New Nauvoo Forum

Church and Gospel => News of the Church => Topic started by: AndrewR on February 19, 2020, 09:08:18 am

Title: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: AndrewR on February 19, 2020, 09:08:18 am
Disciplinary Councils are now Membership Councils

Stake Membership Councils no longer require the High Council - except in limited situations

Endowed Sisters now treated like MPh were - Stake membership council if membership likely to be withdrawn.

Primarily it is expected, but not required, that the person's RSP or EQP be with them, not the Bishop.

No formal action is now Remains in Good Standing
Probation is now Personal Counseling with the Bishop or Stake President
Disfellowshipped is now Formal Membership Restrictions
Excommunication is now Withdrawal of Membership

Ward membership councils can only recommend Withdrawal of Membership, the stake president must approve.

That's the major bits.
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: Taalcon on February 19, 2020, 09:22:09 am
There's a LOT in how several things are expressed and laid out. And it promises there will be more substantial material forthcoming.

I think the renaming of what was referred to as Discipline as 'Membership' issues is actually good. Excommunication and Disfellowshipment are archaic terms that bring A LOT of baggage with them, and aren't particularly properly descriptive.

Using the full Stake High Council only in extreme circumstances is also a good move. (It can be VERY traumatic for anyone, no matter who you are,  to appear before more than 15 men in the stake to address and judge and question one's personal 'worthiness' and actions. I've been on the High Council, I've participated in such from that side.)

Reading many sections of the new handbook, it's very clear President Oaks had a very strong hand in drafting it. His specific language and turn of phrase is all over it. It's not surprising, just somewhat interesting. (Just like in the newest update to Preach My Gospel, there's a lot of President Nelson's unique turn of phrase, approach, and specific terminology at play).
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: AndrewR on February 19, 2020, 09:28:12 am
I wasn't really passing judgement on the changes. But I do feel that on balance they are what was needed.

I think by passing Endowed Sisters up to the Stake Level required a re-thinking of High Council usage.

It will take me a while to get used to the new chapters - and movement of things like Ministering to its own chapter. And not having a physical book will not help since that made it easier to "see" the handbook when I was mentally looking for something.



Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: Patty Rain on February 19, 2020, 09:39:45 am
It's interesting that there is a handbook 2 in the gospel library, but there is a big "OBSOLETE" across it.
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: Patty Rain on February 19, 2020, 09:55:37 am
Is there a table of contents somewhere? I've always had a tough time locating stuff in the online handbook.

Learned something new. Church historic site presidents have keys.
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: Taalcon on February 19, 2020, 10:08:25 am
Speaking of Oaks' influence, on the section of The Sacrament, they added, "7. Members partake with their right hand when possible."  Tradition and preference now codified as policy. :P
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: CrowGirl on February 19, 2020, 10:32:34 am
Gag
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: Taalcon on February 19, 2020, 10:32:48 am
https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/general-handbook-frequently-asked-questions
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: AndrewR on February 19, 2020, 11:02:11 am
Speaking of Oaks' influence, on the section of The Sacrament, they added, "7. Members partake with their right hand when possible."  Tradition and preference now codified as policy. :P

We are a people who take symbols very seriously. And I see nothing wrong in using that concept in this instance. We make covenants with our right hand, but where that isn't possible we do it with the left. This is the same. You were baptised under this sign, taking the sacrament this way enforces this idea. It is very useful, I believe, in helping a child understand the difference between having a piece of bread, and partaking of the Sacrament.
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: Taalcon on February 19, 2020, 11:20:29 am
Speaking of Oaks' influence, on the section of The Sacrament, they added, "7. Members partake with their right hand when possible."  Tradition and preference now codified as policy. :P

We are a people who take symbols very seriously. And I see nothing wrong in using that concept in this instance. We make covenants with our right hand, but where that isn't possible we do it with the left. This is the same. You were baptised under this sign, taking the sacrament this way enforces this idea. It is very useful, I believe, in helping a child understand the difference between having a piece of bread, and partaking of the Sacrament.

