Jump to content

Updates to general handbook


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

The gospel essentially teaches that nothing is temporal, everything is spiritual.  So from that perspective, doing all that we can to keep our bodies healthy, enabling countries to open again to missionary work and church to go back to in-person, and enabling temples to function again for both the living and the dead is very related to faith in Christ.

There is much of a practical nature in what the prophets and apostles teach us under inspiration. It relates to our individual well being and the progress of the Lord’s work. 
 

That’s why, for example, we are encouraged to support religious freedom nationally and globally. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And on the other side of the coin, the presence of the counsel in the handbook gives validation to folks like me who already had a creepy feeling from the idea of surgical sterilization for convenience’s sake but didn’t feel like they could cite chapter and verse to bolster  their intuition

So you were unable to have validation before?  Why?

Edited by Calm
Link to post
4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I think that's a fair concern. I experienced serious medical concerns with a twin pregnancy, and then agreed to sterilisation on recommendation from the chief of obstetrics. So I was a bit surprised when I learned about the counsel in the Handbook.  It never occurred to us to ask our bishop at the time. We just made the best medical choice we could. 

 

I don’t dispute that there are justifiable and prudent reasons for having it done, such as advice from competent medical professionals. I just fear that it had gotten out of hand and had even become something of a fad to which Church members were not immune. 

Link to post
4 minutes ago, Calm said:

So you were unable to have validation before?  Why?

Because I was unaware of written counsel or advice from those I trust — such as the leaders of the Church. Don’t get me wrong: I was quite willing to go according to my intuition, but I drew comfort and assurance from the counsel in the handbook once I became aware of it. 

Link to post
8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I can’t cite chapter and verse on this, just my own opinion, but I get a very dark and uncomfortable feeling about the notion of such an invasive and clumsy tampering with the divinely created means for reproduction. YMMV. 
 

Furthermore, I believe there were a great many couples who were not even bothering to consider whether the Church leaders had any guidance to offer on the matter. Having it in the handbook for all to see tends to leave us without excuse. 

You could say similar things about any kind of surgery - like invasive and clumsy tampering with our divinely created bodies yet President Nelson still did heart surgery, even experimental heart surgery. 

I found sterilization a real blessing in my life and it wasn't entered into lightly.  I felt peace about doing it and didn't need to go to my church leaders for advice, though I understand why some people feel they do. 

Given my situation I find this statement odd, "I believe there were a great many couples who were not even bothering to consider whether the Church leaders had any guidance to offer on the matter."  I didn't need to consider what church leaders had to say.  I could go to the Lord directly and find out what was right for me from Him.  

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post

 

 

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

 I guess. To me it's kinda big jump because I do not equate sterilisation with childlessness. But thanks for clarifying!

I don't equate it with childlessness either.  I equate it with limiting children.  A few may use it to have no children, but I think in the church a huge majority will be using it to limit how many children, not having no children whatsoever.  

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

What even is an assault rifle?  It’s not like that’s an official designation of anything. 

The us army has a definition of it. Look it up. Most people call something an assault rifle if it looks scary.  Oh and they think AR in AR 14 means assault rifle.  Maybe if we paint them pink and purple instead of black they won't be scary guns.

  • Like 1
Link to post
8 minutes ago, cherryTreez said:

The us army has a definition of it. Look it up. Most people call something an assault rifle if it looks scary.  Oh and they think AR in AR 14 means assault rifle.  Maybe if we paint them pink and purple instead of black they won't be scary guns.

They're still designed for the purpose of killing people, right?

Still scary ;) 

Link to post
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

What even is an assault rifle?  It’s not like that’s an official designation of anything. 

I'll save you the work of looking it up.

The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges." In this strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:

  1. It must be capable of selective fire. ["selective fire" means it can be set to semi-automatic, meaning one shot per trigger pull, or automatic, meaning more than one shot per trigger pull]
  2. It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle, examples of intermediate cartridges are the 7.92×33mm Kurz, the 7.62x39mm and 5.56×45mm NATO.
  3. Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.
  4. It must have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards).

The gun-control crowd is more liberal in their definition, of course. Because almost any gun is scary to some people. 

There are virtually no assault rifles in the US that are legally owned by civilians. This is because a fully-automatic weapon requires a license from the federal government that is extremely difficult to obtain, and even then, some states won't permit them even with a federal license.

 

Edited by Stargazer
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
24 minutes ago, cherryTreez said:

The us army has a definition of it. Look it up. Most people call something an assault rifle if it looks scary.  Oh and they think AR in AR 14 means assault rifle.  Maybe if we paint them pink and purple instead of black they won't be scary guns.

Yes.  I was agreeing with the implication of your post.

Link to post
5 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I'll save you the work of looking it up.

The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges." In this strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:

  1. It must be capable of selective fire. ["selective fire" means it can be set to semi-automatic, meaning one shot per trigger pull, or automatic, meaning more than one shot per trigger pull]
  2. It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle, examples of intermediate cartridges are the 7.92×33mm Kurz, the 7.62x39mm and 5.56×45mm NATO.
  3. Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.
  4. It must have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards).

The gun-control crowd is more liberal in their definition, of course. Because almost any gun is scary to some people. 

 

Exactly.  Assault rifles are basically banned already (because they are so highly regulated), if we use the Army definition.  If we don't use that definition, no other definition actually exists.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

They're still designed for the purpose of killing people, right?

