Recommended Posts

@MarginOfError I can tell that fundamentally & unfortunately we simply are on different wave lengths when it comes to: following modern prophets, sustaining modern prophets, following policy, being a hindrance vs. simply helping move zion forward, looking for the exceptions vs. joyfully following the rules, etc.

No offense, but I'm posting not in the hopes that you personally will accept anything. Rather I'm posting for others who believe in:

Quote
Doctrine and Covenants 132:8
8 Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion.

vs. a "doowutchyalike"

2 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

I'll put this one on the list of policy statement against which I am in open rebellion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, floridaman1 said:

pardon my ignorance, but what is the "handbook"?

Administrative policy book for all of the administrative-how-to-do-this stuff.  

The big "update" with it is that they took the old two books, and combined them into one online for everyone.  Honestly, it's not groundbreaking at all.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

We follow the prophet,...

Great, then lets do it.
The prophet and apostles are asking us to sustain them and follow the Handbook.

If the handbook changes and says left arm with tie dye tuxedos, g-r-e-a-t, let's do it!
I'm only concerned about the attitude of, "Sure I'll follow the prophet BUT only when it is something I agree with".
You either are on board or you are not. Folks want to swim in the lukewarm water looking for exceptions, at the same time missing out on the actual blessings.

Edited by NeedleinA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MormonGator said:

That's true. I do think the church is getting more "progressive" for lack of a better word. Or at least more sensitive. 

I don't think it's getting more progressive at all, although I really used to think that.  I think it's getting more in tune with the letter of the law and not the perception of the law.    It seems to me as though they are removing some of the restrictions that are due to the "feelings" about something and looking at it as through "does this literally violate God's law".   The handbook makes NO bones about what is or isn't right.  They completely shot the "well, The Proclamation says gender" in the foot.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

@MarginOfError I can tell that fundamentally & unfortunately we simply are on different wave lengths when it comes to: following modern prophets, sustaining modern prophets, following policy, being a hindrance vs. simply helping move zion forward, looking for the exceptions vs. joyfully following the rules, etc.

No offense, but I'm posting not in the hopes that you personally will accept anything. Rather I'm posting for others who believe in:

vs. a "doowutchyalike"

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

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

How can you sustain and follow a modern prophet yet not care what he says?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I don't think it's getting more progressive at all, although I really used to think that.  I think it's getting more in tune with the letter of the law and not the perception of the law.    It seems to me as though they are removing some of the restrictions that are due to the "feelings" about something and looking at it as through "does this literally violate God's law".   The handbook makes NO bones about what is or isn't right.  They completely shot the "well, The Proclamation says gender" in the foot.  

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In related news, it's good to know where we all stand:

Quote

32.6.3.2

Apostasy

Issues of apostasy often have an impact beyond the boundaries of a ward or stake. They need to be addressed promptly to protect others.

The bishop counsels with the stake president if he feels that a member’s action may constitute apostasy. The bishop or stake president may place informal membership restrictions on the member (see 32.8.3). The stake president promptly counsels with the Area Presidency. However, only the stake president decides whether a membership council or other action is necessary.

As used here, apostasy refers to a member engaging in any of the following:

  • Repeatedly acting in clear and deliberate public opposition to the Church, its doctrine, its policies, or its leaders

  • Persisting in teaching as Church doctrine what is not Church doctrine after being corrected by the bishop or stake president

  • Showing a pattern of intentionally working to weaken the faith and activity of Church members

  • Continuing to follow the teachings of apostate sects after being corrected by the bishop or stake president

  • Formally joining another church and promoting its teachings (Total inactivity in the Church or attending another church does not by itself constitute apostasy. However, if a member formally joins another church and advocates its teachings, withdrawing his or her membership may be necessary.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Grunt said:

How can you sustain and follow a modern prophet yet not care what he says?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MarginOfError said:

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.

