MarginOfError

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?

I had actually chosen all of the items I listed because all of them (with the exception of the hot chocolate and women veiling their faces) are things that I've personally encountered as stumbling blocks for people. These are issues that people actually struggle with and worry about. And almost all of them are faithful, contributing members of the Church. ...which is kind of my point.

I think you'll find that most members have lines in the sand that would qualify as a conditional testimony, as described. Would you retain your testimony if: The Church reestablished polygamy? The Church reinstated the ban those of African descent from holding the priesthood? The Church endorsed a socialist political platform? The Church began solemnizing gay marriages? The Church ended tithing? The Church added hot chocolate to the list of substances banned by the Word of Wisdom The Church authorized women to be ordained to priesthood office? The Church required women to cover their heads and faces to attend Sacrament meeting? The Church begins donating larges sums of money to Muslim communities? Just because you are comfortable with one of those points doesn't mean that you will be comfortable with all of them. I can tell you right now that there are a few items on that list that I would struggle immensely to understand and accept. There's at least one that would drive me into outright revolt. Perhaps we'd be better served to meet people where they are at both emotionally and spiritually.

I think each person's view on this will be influenced by the reasons we believe the confidentiality is desirable. What, exactly, is the purpose of confidentiality in these deliberations? For us, we consider the confidentiality important for two reasons. First, it prevents confusion and chaos during the deliberations process. We don't want people to be distracted by all of the discussion of who might take on a role until all of the decisions have been made. Believe it or not, we sometimes change course in that process, and if all of those details were widely known, it could cause some to begin questioning why or why they weren't called when they had been in named in the discussion before. Second, we don't want people to find out that they are being called or released until someone in the bishopric notifies the person. It's frustrating and sometimes hurtful to find out through the wrong channels. And so when we are making multiple changes, we tend to ask those involved not to discuss their calling with anyone until we have notified everyone. However, once we've notified everyone, we give them all the green light to talk with people and coordinate transitions. We also tell them not to worry about keeping it confidential anymore. At that point, we stop caring about who knows. Not surprisingly, our rumor mill has died down quite a bit since going this route. Now that people don't consider it "inside information," no one wants to talk about it any more. As for including the ward council in deliberations, there have been times when someone from an unaffected organization has spoken up and given insight to a calling that has been invaluable in the selection. I'll stand by our use of the Ward Council here. They may not be affected directly by the changes, but our ward is better by including them in the discussions.

Welcome to the new Children and Youth Initiative......

I can understand the concerns, and have some counterpoints: As far as the circle of confidentiality: If we're going to notify organization presidents of changes with sufficient time for them to work on replacements, your circle of confidentiality has grown just as large. You've just expanded the circle later, which adds more stress to organizations that are losing people*. With regard to organizations resolving staffing issues, sometimes the bishopric says no, too. But more often than not, when the ward council has gotten together and figured out how to match people to open callings, the bishopric has found no reason to object. Regardless, it's supposed to be the bishop's role to approve (or disapprove). If most of the callings are originating at the bishopric, the bishopric probably isn't focusing their time where it is needed the most. * Expanding the circle later may have a benefit where there's less chance for word to spread before the sustaining. In our ward, we tend not to care much about that, because as soon as all of the people have accepted their callings, we tell them to go ahead and start coordinating with anyone they need to. There aren't a lot of surprise sustainings in our ward.

In the past few months, I've taken to pushing a policy (in our ward) that no one is sustained until their replacement is secured. In some cases, that has ended up in, for example, the RS president requests someone from Primary. So we put the Primary and RS presidents together and tell them to resolve staffing across both organizations. If they feel like the solution is pulling someone from YW, then we get the YW president involved. Once they have a solution worked out that all of the organization presidents are happy with, we issue callings. In the extreme example, we denied the RS president a secretary for several weeks until Primary could be suitably staffed. We might be a little strange in our ward, however, because as I write agendas for Ward Council, I put down any callings that are being considered seriously. Our entire ward council knows what is going on with our staffing decisions well before sustainings occur. And they give regular feedback on the process. Very often, staffing issues are resolved by the organizations and the bishopric just approves it.

One of the things that made Rogue One so great was that it did a really good job of staying away from previously established characters. There was a brief appearance of Darth Vader, and then Tarkin was really the only other previously established character that had any role. (Even then, they made Tarkin's conniving ascent into power pretty interesting) But by and large, they stuck with new characters with their own stories. Their relationship to the rest of the saga was more-or-less tangential. In fact, it was done well enough that you could have enjoyed Rogue One without ever having seen anything out of the greater saga at all. It may be the best story produced in this franchise* * I have a thing for tragedies, though. I like movies where the protagonists die.

Oh, I think you're misunderstanding which previous character I object tying Rey to. I'm being vague because I don't want to open too many spoilers in an unmarked thread. Perhaps we should open a Spoilers thread so we can be more explicit?

No. I won't engage in that kind of nonsense. If it was a true lack of faith, I wouldn't pay tithing. If it was a truck lack of faith, I wouldn't encourage others to pay tithing. If it was a true lack of faith, I wouldn't sit patiently with those in my various social circles and help them work through their struggles and misgivings about any number of topics. I have a disagreement with organizational policy. What's more, we learn from D&C 46 that gifts of faith, belief, administration etc, are given to different people. Not everyone gets every gift, but they are given out diversely "that all may be profited thereby." I have complete faith and trust in Jesus Christ. But I've seen too many dirt bags elevated to positions of authority in this Church (myself included) to take everything it does organizationally on complete faith. And it's good for you, too, that there are skeptics in the Church. Because our gifts make the body of Christ stronger, too. I don't mind that you disagree with me. I welcome that (yes, it annoys me, but intellectually, at the end of the day, I do truly welcome it). But you have no business denigrating the quality of my or anyone else's faith.

I adamantly disagree. I think trying Rey to a previous character made her story much less interesting. In fact, while everyone else in the theater was gasping, I was groaning, "oh please." It was gratuitous and unnecessary.....and redundant again.

And there it is...just a simple lack of faith......

I'd say it was a good movie. It wasn't a very compelling story. In fact, the only really compelling story I've encountered in this trilogy is the Rey-Luke portions of The Last Jedi*. The obsession that is happening in entertainment of making everything relate back to previous installments has pretty much sucked the joy out of a lot of these stories. It's almost like we don't believe a person's story is worth telling if they aren't somehow tied back to someone we already know. * Well, and Luke standing out to face eight AT-whatevers on his own. They should have ended The Last Jedi on that cliffhanger.

I'm going to go back and ask you to reread the post that prompted this response. Especially the part that says That level of discussion isn't uncommon at all. It states what the goals and objectives of the organization are, and why or how they need the investment strategy they have chosen. I didn't call for full transparency. I didn't ask for the ledgers. I only stated I'd like to know why the account exists and what they hope to accomplish with it. Truthfully, I don't even care to know about any specific account.