- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I was first alerted to these changes this week by an article in the Salt Lake Tribune ( https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2024/08/19/lds-church-updates-transgender/ https://www.thechurchnews.com/members/2024/08/19/church-general-handbook-updates-direction-sealings-sunday-meetings-august-2024/ The changes relate to a few areas, not all related LGBTQIA+ (specifically transgender people). It is mildly interesting that the Church News article puts the transgender changes at the end of the list, even though it encompasses several sections. From the Church News:
Quote:Instruction is given on how elders quorum and Relief Society members may counsel together at the start of their respective meetings. This adjustment notes that the two groups may combine their meetings at times, as well. (See sections 8.2.1.2 and 9.2.1.2.)
Young Women class presidents may now organize youth to welcome visitors and unit members to sacrament meeting (see 11.3.4.2).
Various updates were made to the chapter on “Temple and Family History Work in the Ward and Stake” (see chapter 25).
Updated instructions regarding lost or stolen temple recommends and virtual interviews for recommends (see 26.2.2 and 26.3.2).
Instructions were simplified for streaming and holding virtual meetings (see 29.7).
Instructions on the Basic Unit Program have been updated (see 36.6).
Sealing policies were updated (see 38.4).
Additional instructions are included about caring for the garment of the holy priesthood and about medical conditions that may prevent members from wearing the garment (see 38.5).
Policies have been updated 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).
The article also mentioned the change in YSA age (upping the “old” age from 30 to 35) and that Christmas and Easter Sunday services should always be only SM. I see both of those as positive. I also see as positive that YW can “usher” or organize welcoming people to church, although I’m not sure there was a written rule about this in the past but it seemed to always be a “priesthood responsibility.”
I’m OK with EQ and RS meeting together sometimes, but then even if I was currently attending I’d probably skip those anyway. I couldn’t be bothered to read and decipher the “various updates” to temple and family history, and the temple recommend interview for distant members is a non-issue for most people. The “simplified” streaming of meetings is pretty much a return to office policy, and my personal perspective is that I might actually watch/listen (at least on occasion) if SM were streamed (my SP is in the camp of streaming almost nothing). The basic unit thing applies to very few, especially in the US, and I didn’t see anything that jumped out as especially new and exciting in that program. I don’t believe the caring for the garment update is anything earth shattering and is in line with other recent statements about the garments.
The idea that we won’t be forced into an eternal relationship we don’t want is there (and I’ve always believed that God will work it all out according to our desires anyway).
Quote:Moreover, God will not require anyone to remain in a sealed relationship throughout eternity against his or her will. Heavenly Father will ensure that each person receives every blessing that his or her desires and choices allow.
I think this one deserves more press than it has gotten.So now the elephant in the room, and the title of the post. From the Tribune article:
Quote:What that means for the day-to-day involvement of transgender Latter-day Saints has depended in many instances on the leanings of bishops (lay leaders of congregations) and stake presidents (lay regional leaders). The handbook update clears up some — albeit not all — of this gray area through the following clarifications:
• Individuals are instructed to attend gender-specific meetings and activities that align with their assigned sex at birth. Any “rare” exceptions must be approved by the Area Presidency.
• Individuals who have transitioned in any way — whether surgically, medically or socially — cannot work with children, serve as teachers in their congregation or fill any gender-specific assignments, such as president of the women’s Relief Society. Instead, “they may receive other callings or assignments that provide opportunities to progress and serve others.” The church defines social transitioning as “intentionally identifying and presenting oneself as other than one’s biological sex at birth, and may include changing dress, grooming, names or pronouns.”
• When it comes to gender-specific overnight activities such as youth camps, individuals can attend only those that align with their assigned sex at birth.
• In the case of other overnight activities, such as For the Strength of Youth and other youth conferences, those who have transitioned in any way will be released at the end of the day to a guardian responsible for arranging accommodations.
• These same church members should use a single-occupancy restroom when available. If unavailable, they can counsel with leaders to find an alternative solution. Examples suggested include people using the restroom that aligns with their assigned sex at birth or one that corresponds to the individual’s “feeling of their inner sense of gender, with a trusted person ensuring that others are not using the restroom at the same time.”
Additional language was further added to guidance around the use of preferred names and pronouns, explaining that “local leaders should not determine or prescribe how members address an individual.” That matter should instead be left to “individuals and their family, friends and church members.” As before, a preferred name may be noted in the person’s membership record.
Also unchanged was the instruction that all soul-saving rituals, including baptism and temple rites, must be received according to a person’s assigned sex at birth.
Only those who have not transitioned in any way can be baptized and confirmed, although possible exceptions can be made by the governing First Presidency.
Individuals who transition in any way cannot receive the recommend needed to enter the church’s temples, where the faith’s highest ordinances are performed. They are also forbidden from receiving or exercising the all-male priesthood. The handbook leaves open the possibility of other restrictions not enumerated within the document.