I don't agree with that at all.  The handbook very plainly states that they oppose transitioning in any form.  They also say that regardless what you call yourself, you are your birth sex.  They just allow you to participate in ordinances that have nothing to do with gender.  Why wouldn't they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I don't agree with that at all.  The handbook very plainly states that they oppose transitioning in any form.  They also say that regardless what you call yourself, you are your birth sex.  They just allow you to participate in ordinances that have nothing to do with gender.  Why wouldn't they?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MarginOfError said:

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.

Again, with Christ-like ministering, so what?  All that is doing is respecting someone's wishes on matters that have nothing to do with doctrine.  I'm extremely hardline and would rather the Church not make these changes.  HOWEVER, I don't disagree that they are the proper way to do things, even thought it's a hard pill for me to swallow.  I think they're in line with Christ's loving ministry, and that's not easy for me to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

Great, then lets do it.
The prophet and apostles are asking us to sustain them and follow the Handbook.

If the handbook changes and says left arm with tie dye tuxedos, g-r-e-a-t, let's do it!
I'm only concerned about the attitude of, "Sure I'll follow the prophet BUT only when it is something I agree with".
You either are on board or you are not. Folks want to swim in the lukewarm water looking exceptions, at the same time missing out on the actual blessings.

I believe my post said that and used the example of the Lord following the Jewish religious leaders (even with some of their non-scriptural policies of his day) in his mortal life.  if he did so, we should do so even more.

HOWEVER, the thing that bothers me these days is a change in attitude I've seen occur over the past several decades.  We have a NEW form of idolatry today in the church and that idolatry is the worship of some General Authorities as Deities rather then worshipping God the Father and Jesus Christ. 

This is done when they put the General Authorities on a pedestal and feel that anything they say or do has to be revelation and that these men, no matter what they do or say, are infallible.

It is actions towards this, that the Prophet is infallible and can never make a mistake that appears to be worshipping him.  They are putting him in the place as if he were the Ruler of heaven and earth himself instead of a Servant (or at least, that's what a prophet or apostle SHOULD BE is a servant rather than the master).

It is shown in actions, in wording, and in how we treat the subject.  We can acknowledge that we should follow the Prophet, but to act as if everything the church puts out is the infallible word of the Lord and a commandment...that's kind of seems more like worshipping them rather than obeying.

These are men, perhaps very holy and great men, but men nonetheless.  They are fallible.  They can make mistakes.  They can speak as men and they can make mistakes.  We should follow them, but we should not put them on such a high pedestal that we feel that they are greater than a man can be (that they are perfect, only one was perfect).

We should follow the prophet and Apostles, we should not worship them.

That said, I don't think the new Handbook was necessarily authored by Russell M. Nelson.  He probably approved it along with others in council, but I'm not sure that he wrote it himself, and it may be he didn't even go over it with a fine toothed comb.

More likely it was the member of the Seventy that works in conjunction with the Church Bureaucracy that had a greater hand in the current changes than the First Presidency as these items are items of Policy (as far as I understand it) in many place rather than commandments or scripture.  Some substance of scripture can be found within it in instances of ordinances and other things where scripture dictates how they are done, but other items are simply done to keep the church in order and to set how things probably should be done.  For example, if this is given in how the sacrament should be conducted, it is there to show how it should be completed to keep things uniform throughout the church.

I don't necessarily think that the Prophet is mandating everything found in the Handbook as scripture or commandment (though some may be derived from them).  I feel it is more the Bureaucratic arm of the church trying to keep things uniform throughout the church and in a good orderly fashion as the Lord's house is one of order

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Grunt said:

How can you sustain and follow a modern prophet yet not care what he says?

It's not that.

The Handbook was most likely not written by the Prophet anymore than individual lesson manuals of Come Follow Me were written by him. 

the Policies are more a function of the administrative arm of the Church (think Executive Secretaries, Ward Clerks, and the running of the Wards) than the Doctrinal Arm of the church.

One of the reasons for the Handbook being online for the most part is so that they can make changes more easily than in the past.  The Prophet and his counselors probably went over the Handbook for approval, but not necessarily in fine detail.  A policy today may change tomorrow.  This is one of the reasons it went online.

