DispensatorMysteriorum Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 I'm reading over the new Handbook. The term "disciplinary council" is replaced with "membership council." "Excommunication" is now "membership withdrawal." It looks like "disfellowshipment" and "probation" are replaced with "formal membership restrictions." Interesting stuff. 3
Duncan Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 is there a link to the new handbook? I can't seem to find it!!
gopher Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 15 minutes ago, Duncan said: is there a link to the new handbook? I can't seem to find it!! I don't see it on the website - I only see it in the Gospel Library app under a new section "Handbooks and Callings". 2
Popular Post rpn Posted February 19, 2020 Popular Post Posted February 19, 2020 I guess that reflects that all mortals can do is determine membership conditions in the mortal world. They can't cut off people from God. (I doubt the church or members have ever thought they could in the first place, but the words mortals have used for lots of years suggest they could.) 5
Nofear Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 (edited) https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/handbooks-and-callings?lang=eng Curiously the LCR menu hasn't been updated though the above link has the nice big letters "obsolete" on the two manuals (will only see manual 2 if you don't have permissions for manual 1 though). Edited February 19, 2020 by Nofear
Duncan Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 One thing that doesn't make sense and it was in the previous handbook is attempted murder is something that a "membership council" "may be necessary" but not always necessary. If you actively tried to kill someone but couldn't for whatever reason why would you possibly be in good standing in the church? Attempted murder is a crime, why isn't to the church?
provoman Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/38-church-policies-and-guidelines?lang=eng#title_number23 might have to delete the app to view the url above
smac97 Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, rpn said: I guess that reflects that all mortals can do is determine membership conditions in the mortal world. They can't cut off people from God. (I doubt the church or members have ever thought they could in the first place, but the words mortals have used for lots of years suggest they could.) I'm not sure that's quite correct. I've previously commented on this here (emphases added): Quote Excommunication results in the the loss of one's membership in the Church and all that goes with that. All priesthood ordinances and temple blessings previously received are suspended. Excommunication can result in the eventual loss of salvation. ... The LDS Church has exclusivistic truth claims, one of the most important of which is the claim of exclusive priesthood authority ("exclusive" in that it does not exist in any other institution). That priesthood authority includes authority to seal, but also the power to loose. This is amply attested to in modern scriptures: D&C 127:7 - That in all your recordings it may be recorded in heaven; whatsoever you bind on earth, may be bound in heaven; whatsoever you loose on earth, may be loosed in heaven. D&C 128:8 - Now, the nature of this ordinance consists in the power of the priesthood, by the revelation of Jesus Christ, wherein it is granted that whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Or, in other words, taking a different view of the translation, whatsoever you record on earth shall be recorded in heaven, and whatsoever you do not record on earth shall not be recorded in heaven; for out of the books shall your dead be judged, according to their own works, whether they themselves have attended to the ordinances in their own propria persona, or by the means of their own agents, according to the ordinance which God has prepared for their salvation from before the foundation of the world, according to the records which they have kept concerning their dead. D&C 132:7 - And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead. You seem to be claiming that the LDS Church is utterly without authority as regarding the salvific destiny of God's children. You are, of course, free to believe as you like. But the Church claims such authority for itself. The Church claims it because God gave the Church such authority. That sounds bold, and I suppose it is. But we must proclaim it nonetheless (emphasis added): Quote It may seem to some to be a very bold doctrine that we talk of—a power which records or binds on earth and binds in heaven. Nevertheless, in all ages of the world, whenever the Lord has given a dispensation of the priesthood to any man by actual revelation, or any set of men, this power has always been given. Hence, whatsoever those men did in authority, in the name of the Lord, and did it truly and faithfully, and kept a proper and faithful record of the same, it became a law on earth and in heaven, and could not be annulled, according to the decrees of the great Jehovah. This is a faithful saying. Who can hear it? D&C 128:9 Who, indeed? Now, I concede that it is possible for priesthood leaders to err in the exercise of their duties, be it through through malice or insufficient knowledge or some other circumstance that would make the exercise of priesthood authority invalid. I can't think of any historical examples offhand (except, perhaps for Helmuth Hübener and Avraham Gileadi). In such instances, I believe that the Lord's justice and mercy will obviously supersede any action taken by the Church that is not in accordance with His will. The alteration of terminology does not seem to change the underlying doctrines. As for the change in terms, I am fine with those. "Excommunicate" was a borrowed term. It approximates the intended meaning in the LDS paradigm, but does not fully capture it. And it has connotations that are perhaps unnecessary. Baggage, if you will. Instead of "heresy," we generally say "false doctrine." Instead of "disciplinary council" (and, before that, "church court"), we now say "membership council." Instead of "excommunication," we now say "membership withdrawal." Instead of "disfellowship" and/or "probation," we now say "formal membership restrictions." "Apostasy" still has a harshness to it, but it's still in there (section 32.6.3.2). Section 32.2 sets forth the "Three Purposes of Church Membership Restrictions or Withdrawal" as Quote 1. Help protect others 2. Help a person access the redeeming power of Jesus Christ through repentance 3. Protect the integrity of the Church Previously, these three purposes were characterized as Quote To help the individual repent and return ... To protect the innocent ... To protect the integrity of the Church Skimming through it (section 32, pertaining to "Repentance and Church Membership Councils"), there seem to be quite a few changes. Interesting stuff. Thanks, -Smac Edited February 19, 2020 by smac97 3
Nofear Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 Also, the distinction between Melchizedek priesthood holders and other members for disciplinary councils has been removed. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/handbooks-and-callings?lang=eng 3
Duncan Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 Adultery is something that a "membership council" "may be necessary" again, like attempted murder why isn't it always necessary? I think it's moved down a level! Isn't that one of the big ones? adultery is bad!!!
