Gender…

[mikbone]

So this year we have 2 new seminary teachers.  A brother and sister (not related) whom are both currently divorced. 

This morning the brother mentioned that there are only 2 genders and the sister totally lost her 🤬 (by report from 2 of my children).

I was considering biblical support for multiple genders and couldn’t come up with much.  Other than eunuchs.

Matthew 19:12 and Acts 8:27

So I guess there are 2.5 genders.  Or 2 genders and a dis-gendered male.

Eunuch, Gelding, Steer, Castrato

Not a whole lot of guys beating down the doors to become eunuchs though.

Edited August 29, 2023 by mikbone

[NeuroTypical]

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Also, cutting parts off doesn't change someone's gender.  

[mikbone]

My favorite comment about gender.

If I had a slice of bread for every gender, I could make one sandwich.

[NeuroTypical]

There was an interesting account on Tiktok a few months ago.  Person's deal was "I'm 4 months post-surgical transition from Male to Female, ask me anything".  Ran a live feed, took and answered questions from the comments.    This person made a distinction between Man/Woman and Male/Female.  So this person claimed to be female, said surgery was one of 4-5 different things being done to more approximate being female, but at the same time this person also acknowledged being male, because "that's up to chromosomes and no one can change that."     I hadn't heard any other T or T-adjacent folks use that distinction before. 

[Carborendum]

The sorority in Wyoming had the case thrown out of court because there was no definition of the word "woman" (maybe it was "female") in the sorority bylaws or the court documents.  And the judge refused to allow one to be used in the case.  Not even the definition in the dictionary.  Of course, now dictionaries include trans individuals as well, so, maybe that doesn't even matter.

The judge didn't realize that many words don't have a legal definition that are used throughout legal documents with significant meaning.  Yet he thought his argument was strong enough to deny the claimants their right to privacy and freedom of association.

[Grunt]

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

  I hadn't heard any other T or T-adjacent folks use that distinction before. 

I have.  People can pretend words mean whatever they'd like.  People can change the meanings of words.  That doesn't change what we know to be true.

[prisonchaplain]

IMHO the Bible is pretty clear about there being only two genders. @NeuroTypical mentioned the creation account. That would be my first go-to. My church has what we call a position paper on sexuality--including genders. I found this, as well: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/transgender-understanding-yourself/how-does-the-church-define-gender?lang=eng#p7'

 

The answer is shorter than the URL. Pretty clear too! 😉 

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

23 hours ago, mikbone said:

So this year we have 2 new seminary teachers.  A brother and sister (not related) whom are both currently divorced. 

This morning the brother mentioned that there are only 2 genders and the sister totally lost her 🤬 (by report from 2 of my children).

I was considering biblical support for multiple genders and couldn’t come up with much.  Other than eunuchs.

Matthew 19:12 and Acts 8:27

So I guess there are 2.5 genders.  Or 2 genders and a dis-gendered male.

Eunuch, Gelding, Steer, Castrato

Not a whole lot of guys beating down the doors to become eunuchs though.

A Eunuch is still male.

[JohnsonJones]

WELL...this is a trick question...or the question about how many genders are discussed in the Bible.  Gender and Sex can be considered two different things.  Then you get into what language the Bible is written in?

Do we go with the Six Sexes recognized in Hebraic and Judaic customs?  In most Biblical languages you can identify at least 3 genders at a minimum (the Masculine, the Feminine, and the more Neutral).

If we go by the Six, there would be the Male, the Female, the Intersex, the Barren Female, The Eunuch (Eunuch by birth or otherwise) and the undeveloped or unidentifiable gender (which I supposes covers all the other bases).

Many of these can even be seen as addressed in our English translations of the Bible in various ways.  Look for scriptures talking about woman who could not bear children, or those who were Eunuchs, or creatures not identified as any gender (such as certain angelic hosts or such), and you can see these traits come through even in our Current Bibles in English. 

SOOOOO...as I said...trick question.  Who is asking...the world and the scholars of the world about ancient literature...or those who are Latter-day Saints in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

What purpose are they wanting to illuminate with the discussion?

The Gospel states that there are two, male and female, or men and woman, as far as our reasoning goes.  This applies to what the General Authorities have clarified in their various statements and proclamations over the past few decades. 

