Is the Church Handbook of Instructions considered Doctrine?

No. It is not official doctrine binding upon the whole Church. It is guidance for Church leaders. There is a very specific process for canonizing new doctrine. We have an excellent article, written by a fellow staylds’er hosted here:

http://www.staylds.com/docs/WhatIsOfficialMormonDoctrine.html

In particular,

Since the Church was founded in 1830, new doctrine has been accepted six times. On every occasion, a three-step process was followed to add Official Doctrine: It requires the approval of the First Presidency, the concurrence of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, and then it must be accepted in a sustaining vote of the entire membership.

There was never a vote offered to the entire membership to sustain the Church Handbook of Instructions as new doctrine. It is simply a policy manual.

As to the second part of your thoughts, yes. It does effect us regardless of its status. Church leaders use this policy and guidance manual to administer the day-to-day operations of the Church. They also refer to it when someone asks them about an current official position of the Church on a topic. But a current interpretation of the gospel, an official position, is the Church’s attempt at adapting to the constant changes of the world, and to remain relevant (to some level of success or failure). The important point with that to remember is this — those policies are VERY likely to change over time.

An easy example is Rated R movies. For several years, there was a policy to instruct members not to see Rated R movies. It came from the Church Handbook of Instructions. This is still stuck in the minds of many members. I hear it all the time, even though it is no longer stated that way in the CHI. They changed that policy as a reaction (I assume) to the shifting standards of the movie rating system. You can’t depend on a Rated R movie being good or bad. You can’t depend on PG or PG-13 movies being “appropriate.” The CHI, as of the prior edition, gave counsel to members to choose uplifting, enlightening and wholesome forms of entertainment. RATS! You mean we have to make the decision and be responsible for our self? 😈 So much for watching smutty and violent PG-13s and feeling all righteous about it. 😆 And seriously … there are some Rated R movies that are very profound and valuable works of cinematic art. They tend to be more challenging and deal with mature themes at times (does not mean immoral, just that they are more sophisticated and deal with things adults have to deal with in the world). I always think of “Schindler’s List” for example. It was Rated R. But it was also an important cultural and historical film.

{edit: I didn’t want to derail the discussion on to movie standards, just show that policy on what to instruct members when they ask about a standard changes, and it should in relation to the context of changing cultural standards. Policies are not official doctrine)

Is the Church Handbook of Instructions considered Doctrine? To what extent should it’s contents be STRICTLY observed? Under what circumstances is it open to interpretation?

No.

It should NOT be strictly observed by anyone. It is guidelines to help direct the governing body of the church, and should be applied when appropriate ,using common sense, logic and spiritual guidance.

Depending how the handbook is viewed it can come close to inspired, from God’s mouth to the prophet’s ear commandment. I was recently called to be the clerk in a singles branch and the stake clerk quoted the handbook 3 different times when he was orienting me. When it gets to that point, I get the feeling you’re not supposed to think anymore, just follow the rules.

Speaking of Church Handbooks reminds me of when I was on my mission and my first companion in Austria followed our little black handbook to the letter. She was driving me nuts with it. For example, ‘if the handbook said, “You wake up at 6 am and go to bed at 10 pm,” she would make us do exactly that. It took me at least a month or so to adjust to the new altitude in Austria and I was so sleepy. I even fell asleep while we were giving a discussion once. So, I told her I was going to bed even though it was only 8 pm. I had only been out one week, when she started telling me how much she loved me. Then I noticed in the handbook it said to tell your companion everyday that you love them. Well, that was it for me. I told her, “Sister Bateman, the only reason you are telling me you love me is because it says so in the handbook. You cannot possibly love me after only knowing me one week. I cannot stand you because you are driving me crazy with the letter of the law. Jesus himself said, “the law killith,”. So, let’s start living by the spirit of the law, ok?” We got along great after that and started enjoying our mission. She had a drill sargent companion just before me who had screwed her up. Finding a balance in all things is the trick.

“Probably” doesn’t mean “must”. 👿

Believe me, I understand. 🙄

I don’t see how it could be considered doctrine if it isn’t binding on the saints as a whole. If we were intended to follow it’s precepts to the letter, it’d be more widely distributed. For instance, there are several items in there that I was unaware of until years after they applied to me and I don’t see how I could be accountable for something I didn’t know.

That is a really good point. Why ISN’T it available for everyone to read? I’ve often wondered about this. What is in there that the GA’s don’t want the average member to know OR the average LDS critic to know? Hmmm?

There is something about the CHI that is fundamental – for which I am very, very grateful:

It uses lots and lots of disclaimers and seldom speaks in absolutes.

Frankly, I think if it were distributed to every member, it would take on the status of canonized scripture very quickly – but the disclaimers would be forgotten or unnoticed by the majority of the members, generalities would become absolutes and personal revelation (administratively, ministerially and individually) would be diminished greatly. For example, I believe it would lead to many members “fact checking” every decision someone else made with which they personally disagreed.

Two serious questions:

1) How many of you who participate here would go immediately to the CHI, if you had a copy, whenever a leader said something with which you disagreed or didn’t understand – and immediately feel justified if your initial reading supported a different general conclusion?

2) How many of you hate it when members do that exact same thing with something like Mormon Doctrine – or would hate it if someone else did that with everything you said or did with which they agree?

Imho, not publishing the CHI to everyone fits really well into the frame of not “commanding in all things” – and I like that it’s provided only as a set of guidelines to those who need a set of guidelines to administer their calling.