Recent updates to General Handbook

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

But to me, at least, "Should not" constitutes disapproval, but not prohibition. 

“May not” and “shall not” indicate to me they are not leaving you with a choice, you are breaking a law/rule/standard if you do end up doing whatever they tell you not to do and trouble definitely awaits while “should not” is more “my preference is you do not do this, but you are not breaking any law if you go against my wishes, it would just benefit you if you choose to do it my way”.

Edited June 2, 2024 by Calm

[JAHS]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

As was I when you wrote: "Is there a difference between "Thou shalt not steal" and "Thou may not steal"?"

"Thou shalt not" and "Thou may not" both connotate a commandment or an absolute prohibition, which is what I was wondering if you were taking it that way.  "Should not," on the other hand, connotes (strong) preference, or advice, not an absolute prohibition. 

When I was in 6th grade, I went to my teacher and asked for permission to do something. I asked "Can I...?" She responded with a smile "Yes, you can, but you may not." This confused me. I tried again with the same question. She responded the same way. Suddenly enlightened, I asked "May I...?" and she said "Yes, you may!"  <-- Just a illustrative funny story, something that has stuck with me all these years.

"May not" seems to be slightly less firm than "Shall not," but still constitutes prohibition. But to me, at least, "Should not" constitutes disapproval, but not prohibition. 

In connection with ceremonial clothing, if you do make your own, are you subject to church discipline? It seems not. But if you do it well, how is anyone going to know?

I disagree. It's still just a policy. And kind of unenforceable.

Not that I'm going to start making my own.  

 

I would guess if a temple worker sees someone with a homemade apron they might make them aware of it and ask them to get an approved one.
I am guessing this came about because members were getting a little too creative on how they designed their homemade aprons which might cause a distraction during the temple ceremony.

 

[Stargazer]

42 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I would guess if a temple worker sees someone with a homemade apron they might make them aware of it and ask them to get an approved one.
I am guessing this came about because members were getting a little too creative on how they designed their homemade aprons which might cause a distraction during the temple ceremony.

 

Perhaps. I was a temple ordinance worker for a couple of years until fairly recently, and we were instructed to be very gentle with patrons, so as not to discourage people from coming. And then we come to this: there was a long period of time when patrons were permitted to make their own aprons. How would a temple worker know that a patron's apron was made before or after the home-made approval was rescinded? 

I've never actually seen anyone with an apron that was home-made. I've seen aprons that were a little more elaborate than the standard one, and perhaps these were hand-made. And perhaps not.

[MustardSeed]

49 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Perhaps. I was a temple ordinance worker for a couple of years until fairly recently, and we were instructed to be very gentle with patrons, so as not to discourage people from coming. And then we come to this: there was a long period of time when patrons were permitted to make their own aprons. How would a temple worker know that a patron's apron was made before or after the home-made approval was rescinded? 

I've never actually seen anyone with an apron that was home-made. I've seen aprons that were a little more elaborate than the standard one, and perhaps these were hand-made. And perhaps not.

I can’t imagine what an unacceptable apron might look like.  

[JAHS]

33 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I can’t imagine what an unacceptable apron might look like.  

Here's one you can buy now.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

would guess if a temple worker sees someone with a homemade apron they might make them aware of it and ask them to get an approved one

Since they are allowing people to wear older ceremonial clothing, how would they know?

[JAHS]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

Since they are allowing people to wear older ceremonial clothing, how would they know?

Perhaps this is the policy going forward since we can no longer buy the kits for making aprons. 

[Rain]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

Since they are allowing people to wear older ceremonial clothing, how would they know?

I can't zoom in close enough, but I think that may be a weed apron.

[JAHS]

17 minutes ago, Rain said:

I can't zoom in close enough, but I think that may be a weed apron.

The vendor called it a fig leaf Temple apron. It appears to be an apron used for cooking.

Edited June 2, 2024 by JAHS

[nuclearfuels]

On 5/31/2024 at 10:41 PM, webbles said:

On 5/31/2024 at 10:20 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

Wait... So children conceived through IVF weren't/aren't considered born in the covenant?

Update: I went and read it. Was it not always so?

I think it is just clarification.  The 2010, 2006, and 1998 handbook all say that children conceived through IVF are born in the covenant.

What about surrogates?

[Rain]

21 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The vendor called it a fig leaf Temple apron. It appears to be an apron used for cooking.

Huh. I didn't see the link till you replied.  Looking closer on the link it doesn't look like fig or weed.  It looks like a bunch of small leaves put together.  Hard to tell.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I can’t imagine what an unacceptable apron might look like.  

Bedazzled?

[webbles]

50 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The vendor called it a fig leaf Temple apron. It appears to be an apron used for cooking.

It's pretty obvious that it doesn't follow the approved pattern (such as the loop around the neck).  I'm not sure what a temple worker would say at the moment, but I would expect someone would talk to the person after the ceremony.

[bluebell]

I bet there are stories behind why they changed the policy on letting people make their own aprons.  As missionaries we always said that whoever was responsible for the new rule should have to have their picture next to it in the handbook.   

[webbles]

43 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

What about surrogates?

The 2010 manual says

Quote

The Church strongly discourages surrogate motherhood.  If parents want a child who was born to a surrogate mother to be sealed to them, the stake president refers the matter to the Office of the First Presidency.

The current manual is similar, though with more details of the sealing process.