If the discussion is about what the Bible addresses and how it addresses such things and how that should be approached, that MIGHT be useful from a Seminary viewpoint.  However, it probably should also be addressed the official Church's position on such things.

[zil2]

No wonder children these days are confused.

[Grunt]

6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

WELL...this is a trick question..

Only it isn't.  There are 2.

[NeuroTypical]

Anyone else watch the barbie movie?   

[scottyg]

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

Only it isn't.  There are 2.

Yep. People hijacking words to change their definition to push their agenda. It has always been 2, and will always be 2.

For those very, very few people born with a body that has more androgenous features, I feel so sorry for that difficult trial. But, they really are one or the other 

[Backroads]

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Anyone else watch the barbie movie?   

I did, but it's been awhile, and I'm trying to recall what you might be referencing? The joke about the lack of genitals? 

(I honestly quite enjoyed the movie while and right after I watched it, but then I realized it was one that wasn't sticking in my brain). 

[Backroads]

This idea of multiple genders kills me. It's like... how intense into the labyrinth of culture can you get? 

My mom buys piano books off this music guy (it's a legitimate business and I don't mean to make it sound like a black market for music teachers). Great guy, but his business is running a music store and he's very nice, friendly, dresses exceedingly well, compliments outfits... and his dear wife of many years is a mechanic. We joke about this guy, but it's probably nothing more than a guy who likes good clothes and music and a woman who is really good at working on cars. 

I'm sure we can find all sorts of examples of people who are bending societal gender norms and I really have no problem with that until it becomes "so they must be transgender or some other gender entirely" in some crazy meaning to define their unique existence and perspectives.

[JohnsonJones]

12 hours ago, scottyg said:

Yep. People hijacking words to change their definition to push their agenda. It has always been 2, and will always be 2.

For those very, very few people born with a body that has more androgenous features, I feel so sorry for that difficult trial. But, they really are one or the other 

Scholastically, there is more than two.   This is not a NEW thing.  It is history that has been known for a LONG time. 

If we just take language itself, which is where one of the ideas that gender comes from, you have multiple genders.  You have the masculine and you have the feminine of course.  You also have those that are neither. 

In English I suppose a parallel would be you call a Ship a Her or she.  Dogs in many instances when  actual gender is unknown is referred to as he.  In years gone by certain professions were known as He.  On the otherhand, you normally do not call your spoon a he or a she, but it.  ("Can you get the spoon.  Can you place it on the table.")

These are three genders in English right there. 

There are traditionally six Sexes. 

It doesn't matter what your OPINION is, it doesn't change the facts of the world.

These things are not NEW inventions.  They have been around for centuries (or in the case of Hebraic and Judaic...Millenia.  The Lord in his time would HAVE KNOWN about these).

If there is ANY hijacking in this instance, scholastically speaking, it would be those who are insisting that these things never existed in the first place and ignore their current usage today that have been derived (and are able to be seen in US English for at least several hundred years at this point).

THIS is why it is a trick question.  You have to define WHAT the person is talking about and what they are inferring about in regards to gender or sex. 

Are we talking about electrical plugs or outlets?  Are we talking about language.  Are we talking about people.

In theory, when we say there are only two...we are actually WRONG in one sense of expression.   On the otherhand, we are exactly correct in another. 

You cannot simply change history and say it did not occur and that the language used never happened.  By denying that there are different ways to say something and utilize it is not all that useful.

It is ONLY by understanding what and how it has been used traditionally that you can see the flawed logic that many are using today to make their arguments regarding how it applies to those who wish to be another gender or sex. 

Simply stating they are wrong without actually understanding where they are coming from and how it actually applies will never convince them in general, and normally will never win an "argument" against them or convince a judge to side with you.

Then, when you lose the case (as the conservatives have in the past against the Supreme court in regards to Gay Marriage, which I FEEL have been lost because they didn't even understand the arguments the other side were making in the first place and thus have NOT created a EFFECTIVE counter argument against it), complaining that it is only because the adversary is rising in influence (which is true, but is not the entire picture), it fails to take responsibility of WHY you lost on your own merits in the first place.

Court cases and other items ARE WINNABLE if you have a good enough argument, the right evidence, and a persuasive case.  When you lack two of those right from the start because you fail to understand where the other side is coming from...well...who then is really to blame?