Still scary ;) 

They aren't designed to kill people anymore than hunting rifles are designed to kill people though.  That's why so many people actually hunt game with AR rifles.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
56 minutes ago, Rain said:

You could say similar things about any kind of surgery - like invasive and clumsy tampering with our divinely created bodies yet President Nelson still did heart surgery, even experimental heart surgery. 

I found sterilization a real blessing in my life and it wasn't entered into lightly.  I felt peace about doing it and didn't need to go to my church leaders for advice, though I understand why some people feel they do. 

Given my situation I find this statement odd, "I believe there were a great many couples who were not even bothering to consider whether the Church leaders had any guidance to offer on the matter."  I didn't need to consider what church leaders had to say.  I could go to the Lord directly and find out what was right for me from Him.  

 

I’ve already said I don’t dispute that there are justifiable and prudent reasons for it, including advice from competent medical professionals. . I would hold the same position on any form of surgery. So no inconsistency can reasonably be inferred from what I have said here. 
 

But I stand by what I have said about it seeming to have gotten out of hand and become a fad. I support the position of the Church leaders as expressed in the handbook. 
 

In general, I don’t like any instance of surgery that is not medically indicated. I disapprove of routine neonatal circumcision for that reason, by the way. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to post
5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

They aren't designed to kill people anymore than hunting rifles are designed to kill people though.  That's why so many people actually hunt game with AR rifles.  

I don’t own a firearm or have a concealed carry permit, but if I did, it would be with the same rationale that I buy life insurance: I hope I never have to use it, but meanwhile, it brings peace of mind. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Because I was unaware of written counsel or advice from those I trust — such as the leaders of the Church. Don’t get me wrong: I was quite willing to go according to my intuition, but I drew comfort and assurance from the counsel in the handbook once I became aware of it. 

Just to point out....the sterilization info has been in Handbook 2 for at least a decade, yet if I have read you correctly,  you apparently were unaware of it until this update  

The same circumstances exist now for those you say have less excuse. 
 

Were you derelict in your duty to study the Handbook or is studying the handbook extra in your view?

Link to post
36 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

They're still designed for the purpose of killing people, right?

Still scary ;) 

You might as well fear your own fists.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t own a firearm or have a concealed carry permit, but if I did, it would be with the same rationale that I buy life insurance: I hope I never have to use it, but meanwhile, it brings peace of mind. 

I don't either, and though I've shot plenty of guns and been hunting (growing up in Wyoming and all it was practically a requirement) I don't enjoy shooting them or find it fun, like so many do.  But I find that a lot of our society's reactions to guns isn't based on information or knowledge, but rather a lack of knowledge and the fear that comes with that.  

I think that gun control would be a lot easier in this country if we had an accurate starting point that was more fact based and less emotion based.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
15 minutes ago, Calm said:

Just to point out....the sterilization info has been in Handbook 2 for at least a decade, yet if I have read you correctly,  you apparently were unaware of it until this update  

The same circumstances exist now for those you say have less excuse. 
 

Were you derelict in your duty to study the Handbook or is studying the handbook extra in your view?

Didn't it used to be in Handbook 1 that only leaders had access to, or was it in handbook 2 all along.  Not that many people would have a reason to read handbook two if they weren't in a leadership position.

Link to post
9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Just to point out....the sterilization info has been in Handbook 2 for at least a decade, yet if I have read you correctly,  you apparently were unaware of it until this update  

The same circumstances exist now for those you say have less excuse. 
 

Were you derelict in your duty to study the Handbook or is studying the handbook extra in your view?

No, your impression is incorrect. I became aware of the entry on sterilization quite a while before this most recent update, but i had already for quite sometime felt unfavorably disposed toward the practice, and seeing the item in the handbook gave me the assurance I had been on the right track with my intuition. 
 

I never said I or anyone else was “derelict” for not studying the handbook earlier. I only pointed out that its content is far more accessible now — and its accessibility more publicized — than ever before. 

Link to post
11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That may be the dumbest thing I've read today. No offense ;)

 

I disagree. I think the rejoinder was quite apt. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Just to point out....the sterilization info has been in Handbook 2 for at least a decade, yet if I have read you correctly,  you apparently were unaware of it until this update  

The same circumstances exist now for those you say have less excuse. 
 

Were you derelict in your duty to study the Handbook or is studying the handbook extra in your view?

At least 2 decades (My son will be 20 in July. I discovered it soon after he was born and it was in there before then). 

 

Link to post
4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Didn't it used to be in Handbook 1 that only leaders had access to, or was it in handbook 2 all along.  Not that many people would have a reason to read handbook two if they weren't in a leadership position.

Yes.  I only knew about it because a friend read the copy her husband had when he was in the bishopric and when it came up in conversation she told me. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Didn't it used to be in Handbook 1 that only leaders had access to, or was it in handbook 2 all along.  Not that many people would have a reason to read handbook two if they weren't in a leadership position.

I don’t remember which handbook it was in, but you may recall that even Handbook 2 was restricted in its circulation until recently. Copies were distributed as needed to those in leadership positions, and the leaders were expected to turn their copies back in when the leaders were released. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But I stand by what I have said about it seeming to have gotten out of hand and become a fad.

Do you have any evidence to support this belief?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...