Rumors of the Handbook Changes Generally True

[Mormorrisey]

So this is my second attempt, so I'll probably be even more brief out of frustration. I was up early, so I decided to look at the new handbook for the changes that were rumoured. I just read the sections on disciplinary councils and transgendered stuff, so the major news off the hopper is that this should be the only handbook. It's frickin' HUGE. So, on to my report.

First off, the disciplinary councils are now called "membership councils." The major change is that the fault line for having one is now no longer based on dangling genitalia. It's having a temple recommend. If you have one, and commit a major sin, you go to the stake. If you don't, it's the ward one for you. Everything else is basically the same - it's for the same "sins," and not much has changed there. Other than they've done away with the farce that the high council is there to help and actually have a say in the decision. Only in rare circumstances will the high council join in, so that's great for me! The only other thing to add in this section is that they now talk about mandatory reporting issues of child abuse, which I'm sure was made at the behest of the Lord's true law firm.

As to the transgender stuff, yeah, they're doubling down on gender is eternal. You can go to church, change your name and be fine, but if you were "born" a woman, you'll never get the priesthood, and you better not get any surgery, or you could have a membership council. For sure you will have restrictions placed on your membership. Full stop.

Edit to add: Even if a transgendered person is "socially" transitioning, membership restrictions will be placed on them throughout the period of transition. Oaks' fingerprints all over that one, methinks.

If I find any other tidbits in my reading, I'll report them as I find them. But those are the rumoured changes, and they are generally true.

[jfro18]

This to me seems like more of the same... they're streamlining discipline so that not everything gets elevated with excommunications which will keep some of the PR off of the leadership.

They're doubling down on gender is eternal but softening the language to sound like they are welcoming to those who identify as the gay (or trans) yet won't actually fall in love and act on it.

More of the same... just now that the handbook is public they are softening it as much as they can because the public can look itup.

[Jeffret]

You too can now read the handbook: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... e?lang=eng

No longer is the most important book in the Church super-secret and available only to the elect few.

[Jeffret]

Basically, it's not as bad as it could be. That's pretty faint praise. It's not as punitive as the now-truly-excluded Policy of Exclusion. Now it's more along the lines of purposeful ignorance, of facts, but primarily of people they don't want to acknowledge, who might disturb their worldview.

If this is the best Jesus can do, there's really not a lot of reason for worshiping him. At best, as The Hulk says to Loki, "Puny god". Really, couldn't Jesus do better?

[Jeffret]

Some observations.

The stuff on intersex and transgender individuals is just plain wrong. Besides the bad facts or lack of good ones, it's primary effort is to push the people and the issues off to the side and not have to deal with them.

This line, under the Transgender Individuals section, is phenomenal, "Most Church participation and some priesthood ordinances are gender neutral." It's hard to say if that's totally clueless or heavy gaslighting. I vote for a strong interplay of both.

Also under Transgender Individuals, "Gender is an essential characteristic of Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness. The intended meaning of gender in the family proclamation is biological sex at birth." When the Croc-Proc first came out, people criticized how much they distorted and abused the term "gender". They haven't let up on that. Now they're just openly using it to justify what they want. Gender is essential. Except that most things are gender neutral. And do you notice who gets to decide when gender is or isn't essential?

Most of gender is socially constructed. It makes no sense to call this an essential characteristic and unchanging.

Now they find themselves having to tweak, when it suits their needs, some of the wording about gender in the Handbook. They say, "The intended meaning of gender in the family proclamation is biological sex at birth", but the Proc says, "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." If it's about biological sex at birth, why didn't they just say so originally in their revealed word of god, instead of misusing the term "gender"? But, now they've reduced it's eternal nature from the Proc down to one specific point in time.

The section on birth control has continued to get shorter and is now dominated by the statement, "The decision as to how many children to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private. It should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter." This has improved over the decades and isn't too bad now. Except if you want effective, long-term birth control, "The Church strongly discourages surgical sterilization as an elective form of birth control. ... the persons responsible for this decision should consult with each other and with their bishop and should receive divine confirmation of their decision through prayer." The right hand doesn't seem to know what the left hand is doing. Though, it doesn't say that using the hand is a prohibited form of birth control and masturbation is explicitly excluded as a cause for a Church Council. Vasectomy is one of the best choices for long-term birth control, but that means the man has to take primary responsibility, so that becomes a sticking point that should be discussed with a male authority figure.

This is, though, the first time, that the prohibition of surgical sterilization has been made generally publicly available. Previously, everyone was expected to discuss this birth control decision with their bishop, but they weren't supposed to know about it. Now, there's less plausible deniability, but I suspect the leadership has lost this battle, just as they've continued losing ground on birth control for decades.

[Mormorrisey]

This to me seems like more of the same... they're streamlining discipline so that not everything gets elevated with excommunications which will keep some of the PR off of the leadership.