THIS is why it is tricky.  It is a trick question from the get go. 

There IS support directly from the Bible for more than two Genders.  That isn't even a question.  Anyone versed in the various languages of the bible can tell you that there is support.  This is NOT even a question.

But that's NOT the question that we should be asking.  Coming in from that front, you are creating a case where the evidence already stands against you.  It could be a losing case if we go at it from that direction.

The question to ask is HOW is this relevant to the current situation and (For LDS who HAVE a living prophet and modern revelation) what does MODERN revelation tell us about it and how WE should look at the picture. 

The Bible also says it is okay for me to have slaves and how much I should pay if I injure one.  It tells me that I can kill a child if they disagree with me and discipline my spouse.  In this instance, is that what we are actually relying on...or do we turn more to MODERN revelation and what our General Authorities say today in regards to these matters?

That's the point where we should be approaching these issues because trying to play on game field that those opposed to our gospel have created and letting them set the rules is a good way to lose a game.

 

ADDING - TLDR or interpreting what I said in a more succinct manner...

I have found in my experience it is better to bear testimony where the spirit can support us, than to argue over facts with another person.  Present the gospel, testify of it's truth and then let the spirit do it's thing is far better than to try to quibble about things where we may not have a solid footing regarding "facts" as the world sees or interprets them.  If the spirit can touch the soul of who we are talking too, this is hopefully a way to change their heart and convert them to the truth.  If not, and they still want to attack from this angle, get out of there as quickly as possible and leave.

Edited September 3, 2023 by JohnsonJones

[scottyg]

The facts of the world? You just tried to prove your point by gendering a spoon. Take a step back and look at the mental gymnastics you are doing to try and prove yourself right.

"Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose".

I am not going to argue over your traditions, feelings or "facts". All of it is based of of mankind's false perceptions. I will however share my testimony with you that there are 2 genders, male and female. End of discussion.

[zil2]

1 hour ago, scottyg said:

The facts of the world? You just tried to prove your point by gendering a spoon. Take a step back and look at the mental gymnastics you are doing to try and prove yourself right.

"Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose".

I am not going to argue over your traditions, feelings or "facts". All of it is based of of mankind's false perceptions. I will however share my testimony with you that there are 2 genders, male and female. End of discussion.

That some languages use gendered nouns (and their accompanying articles, adjectives, etc.) is true (e.g. Spanish and Russian).  That some have three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter, is also true (e.g. Russian).  But yeah, these can't be used in any meaningful way in discussion of the current human gender identity crisis - they're just a fact of language, nothing more.  The same is true of the tendency of humans to anthropomorphize inanimate objects, regardless of whether the language uses gendered nouns.

While I have no time to study it, ancient Israel's choice to separately classify those who could not reproduce, or who were born with genetic / birth defects is equally irrelevant.

Both issues are irrelevant to the question of how many human sexes / genders there are.  Biology is all that's relevant when it comes to discussing human sex or gender (which are synonyms).  The answer is 2 with some small percentage of people being indeterminate (not additional genders, just indeterminate) due to said birth/genetic defect. 

The problem is not whether @JohnsonJones was presenting facts, it is that he was presenting facts that are either not relevant to the modern human gender identity crisis, or that he presented the facts in a manner which obfuscates reality rather than clarifying it.

[JohnsonJones]

8 hours ago, zil2 said:

That some languages use gendered nouns (and their accompanying articles, adjectives, etc.) is true (e.g. Spanish and Russian).  That some have three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter, is also true (e.g. Russian).  But yeah, these can't be used in any meaningful way in discussion of the current human gender identity crisis - they're just a fact of language, nothing more.  The same is true of the tendency of humans to anthropomorphize inanimate objects, regardless of whether the language uses gendered nouns.

While I have no time to study it, ancient Israel's choice to separately classify those who could not reproduce, or who were born with genetic / birth defects is equally irrelevant.

Both issues are irrelevant to the question of how many human sexes / genders there are.  Biology is all that's relevant when it comes to discussing human sex or gender (which are synonyms).  The answer is 2 with some small percentage of people being indeterminate (not additional genders, just indeterminate) due to said birth/genetic defect. 