Rain Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 18 minutes ago, Nofear said: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/handbooks-and-callings?lang=eng Curiously the LCR menu hasn't been updated though the above link has the nice big letters "obsolete" on the two manuals (will only see manual 2 if you don't have permissions for manual 1 though). I noticed that as well - "OBSOLETE" is very obvious.
Duncan Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 2 minutes ago, Nofear said: Also, the distinction between Melchizedek priesthood holders and other members for disciplinary councils has been removed. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/handbooks-and-callings?lang=eng in other a 36 year old deacon would equally have discipline done as a 36 year MP holder?
Rain Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Duncan said: Adultery is something that a "membership council" "may be necessary" again, like attempted murder why isn't it always necessary? I think it's moved down a level! Isn't that one of the big ones? adultery is bad!!! Yes, it is clearly bad, but there are a lot of different circumstances where it could happen. An acting stake president who plans to get into a sexual relationship, verses someone who is separated from a spouse for 5 years and hasn't gone to church for 10 for example. Edited February 19, 2020 by Rain 4
Boanerges Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 4 minutes ago, Rain said: I noticed that as well - "OBSOLETE" is very obvious. Reminds me of the Twilight Zone episode.
Nofear Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 There are several little changes that just a cursory glance notes. Some things to offer clarity. For example, in naming and blessing a child the previous instructions say to address Heavenly Father but doesn't included instructions to change who is being addressed when blessing the child after the name pronunciation. The new one does. (18.6.2) Sacrament instruction addition: "Members partake with their right hand when possible. (18.9.4) 2
Duncan Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 4 minutes ago, Rain said: Yes, it is clearly bad, but there are a lot of different circumstances where it could happen. An acting stake president who plans to get into a sexual relationship, verses someone who is separated from a spouse for 5 years and hasn't gone to church for 10 for example. that's true but would the church ex someone who isn't active? i can see them kicking out the Stake President!!
Duncan Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 Unless I am missing it I don't see anything about missionaries and meals
Scott Lloyd Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 7 minutes ago, smac97 said: I'm not sure that's quite correct. I've previously commented on this here: The alteration of terminology does not seem to change the underlying doctrines. As for the change in terms, I am fine with those. "Excommunicate" was a borrowed term. It approximates the intended meaning in the LDS paradigm, but does not fully capture it. And it has connotations that are perhaps unnecessary. Baggage, if you will. Instead of "heresy," we generally say "false doctrine." Instead of "disciplinary council" (and, before that, "church court"), we now say "membership council." Instead of "excommunication," we now say "membership withdrawal." Instead of "disfellowship" and/or "probation," we now say "formal membership restrictions." "Apostasy" still has a harshness to it, but it's still in there (section 32.6.3.2). Section 32.2 sets forth the "Three Purposes of Church Membership Restrictions or Withdrawal" as Previously, these three purposes were characterized as Skimming through it (section 32, pertaining to "Repentance and Church Membership Councils"), there seem to be quite a few changes. Interesting stuff. Thanks, -Smac There are and have been a number of borrowed terms in the Church. Offhand, I can think of a couple: Sunday School is a name and concept borrowed from Protestant congregations. As conceived originally conceived in the Church, it was strictly for children and was almost identical in form and purpose to Primary. That, of course, evolved over time. I could imagine a name change that better reflects what Sunday School has become: adult and youth gospel discussion, perhaps, or simply Gospel Discussion. I would never push for that, though. I very much like the name Sunday School. It is interesting that President Russell M. Nelson, when he was over Sunday School in the Church decades ago, suggested the term superintendent (another borrowed term) be changed to president. He also pressed to have the antiquated name Deseret Sunday School Union discontinued. Relief Society (originally Women’s Relief Society of Nauvoo) also seems to be, in a sense, borrowed. The name sounds very much like Ladies Aid Society, a custom that has been common in Protestant congregations. Of course, the form and function of Relief Society is so much more than a group to organize charitable work, although it certainly does that. Perhaps a name change might be contemplated here as well.
