- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
The new LDS Church General Handbook of Instructions is now available. Included below are some early and relevant screenshots.
Some initial analysis (will update over time):
– The Mormon church still TOTALLY and OFFICIALLY believes in eternal polygamy.
– I cannot find any language regarding the baptism of children of same-sex-married parents. I also cannot find another of the past “denunciation” language regarding children of same-sex married copules. Has this totally disappeared?
– Disciplinary councils have been renamed to “Membership Councils.”
– The Mormon church has officially eliminated the punishments of “excommunication” and “disfellowshipped.” The new term for excommunication is “Withdrawal of church membership.” The new term for disfellowshipped is “Formal membership restrictions.”
– Many disciplinary (Membership) councils are now being pushed to bishops (priesthood-holding males included). Bishops must get approval from stake presidents to hold a disciplinary (Membership) council.
– Stake high councilmen are no longer required at stake-level disciplinary (Membership) councils, and are now optional.
– Apostasy is no longer included in the list of behaviors requiring a disciplinary (Membership) council.
– Bishops and stake presidents are still not encouraged to immediately notify the police when they are informed about sexual abuse of a child. Instead they are still encouraged to only call the Kirton and McConkie hotline.
– Same-sex marriage is no longer listed as an act of apostasy, and is also no longer listed as a behavior requiring a disciplinary (Membership) council.
– Child and youth abuse, rape, spouse abuse, financial predatory behavior now ARE included on the list of activities requiring a disciplinary (Membership) council. Inexplicably, before these were all optional.
– Same-sex sexual activity seems to now be placed at the same level as extramarital heterosexual sexual activity. Both are frowned upon, but disciplinary (Membership) councils are now optional for both. Same-sex sexual activity seems to no longer be classified as more “perverted” or “abominable” than straight, unmarried sex.
– As long as an LGBTQ member is “striving” to live the law of chastity, they are allowed to hold a calling.
– Same-sex marriage is still not approved of.
– Regarding gender and transgender individuals, what’s most important to the church is that one’s gender always remains consistent with one’s biological sex at birth. This is the church’s gender-based “line in the sand,” and that is what must remained fixed for a transgender Mormon to remain in good standing.
– The church is ok with a member identifying as transgender. Transgender individuals may be baptized, confirmed, take sacrament, etc.
– The church has provided a way for a transgender member to update their preferred name and/or pronouns in the membership record system.
– Transgender individuals are discouraged from doing any medical or surgical operations, or from engaging in “social transitions” (changing their gender identity, name, pronouns, dress/grooming styles) as a part of their transition. If they do, “membership restrictions” will be applied for the duration of their transition. (Does this mean that once the transition is completed, they return to full standing?)
– Transgender members who have undergone transgender-related surgery are forbidden from temple service.
– Membership restrictions for gender-transitioning individuals include receiving/exercising the priesthood, receiving/using a temple recommend, and receiving some church callings.
– Transgender individuals considering tansgender-related surgery are not allowed to be baptized. Transgender individuals who have undergone such surgery can only be baptized with First Presidency approval, and will be banned from priesthood participation or temple attendance as members.
– Word of Wisdom only states “no coffee and tea” and “no illegal drugs.” This seems to clear the way for medical legal recreational marijuana to be ok.
– Young Mormon men are encouraged to serve missions. Young Mormon women, when they desire, may be recommend to serve missions.
– Romantic behavior and speaking of sexual orientation are discouraged during church services.
What do you think? I like the Apostasy no longer requires a council. While I am sure there are limits, mild disagreements that are aired on public forums won’t get us in trouble with the church. As I have learned from my time away “in the field”, there is a way to faithfully disagree.
The LGBTIQA+ policies are also a step in the right direction. Doesn’t go as far as I would like but it takes time to get people ready for serious change.
I was surprised by a number of these items. I like the fact that apostasy is no longer considered grounds for a membership council. It makes me wonder if that one is in place given the fact that airing opposing opinions is common on the Internet now — perhaps it’s the church just accepting the fact they can’t control everyone’s behavior these days with discipline. The change in language is significant. At one time they were Church Courts. Then Disciplinary Councils, now Membership Councils. It’s good that you no longer have to get up in front of a room of people and share your sins. That is merciful.
We are definitely seeing a kinder, gentler church than in the past, which is good…
Not enough to change the path that I am on now that “damage has been done”, but I like what I am hearing. Makes me less fearful of posting what I think on StayLDS.
I do like most of the changes regarding what were formally known as disciplinary councils (especially the high councilors are no longer required!). And I like the seemingly more equal treatment of sexual sins/transgressions. I also note that there is a little softening of the language regarding worthiness to perform certain ordinances. Honestly I expected more changes, but I’ve learned never to set the bar too high for my expectations from the church. We get what we get and shouldn’t pitch a fit (that’s a line I used when I taught kindergarten). I was probably most disappointed in the end part where certain church “policies” are enumerated (such as birth control or cremation) – no changes there but there is a note that changes might be forthcoming.
I also noted in the section about civil marriage they tiptoe around the civil marriage immediately before temple sealing and completely ignore the possibility that someone in that situation might actually consider being married by someone other than a church official. As far as I can tell, a legal and lawful wedding can be performed by anyone legally authorized to do so (and in my state the laws are very lax – you don’t even need an officiator, you just sign the certificate) so I don’t see how a couple who decided to be married by an uncle who is Presbyterian minister or by the justice of the peace wouldn’t be worthy of a TR for sealing.
There’s also been a huge amount of talk here about how the bishop’s job has changed and much of these other responsibilities are now delegated to others (especially the EQP and RSP) nut when you read through his responsibilities they seem the same to me as before.
And, I also noted there are still gender stereotypes throughout.
:problem: I am grateful for the changes but mostly I’m taking a
:thumbdown: approach.I think the largest change is that the handbook is now accessible to the public. If nothing more, having a public handbook means policies are more open to scrutiny, which I think will have a softening effect on policies over time. In other words, what might a policy look like if it was penned knowing it would remain a secret vs. what it might look like knowing that the person writing editorials for the Salt Lake Tribune will read it.
…but the person writing editorials for the Salt Lake Tribune was already aware of the sealed portion policies, which is probably what drove the change to be more open. Regardless, it’s open now and exposure to light tends to disinfect.
The new handbook isn’t perfect, but I think it will change for the better over time. Nothing new there. Better future policies will lag behind the rest of the world by a generation or two. Again, nothing new.
DarkJedi wrote:
I also noted in the section about civil marriage they tiptoe around the civil marriage immediately before temple sealing and completely ignore the possibility that someone in that situation might actually consider being married by someone other than a church official. As far as I can tell, a legal and lawful wedding can be performed by anyone legally authorized to do so (and in my state the laws are very lax – you don’t even need an officiator, you just sign the certificate) so I don’t see how a couple who decided to be married by an uncle who is Presbyterian minister or by the justice of the peace wouldn’t be worthy of a TR for sealing.Interesting, the whole issue of civil weddings before Temple Sealings was a big hot button for me for years and years. AS I’ve adapted to my knew outlook on Mormonism, at this point I don’t even care one bit. I thought “maybe I should explore the wording through the online handbook” but it didn’t seem worth the effort event. Such has the ire I used to feel gone out of the issue now. Time heals/seals all wounds…
As a whole I like the change, and I was surprised by a number of them. There still is needed change in some areas, especially those dealing with sexual identity, but this is a huge change in some ways I didn’t expect.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.