JAHS Posted October 19, 2021 Posted October 19, 2021 The handbook now says: 20.5.11 Unapproved Activities Church units may not sponsor activities that are not in harmony with the guidelines in this chapter. These include: Activities that have a high risk of injury or illness (see 20.7.6). Activities that require unusual expense or travel (see 20.7.7). Exercise programs that have music, lyrics, dress, or other elements that are not in harmony with Church standards. If a bishop has a question about whether an activity is appropriate, he asks the stake president. Stake presidents may address questions to the Area Presidency. There used to be a prohibition on mask wearing in the above section and it is now gone from the handbook. I guess a Stake president could still rule against it.
ksfisher Posted October 19, 2021 Posted October 19, 2021 10 minutes ago, JAHS said: The handbook now says: 20.5.11 Unapproved Activities Church units may not sponsor activities that are not in harmony with the guidelines in this chapter. These include: Activities that have a high risk of injury or illness (see 20.7.6). Activities that require unusual expense or travel (see 20.7.7). Exercise programs that have music, lyrics, dress, or other elements that are not in harmony with Church standards. If a bishop has a question about whether an activity is appropriate, he asks the stake president. Stake presidents may address questions to the Area Presidency. There used to be a prohibition on mask wearing in the above section and it is now gone from the handbook. I guess a Stake president could still rule against it. This seems to allow for a wide range of cultural traditions and not just focus on Halloween (the mask part that is). What I'm noticing about the handbook is that it seems to be less rules based and more focused on teaching principles, then allowing local leaders to apply those principles as appropriate for their areas. 1
pogi Posted October 19, 2021 Posted October 19, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, JAHS said: The handbook now says: 20.5.11 Unapproved Activities Church units may not sponsor activities that are not in harmony with the guidelines in this chapter. These include: Activities that have a high risk of injury or illness (see 20.7.6). Activities that require unusual expense or travel (see 20.7.7). Exercise programs that have music, lyrics, dress, or other elements that are not in harmony with Church standards. If a bishop has a question about whether an activity is appropriate, he asks the stake president. Stake presidents may address questions to the Area Presidency. There used to be a prohibition on mask wearing in the above section and it is now gone from the handbook. I guess a Stake president could still rule against it. They probably removed it because they knew that anti-maskers would be making memes out of it and otherwise using it in inappropriate ways. It wouldn't surprise me if it was in response to something stupid members have done to use it in their anti-mask campaigns. Masks are not only approved now, but recommended. Edited October 19, 2021 by pogi 4
bOObOO Posted October 19, 2021 Posted October 19, 2021 (edited) Great, I can now enjoy wearing my new suit to worship services and be safe at the same time. Edited October 19, 2021 by bOObOO
ksfisher Posted October 19, 2021 Posted October 19, 2021 1 hour ago, JAHS said: I guess a Stake president could still rule against it If the bishop asked. If the bishop doesn't ask about it...
The Nehor Posted October 19, 2021 Posted October 19, 2021 4 minutes ago, ksfisher said: If the bishop asked. If the bishop doesn't ask about it... The Stake President finds out after the fact and raises a huge stink. Or maybe I am projecting……..
ksfisher Posted October 19, 2021 Posted October 19, 2021 Just now, The Nehor said: The Stake President finds out after the fact and raises a huge stink. Or maybe I am projecting…….. Not sure how a big stink could be raised about something that isn't prohibited.
The Nehor Posted October 19, 2021 Posted October 19, 2021 3 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Not sure how a big stink could be raised about something that isn't prohibited. I’ve seen big stinks raised about doing things that are specifically allowed. 2
nuclearfuels Posted October 19, 2021 Posted October 19, 2021 2 hours ago, JAHS said: Activities that have a high risk of injury or illness (see 20.7.6). covid has this high risk or it doesn't. 1 hour ago, pogi said: They probably removed it because they knew that anti-maskers would be making memes out of it and otherwise using it in inappropriate ways. It wouldn't surprise me if it was in response to something stupid members have done to use it in their anti-mask campaigns. Masks are not only approved now, but recommended. I like memes. They make me laugh. Guy Fawkes mask it is. Remember, remember......
nuclearfuels Posted October 19, 2021 Posted October 19, 2021 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: I’ve seen big stinks raised about doing things that are specifically allowed. Yes.
JAHS Posted October 20, 2021 Author Posted October 20, 2021 6 hours ago, pogi said: 7 hours ago, JAHS said: The handbook now says: 20.5.11 Unapproved Activities Church units may not sponsor activities that are not in harmony with the guidelines in this chapter. These include: Activities that have a high risk of injury or illness (see 20.7.6). Activities that require unusual expense or travel (see 20.7.7). Exercise programs that have music, lyrics, dress, or other elements that are not in harmony with Church standards. If a bishop has a question about whether an activity is appropriate, he asks the stake president. Stake presidents may address questions to the Area Presidency. There used to be a prohibition on mask wearing in the above section and it is now gone from the handbook. I guess a Stake president could still rule against it. Expand They probably removed it because they knew that anti-maskers would be making memes out of it and otherwise using it in inappropriate ways. It wouldn't surprise me if it was in response to something stupid members have done to use it in their anti-mask campaigns. Masks are not only approved now, but recommended. Edited 6 hours ago by pogi If I remember correctly one of the reasons for the no mask rule is so that everyone can more easily identify who is there and who shouldn't be there. Also a person's vision is somewhat impaired by the mask. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 20, 2021 Posted October 20, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, JAHS said: If I remember correctly one of the reasons for the no mask rule is so that everyone can more easily identify who is there and who shouldn't be there. Still a valid concern. Edited October 20, 2021 by Scott Lloyd
Hamba Tuhan Posted October 20, 2021 Posted October 20, 2021 3 hours ago, JAHS said: If I remember correctly one of the reasons for the no mask rule is so that everyone can more easily identify who is there and who shouldn't be there. Also a person's vision is somewhat impaired by the mask. I don't think I've ever seen an official reason given, allowing for speculation. I'm glad this may be gone.
Recommended Posts