MarginOfError

I'm aware of the arguments. I have to agree with Vort, though. A mask-preferably a surgeon's mask-will effectively filter out vapors that could transmit viruses. This is, in fact, a large part of why surgeons wear them, after all. I implicitly acknowledged that masks my not have a big impact in my post. But it is highly likely that the mask will modify behaviors of the wearer and those around the wearer that greatly reduce the risk. In other words, wearing a mask can socially engineer those around you into better hand hygiene habits. Not bad for $1.50 (20 masks on Amazon can be purchased for $30) I will also emphasize that my recommendation was for high risk individuals. When the you're facing a mortality rate of 15%, it makes sense to take measures that are inexpensive, even if they only reduce your risk of exposure by 3%

I'm not going to bother to find all the relevant people to quote. Here's what I've come across that I found interesting as a statistician: While the total mortality rate is estimated at 2 per 100, the mortality rate among healthy adults is 2 per 1000. In elderly and immunocompromised populations, it is about 14 in 100. Thus, the value of containment has little to do with the general population and more to do with vulnerable populations. The majority of the concern is not about the severity of the illness. The larger concern is the long incubation period. A person can carry the virus asymptomatically for up to two weeks. Most flu viruses incubate over a matter of a couple of days. It's hard to isolate and contain a virus with such a long incubation period. If this latest case in California truly shows not immediate connection to an exposed person, that is potentially very good news. It means that the virus may incubate, spread, and never become symptomatic. If this is true (and its still to early to tell), then the mortality rates are surely even lower than estimated (as Vort noted, mortality rates only report on those diagnosed. If we are missing a lot of diagnoses, then the estimates are too high) It is estimated that it will take about 18 months to develop, manufacture, and distribute a vaccine. WHO/CDC/Health organizations are not concerned about this becoming an apocalyptic event. They fully expect this to be contained and a non-issue in about two years. Containment is about protecting the health of our most vulnerable citizens. My best advice, based on what I've read, is to take some fairly simple actions to prevent spread Wash your hands often. This protects you more than it protects others, but this is a case where protecting yourself is protecting others. Cough and sneeze into your elbow Carry hand sanitizer. It isn't as effective as washing your hands, but is appropriate when soap and water aren't readily available. If you use reusable water bottles, wash them often. At least daily. Stop shaking people's hands. This action likely won't have a major impact, but it will have some. Remember, two week incubation. That means isolating an individual for a couple of days isn't effective, so we may temporarily change some habits that promote infection. Fist bumps, wrist bumps, and elbow bumps are common replacements for greetings. If you are a part of a vulnerable population, I would consider wearing a mask in public now. It isn't recommended by health officials yet, but the two week incubation period means by the time an outbreak is identified in your area, it's already been there a long time and you've probably been exposed. If nothing else, wearing a mask will help remind you not to touch your mouth, nose, and eyes before watching your hands.

No. stop it. Stop agreeing with me. Every time you agree with me I get my hopes up that you're becoming a reasonable person. And then you always disappoint me.

Frankly, @mrmarket, I think you're chasing after the wrong problem. I don't think there's any reasonable adult that considers masturbation to be anything akin to murder. I doubt there are many reasonable adults that would consider adultery to be all that close to murder. Reasonable adults would consider it serious, and I certainly don't mean to pass it off as a triviality. But let's keep perspective: If you're going to rank the severity of sins, you can put denying the Holy Ghost and murder in first and second place, and then you can put "sexual sin" in third place, but I imagine it is a very distant third place. And if you're concerned that our culture may have gone overboard on advertising the severity of sexual transgressions (and I don't disagree that there may be some validity to that argument), I think there are better ways to temper the culture. For instance, reading the whole context of Alma's message to Corianton. While Alma starts off seemingly harsh, we get (and I paraphrase) That's right...in the very same discussion with Corianton, Alma pretty clearly made the point that "sexual transgression is serious and easily contained within the limits of what the Atonement can heal." Usually, the solutions to our problems involve more information, not less. This is a beautiful case where reading the whole context of the message to Corianton brings about a spectacular and relieving beauty that we would all do well to remember.