Just saw that this is also a very strong opinion that Nelson has had for a while. He wrote about back in the 80s, much like his long-held feelings on the name of the Church.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1983/03/i-have-a-question/is-it-necessary-to-take-the-sacrament-with-ones-right-hand?lang=eng

I DO take the symbols of the sacrament very seriously.

What makes me uncomfortable is ammunition for people to tell others they're 'taking the sacrament wrong.' You take in the Body of Christ. The taking it in is the symbolic part. How you get it off the tray is a delivery mechanism.

Prior to this, someone took the bread, and they ate it. They took a cup, and they drank it. It was a sacred symbolic act. There was no way to 'do it wrong'. Now, someone needs to be corrected in how they partake of the sacrament. This is what is disappointing to me. (A few months ago, before this was official policy, I heard a mother behind me angrily chastise a child for taking the Sacrament with the left hand. It made me very, very sad, and I'm disappointed this will be reinforced.)

I understand why it resonates with those who it resonates with. I can see the continuity between this and receiving the Tokens in the Endowment. But I just tend to dislike more ways for members to feel like they messed up, and didn't do it right. Especially when it comes to the Sacrament. Someone taking it, eating it, passing the tray, and then, Oh no, I took it with the wrong hand, I did it wrong. Or having someone well-intentioned tell them later that they 'did it wrong'. I just ... yeah. It's a little sad for me.
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: Roper on February 19, 2020, 11:36:33 am
As Andrew said, there are specific ways we participate in covenants. My own experience is that I was never scolded for doing something wrong. I was patiently taught how to do it.

Is the concern about the nature of the symbol, or is it about the way it's taught?
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: TurkeyLurker on February 19, 2020, 11:42:24 am
Gag

If you are talking about "right hand," I am right there with you.  Seriously?  We actually took 2 seconds out of our busy lives to care about THAT?
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: Taalcon on February 19, 2020, 11:47:45 am
Quote
Seriously?  We actually took 2 seconds out of our busy lives to care about THAT?

I assume Church leaders want us to care about it and think about it, seeing as they specifically ADDED it to the handbook where it wasn't there before. And two members of the current First Presidency have given talks in the past that were a lot longer than 2 seconds long explaining why they felt so strongly that there was a RIGHT WAY and a WRONG WAY to do it.

I do take the sacrament seriously. I think about it a lot. It's extremely meaningful to me. And I'd say making an official adjustment to the most regularly repeated sacred ordinance in the Church is worth thinking about.

I'll get used to it. And I won't rebel and do it otherwise just because. But I will share my thoughts on why my initial reactions were what they were.
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: TurkeyLurker on February 19, 2020, 11:57:22 am
Whateve's.  I've never NOT taken it with my right hand, and strive to always be fully repentant and worthy of doing so.  When passing or blessing the sacrament, I strive to be worthy and I kindly do my best to represent the Savior in this sacred ordinance.  I try to be reverent before, during, and after the sacrament services, as to not distract anyone from feeling the spirit during this meeting.

But of all the problems and challenges in the universe, things like shirt color, tattoos, and lefty or righty just don't even make my top 300 issues radar.  YMMV.  :)
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: Taalcon on February 19, 2020, 12:01:58 pm
Quote
But of all the problems and challenges in the universe, things like shirt color, tattoos, and lefty or righty just don't even make my top 300 issues radar.  YMMV.  :)

This is very much my perspective. Which is why I found it odd that they went out of their way to tell us all that we needed to pay attention to it. It mattereth not what we eat or drink, but it mattereth which hand we eateth and drinketh it with ;)
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: CrowGirl on February 19, 2020, 12:22:50 pm
Yes, TurkeyLurker, that is what I was referring to.

I am left-handed and in this day and age still have to deal with some of that prejudicial stuff about not being as great as a rightie.  So right there, I bristle.

