Church Handbook of Instructions – 2010 version available online

Comments (19)

1. They’re leaked before the Church releases them officially? That’s pretty crazy.

2. I agree, Alan. There must be some disgruntled employees in the COB. As they say, the fastest way to loose your testimony is to work for the Church.

3. That’s very encouraging. It’s good to see members who not only believe in transparency, but are willing to take risks to see it happen. I hope this eventually reaches the church’s financial records, too, so we can see precisely where the money is going.

   I think church leaders will eventually realize that secrecy does two things: 1. Creeps people out. 2. Makes people laugh.

   And it never works in the Internet age, anyway.

4. Awesome. The fifth standard work is now available in digital format.

   I’ve wondered if it might be worthwhile to quietly set up a 501(c)(3) that could also be used as a whistleblower fund in order to encourage COB employees to be forthcoming about any questionable or unethical activities or internal communication they run across in the course of their day-to-day.

5. Don’t worry, Chino. Working for the Church is so frustrating, there will always be lots of guys who want to spill the beans. All they need is a safe outlet.

6. So, LDS Inc. is responding:
   http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=13256558

   Theyre posting 1/2 the Handbook online. Intriguing.

7. FYI:

   Just found this link to book 1:

   http://hidemyass.com/files/1lJSu/

8. What’s the password for book on on hidemyass.com/files/1LJsu/

9. Pingback: Sunday in Outer Blogness: Kremlinology Edition! | Main Street Plaza

10. Password: Mr. Luther’s first name (lowercase).

    Sorry ’bout that.

11. Great to finally see The Hell Deist Church (The LDS Church) unable to try and successfully gain much control to try and squelch far too many of their secrets and badly exercised cover-ups.

12. It was authorized by the First Presidency that the book be posted online….

13. Truth For All:

    The First Presidency approved that book #2 be posted online, but only after the whole Martin Luther blog posted both book #1 and book #2.

    Book #1 still remains inappropriate for – and unavailable to – “unauthorized” readers (meaning anyone not in a “leadership” position). We’re not even supposed to “copy” or “share” book #1 with ANYONE per Dallin Oaks. The funny thing about it all is how there’s nothing in book #1 that need be secret. Just more corporate control from my vantage point.

14. Awesome, TFA. Pls let us know when the FP has authorized a response to the conundrum that is 21.1.7:

    The most reliable way to measure the accuracy of any biblical translation is not by comparing different texts, but by comparison with the Book of Mormon and modern-day revelations.

    As noted at the link, a nevermo friend of mine had this to say:

    That sort of revolting practice is common. The NIV is a good example of an entire work heavily influenced by biblical inerrantism, where the text simply translates away disagreements between different parts of the Bible. As several scholars point out, the three oldest manuscripts of Mark all agree that the dancing daughter of Herodias is also named Herodias, but no translation says so because in history she never had any such daughter. Thus the writer of Mark is saved from error! If you read the Church Fathers you will find them occasionally quoting Old Testament passages that dont exist because the early Christians attempted to insert things into the Tanakh that werent there.

    And to repeat myself: See, Mormons are Christians after all.

    For sure, pls feel free to do one better than the folks at FPR by actually responding, thx!

15. One day, there’s gonna be a similar headline, but it’s gonna be about the massive document dump from our sources inside the COB: Wikileaks Document Dump Open Thread Update: Release has begun!

16. Very interesting project you have going here

17. Writing from the Netherlands:
    It never ceases to amaze me, how shallow the contents of the here posted commentaries are.
    What, actually, is the purpose of this site?
    Who, is envisaged, will truly benefit?
    Who, by taking in the contents of this site, will become a better human being from it?

18. @17 Good points! I hope that you have taken the time to post this same criticism on every single site on the Internet whose contents might potentially be viewed as frivolous and don’t demonstrate obvious betterment of humanity!!!

19. oceanboy (24-06-12)