Section 38.6.22 - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/38-church-policies-and-guidelines?lang=eng#title_number117

Quote

Surrogate Motherhood

The pattern of a husband and wife providing bodies for God’s spirit children is divinely appointed (see 2.1.3). For this reason, the Church discourages surrogate motherhood. However, this is a personal matter that is ultimately left to the judgment and prayerful consideration of the husband and wife.

Children who are born to a surrogate mother are not born in the covenant. Following their birth, they may be sealed to parents only with the approval of the First Presidency (see 38.4.2.7). The parents write a letter to the First Presidency and give it to the stake president. If he supports the request, he submits the letter along with his own letter.

Section 38.4.2.7 - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/38-church-policies-and-guidelines?lang=eng&id=title_number88-p275#title_number88

Quote

Children Born to Surrogate Mothers

If a child was born to a surrogate mother, the stake president refers the matter to the Office of the First Presidency (see 38.6.22).

 

[supersc]

Next change could very well be that single men can serve missions same as females have always been able to.

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, supersc said:

Next change could very well be that single men can serve missions same as females have always been able to.

I doubt that will happen soon. 18-25 can serve but they figure older men need to get married instead.

Single women 19-29 can serve, but not older than that until they are over 40, then they are considered senior missionaries.

Edited June 3, 2024 by JAHS

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I doubt that will happen soon. 18-25 can serve but they figure older men need to get married instead.

Single women 19-29 can serve, but not older than that until they are over 40, then they are considered senior missionaries.

It's interesting though that single senior women can be senior missionaries but single senior men cannot.  I think it has something to do with single older men using missions to look for wives.

Edit to add:  I just looked it up though and single men can serve church-service missions, which is nice.  Just not full-time missions.

Edited June 3, 2024 by bluebell

[JAHS]

30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's interesting though that single senior women can be senior missionaries but single senior men cannot.  I think it has something to do with single older men using missions to look for wives.

Edit to add:  I just looked it up though and single men can serve church-service missions, which is nice.  Just not full-time missions.

My wife's mission president would ask the sister missionaries if there were any elders in the mission that they liked and he would put them in the same district with them. There were a few that found their future husbands because of that.😉

[Calm]

19 hours ago, Rain said:

Huh. I didn't see the link till you replied.  Looking closer on the link it doesn't look like fig or weed.  It looks like a bunch of small leaves put together.  Hard to tell.

I wouldn’t mind wearing it…to cook or clean, not to temple. 
 

Though it looks like it was designed as a way to cook and insult the Church at the same time…

”Designed and sold by Exmo-Army”

Green is my favorite color and trees and variations on that theme are one of my favorite motifs, if not the favorite. 

Edited June 3, 2024 by Calm

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

I wouldn’t mind wearing it…too cook or clean, not to temple. 
 

Though it looks like it was designed as a way to cook and insult the Church at the same time…

”Designed and sold by Exmo-Army”

Green is my favorite color and trees annd variations on that theme are one of my favorite motifs, if not the favorite. 

“…and of course, anything I can do to insult the church is another of my main hobbies.”

 

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, JAHS said:

My wife's mission president would ask the sister missionaries if there were any elders in the mission that they liked and he would put them in the same district with them. There were a few that found their future husbands because of that.😉

That seems a bit misguided. 😂

[LoudmouthMormon]

19 hours ago, JAHS said:

I am guessing this came about because members were getting a little too creative on how they designed their homemade aprons which might cause a distraction during the temple ceremony.

 

18 hours ago, Stargazer said:

How would a temple worker know that a patron's apron was made before or after the home-made approval was rescinded? 

17 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I can’t imagine what an unacceptable apron might look like.  

17 hours ago, Calm said:

how would they know?

 

Hi there - perhaps I can help.  I'm someone who bears the noble distinction of having at least two different policies and at least one rule enacted in response to me doing me things.  Nothing temple related, but my kid's school, a local bank, and a Burger King in Colorado Springs, all saw me going about my business in ways that made a note get hung where customers could see, or a new policy a crossing guard could enforce. I don't need to see any examples of inapropro temple clothing, to know that such things have been seen by enough people, that a policy was needed. 

I'm also someone who caught the artistic bug in my '40's, as our kids were growing up and we were teaching them art and creativity.

Although I have zero experience in the field of home made religious attire, I'm quite familiar with artists, and people with creative eyes, and folks who get a kick out of creating their impression of what an article of clothing might look like.  Here are some common phrases that might spark your imaginations a tad and help you gain a few mental images of what an inappropriate temple apron might look like:

- Sequins.
- Hemp, or other natural fibers, dyed with someone's idea of organic, locally sourced natural dye that might be considered 'green'.
- Literal skins or leaves.
- Viewing religious observance through a postmodern deconstructionist antiracist post-patriarchichal lens.
- Look around for more inspiration.

Taste and class and common sense are all in the eye of the beholder.  If you didn't know it before, now you know.

 

Edited June 3, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[let’s roll]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

That seems a bit misguided. 😂

Exactly…there were too many Sisters in my mission to be able to have all of them in my District. 😉😂

[JAHS]

9 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

That seems a bit misguided. 😂

Exactly…there were too many Sisters in my mission to be able to have all of them in my District. 😉😂

😄
My wife's mission was back in the early 70's so there were only a few sister missionaries. Since the sisters were at least 21 years old they figured they were more mature than the 19 year old elders and therefore not so much chance of anything inappropriate happening.