Sometimes it is just flat-awkward to take with your right hand.

The Sacrament is incredibly important to me.  There was a time when I could not take it.  I appreciate it more than I can express.  I have tried to deal with the substance of what is happening—my continual renewal to be better, to be a witness for Christ—and not get caught up in what I thought was a piddly detail.

I made a covenant to obey.  I am already obeying in ways that are annoying and uncomfortable, but I do it anyway and don’t continually gripe about it.  So forgive me for my knee-jerk reaction.  It’s my way.  I have a ten-minute temper tantrum, then gird up my loins and don’t look back.  I just thought/hoped I was not the only one here that might find this a bit on the micro-managing side.

I should look and see if there’s anything in the handbook that says when we sustain people, we are to bring our arm completely to the square, and not just flip up our right hand as it suits us.
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: mosquito on February 19, 2020, 01:27:36 pm
Symbolism can be a difficult thing to teach young children. I personally find the sacrament a beautiful first introduction to the concept. Lovingly taught of course.

I remember my father, a not particularly devout member of the church, and a leftie, who was very careful to take the sacrament with his right hand and taught his children to do the same. It was how I first realized the importance of the sacrament portion of the meeting.

Our own personal experience can shape a life-long feeling of such things.

It has taken me decades to figure out some of the most basic symbolism in the temple. But I shall always remember the symbolism associated with the 'right hand' which carries over into other areas.
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: Roper on February 19, 2020, 01:46:10 pm
I made a covenant to obey.  I am already obeying in ways that are annoying and uncomfortable, but I do it anyway and don’t continually gripe about it.  So forgive me for my knee-jerk reaction.  It’s my way.  I have a ten-minute temper tantrum, then gird up my loins and don’t look back.  I just thought/hoped I was not the only one here that might find this a bit on the micro-managing side.
I felt the same way about how we refer to ourselves as church members. It seems unnecessarily cumbersome to say, "I am a member of the ..." I never felt bad about being called a "Mormon," although I have been ridiculed for it at times in my life. But, things change and we press on. I still say "Mormon" a lot. Old habits die hard.

Crowgirl, we should start a group called, "Curmudgeonly Mormon Lefties," not to be confused with Leftist Mormon Curmudgeons.
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: kazbert on February 19, 2020, 02:11:31 pm
Partake the Sacrament with your right hand. Hokay. I'm on board with it. But I've been in the church since 1983 and this is the first time I've heard about it. I get that it has been mentioned before, but I guess I missed it. I'm an adult convert. I wasn't taught that there was a preferred/proper/right way to do it. The missionaries would taught/baptized/confirmed me never mentioned it. Up until now, if the Sacrament tray was coming to me from my left, I partook with my right hand. If the Sacrament tray was coming to me from the right, I partook with my left hand.
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: dyany on February 19, 2020, 02:17:01 pm
I personally have seen very little to no advantage to adding dogmatic physical minutiae to certain ritual, and actually a lot of damage, in judgment and in misplaced focus on what is important.  I feel that the more physical law we have to focus on, the less spiritual law we rise to. So the left hand thing is irksome and disappointing to me, no less because I had seen SO much progress with changes towards less nit-picking dogma in the last few years of changes.
I don't know how strict I'll try to be with that one. I spend too much time concentrating on the words of the sacrament prayers and reviewing my week and talking to Heavenly Father and Christ and repenting to pay attention to something of so much lesser importance as what hand I use to take the sacrament. I'm probably going to have to brace myself for judgment from those who never understood the decades where that was merely rumor and tradition, and will now feel justified and holier-than-thou.

kaz: it WASN'T a rule. It was a pretty powerful tradition in many areas for a while, enforced with the power of "we can see it, so we can control it" level dogma, but was debunked 40-50 years ago. One of the reasons I'm so very disappointed now.
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: Roper on February 19, 2020, 02:22:41 pm
There is a lot of symbolism in connection with the "right hand" of God. I wonder if that was part of the reasoning for the recommendation.
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: dyany on February 19, 2020, 02:34:18 pm
I'm sure, but as it isn't a specific part of any ritual or ceremony (unlike temple covenants), there isn't a specific motion or detail taught on how to do it, etc., and it was never a rule before, I find the reasoning speculated after the fact to be weak.