They're doubling down on gender is eternal but softening the language to sound like they are welcoming to those who identify as the gay (or trans) yet won't actually fall in love and act on it.

More of the same... just now that the handbook is public they are softening it as much as they can because the public can look itup.

Yep. That's my reaction too.

[Mormorrisey]

Now they find themselves having to tweak, when it suits their needs, some of the wording about gender in the Handbook. They say, "The intended meaning of gender in the family proclamation is biological sex at birth", but the Proc says, "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." If it's about biological sex at birth, why didn't they just say so originally in their revealed word of god, instead of misusing the term "gender"? But, now they've reduced it's eternal nature from the Proc down to one specific point in time.

The other interesting tidbit, is that they DO recognize intersex challenges. That generally, the parents can choose to have surgery for the child with "competent" medical advice. However, then they are to have "compassion" if complications arise later. So, they recognize that there might be a problem with "gender" at birth, but are still basing all their policies on that? Strange. It's in section 38.7.6.

[Jeffret]

The sections on Aaronic Priesthood and Young Women are strong refutations of the later claim that "Most Church participation and some priesthood ordinances are gender neutral." Starting from the naming and on through the texts, it clearly demonstrates that most church participation, starting from a young age, and priesthood ordinances are gender and sex specific. Starting at age 11, the official experiences are very different for penis holders than girls. Of course, it starts way younger than that, because they have to be indoctrinated from a young age to accept these discrepancies.

The girls have a Young Women's program. The boys have an Aaronic Priesthood program. Even the ordering is significant. Guess which one comes first.

The Young Women have classes. The bishop and other local leadership should decide what those classes are, how they should be organized, and what they should be called.

The boys have Aaronic Priesthood offices and duties. Their classes, quorums, duties, and responsibilities are important. They're spelled out in detail in the Handbook. They're taught to run the priesthood ordinances. They provide and the girls meekly receive.

The bishop, as the most important man in the ward, runs the boys program. He delegates that responsibility for the girls off to some woman in the ward, because it isn't as important.

There's a section on "Helping 10- and 11-Year-Old Boys Prepare to Receive the Priesthood", but of course no equivalent section for 10- and 11-year old girls. Which, makes sense, as they really don't have anything to look forward to until they're old enough to get married and start having babies.

Both sexes get a section on "Teaching Leadership Skills and Qualities". Of course, the one for boys is so important it's run by the bishop. For the girls, it's just "Adult Young Women leaders". They point out for the girls, "When these youth have been set apart under the direction of one who holds priesthood keys, they function under priesthood authority."

The one good thing I can say about the new Handbook is that they put it out there for everyone to see. Now it's a lot easier to see just how problematic things are. As always, I wonder just how long girls and women will continue to accept their relegated status. The Church has almost entirely admitted they lost the battle on birth control. I wonder if they're going to have to give up more ground on their deeply gendered operations.

[Mormorrisey]

The only other real interesting thing for me is that apostasy is not a mandatory court anymore. You can have one, if it's "serious," and they've added the proviso about apostasy if someone is "showing a pattern of intentionally working to weaken the faith and activity of Church members."

Which, of course, will totally be determined by leadership roulette. Which is the other challenge of "membership councils." Sure, they've streamlined them, but it's still a crapshoot what happens, based on how hardline the dude in charge is.

You sweating yet, jfro18?

[Jeffret]

The other interesting tidbit, is that they DO recognize intersex challenges. That generally, the parents can choose to have surgery for the child with "competent" medical advice. However, then they are to have "compassion" if complications arise later. So, they recognize that there might be a problem with "gender" at birth, but are still basing all their policies on that? Strange. It's in section 38.7.6.

Yes, that's a weird section. And it doesn't necessarily fit in with the other sections. That's because they're starting with the conclusions they want to achieve and then mashing everything together.

It's also interesting that, "The Church does not take a position on the causes of same-sex attraction", and "The Church does not take a position on the causes of people identifying themselves as transgender". For intersex conditions, they don't even bother not taking a position. Probably because it's a little too clear there that they have no business taking a position on something like that. For the others, they feel like they have to do a little more to justify their discrimination. They try to justify it by saying that they don't have to justify it.

So, gender is eternal, determined by biological sex at birth, but might be ambiguous. Don't worry, though, the Office of the First Presidency can sort out any problems for you. (Interestingly, it's now the "Office of".)

[Not Buying It]

So they still expect couples to talk to the Bishop before a vasectomy? Nothing screams cult like having to talk to a Church leader before getting elective surgery.

[Jeffret]

I don't know if they had this before but they do now have a formal section on "32.14.9 Requests to Resign Membership".

"A person can also resign membership by sending a signed, notarized request to Church headquarters."