The removal of restrictions requires the approval of the First Presidency.
I believe for the most part this is a step back for transgender members and it’s unfortunate. I also agree with the Tribune that these changes do more to marginalize LGBTQIA+ members than to include them, and I hope that more changes are not made to further marginalize those LGBTQ who are not transitioning their genders.
My daughter’s best friend is a 19 year old that has asked my daughter to identify them using “they/them” pronouns. I understand that this individual is trying out these pronouns with people close to them before making a more public change.
There was some talk of this friend getting an apartment together with my daughter as she goes off to university and taking advantage of the change of scenery to transition publicly but this ultimately fell through.
I do not believe that their parents know. We have been sworn to secrecy by our daughter and the individual likely does not know that we know.
This friend is also the last of their siblings that is active in the church and they seem to be quite involved with the YSA.
That this person (that we know and love) would be subjected to these new rules is heartbreaking.
DarkJedi wrote:
I also agree with the Tribune that these changes do more to marginalize LGBTQIA+ members than to include them
It has only been in the last 50 years that we fully included black people.What gender non-specific callings are available?– Building maintenance (cleaning & coordinating)?
– Family History
– Church Greeter (assuming that the youth aren’t doing so) NOTE: The irony that one of the first “faces” a visitor might see at church being barred from fuller church engagement is not lost on me.
It’s nice to know that the church regulations are “killing in kindness” connection(s) and relationship(s) with those who don’t fit the gender expectation box.
Several years ago I was the stake SS pres. When called, I was told I could call two counselors and a secretary. I looked at the handbook to see if there were any specific requirements for SS counselor. I found none, so I asked if my wife could be one of my counselors. I pointed out that the handbook did not designate that job as a priesthood calling. I was told by the stake pres counselor who called me that he’d get back with him. He wasn’t sure. He got back to me and said, no, it had to be a man with the priesthood. I then asked if the secretary could be a woman. Nope, had to be a man. Ok. Why? He couldn’t tell me. I think there are lots of things that just are a certain way, but don’t have any scriptural or doctrinal basis. People push and the leaders of the church either change things or trench deeper. Usually the latter. Eventually “doctrine” becomes “outdated policy” and positive changes occur. But it seems to take decades and requires the deaths of a few old white guys in ties. I probably won’t live long enough to see gay couples marry in the temple and trans people fully welcomed and included, but I suspect it will happen. There are going to be a heck of a lot of temples. More than we need. Might as well have some rainbow colored ones.
Cnsl1 wrote:
I think there are lots of things that just are a certain way, but don’t have any scriptural or doctrinal basis. People push and the leaders of the church either change things or trench deeper.
It blew my mind to first discover that no priesthood authority is used to pass the sacrament. It is the same basic function as “passing” the tray to the person next to you but just walking it around. We’ve gone so far as not only requiring males to do this but also requiring them to wear a white shirt and tie while they do it.
P.S. My son has autism and sensory issues. Wearing a collared shirt is hard for him and the tie makes the whole thing feel constricting. This was not enough to exempt him from the white shirt and tie policy. The bishop said that he can take off his shirt/tie as soon as he returns to sit with the family.
Roy wrote:
P.S. My son has autism and sensory issues. Wearing a collared shirt is hard for him and the tie makes the whole thing feel constricting. This was not enough to exempt him from the white shirt and tie policy. The bishop said that he can take off his shirt/tie as soon as he returns to sit with the family.
Definitely a local thing. Our bishop would most certainly allow him to wear whatever he is comfortable with, and I know this because it happens almost every Sunday. Our bishop, who is in some ways very old school and in others ways not, is just so happy to see any of the very few semi-active YM show up that he doesn’t quibble. He is probably more stringent about blessing than setting up or passing, but we actually have no active YM priests (thus he can pick adults who are dressed more appropriately – but I have seen colored shirts up there). I will note that before he was bishop he rarely wore a white shirt to church.
The Handbook doesn’t specify white shirt or tie (but does specify priesthood holders, 18.9.3).
Quote:Those who administer the sacrament should be well groomed and clean. They should not wear clothing or jewelry that might detract from the worship and covenant making that are the purpose of the sacrament. If the bishop needs to counsel a priesthood holder about such matters, he does so with love. He also takes into account the person’s maturity in the Church.
The passing of the sacrament should be natural and not overly formal. For example, certain actions (such as holding the left hand behind the back) or appearances (such as dressing alike) should not be required.
In our ward, one young adult male often has passed the sacrament in jeans, a t-shirt, white tube socks, and plastic sandals. It is what he owns, and there no official white-shirt and tie requirement. I also served in a ward once where 70% of the members (mostly first-generation immigrants) were 16-years-old and younger. Many of them wore whatever they had, and I can’t remember any of the young men wearing ties.
Culture is fascinating.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.