The reason right and left had so much symbolism in ancient times was part of the health code God had given to protect his people. Pork was banned, and swine became symbolic of filth and sin and sometimes hedonism, but if you know much about parasitic infections, you will find that most parasites that include humans in their life cycle pass through swine at another point in their life cycle. Blood made one 'unclean' not because it was inherently evil, but because it carried pathogens. Left hand is lesser because, in an age of no running water, antibiotics, or decent cleansers, God was protecting his people from fecal-transmitted infections by designating the left hand for cleaning oneself after relieving oneself, and designated ONLY the right hand for other, more pleasant activities like preparing and eating food, etc. He didn't get into the WHY, so people made up their own--left is evil, right is good.  It's not inherently so, it's just something we assigned as we tried to interpret why the original law existed, and now even though the law (in western society, for the most part, at least) is gone, we hold onto the symbolism WE made up to explain it.

I don't think God minds until we start making that more important than the covenant itself. Which I think many people will do with this.
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: Taalcon on February 19, 2020, 02:40:10 pm
There's a ward in my Stake that taught a great lesson. There was a period of time where the deacons sat on the stand choir seats for a couple months rather than on the pews in front of the sacrament table. They did this for a month, and after Sacrament meeting once, the Bishop came to their Deacon's quorum meeting and asked them why they thought they did this now. There were many doctrinal reasons they came up with, trying to find a deep significance. At the end the Bishop nodded, smiled, and then said, "About 2 months ago, someone in the ward that meets before us threw up on those seats. I quickly invited you up here while the cleaning dried. You just kept coming up week after week. It's time to go back."

You can find deep significance in anything. And that doesn't mean it can't become truly meaningful and significant. It just doesn't necessarily mean it has anything to with the original impetus behind an action. I truly believe most of the things that are done were ALREADY done by other cultures, and God gave them NEW meaning and significance, divorcing them from their original reasons.

This is how lived religion works, and the Church leaders have the full right to do it. Some people like every single thing they do to be imbued with deep meaning. I just think it's worth acknowledging the process, like dyany does.

I'm reminded of this, from OSC:

Quote
“Call them stories. When things happen, we invent stories about them. About why they happened. That’s all science is, and history—stories about why things happen or happened. They are never, never true—never complete and always at least a little bit wrong, and we know it. But they’re true enough to be useful. I doubt our minds could even grasp the whole truth about anything—the nets of causality spread too wide to be held within a single mind. But the stories, the useful lies—we share those and pass them on and when we learn more we improve on them, or when we need different stories for new circumstances, we change them and pretend we always told them that way.”
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: cook on February 19, 2020, 02:43:10 pm
I understand the need or desire  to rephrase things when they have gotten too much baggage. Personally I don't really like the tendency (ot talking about church setting only), because it feels in a way that others can define the words differently than originally intended.

But my main problem is that since it is always English oriented, sometimes we in other languages need to make changes that just sound silly.

Like ministering. We don't have such a word. So what we use is literally translated "service work".  Yeah, it works, but it's clumsy and leaves out many ideas attached to ministering...

Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: Roper on February 19, 2020, 04:53:41 pm
We've added a lot of symbolic meaning to the sacrament over time--white cloth, for example. I don't understand why this can't be one of those things. We've also deleted several symbolic things over time--penalties, shields, veils, etc. The sacrament is a priesthood ordinance. It is also a symbolic renewal of sacred covenant. In what way does the recommendation of using the right hand detract? I mean, who, really, is going to partake with their left hand and then suddenly think, "Oh no! Everything is invalid because I didn't do it right!" This takes a millisecond of thought. What are we really complaining about, here?
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: Taalcon on February 19, 2020, 05:16:58 pm
It doesn't go any further than what I've already said.