The problem is not whether @JohnsonJones was presenting facts, it is that he was presenting facts that are either not relevant to the modern human gender identity crisis, or that he presented the facts in a manner which obfuscates reality rather than clarifying it.

Edit:  This is the same pathway which they will use these facts in their arguments, and why it becomes difficult to actually answer the question without falling into other traps where they can argue against the idea of two sexes or genders.

As I said, it's a TRICK question.  If someone is asking about this in regards to Transgendered indivduals or LGBT you need to understand WHY and WHERE they are coming from.

In this instance, they are using the argument that there has always been gender (which is true).  That Gender is a social construct that is utilized in labeling things or identifying things regarding that gendered use (also true).

By simply saying...nah, uh, nani-nani-boo-boo, you are wrong and there are only two...doesn't do anything to effect their argument.  They have stated some true items and you've fallen into their trap.  By trying to say that the facts they use as their reasoning are wrong or false, it simply looks to invalidate your own argument before it even began.  They have facts on their side when they state these things. 

The point isn't to refute the truth that they have backing them, it is to find the flaw in their arguments, or alternatively, not fall into the trap in the first place. 

I see this was the problem when the Gay Marriage came up on the Federal level as well.  The argument the LGBT were making was that Married people got more rights simply from being married than anyone else did.  They felt it was unfair that some people got different rights than others and that those rights should be broadened out to include other groups (such as gay individuals who chose to identify their relationship as a marriage).  That by giving one group more rights than others it was inherently unfair, unjust, and promoted inequality. 

Instead of figuring out a reasoning towards the path that equal rights would or could be extended and yet retain the holiness or sanctity of what we now call a traditional marriage, arguments took a turn that had NOTHING to really do with the actual context or item that the LGBT groups were arguing.  At best it tried to justify giving more rights to some and less rights to others, at worst it simply ignored the argument and tried to make a new one regarding it being just a natural state vs. and unnatural state.  Ignoring the actual argument did nothing to help win the case and Gay Marriage is now the law of the land. 

In the same way, we now have a question regarding how many genders (or sexes) are supported in the Bible.  More directly, Biblical support for more than two genders in the Bible.  This is actually an argument that has been brought up by LGBT specifically BECAUSE no matter how you look at it, the Bible supports more than one gender by most languages it was translated from, and sexes in what it actually defines and talks about.  If you go this route, you CANNOT win the argument in this fashion by simply saying it only talks about two sexes in Genesis.  Anyone who has a background of study in the language and intricacies of the Bible will instantly realize that this is a trap.  It's a trick and if you follow their line of reasoning, you WILL not win the argument.  It's unwinnable by the facts of the case as presented.

AT least as far as I can see it.  If you think the people asking things or presenting things like this are ignorant you are only fooling yourself.  Many of these are actually well read and well educated in many areas of classical literature, biblical studies, and religious studies.  For LGBT who are using this in regards to religious discussions (it is not just the Bible, if you go through Catholic History or other historical contexts they have many other questions that are basically "trick" questions)  they have a goal and that goal is to tear down religion.

If you don't know the facts in detail (even as a professor and knowledgeable about certain things regarding the background and origins is not enough for many of them) in these types of instances, it is better to try a different approach.  If you say there are only two...they have enough facts that they can bore you for DAYS on the various aspects that prove you wrong from either your Bible or from religious history.  These facts are not wrong, but they MAY be applied in a flawed manner (as you so notate in your post).  They will hit you with a preponderance of evidence.   You will not win this in this manner.

I am saying this as someone who has at least some understanding of the language, the support in the Bible for these things  (as well as in classical literature and in history itself), and why they use this argument to support their own statements in regards to why their take on Transgendered individuals, Homosexual activity, and Homosexual actions are justified in Christian Religions.  This is a trick question and one that is probably not going to go the way you want it to when confronted by individuals who feel that they are justified in LGBTQ acts by the Bible and by religion. 

Instead, if you are going to post there are only two genders or sexes, try a more faith based option.  Use the proclamation for the family then and when asked how it proves such, admit that it is based upon faith and belief on modern day revelation and the right of the General Authorities to receive such revelation.  They can then say all sorts of facts to try to disprove you, but they cannot tell you that you cannot believe or have faith in the way you do.  You have something to back you up and it is then upon them to try to show or prove why this faith or belief is misplaced (and trust me, they will try...).  Bear you Testimony.  This may not have any better chance of convincing them (unless somehow they can feel the spirit and it can turn their heart, which is a better chance then the alternative) but it can help bolster your own faith in light of their arguments.  If they get overly aggressive, leave the conversation.  It can only get nasty and mean if you continue to try to press the issue and they will not let you have your faith or feel the spirit in their heart. 

