MarginOfError

Also an extra-scriptural requirement. I mean, I understand your point. But I'm not really sure you understand mine.

White clothing is an extra-scriptural requirement for baptism. It is fundamentally no different than requiring that the sacrament be taken with the right hand.

Because you're you and I'm me, I have to argue with you about this. Well, not really. I just think it's silly. I don't particularly care for things like this, and I have even less interest in enforcing them. I had a whole bunch more written here...but I deleted it...I'll boil it down to this: I think you guys are nuts. But I still consider it a good thing that not everyone thinks like me. And it's a good thing not everyone things like you. If we combined all our different forms of lunacy, it kind of averages out to, well, lunacy. So there's that.

I'll accept your premise if you can show to me that no latter day prophet has ever made a statement based on their own thoughts, opinions, or beliefs that was later reversed.

Well, and to be fair, the Church's stance doesn't rule out a congenital cause.

That likely would have been my response too. I'm not keen on arguing with 11 year olds who are making a good faith effort. I'm an arrogant jerk, not a heartless jerk. Sure, things may have been restored with awareness of cultural baggage. I just dispute that taking the sacrament with the right hand was ever "restored" in the same way that the ordinance itself was.

From the Handbook released today.

Have it your way. If I were to witness a left handed baptism were performed for a person wearing a tie dye tuxedo, I would have no problem ratifying it so long as the requirements in D&C 20:72 - 74 were satisfied.

Don't tempt me.

I've tried to die on a lot of hills. Some have been even smaller than this one.

That particular instruction, so far as I can tell, has never been included before. I can confirm it hasn't been in the Handbooks for at least 20 years. It's extra scriptural, with the significance of the right hand deriving from cultural influences that are themselves derived from the sanitation habits of ancient civilizations. But with a little research, I'm less surprised. This link is the only reference I can find by any Church leader in the past 40 years that says anything at all on the subject. Guess who.... I'll put this one on the list of policy statement against which I am in open rebellion.

Well, this version of the Handbook is less sensitive to left handed members. I really thought we had gotten past this kind of nonsense.

Transgendered, yes. Less clear whether they may be when they are transitioned (although I would interpret the handbook to indicate they can be baptized, but may not be able to receive priesthood or temple ordinances). But this handbook seems to consider "transgender" and "transgender and transitioned" to be separate concepts.

Well, it's been out a few hours now. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook Disciplinary councils are no longer a thing. They are not called "membership councils." Not much has changed around those otherwise. There's a new section on Supporting Individuals and Families. It quotes liberally from the Proclamation on the Family, and still leaves enough room for interpretation that you can use it as ammunition against anyone you disagree with :D. There's also a new policy section on Transgender individuals. It states the priesthood leaders discourage surgical and medical transitions, which "will be cause for Church membership restrictions." (not new). Priesthood leaders also discourage social transition, and that social transition will result in "some Church membership restrictions." The implication seems to be that it is less severe than surgical or medical transition. It explicitly states that socially transitioned individuals will have some restrictions, but other church participation is "welcomed." It does not expressly prohibit participation with the group with whom the individual identifies, nor does it expressly encourage it. Transgender individuals may have their preferred name given in the preferred name field of their membership record, and may be referred to with their chosen pronouns. There is no indication that doing so comes with any kind of membership restriction. I haven't come across much else that stood out as being different to me. Which isn't surprising. The earlier announcement said the process of updating everything to the new tone and editorial standards would take about two years. But most everything I've browsed looks pretty comparable to Books 1 and 2.

The app has been released in other areas of the world, but just had its largest release yet in the US. My review Positives It is, by far, the most useful app released by the Church solely for its communication potential. A simple app that most devices can download, works on WiFi only, and automatically links almost everyone in a sensible manner makes for effective communication without having to manage email lists and phone numbers separately. This could, with a few improvements, replace any communication through third party avenues. Also, parents have full visibility of any circles to which their children or youth are added. All circles are administered by multiple adults. This design makes it easy to communicate with youth in a manner consistent with youth protection guidelines. Negatives The app defines 'parents' as the adults living in the household. That family we have where the parents have joint and equal custody, but only one parent has the church records--one parent is invisible to this app and is cut off from communication. This may actually be a fatal flaw for my ward, and prevent us from adopting it. When it permits the ability to add other members, we may find this more agreeable At present, you can not modify circles Notifications are kind of wonky. It is not available for Amazon devices yet Only youth organizations are served so far. I expect, in time, EQ, RS, and ward adults will receive circles. The calendar is not tied to the ward calendar. This cannot be used in place of the ward calendar (The ward calendar supports building scheduling, the app calendar does not). Even though I've listed more negatives than positives, I do think that for most units, rapid and pervasive adoption of this app will be a good thing. It's potential to simplify communication is enormous. Download it today!