This is to help keep order in the church and a uniformity of how it is run.  This way you can know what to expect and what is normally seen as how people do things.

In the example of this thread, this would mean you can go to any ward in Zion and the sacrament would be performed in the same manner as anywhere else in Zion.  In the same way, you will know how to partake of the sacrament or how it is usually done if you are a participant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something I am quite surprised to see:

Quote

If a member decides to change his or her preferred name or pronouns of address, the name preference may be noted in the preferred name field on the membership record. The person may be addressed by the preferred name in the ward.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Something I am quite surprised to see:

 

Me too, but I think the whole theme is to make people feel welcome, even if they can't be members or fully enjoy the gifts given of God.   To me, though, changing names and pronouns seems like willful disobedience.  Same with same-sex marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Something I am quite surprised to see:

 

Put in context of this quote too

”A member who has received elective medical or surgical intervention for the purpose of attempting to transition to the opposite gender of his or her birth sex (“sex reassignment”), or who has socially transitioned to the opposite gender of his or her birth sex, may not receive a temple recommend. Area Presidencies will help local leaders sensitively address individual situations (see 38.6.21).
A member who does not pursue medical, surgical, or social transition to the opposite gender and is worthy may receive a temple recommend and temple ordinances.”

seems pretty clear the stance hasn’t changed. 
 

my parents are actually going through a situation where this would apply very well. My sister ( used to be brother ) Is still on the church records. When my parents moved into their new ward, they weren’t sure how to approach it, because they didn’t want youngmen in the ward coming to the house looking for my little brother, when he transitioned to a girl. If for some reason, she decided to go to the church (for baby blessings or friend’s farewells), it would be appropriate to refer to her by the name and pronouns she prefers. Though she cannot participate and ordinances or go to the temple, she can be referred to as however she pleases.

Ive Referred to this before, but Ben Shapiro gives an interview with Joe Rogan where he shares that in the public speaking setting, he fights transgender ideology at every point. But in a personal one on one and social communication, he will always referred to them by the Pronoun they preferred. I think the church is taking a similar approach.

 

none of this seems liberal, just respectful.

Edited by Fether

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Fether said:

none of this seems liberal, just respectful.

Like all other changes, it goes too far for hardcore conservatives, and not far enough for hardcore liberals. For the rest of us, it's just fine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

This is NOT the hill to die on in my opinion. 

As a general rule, the more hard right/hard left you are, the more willing you are to treat every single battle as life or death. It must be exhausting! 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Following the prophet ≠ worshiping the prophet.
Trying to follow the prophet with exactness, still ≠ worshiping the prophet.
Trying to shame someone into feeling that their desire to follow their leaders must = worship, is false on it's face.

Who says the prophets are infallible? Who says the church is infallible? Who says the handbook is infallible? The prophets don't even make that claim.
There is the opposite side too. People can ride their hobby horse of the church, the leaders, the manuals, etc. are fallible (looky looky everyone!), but follow that trail to it's final dusty end and enjoy a nice vacation at camp apostasy.

Elder James E. Faust:

Quote

We make no claim of infallibility or perfection in the prophets, seers, and revelators.

I do not believe members of this church can be in full harmony with the Savior without sustaining his living prophet on the earth, the President of the Church. If we do not sustain the living prophet, whoever he may be, we die spiritually. Ironically, some have died spiritually by exclusively following prophets who have long been dead. Others equivocate in their support of living prophets, trying to lift themselves up by putting down the living prophets, however subtly.

 

Edited by NeedleinA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

This may be the final straw for Dubstep aficionados like @mirkwood and @MormonGator

 

If they start playing the Dave Matthews Band I will become a hardcore atheist. 

Seriously, that's what happened to @Godless

😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

the more hard right
It must be exhausting!

Not really, the Lord has already taken that into account.

Quote

20 And shall arun and not be bweary, and shall walk and not faint.

Thanks WofW. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now