Rumors of the Handbook Changes Generally True

[Thoughtful]

For those of us Apostates, how do we feel about our family members having to "repudiate" our views in order to qualify for their own temple reccomends?

[Brent]

Sorry but could you copy and paste the section you're talking about. Searching the document is awkward at best. I have a tough time seeing the Bishop asking "Do you repudiate your son?" to the Missus...

[Thoughtful]

Sorry but could you copy and paste the section you're talking about. Searching the document is awkward at best. I have a tough time seeing the Bishop asking "Do you repudiate your son?" to the Missus...

I saw it as one of the screen shots Mormon Stories posted. Dont have a page handy.

[Brent]

All good. Don't want Gospel Tools on my machines so searching is a pain.

[Jeffret]

For those of us Apostates, how do we feel about our family members having to "repudiate" our views in order to qualify for their own temple reccomends?

I'm not familiar with any current language in the new CHI like this. There were rules related to this for children polygamists to be baptized. Those existing rules were cited as precedent for the November PoX. The Church announced last year that the special rules for children of gays or polygamists were being removed and I don't think they continue in this edition.

[Thoughtful]

For those of us Apostates, how do we feel about our family members having to "repudiate" our views in order to qualify for their own temple reccomends?

I'm not familiar with any current language in the new CHI like this. There were rules related to this for children polygamists to be baptized. Those existing rules were cited as precedent for the November PoX. The Church announced last year that the special rules for children of gays or polygamists were being removed and I don't think they continue in this edition.

See 38.4.4

[Jeffret]

See 38.4.4

Hmmm ... yeah. They just moved the restriction around and applied it to more people.

This one is really bogus.

[Mormorrisey]

See 38.4.4

Hmmm ... yeah. They just moved the restriction around and applied it to more people.

This one is really bogus.

I'm guessing that when really pressed, President Newsroom will interpret this as being apply to apostate groups like polygamist groups and/or the Snufferites. However, like everything in the church, some hard-liner is going to apply this rule to people like my own children and then the crap will hit the fan.

That's the problem with this and other handbooks. How it's applied by some leader is going to be leadership roulette for all of us.

[Jeffret]

The way it's written, it applies to a wide swath of TBMs. I'm registered with the Democratic Party. I've long posted here on NOM and some other places. Sometimes I listen to Mormon Stories or Radio Free Mormon and agree with or sympathize with many things they say. I support Ordain Women, LoveLoud, PFLAG, and many others. According to 38.4.4, my brothers and parents should be required to repudiate all of these teachings before they can obtain a recommend. And my wife's siblings and father.

The old TR question was, "Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?" Now it's morphed into, "Does any close family member ...?" and "Do you repudiate these teachings?" It hasn't quite gone as far as asking if you shun your apostate family members.

[Wonderment]

Jeffret wrote:

Also under Transgender Individuals, "Gender is an essential characteristic of Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness. The intended meaning of gender in the family proclamation is biological sex at birth." When the Croc-Proc first came out, people criticized how much they distorted and abused the term "gender". They haven't let up on that. Now they're just openly using it to justify what they want. Gender is essential. Except that most things are gender neutral. And do you notice who gets to decide when gender is or isn't essential?

Most of gender is socially constructed. It makes no sense to call this an essential characteristic and unchanging.

Now they find themselves having to tweak, when it suits their needs, some of the wording about gender in the Handbook. They say, "The intended meaning of gender in the family proclamation is biological sex at birth", but the Proc says, "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." If it's about biological sex at birth, why didn't they just say so originally in their revealed word of god, instead of misusing the term "gender"? But, now they've reduced it's eternal nature from the Proc down to one specific point in time.

Excellent, very comprehensive review. Many thanks ! -- Wndr.

[wtfluff]

It's not as punitive as the now-truly-excluded Policy of Exclusion.

While the POX and it's wording is gone, there are still relics remaining:

Section 38.6.5
Chastity and Fidelity

There is a section that says:
A Church membership council may be necessary if a member:

The second bullet point there reads:

• Is in a form of marriage or partnership that is not authorized by God’s law, such as cohabitation, civil unions and partnerships, and same-sex marriage.

The target is still on the back of legally married gay couples, if an over-zealous bishop feels like kicking them out.

Have they removed article of faith 12 yet? Most of the "unions" mentioned in that bullet point are legal and lawful, yet LD$-Inc. will still kick you out for those legal and lawful things if LD$-Inc. feels like it.




Edit: I've got better things to do than scour a stupid "Handbook" created by a bunch of old bigots. Why do I care? Why??????

[nibbler]

See 38.4.4

I've never had a local leader that cared about the TR question that's very similar to this policy, it's far too ambiguous to enforce, but leadership roulette is a real thing.

If your BP or SP presses in that area you've got bigger problems than just that one question/policy.

Bishops and their counselors must take exceptional care when issuing recommends to members whose parents or other close relatives belong to or sympathize with apostate groups. They should not be made to feel unworthy by mere association. However, such members must demonstrate clearly that they repudiate these apostate religious teachings before they may be issued a recommend.

Ug... when is the church finally going to evolve past this nonsense? This implication is that belonging to or sympathizing with an apostate group is cause to feel/be unworthy but merely being related to someone that sympathizes with or belongs to an apostate group isn't grounds for being unworthy. If your leadership methods involves making anyone feel unworthy you're doing it wrong.

Reading between the lines, what's this policy really saying? That in order to be worthy a member must unquestioningly agree to everything leadership says?

[nibbler]

Section 18.9.4 (instructions for the sacrament)

7. Members partake with their right hand when possible.

Wow. Just... wow.

The mark. You missed it.

[Mormorrisey]

Section 18.9.4 (instructions for the sacrament)

7. Members partake with their right hand when possible.

Wow. Just... wow.

The mark. You missed it.

I'm still going ambidextrous when it comes to the sacrament. Keeps things lively.

[MoPag]

"Most Church participation and some priesthood ordinances are gender neutral." It's hard to say if that's totally clueless or heavy gaslighting. I vote for a strong interplay of both.

Oh my Gods, I can't even!!!!! They are so full of sh!t!!!!

[Thoughtful]

Section 18.9.4 (instructions for the sacrament)

7. Members partake with their right hand when possible.

Wow. Just... wow.

The mark. You missed it.

The trifecta of retrenchment is the first Presidency right now. So of course we are back to left hand=sinister=evill. Wipe with your left, partake with your right.

[2bizE]

Is there anywhere where it says to completely disregard DC 89 and follow the non revelation advice for the WoW?

[Corsair]

Is there anywhere where it says to completely disregard DC 89 and follow the non revelation advice for the WoW?

No change has been made to the Word of Wisdom and we all remember that the rules were reapplied last summer when drinks ending in "-ccino" were specifically called out. The Word of Wisdom is an excellent marker to denote a Mormon. It's an easy black and white commandment that Primary children can easily learn.

It's far more difficult to explain charity, kindness, and long suffering to a child. These are topics that are legitimately discussed by adults. But making coffee and tea the bad guy is an easy way to divide the saints from the sinners. I would love to be surprised, but I expect that this commandment will stand for a long time.

[2bizE]

So, How many handbooks are there today?
Handbook 1 and 2 were combined. Is there still another secret handbook for SP?
We know there is still a handbook for mission presidents. I would guess there is a handbook for Area 70s and 70s. Is there one for Q15?

[Red Ryder]

I just realized an epiphany.

Minutes thinking about handbooks as TBM: 0
Minutes thinking about handbooks as NOM: 100+

What is wrong with us?