Quote
I DO take the symbols of the sacrament very seriously.

What makes me uncomfortable is ammunition for people to tell others they're 'taking the sacrament wrong.' You take in the Body of Christ. The taking it in is the symbolic part. How you get it off the tray is a delivery mechanism.

Prior to this, someone took the bread, and they ate it. They took a cup, and they drank it. It was a sacred symbolic act. There was no way to 'do it wrong'. Now, someone needs to be corrected in how they partake of the sacrament. This is what is disappointing to me. (A few months ago, before this was official policy, I heard a mother behind me angrily chastise a child for taking the Sacrament with the left hand. It made me very, very sad, and I'm disappointed this will be reinforced.)

I understand why it resonates with those who it resonates with. I can see the continuity between this and receiving the Tokens in the Endowment. But I just tend to dislike more ways for members to feel like they messed up, and didn't do it right. Especially when it comes to the Sacrament. Someone taking it, eating it, passing the tray, and then, Oh no, I took it with the wrong hand, I did it wrong. Or having someone well-intentioned tell them later that they 'did it wrong'. I just ... yeah. It's a little sad for me.

I know people who DO worry about trivialties. I hear people in Elder's Quorum and other venues who DO worry about things you would wish they wouldn't. I know people who do not go to the Temple because of the anxiety of the Veil Ceremony. I'm sensitive to it, and shared my first impression.

Before this was even written in ANY official policy, President Oaks was recorded last year  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEqPEKy2FpE) telling the deacons of a ward that they did it wrong, he'd never seen so many deacons do it wrong,  and don't do it that way, even it's convenient to do so. It rubbed me the wrong way. So I had that in mind also when I saw the new policy. But yeah.
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: Roper on February 19, 2020, 07:54:01 pm
Restructure Priesthood quorums to be similar to Relief Society and Young Women. Yeah, we like that.
Replace HT and VT with ministering. Cool. We like that.
End church relationship with BSA and implement new youth program with parity in funding. Finally!
Updates to church music. It's about time!
New guidelines for bishop youth interviews. Yep. This needed to happen.
Use the full name of the church. Okay, This is going to require a lot of changes.
New guidelines for missionary dress and communication. Woo Hoo!
New policy for youth and temples. Cool.
New guidelines for ordinance witnesses. Awesome. That makes a lot of sense.
Changes to temple clothing. Yep. that's been needed for a while.
Changes to temple ceremony to accommodate physical concerns. Another welcome change.
Sunday worship services now two hours instead of three. Best! Change! Ever!
Members use their right hand to partake of the sacrament. Oh...heck no. We gonna complain about this!
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: dyany on February 19, 2020, 08:15:33 pm
Every time a change comes up, I think about it and pray about it. Not in the vein of, "do I like this?" but rather in the vein of, "how can this bring us closer to Christ?" I also examine the more temporal positives (generally to help me explain to those who may be angry about it) and negatives (to help me empathize with those who may be struggling with the change and help me keep myself humble if I personally am glad of the change). The vast majority of the time, whether I have any personal feelings, positive or negative, about the change, I roll with it, because I can see how it can bring us to Christ.
This, however, worries me, for primarily one reason: I have already seen a plethora of negative effects just from the decades of rumor and baseless tradition. And that was with the Church debunking the rumors as mere tradition! Now that they say that "We do this," the people who were already supercilious and judgmental about it are going to need stepladders to get in their saddles. And with zero official explanation as to why or how this is supposed to bring us closer to Christ and no personal testimony (in part because of former Church teaching that it wasn't necessary or doctrine), I'm struggling to find a testimony for myself of it. 
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: Taalcon on February 19, 2020, 08:42:44 pm
Members use their right hand to partake of the sacrament. Oh...heck no. We gonna complain about this!

