The numerous secret Church Handbooks of Instruction (CHI) which were leaked to the Internet last year offer a time capsule of sorts into the administration of the church from decades past. By examining the various instructions and guidelines given to Bishops and other church leaders, you can find a plethora of uniquely Mormon cultural memorabilia. These things may seem backwards and out of place in Mormon culture by today’s standards, but were an endearing and unique part of the Mormon experience when they were current.

Sacrament – choose the right hand?

For example, I heard numerous times while growing up that the proper way to partake of the sacrament was to use your right hand to pick up the bread and put it in your mouth. I thought that was just a silly idiosyncrasy of that crusty old High Priest that exists in every ward (you know the one) – but no. It was the product of the beloved Church Handbook of Instruction from 1940:

Call to action

Little kitschy gems like this can be found scattered throughout the manuals. I am inviting my readers to search through the handbooks and find some of these uniquely Mormon quirks! Post the product of your digital archeology in the comments below and I will add them to this article.

Women Endowed – only if he says so!

Reader Olimlah Kinderhook found a remarkable entry in the 1968 CHI, pages 92-93. In this section the rules for women who are in unique marriage situations are laid out. First, if a woman is married to a member and for some reason her husband has not had his endowment (for example if he drank coffee, smoked or failed to pay a full tithe) then she is unable to have that saving ordinance performed unless her husband gives her permission. This is pretty remarkable because it lets an “unworthy” man have control over the heavenly ordinances of a worthy and righteous woman. How quaint!

Next the question of a woman who finds herself married to a non-member man is addressed. The answer is simply NOPE.

Now the news is not all bad. These women might have the chance to get the full measure of their blessings if their sub-par husbands get their stuff together in the next life – then they can have their Temple ordinances done and get their endowments and sealings and so forth. It would just require their husbands to repent in the life after this.

but wait…

“32 For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors. 33 And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed.”

(“The Book of Mormon” Alma 34:32-33, lds.org)

Hmmm. That is a head scratcher. If this scripture is true, then it sort of puts the wife in a tough spot. Of course, it also calls the whole practice of vicarious ordinances for the dead into question in the first place, but that is besides the point. Okay, well … rather than think about that, the wife is told that she can go with the rest of the 12 year old boys and girls and do baptisms for the dead – huzzah!

Now you might think this policy is sexist, but keep in mind that this policy is no longer in practice. Here is the current policy from the 2010 manual:

You see – now either the unworthy wife or husband can prevent the other from getting their endowment. See? Not sexist. Well… okay, there is that second criteria where the Bishop, who is definitely male, gets to have the final say on whether or not the woman is mature and serious enough to understand and keep the sacred temple ritual a secret – but that is just for administrative purposes.

So anyway, saying this old policy is sexist is like saying that Mickey Rooney’s portrayal of Mr. Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany’s was racist – you are just applying modern standards to olden times. It wasn’t racist, it was quirky and endearing – total camp and kitsch!