Recent updates to General Handbook

[telnetd]

On 6/8/2024 at 12:45 PM, bluebell said:

What punishment do you believe the church elders (or God, in the afterlife) should inflict on a member who lights a candle in church?  Or who cooks in the kitchen?  Or makes their own temple apron?

 

I haven't read the handbook to see if that topic is covered.

[telnetd]

On 6/8/2024 at 8:21 PM, Stargazer said:

Would God deign to discipline anyone making their own ceremonial clothing?  People used to do this with no restrictions. This means that the act of making such clothing is not inherently sinful.

Why would the church handbook forbid it ?

[telnetd]

On 6/8/2024 at 9:58 PM, JAHS said:

God knows what is in our hearts and as long as we obey his commandments and the covenants we make at baptism and the temple, I don't think there is anything to worry about.  So don't sweat the small stuff.

Maybe they will revert back to the previous handbook instruction and allow members
to make their own ceremonial clothing again.

But would allowing wearers to change the color and design of the garment be considered
"small stuff"?

Edited June 10, 2024 by telnetd

[ksfisher]

On 6/8/2024 at 6:21 PM, Stargazer said:

During my tenure a new bishopric was called. In the first few months the new bishop inadvertently violated a policy that members who had been excommunicated had to go through a particular process before being rebaptized. Actually, the sister believed she had resigned her membership -- and that's what the bishop believed. But it turned out that she had been exed. It may have been that she hadn't bothered to open the letter telling her she was exed, and she thought her resignation had gone through. So she was re-baptized, all was thought well, and then the bishop was notified by SLC of his error. In fact, he hadn't been fully aware of how to handle the rebaptism of resigned members, either, so he messed up both ways!

Where was the stake president while all this was going on?

[JAHS]

51 minutes ago, telnetd said:

Maybe they will revert back to the previous handbook instruction and allow members
to make their own ceremonial clothing again.

But would allowing wearers to change the color and design of the garment be considered
"small stuff"?

I think what God is more concerned about is the member's general attitude regarding following policy and direction from church leaders. Wearing improper garments is small symptom of it.

[Rain]

7 hours ago, JAHS said:

I think what God is more concerned about is the member's general attitude regarding following policy and direction from church leaders. Wearing improper garments is small symptom of it.

I would say may be a symptom. There are so many individual situations that we really can't say "is".

[telnetd]

20 hours ago, Rain said:

None of us earns salvation. We never can. Jacob, in the Book of Mormon, taught, “Remember, after [we] are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that [we] are saved.”

...  for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do (2 Nephi 25:23).

[ZealouslyStriving]

10 minutes ago, telnetd said:

...  for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do (2 Nephi 25:23).

Which means that all the "work" we do has no value outside the Atonement of Christ. Not that our works earn us salvation- even if they are necessary.

This verse has been explained many, many times to those attempting to misinterpret it.

[JAHS]

17 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Which means that all the "work" we do has no value outside the Atonement of Christ. Not that our works earn us salvation- even if they are necessary.

This verse has been explained many, many times to those attempting to misinterpret it.

Our works of themselves don't save us. They do help us to become what God wants us to become so we can abide the Celestial Kingdom.

[Rain]

2 hours ago, telnetd said:

...  for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do (2 Nephi 25:23).

I think this might be a quote mix up?  That you have my name in someone else you were quoting.

Edited June 11, 2024 by Rain

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

...  for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do (2 Nephi 25:23).

I like the scripture later in the Book of Mormon where the anti-nephi-lehis remember that it was all they could do to repent and turn to Christ.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Rain said:

I think this might be a quote mix up?  That you got my name in someone else you were quoting.

It’s Elder Renlund…

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2024/04/43renlund?

Which makes me wonder what she was responding to as well as to whom.

Edited to correct pronoun…

Edited June 12, 2024 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

It’s Elder Renlund…

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2024/04/43renlund?

Which makes me wonder what he was responding to as well as to whom.

 

She? Per her profile. 

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

She? Per her profile. 

Oops…my bad.  Thanks.  Spacing today, I guess.

[Bernard Gui]

On 6/2/2024 at 12:10 AM, sunstoned said:

I have always been of the opinion that it is easier to get forgiveness than permission.

Except when taking a second wife.

[telnetd]

On 6/11/2024 at 3:57 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

Not that our works earn us salvation- even if they are necessary.

You might be referring to being saved by grace and exaltation by works as taught
in the April 1981 Ensign magazine.