I have the unfortunate experience to have this occur with multiple young individuals in the university system and can say that bearing your testimony and utilizing your faith and belief in the prophets and modern revelation is a MUCH more solid foundation to build upon than trying to argue the facts with them.

Edited September 4, 2023 by JohnsonJones

[zil2]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

This is the same pathway which they will use these facts in their arguments, and why it becomes difficult to actually answer the question without falling into other traps where they can argue against the idea of two sexes or genders.

1. Other than your posts, no one here seems to be talking about trying to argue or reason with the people involved in the current gender identity crisis.  Though I suppose what I interpret as @mikbone's curiosity could be interpreted as a desire to build arguments.

2. That some people think things are relevant to the issue do not make those things relevant to the issue.  (NOTE: Irrelevance does not exclude these things from #3, but their inclusion in #3 does not make them relevant, just necessary to address.)

3. If someone does want to argue with those involved in this crisis, then yes, by all means, they should learn the enemy's arguments to the point where they could win in the enemy's favor.

4. I would never dream of arguing with the people involved in this crisis:

• Perpetrators - evil people on whom reasoning would be pointless
• Victims - confused or delusional, and driven by overwhelming emotion - again, reasoning would be pointless
• Leaches - evil people seeking to benefit from the victims - again, reasoning would be pointless

[laronius]

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Edit:  This is the same pathway which they will use these facts in their arguments, and why it becomes difficult to actually answer the question without falling into other traps where they can argue against the idea of two sexes or genders.

As I said, it's a TRICK question.  If someone is asking about this in regards to Transgendered indivduals or LGBT you need to understand WHY and WHERE they are coming from.

In this instance, they are using the argument that there has always been gender (which is true).  That Gender is a social construct that is utilized in labeling things or identifying things regarding that gendered use (also true).

By simply saying...nah, uh, nani-nani-boo-boo, you are wrong and there are only two...doesn't do anything to effect their argument.  They have stated some true items and you've fallen into their trap.  By trying to say that the facts they use as their reasoning are wrong or false, it simply looks to invalidate your own argument before it even began.  They have facts on their side when they state these things. 

The point isn't to refute the truth that they have backing them, it is to find the flaw in their arguments, or alternatively, not fall into the trap in the first place. 

I see this was the problem when the Gay Marriage came up on the Federal level as well.  The argument the LGBT were making was that Married people got more rights simply from being married than anyone else did.  They felt it was unfair that some people got different rights than others and that those rights should be broadened out to include other groups (such as gay individuals who chose to identify their relationship as a marriage).  That by giving one group more rights than others it was inherently unfair, unjust, and promoted inequality. 

Instead of figuring out a reasoning towards the path that equal rights would or could be extended and yet retain the holiness or sanctity of what we now call a traditional marriage, arguments took a turn that had NOTHING to really do with the actual context or item that the LGBT groups were arguing.  At best it tried to justify giving more rights to some and less rights to others, at worst it simply ignored the argument and tried to make a new one regarding it being just a natural state vs. and unnatural state.  Ignoring the actual argument did nothing to help win the case and Gay Marriage is now the law of the land. 

In the same way, we now have a question regarding how many genders (or sexes) are supported in the Bible.  More directly, Biblical support for more than two genders in the Bible.  This is actually an argument that has been brought up by LGBT specifically BECAUSE no matter how you look at it, the Bible supports more than one gender by most languages it was translated from, and sexes in what it actually defines and talks about.  If you go this route, you CANNOT win the argument in this fashion by simply saying it only talks about two sexes in Genesis.  Anyone who has a background of study in the language and intricacies of the Bible will instantly realize that this is a trap.  It's a trick and if you follow their line of reasoning, you WILL not win the argument.  It's unwinnable by the facts of the case as presented.

