The Church's REAL Objection to the CHI Being Made Available

[_Mercury]

In my experience as a leader this is frankly horsecrap. Many members know a lot about what is in the CHI and most reasonable leaders are happy to let any member look at it. As a leader I have had members bring up issues when they thought I was doing something outside the manual. I know my SP had members write SLC and complain about things he did that they thought was outside the manual. SLC just send the letters back and tells him to deal with it. This theory is hooey.

that's not the point Jason. The point is that the CHI, regardless if members are aware of its contents still do not have access to it.

SLC just send the letters back and tells him to deal with it.

Your recollections of how your sp and subsequently the corporate headquarters handled members taking issue has nothing to do with the CHI discussions. All it does is illustrate that the "priesthood" are dicks.

My point is that Mormon Inc will do as they please regardless of the CHI. Your red herrings don't work on those who know the game.

Did you miss my point? Almost any reasonable bishop will let members read the CHI if they ask. I did of a prior bishop and he let me look it over for a couple weeks.

Elder or HP? Close friend or "some guy" in the ward? Honesty please, and more of it.

[_Jason Bourne]

Elder or HP?

Me? HP.

Close friend or "some guy" in the ward?

The bishop was a friend.

Honesty please, and more of it.

I always try to be honest. Cept my shameless hypocrisy here.

[_Mercury]

Elder or HP?

Me? HP.

Close friend or "some guy" in the ward?

The bishop was a friend.

Honesty please, and more of it.

I always try to be honest. Cept my shameless hypocrisy here.

Right, I am aware you are a HP, Jason. I seriously doubt those not socially connected to the bishop would receive the same courtesy.

If I had read the CHI under dealing with abuse in a members home what would I have found? What processes are given to initiate bringing the law in?

If it is similar to the copy obtained from wikileaks then I am sure my bishop at the time failed miserably.

It makes people accountable to the stupid peasants they milk. that's why they do not want it available. Education is power.

[_Mister Scratch]

Did you miss my point? Almost any reasonable bishop will let members read the CHI if they ask. I did of a prior bishop and he let me look it over for a couple weeks.

Your anecdotal evidence notwithstanding, I think you're missing the point, Jason. Obviously, your experience is meaningful, and reflects the positive experiences you've had on this issue. However, none of this un-does the fact that the CHI is essentially "lorded over" by male priesthood holders, which seems to be the central issue mentioned in the OP. The CHI represents a means of control, hence why the Church would try and sue in order to keep it away from some of the more "uppity" members, especially "uppity" female members. Sure: maybe the bishops you've had experience with were decent guys who had no issues with forking over the CHI, but what about those who don't? Moreover, as you yourself pointed out, member letters of complaint get dumped back onto the SPs and bishops in question. So, if the CHI winds up in the hands of the membership, it will be easier for democracy to rule----something the Brethren clearly don't want.

by the way: by way of anecdotal evidence, I recall posting on a thread over on the ironically named FAIRboard, and when I mentioned the "secrecy" of the CHI, the TBMs went ballistic. They were very, *VERY* sensitive at the fact that anyone might label the CHI as being "secret." Why might that be, I wonder?

[_harmony]

This:

The church is not governed by a constitution, it is governed by leaders.

is baloney. The church is not governed by the leaders. The church is governed by the members. The leaders exist to serve the members. Of course, that's not the way it works, but that's the way it's supposed to work.

[_The Dude]

that's pretty funny.

Handbook Nazis. That makes me think about how screwed up our country has become because of lawyers and lawsuits. When people live moral lives and are kind to others, they don't need to be told what to do all the time. Same goes with the church.

So you agree with the OP? This is why the church so uptight about this silly book of rules.

I think the LDS church hierarchy has to walk a narrow path between top-down rulership by the GAs, and the founding idea that God inspires everyone in his capacity. They are afraid that some bishops and presidents might fly of the handle, so they give a standardized set of rules, or limits, that everybody's inspiration is supposed to work within. But they want that pipeline to be insulated from the real lawyering tendency described in the OP, because the never know what is going to come up. Therefore, in the future, we might see the church turning to specialized leadership accounts, with deep encryption and enigma-level password protection to protect the modus operandi. Because the illusion of inspired guidance provides plausible deniability, continued secrecy is a must.

[_Jason Bourne]

Did you miss my point? Almost any reasonable bishop will let members read the CHI if they ask. I did of a prior bishop and he let me look it over for a couple weeks.

Your anecdotal evidence notwithstanding, I think you're missing the point, Jason. Obviously, your experience is meaningful, and reflects the positive experiences you've had on this issue. However, none of this un-does the fact that the CHI is essentially "lorded over" by male priesthood holders, which seems to be the central issue mentioned in the OP. The CHI represents a means of control, hence why the Church would try and sue in order to keep it away from some of the more "uppity" members, especially "uppity" female members. Sure: maybe the bishops you've had experience with were decent guys who had no issues with forking over the CHI, but what about those who don't? Moreover, as you yourself pointed out, member letters of complaint get dumped back onto the SPs and bishops in question. So, if the CHI winds up in the hands of the membership, it will be easier for democracy to rule----something the Brethren clearly don't want.

by the way: by way of anecdotal evidence, I recall posting on a thread over on the ironically named FAIRboard, and when I mentioned the "secrecy" of the CHI, the TBMs went ballistic. They were very, *VERY* sensitive at the fact that anyone might label the CHI as being "secret." Why might that be, I wonder?

I don't think these comments are unreasonable.

But I find it rather humorous that the Church is so concerned about it getting out. Maybe you all are correct. Maybe because I have read much, if not all the book, some parts many times. But it really is rather banal and boring, most of it dealing with admin stuff. Oh I am sure the sections on church discipline, sealings and sealing cancellations and clearances as well as the various and sundry policies on things like birth control, transsexual operations, surrogate parenting and the like could be intriguing. But really most of it is boring.

And FYI there are two CHIs. The second one is for organization leaders, Relief Society, YM, YW, Primary and SS. I believe that is on line. I know of members in the past who thought I was doing something that was not by the book that would print stuff off out of the manual and flag it under my nose. But that book is more organizational to the various auxiliaries of the church.

[_The Nehor]

This:

The church is not governed by a constitution, it is governed by leaders.

is baloney. The church is not governed by the leaders. The church is governed by the members. The leaders exist to serve the members. Of course, that's not the way it works, but that's the way it's supposed to work.

Both wrong. The Church is governed by God and all in it are accountable to him.

[_Mercury]

This:

The church is not governed by a constitution, it is governed by leaders.

is baloney. The church is not governed by the leaders. The church is governed by the members. The leaders exist to serve the members. Of course, that's not the way it works, but that's the way it's supposed to work.

Both wrong. The Church is governed by God and all in it are accountable to him.

Really? I'd like to send a letter to god. Where can I send the letter in order that it can get to the following address:

Elohim
Celestial walk way
Space-God city, Kolob
4815162342

____

Your "god" is a figment of a collective imagination.

[_The Nehor]

This:

The church is not governed by a constitution, it is governed by leaders.

is baloney. The church is not governed by the leaders. The church is governed by the members. The leaders exist to serve the members. Of course, that's not the way it works, but that's the way it's supposed to work.

Both wrong. The Church is governed by God and all in it are accountable to him.

Really? I'd like to send a letter to god. Where can I send the letter in order that it can get to the following address:

Elohim
Celestial walk way
Space-God city, Kolob
4815162342

____

Your "god" is a figment of a collective imagination.

We call it prayer. I'm surprised you haven't heard of it being in the Church as long as you were.