For the record, my first post about it just noted it, with an emoticon to express I thought it was a little silly. That was it.
Andrew expressed why it made sense to him, and referred to those specifically who take the symbols seriously.
I responded to make clear I also DID take the ordinance seriously, and expressed why the new policy initially made me uncomfortable. I didn't really consider that complaining.

I'm curious if you would consider there being a difference between 'complaining' and 'expressing one's discomfort, with the reasons'.
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: Roper on February 19, 2020, 10:32:39 pm
And with zero official explanation as to why or how this is supposed to bring us closer to Christ...


President Nelson taught this almost 40 years ago (Taalcon provided the citation in a previous post):
Quote
Partaking of the sacrament might therefore be thought of as a renewal by oath of the covenant previously made in the waters of baptism. It is a sacred mental moment, including (1) a silent oath manifested by the use of one’s hand, symbolic of the individual’s covenant, and (2) the use of bread and water, symbolic of the great atoning sacrifice of the Savior of the world. The hand used in partaking of the sacrament would logically be the same hand used in making any other sacred oath. For most of us, that would be the right hand. ... Because I have a right hand, I offer it in partaking of the sacrament as an oath, that I will always remember his atoning sacrifice, take his name upon me and remember him, and keep the commandments of God.
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: JLM on February 19, 2020, 10:33:27 pm
Exact handbook language:  ​​Members partake with their right hand when possible.

Well, when my right hand is holding my wife’s hand it just isn’t possible to use it to take the sacrament.   So no big deal.
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: Jen on February 19, 2020, 11:36:39 pm
There's a ward in my Stake that taught a great lesson. There was a period of time where the deacons sat on the stand choir seats for a couple months rather than on the pews in front of the sacrament table. They did this for a month, and after Sacrament meeting once, the Bishop came to their Deacon's quorum meeting and asked them why they thought they did this now. There were many doctrinal reasons they came up with, trying to find a deep significance. At the end the Bishop nodded, smiled, and then said, "About 2 months ago, someone in the ward that meets before us threw up on those seats. I quickly invited you up here while the cleaning dried. You just kept coming up week after week. It's time to go back."

You can find deep significance in anything. And that doesn't mean it can't become truly meaningful and significant. It just doesn't necessarily mean it has anything to with the original impetus behind an action. I truly believe most of the things that are done were ALREADY done by other cultures, and God gave them NEW meaning and significance, divorcing them from their original reasons.

This is how lived religion works, and the Church leaders have the full right to do it. Some people like every single thing they do to be imbued with deep meaning. I just think it's worth acknowledging the process, like dyany does.

I'm reminded of this, from OSC:

Quote
“Call them stories. When things happen, we invent stories about them. About why they happened. That’s all science is, and history—stories about why things happen or happened. They are never, never true—never complete and always at least a little bit wrong, and we know it. But they’re true enough to be useful. I doubt our minds could even grasp the whole truth about anything—the nets of causality spread too wide to be held within a single mind. But the stories, the useful lies—we share those and pass them on and when we learn more we improve on them, or when we need different stories for new circumstances, we change them and pretend we always told them that way.”

This reminds me of the story about the lady that always cut the ends off of a roast before cooking it, because that's what her mom did and there must be a reason. Turns out her mom's pan was just too small for most roasts.

However, it's no skin off my nose to use my right hand to take the Sacrament if the Brethren saw it important enough to specify. "Whether by mine own voice or the voice of my servants...". If they're mistaken, it doesn't hurt anything. If they have deeper reason, someday I'll find out and be glad I complied.
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: AndrewR on February 20, 2020, 05:45:51 am
Quote
And with zero official explanation as to why or how this is supposed to bring us closer to Christ

Do we need one? Just like the temple experience, where very little is explained, can we not follow the instruction and let the Spirit help us?