bluebell Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 25 minutes ago, smac97 said: I'm not sure that's quite correct. I've previously commented on this here: The alteration of terminology does not seem to change the underlying doctrines. I think what rnp means is that if the excommunication isn't sanctioned by God (if it's a mistake) then that person is not separated from God in the least. The church's actions only have the power to impact someone's standing with God if God agrees with them. If God doesn't agree, the excommunication has no affect on the person in eternity. Like with the sealing ordinance. A sealing only has power when sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise. If that doesn't happen, the sealing is ineffectual in the next world. 3
smac97 Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 1 minute ago, bluebell said: I think what rnp means is that if the excommunication isn't sanctioned by God (if it's a mistake) then that person is not separated from God in the least. I would agree with that. I would not, however, agree with the propositions that "all mortals can do is determine membership conditions in the mortal world" or that "{t}hey can't cut off people from God." 1 minute ago, bluebell said: The church's actions only have the power to impact someone's standing with God if God agrees with them. Yes. Ratification is required. 1 minute ago, bluebell said: If God doesn't agree, the excommunication has no affect on the person in eternity. Like with the sealing ordinance. A sealing only has power when sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise. If that doesn't happen, the sealing is ineffectual in the next world. I agree. But I'm not sure that's what RPN was saying. Perhaps he/she can clarify. Thanks, -Smac 2
Duncan Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 They also added what constitutes apostasy, something about weakening the faith of others-well there goes half Deseret books!!!! Isaiah for dummies 3
longview Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 (edited) 53 minutes ago, Nofear said: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/handbooks-and-callings?lang=eng Curiously the LCR menu hasn't been updated though the above link has the nice big letters "obsolete" on the two manuals (will only see manual 2 if you don't have permissions for manual 1 though). This link appears to be introducing a new handbook called the General Handbook. Both hdbk 1 and hdbk 2 will be obsoleted as soon as the GH is translated to all 51 languages! Check out the Frequently Asked Questions in https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook-frequently-asked-questions/general-handbook-frequently-asked-questions?lang=eng Why did the Church decide to publish a new handbook? The idea to develop a new General Handbook came several years ago. The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles felt that Handbook 1 and Handbook 2 could be improved to better serve the Church’s continued worldwide growth. In 2016, the First Presidency approved the development of a “simplified handbook” for small units. In 2017, the First Presidency directed that global research be conducted on how an updated handbook could better meet the needs of the worldwide Church. In 2018, the First Presidency gave direction to unify and simplify the handbooks into one volume that would serve the entire Church. When will the current Handbook 1 and Handbook 2 be retired from the Gospel Library? When should we discard hard copies? These handbooks will remain archived in the Gospel Library until the General Handbook is available in all 51 languages. They will be removed after that, and any personal annotations of the obsolete Handbook 1 and Handbook 2 will be lost. Leaders should discard hard copies of Handbook 1 and Handbook 2 as soon as the General Handbook is available in their language. Edited February 19, 2020 by longview 1
smac97 Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 6 minutes ago, Duncan said: They also added what constitutes apostasy, something about weakening the faith of others-well there goes half Deseret books!!!! Isaiah for dummies Here is the specific wording (from section 32.6.3.2): "Showing a pattern of intentionally working to weaken the faith and activity of Church members." The Dehlin/Runnells provision. Thanks, -Smac 4
Rain Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 (edited) 36 minutes ago, Duncan said: that's true but would the church ex someone who isn't active? i can see them kicking out the Stake President!! You asked, "Adultery is something that a "membership council" "may be necessary" again, like attempted murder why isn't it always necessary? I think it's moved down a level! Isn't that one of the big ones? adultery is bad!!!" With someone who isn't active for a long time it only "may be necessary". I don't think this has changed as far as my understanding goes. Edited February 19, 2020 by Rain 1
Duncan Posted February 19, 2020 Posted February 19, 2020 2 minutes ago, Rain said: You asked, "Adultery is something that a "membership council" "may be necessary" again, like attempted murder why isn't it always necessary? I think it's moved down a level! Isn't that one of the big ones? adultery is bad!!!" With someone who isn't active for a long time it only "may be necessary". I don't think this has changed as far as my understanding goes. would that apply to inactive people coming back? because I don't see the Church going on witch hunts!!!
Recommended Posts