"But, if we wish to overcome spiritual death and enter back into God's presence, 
we must be obedient to laws and principles. This is exaltation by works. Thus, 
according to this explanation, we are saved by grace and exalted by works".

[Stargazer]

On 6/10/2024 at 3:28 PM, telnetd said:

Why would the church handbook forbid it ?

It doesn't forbid it. It just says we shouldn't. 

[Calm]

Looks like they decided awhile back just to release publicly any change on a regular basis. Smart given how some critics have responded to past efforts as trying to sneak things by the public/members, etc. 

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/august-2024-general-handbook-update

”The digital document, which is updated twice a year, is prepared under the direction of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.”

Added:  my mistake, while the update is announced and likely any major change, it says “some changes below” so there could still be others that are not officially pointed out.

Edited August 19, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

Added direction that Young Women class presidents now organize the youth to welcome visitors and members to sacrament meeting (see 11.3.4.2 and 29.2.1.3).

Interesting…

Quote

Updated sealing policies (see 38.4).

Added instructions about caring for the garment and about medical conditions that may prevent members from wearing the garment (see 38.5).

Clarified policies related to individuals who identify as transgender (see 38.6.23 and corresponding changes to sections 26.5.7, 32.14.5, 32.16.1, 38.2.8.6, 38.2.8.9, and 38.2.9.9).

Checking these out.

Edited August 19, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

A living woman who is not currently married or sealed to another man may be sealed to a deceased husband from whom she was divorced in life. She must first receive signed consent from her former husband’s widow (if there is one).

Is this new?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/38-church-policies-and-guidelines?lang=eng&id=title_number74-p234#title_number74

It seems another move towards aligning women’s sealings with men, a policy change not needing a doctrinal interpretation change (no concern over a woman choosing to be sealed with more than one husband as after death most reason/assume even if sealed to all her husbands, she is still only choosing one) , though I wonder how many women will want to take advantage of it.

Quote

A living man may be sealed to a deceased wife from whom he was divorced in life. He must first receive signed consent from his former wife’s widower (if there is one). If he is married, he also must receive written consent from his current wife if she is living.

Thank goodness it requires the permission of his living wife.

Quote

A living woman who is currently married may not be sealed to a deceased husband without First Presidency approval.

Hmmm….

Edited August 19, 2024 by Calm

[Amulek]

56 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Added direction that Young Women class presidents now organize the youth to welcome visitors and members to sacrament meeting (see 11.3.4.2 and 29.2.1.3).

Interesting…

In our ward, the Teachers Quorum used to be responsible for this, along with holding the doors open for those passing the Sacrament out into the foyers, but that tradition changed with the handbook update.

Now, the YW are responsible for both of those duties instead, and after the Sacrament is concluded they are thanked and welcomed to rejoin their families similar to those who were involved in passing the Sacrament.

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Interesting…

Checking these out.

Our YW have been welcoming and ushering in sacrament for the past year or more, but I didn't realize it was a new handbook mandate.  I thought our ward had just decided to do it.  Interesting.

[MrShorty]

I find it interesting that it isn't just that the YW participate in ushering, but that the YW class presidencies are given the responsibility for organizing the youth as ushers.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Our YW have been welcoming and ushering in sacrament for the past year or more, but I didn't realize it was a new handbook mandate.  I thought our ward had just decided to do it.  Interesting.

I served as my ward's bishop from 2013 to 2018.  During that time (around 2016 or so) our ward council came up with this idea.  There was nothing in the Handbook that prohibited it, and nothing in the scriptures that we could see regarding ushering being a priesthood duty.  I asked our stake president about it, and he said no.  I was somewhat surprised, as I saw no harm in it, and some potential good (giving the YW an opportunity to visibly serve and participate), but I deferred to him.

I think change in the Church can sometimes take longer than its members would prefer, but oh well.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rain]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I served as my ward's bishop from 2013 to 2018.  During that time (around 2016 or so) our ward council came up with this idea.  There was nothing in the Handbook that prohibited it, and nothing in the scriptures that we could see regarding ushering being a priesthood duty.  I asked our stake president about it, and he said no.  I was somewhat surprised, as I saw no harm in it, and some potential good (giving the YW an opportunity to visibly serve and participate), but I deferred to him.

I think change in the Church can sometimes take longer than its members would prefer, but oh well.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm curious why if you saw nothing in the handbook or the scriptures, saw no harm and saw some potential good why you asked the stake president.  What was it that triggered the idea that you should ask rather than do it?