I don't know. My parents joined the church in 1969, I was 3. I was taught, because they were taught, to take the Sacrament with the right hand. I don't believe I have ever not done so, in 51 years. I have always passed the tray with my right hand, even in my row. I have never served myself the Sacrament holding the tray in one hand and taking it with the other. I have done this growing up, have seven children, and so has my wife. Why? Because I was taught it - although I know for a while no one cared, I still did, it was a small part of my preparing myself for, and partaking of, the Sacrament.

Do I care that it is in the Handbook? No. Do I correct others? No. Do I believe that anyone who doesn't take it with the right hand has not fulfilled the requirements of the ordinance? No. But I do believe that anyone consciously taking it with the left hand just because it now says right hand, it being foolish, so say the least.
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: Taalcon on February 20, 2020, 08:40:40 am
Quote
No. But I do believe that anyone consciously taking it with the left hand just because it now says right hand, it being foolish, so say the least.

Something like this was part of my 11/12yo SS class lesson this past Sunday. How sometimes a part of pride is not doing something you would have done anyway, just because someone is now telling you to do it, or knowing someone might give you an obnoxious, somewhat prideful "Told you so," after you do it. It was specifically applied to Laman and Lemuel and how it was likely a part of why they refused to go along with some of the things Nephi was instructing them about. How it can be a  factor in the hardening of hearts, and causing a mist or covering of darkness to come over us if we consistently are unwilling to do anything anyone is trying to teach you, out of a refusal to let them know that you were taught by them.

Perhaps that lesson was preparing me for this.

I still think my initial thoughts and reactions are valid, but from the beginning, I said:
Quote
I'll get used to it. And I won't rebel and do it otherwise just because.

My experience is that those here who don't understand why something that seems wonderful and great to them might not cause the same reaction in others tend to like to understand the other perspective a little better. It's part of what I like about being here.
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: kazbert on February 20, 2020, 10:25:37 am
Like ministering. We don't have such a word. So what we use is literally translated "service work".  Yeah, it works, but it's clumsy and leaves out many ideas attached to ministering...

I have wondered about similar translation issues. Example: Saying that "atonement" means "at-one-ment." It is clever and meaningful in some ways, but that only works in English.

Also, I have never liked the Old English in the KJV Bible, and I feel a touch of envy for the non-English-speaking members who don't have to deal with that. I know that each translation risks losing a bit of meaning, but I think there i more to be gained by readability than is lost through Spirit-guided translation. That decision is way above my pay grade, but that's what I feel.
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: Taalcon on February 20, 2020, 10:44:40 am
While the KJV is the official Bible for Church use/lessons, at least there is absolutely nothing stopping one from using other translations in their home study. While I might compare from time to time, when preparing lessons based on the OT/NT, I read them in other translations, and then when preparing my notes for class, generally use the KJV for in-class readings, and on occassion, include alternate translations to point out something where it's substantially clearer.

Right now, for example, in my personal study, I've been supplementing my Isaiah Nephi chapters with "The Jewish Study Bible" (https://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Study-Bible-Second/dp/0199978468/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=jewish+study+bible&qid=1582213169&sr=8-3), which uses the NJPS translation. In addition, I've been reading the Psalms in Robert Alter's translation (https://www.amazon.com/Hebrew-Bible-Translation-Commentary-Three/dp/0393292495/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=alter+hebrew+bible&qid=1582213241&sr=8-2). I highly recommend both of those. Once you're better able to translate the verses into understanding, and you get the sense and context, for me, it makes it MUCH easier to make thematic connections, and to see patterns.

Anyway. Tangent, but a favorite of mine :)
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: pnr on February 20, 2020, 11:35:44 am
Using the full Stake High Council only in extreme circumstances is also a good move.

