. There might be instructional value to occasionally showing the teenager certain parts of the ledger during the course of a lesson on--say--personal finance, or credit management. But it is not the teenager's prerogative to view the ledger anytime he wishes and/or to be continually second-guessing his parents' financial decisions. Edited September 14, 2016 by Just_A_Guy NeedleinA, zil and Jamie123 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeedleinA Posted September 14, 2016 Report Share Posted September 14, 2016 14 minutes ago, Jamie123 said: (though I didn't watch more than a few seconds of it - it didn't seem right). Thanks for not supporting activities like that! mordorbund, zil and Jamie123 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.