AT least as far as I can see it.  If you think the people asking things or presenting things like this are ignorant you are only fooling yourself.  Many of these are actually well read and well educated in many areas of classical literature, biblical studies, and religious studies.  For LGBT who are using this in regards to religious discussions (it is not just the Bible, if you go through Catholic History or other historical contexts they have many other questions that are basically "trick" questions)  they have a goal and that goal is to tear down religion.

If you don't know the facts in detail (even as a professor and knowledgeable about certain things regarding the background and origins is not enough for many of them) in these types of instances, it is better to try a different approach.  If you say there are only two...they have enough facts that they can bore you for DAYS on the various aspects that prove you wrong from either your Bible or from religious history.  These facts are not wrong, but they MAY be applied in a flawed manner (as you so notate in your post).  They will hit you with a preponderance of evidence.   You will not win this in this manner.

I am saying this as someone who has at least some understanding of the language, the support in the Bible for these things  (as well as in classical literature and in history itself), and why they use this argument to support their own statements in regards to why their take on Transgendered individuals, Homosexual activity, and Homosexual actions are justified in Christian Religions.  This is a trick question and one that is probably not going to go the way you want it to when confronted by individuals who feel that they are justified in LGBTQ acts by the Bible and by religion. 

Instead, if you are going to post there are only two genders or sexes, try a more faith based option.  Use the proclamation for the family then and when asked how it proves such, admit that it is based upon faith and belief on modern day revelation and the right of the General Authorities to receive such revelation.  They can then say all sorts of facts to try to disprove you, but they cannot tell you that you cannot believe or have faith in the way you do.  You have something to back you up and it is then upon them to try to show or prove why this faith or belief is misplaced (and trust me, they will try...).  Bear you Testimony.  This may not have any better chance of convincing them (unless somehow they can feel the spirit and it can turn their heart, which is a better chance then the alternative) but it can help bolster your own faith in light of their arguments.  If they get overly aggressive, leave the conversation.  It can only get nasty and mean if you continue to try to press the issue and they will not let you have your faith or feel the spirit in their heart. 

I have the unfortunate experience to have this occur with multiple young individuals in the university system and can say that bearing your testimony and utilizing your faith and belief in the prophets and modern revelation is a MUCH more solid foundation to build upon than trying to argue the facts with them.

My go to response for anything that the Bible is not super clear on is:

"You can make the Bible say anything you want. That's why there are so many different Christian churches with conflicting views. It's also why God continues to reveal his word in our day to prophets and that word clearly states that there is only male and female."

[Grunt]

On 9/3/2023 at 12:27 AM, JohnsonJones said:

 

THIS is why it is tricky.  It is a trick question from the get go. 

 

Again, it's not.  There are two.  Spoons don't have gender.  Neither do ships.

You're trying to make it tricky.  You're trying to make it more complex than it is.  It isn't.

Edited September 4, 2023 by Grunt

[zil2]

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

You're trying to make it tricky.  You're trying to make it more complex than it is.  It isn't.

Or perhaps he's detailing how those who are perpetrating the gender identity crisis are trying to make it tricky - grasping at every straw to twist it to their use.  I couldn't say which (JJ's posts often seem to me to be unclear in what they're trying to accomplish).

[popatr]

On 8/29/2023 at 10:00 AM, mikbone said:

So this year we have 2 new seminary teachers.  A brother and sister (not related) whom are both currently divorced. 

This morning the brother mentioned that there are only 2 genders and the sister totally lost her 🤬 (by report from 2 of my children).

I was considering biblical support for multiple genders and couldn’t come up with much.  Other than eunuchs.

Matthew 19:12 and Acts 8:27

So I guess there are 2.5 genders.  Or 2 genders and a dis-gendered male.

Eunuch, Gelding, Steer, Castrato

Not a whole lot of guys beating down the doors to become eunuchs though.

Teaching at the same time?  That's... Weird

[mikbone]

12 minutes ago, popatr said:

Teaching at the same time?  That's... Weird

12.5.1

Safeguarding Children

When adults are interacting with children in Church settings, at least two responsible adults should be present. It may be necessary to combine classes to make this possible.

All adults who work with children must complete the children and youth protection training within one month of being sustained (ProtectingChildren.ChurchofJesusChrist.org). They repeat the training every three years thereafter.

 

I know that the above comes from the Primary section but…  In today’s environment its probably a good policy.