I understand that this is an enormous shift from how we've done things in the past. I stand by it nonetheless. About 18 months ago, a member of our stake presidency visited our ward with a message that needed to be conveyed during Sacrament Meeting. He stood up and addressed the congregation as follows: "If you are a member of the youth program or a member of the bishop's family, please stand up. [pause while those people stood]. All of you who are standing may call the bishop any time you like. The rest of you, if you need something, call [Elders Quorum President] or [Relief Society President]." He spoke for about another two minutes about how this was going to be a difficult change, but reassured us that the Elders Quorum and Relief Society presidents were fully authorized to counsel us on any matters out side of worthiness and finances. (and even with respect to finances, we're being encouraged to have the EQ and RS presidents do initial evaluations and submit recommendations to the bishop for approval) This wasn't instruction unique to our stake. It had been passed down from the Area Presidency. As a matter of my own personal experience, we've been pushing this really heavily for almost a year. The person we had the hardest time training into this mindset was the bishop himself. But he's gotten a lot better about refusing on-demand meetings (of the variety "hey bishop, I want to talk to you"). When he gets that kind of request directly, he usually asks if the person has spoken to one of the presidents yet. If they haven't he says, "I think [name] can probably help you with that better than I can." Honestly, the ward has run better and the membership has grown stronger in the time we've done this. Will there be exceptions? Almost certainly. I can think of one or two exceptions we've had in the past year. But the exceptions were pretty obvious.

I've always envisioned the Executive Secretary to be like a chief of staff. While the most common responsibilities are agendas and scheduling, I would also advise that you act as a screen and protect the bishop's time. For a couple of years now, the Church has been pressing the idea that adults who have problems should approach either the Relief Society president or Elders Quorum president first. Now that the bishop is also assuming the role of young men president, this is even more crucial. I would recommend you do everything you can to direct as many interviews with adults away from the bishop as possible (there are very few interviews and settings apart that can't be done by the counselors). Any adults that ask for his time should be redirected to Relief Society and Elders Quorum. Try not to schedule interviews between the bishop and adults unless one of those presidents refers the adult to the bishop (ideally, the referral goes to you to schedule the interview). If someone really wants to meet with the bishop, ask them if the matter would affect their temple recommend. If that answer is no, then redirect them to RS and EQ. In our ward right now, the only interviews we schedule for the bishop are with youth, and with a select few that are on welfare assistance, are working on worthiness issues, or require by the handbook that they be called or set apart by the bishop. Everything else is handled by the counselors. (the one exception being when we are falling behind, we'll schedule a few adult interviews with the bishop for a couple of weeks just to get caught up). One last thing...keep the bishop informed of each person you deflect away from him. You're the best protection of the bishop's time, but you want to make sure that he is aware of and has an opportunity to reverse any decisions you make.

Observations in bold below Also of note, "Apostasy" is no longer listed under conditions that require a disciplinary council. Instead, it is listed under "When the Stake President Counsels with the Area Presidency about Whether a Membership Council or Other Action Is Necessary." That's probably a good change, overall, as actions against apostasy will be more consistent and protected against "leadership roulette."

What! How could you say such a thing. Dave Matthews Band is my all time favorite........oh......that explains a lot about me.

And they allow you to put your preferred name on your membership record, and permit the use of preferred pronouns, and do not make any explicit restriction against attending the classes associated with gender identity. Seriously, the policies released today are about as liberal as you can get and still be internally consistent.

That statement needs a huge revision. Something along the lines of "how can you sustain and follow a modern prophet and yet disagree with what he says on a handful of specific topics" And the answer is pretty simple. I'm not required to agree with everything in order to sustain.

Well, sorta kinda. I never met anyone worth taking seriously that didn't think the intent behind gender was anything other than sex. Quite frankly, the policies regarding tramsgenderism laid out in this version of the handbook are everything a liberal member of the Church could ask for so long as the restriction of male priesthood remains in place. These policies leave open a lot of questions about the nature and eternal ramifications of transgenderism simply by recognizing euphoria and refusing to take a stance on its origin.

Likewise, I'm trying to make the point to other readers that there are active, faithful members of the Church who disagree with policy issues in the Church. And that they retain good standing in the Church and even hold positions of prominence.

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.