"Leaders continue to minister to those who resign their membership unless they request no contact." That's kind of bogus statement. I mean, it's good to continue being nice to people and helping them if needed, but formal ministering for someone who has left is part of the problem. You know some leaders will use that as justification for extreme actions.

[Red Ryder]

First off, the disciplinary councils are now called "membership councils." The major change is that the fault line for having one is now no longer based on dangling genitalia. It's having a temple recommend. If you have one, and commit a major sin, you go to the stake. If you don't, it's the ward one for you.

Is this true? Is it really if you have been endowed vs. having a current recommend?

I’ve been endowed but don’t have a current recommend so if I commit a church felony I would have to see the bishop? But if my wife who has a current TR commits a church felony she’ll have to see the SP?

It seems like the church continues to shift responsibility around to balance workload all the while distancing the upper leadership from any sort of accountability to define doctrine.

The use of the words “most”, “some”, “we don’t fully understand”, etc etc are driving me nuts. The church leadership are masters of obviscation and institutional dishonesty.

The slight of words is used to change everything.

[jfro18]

The only other real interesting thing for me is that apostasy is not a mandatory court anymore. You can have one, if it's "serious," and they've added the proviso about apostasy if someone is "showing a pattern of intentionally working to weaken the faith and activity of Church members."

Which, of course, will totally be determined by leadership roulette. Which is the other challenge of "membership councils." Sure, they've streamlined them, but it's still a crapshoot what happens, based on how hardline the dude in charge is.

You sweating yet, jfro18?

They can email me anytime they want and I will gladly give them all of my personal info - I couldn't possibly care less if they want to ex me... or I guess now "loss of membership" or whatever it's rebranded as. I would enjoy having that meeting, but I don't think I'm even on their radar.

[jfro18]

It's also interesting that, "The Church does not take a position on the causes of same-sex attraction", and "The Church does not take a position on the causes of people identifying themselves as transgender".

This is what happens when the church has been proven wrong and has no way out.

"The Church does not take a position on where the Hill Cumorah was"

"The Church does not take a position on where the Book of Mormon took place"

"The Church does not take a position on why our prophets thought black people were cursed with dark skin"

And on and on and on.

They always take positions until they're proven wrong, and because they cornered themselves with bad revelation they have to revert to the cowardice of not taking a position.

[Mormorrisey]

First off, the disciplinary councils are now called "membership councils." The major change is that the fault line for having one is now no longer based on dangling genitalia. It's having a temple recommend. If you have one, and commit a major sin, you go to the stake. If you don't, it's the ward one for you.

Is this true? Is it really if you have been endowed vs. having a current recommend?

I’ve been endowed but don’t have a current recommend so if I commit a church felony I would have to see the bishop? But if my wife who has a current TR commits a church felony she’ll have to see the SP?

That's the problem of my cursory reading - I'll have to take a closer look at some point.

But you are correct, the wording in the new handbook says the stake one is for people "who have received your temple endowment." So not just a recommend, I read it wrong. You and the lovely Sis. RR would have the same hypothetical stake experience.

[Jeffret]

Is this true? Is it really if you have been endowed vs. having a current recommend?

No. The original report by Mormorrisey misstated it a little bit. According to 32.9.1 (and possibly others) the distinguishing factor is having received the endowment. There used to be a distinguishing characteristic for penis-holders.

[Red Ryder]

It's also interesting that, "The Church does not take a position on the causes of same-sex attraction", and "The Church does not take a position on the causes of people identifying themselves as transgender".

This is what happens when the church has been proven wrong and has no way out.

"The Church does not take a position on where the Hill Cumorah was"

"The Church does not take a position on where the Book of Mormon took place"

"The Church does not take a position on why our prophets thought black people were cursed with dark skin"

And on and on and on.

They always take positions until they're proven wrong, and because they cornered themselves with bad revelation they have to revert to the cowardice of not taking a position.

You know how many times I’ve tried to point this out to my wife? She continues to ignorantly exclaim “isn’t continuous modern revelation AMAZING!!”

[Jeffret]

You know how many times I’ve tried to point this out to my wife? She continues to ignorantly exclaim “isn’t continuous modern revelation AMAZING!!”

What's really amazing is how they manage to be so far behind everyone else.

[Brent]

There's a confusing nuance to a lot of this and it's because of people in the church who still hold to Gay stereotypes. Personally I believe that the new Handbook is clearly trying to find a way to be inclusive and play both sides of the fence. Good news is that with "Membership Councils" originating at the Ward level the odds are the the average Bishop is just happy to have a couple (of any flavor) that is willing to take a calling and fulfill it. This could have been a chance to say "God's wrath is coming your way" and show comfort and aid to those who are fully engaged in the business of exclusion but the Church didn't.

It's not a pivot of path but is does turn the eyes to a new direction.