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/about/transmission.html Wash your hands often, don't shake people's hands, and keep your hands away from your face. This isn't one I'm particularly concerned about. It's unpleasant to get, but it seems like treatments are successful more often than they are not.

I'm not disputing any of this. I only contested the characterization of her as "evil." To do so is only a different shade of calling a thief "evil" because he chooses to steal a loaf of bread rather than submit to starvation. Desperation drives people to extreme actions. If anything, what I'm trying to convey is that justice and compassion are not mutually exclusive.

You're right that the LDS Church doesn't have a Rite of Confession, and the veil of secrecy is not like it is in Catholicism (or some others) Legally this is, again, a jurisdictional thing as far as reporting goes. In my state, all adults are mandated reporters. But clergy (including bishops and their counselors) have an exception and are not required to report abusive situations*. * Though I imagine that exception is only one particularly ugly case away from being erased.

I would be really surprised if the courts decided that privilege did not exist for lay clergy. And I struggle to see a framework where thever courts could even justify it. It probably varies by jurisdiction, but I suspect most jurisdictions will extend privilege to the bishop's counselors. I does in my location.

It isn't clear to me that not reporting in this instance would have made the bishop liable. Some jurisdictions require reporting a potential or suspected abuser when evidence indicates abuse, but do not necessarily require reporting when the abuser confesses. From the sound of it, Oregon is one such state. This is the crux of the lawsuit, that the man came forward to confess to the bishop and therefore the bishop(ric) shouldn't have reported him without first advising him that they would not honor the priest-penitent privilege. It's a thornier ethical question than it seems on the surface. The exemption from reporting requirements is intended to encourage people to seek help that might help them reform. If the man had known he would be reported, would he still have come forward of his own volition? Would he still have pursued repentance? (A similar debate is had about pregnant women admitting drug use to health care providers. The industry wants to be exempt from reporting to encourage users to admit their use and receive treatment. Others want admitted users to be reported.) Had the abuse been reported by any person other than himself, this wouldn't be an issue, because at that point, priest-penitent privilege wouldn't apply. I haven't seen the original arrest report, but the reporting I've read isn't clear that it was his daughter. It was a minor "known to him," so perhaps a babysitter, or something of the sort. I don't know that the woman is evil. Quite possibly she is desperate. Her family has likely been stigmatized, it's definitely been torn apart. And I imagine she feels their trust has been violated by those she felt were supposed to help them heal their wounds. If she has struggled the past two years to cope with all of the changes and to keep her family afloat financially, I can understand why she would choose to file this lawsuit. (That isn't to say I agree, but I can sympathize with her)

*elder Nitpicking on an otherwise fantastic description

Seems like man got the sweeter deal All woman got was a lousy rib.

If you really want this behavior to end, you might consider encouraging him to say this to her. Any woman with half a brain would run away screaming. (Note: this isn't very good advice. But if he did say this, at least you and she could bond about what a psycho nut job your husband is) Approaching your Relief Society president would not be inappropriate here. In fact, I'd encourage you to speak to her over speaking to your bishop. More importantly, I'd strongly recommend you ask your husband to go to counseling with you. And keep in mind, those that resist the suggestion of counseling the most are the ones that most desperately need it.

I actually rather disagree with this. I tend to believe that nearly all people are called in spite of their opinions. Because, ultimately, it really has very little to do with their opinions, and more to do with their capacity to help others develop their faith in Christ. Case in point - if leaders were called because of their opinions, it's highly unlikely I'd be called to anything beyond toilet scrubber.

This actually rather supports what I'm saying. If we bar any discussion about "how likely is it that..." any of these would happen, I did my best to construct a list that anyone could look at and say, "If the Church did [item on list] I'd have a problem with that." The fact that you have strong convictions about any of those makes it seem likely that if the Church suddenly announced today "The Church will be solemnizing gay marriage" you might have a problem with that. And that's okay. It's good that people have convictions of faith. Anyone that could look at that list and honestly say that any of those could happen without them taking any issue with it at all is someone who I am genuinely concerned about. Do they even know how to form an opinion? Do they have any convictions at all? The point of the list is to encourage empathy. The way you feel about the prospect of the Church solemnizing gay marriage is how someone else feels about instituting polygamy, is how someone else feels about donating money to muslim groups. I guess my thesis is that everyone has a conditional testimony. Which is why it's kind of absurd to single out a specific form for criticism*. * yeah, I know, there are exceptions to that, but can we stick to the general concept for now?