Not to mention the recent one where someone on the high council decided it was his job to break the c confidentiality of the council, which puts the church on the hook for the consequences of that.   And there is the fact that SP have decided to excommunicate when there was significant high council dissent, so what is the point of the council set up in most circumstances, since it is the SP who makes the decision, explicitly now.

And for the first time I've seen, the handbook says that SP are appointed judges in Israel along with Bishops.
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: Taalcon on February 20, 2020, 12:34:45 pm
Oh, BTW, because I know this had been discussed earlier, it's made even clearer here, regarding the wearing of the Garment.

Quote
38.8.49 - Temple Clothing and Garments
The garment should be worn beneath the outer clothing. It is a matter of personal preference whether other undergarments are worn beneath the temple garment.
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: JLM on February 20, 2020, 02:58:36 pm
This makes sense since the newer tops do not seemed designed to accommodate wearing a bra over the top.  I think most women these days wear their bras underneath their garnents anyways.  Not sure why anyone would want to wear another layer under their bottoms though.  Maybe skin sensitivity reasons?
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: Curelom on February 20, 2020, 03:02:25 pm
Back to the matter of which hand to use for taking the sacrament. I was told, don't remember by whom, that it had a symbolic connection to the parable of the sheep & the goats, where the sheep would have a place at the right hand of God.

I've always seen most folks use the right hand (except maybe parents who had their hands full with babies or toddlers & would have to use whichever hand they could spring free  ;D ). But I never thought enough about it to make it an issue in my mind.

OTOH ... I once observed an elderly sister next to me whisper to a young AP brother who was passing, "Right hand to pass the sacrament." That particular lady is well known for being fastidious & detail-driven & for making sure people are accurate. I hope the young man (I think he was really a boy) wasn't traumatized.
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: Jen on February 20, 2020, 03:03:31 pm
I find bras infinitely more uncomfortable as the first layer.
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: Curelom on February 20, 2020, 03:10:07 pm
I put on the garment first. I've adjusted to being able to do that with the new seamless style tops, but I suppose that might not be comfortable for everyone.

When I was endowed, I asked about this in the instruction portion & the matron told me the garment goes next to the skin as a symbol that we don't let anything get between us & the Lord. So this is yet another area where policies or practices can evolve & people are free to make personal interpretations as long as they don't contradict doctrine.

As for another layer under the bottom, maybe on a monthly basis depending on individual needs or comfort?
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: AndrewR on February 20, 2020, 03:22:19 pm
Quote
As for another layer under the bottom, maybe on a monthly basis depending on individual needs or comfort?

Yes, on a full moon I find an extra pair of underpants useful as I turn into a werewolf.
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: Taalcon on February 20, 2020, 03:33:33 pm
My wife, for several reasons, very much appreciates the clear stated acceptability to wear the bra underneath the garment, and especially has appreciated the adjustments in garment styles that make it much more practical to do so.

A little over a year ago, she helped escort a sister-in-law through the Temple. She learned the Temple workers were very explicit in telling her that absolutely NOTHING could come between the garment and the skin for important symbolic reasons.

Knowing of some of the specific health concerns she had, plus her own experience, my wife helped clarify that tradition wasn't written or expressed anywhere, and was a nice tradition, but shouldn't be seen as binding. The woman was sharing her opinion, not a Doctrine.

It's nice having this specifically to point to, and let those who were taught in such a way know that making this personal choice for whatever reason does not in any way need to make them believe they are declaring that they are choosing to put anything between them and their covenants.
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: CrowGirl on February 20, 2020, 04:16:21 pm
Quote
on a full moon I find an extra pair of underpants useful as I turn into a werewolf.

 ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: Iggy on February 20, 2020, 07:51:14 pm
I find bras infinitely more uncomfortable as the first layer.
Me too. Wearing the garment top [DrySilque] near the skin has stopped my poor body from breaking out in boils from the materials and hardware of bras. Also, even though I am short wasted I get the longer version of the tops so I can tuck them in to prevent the rash from the rubberized elastic from the garment bottoms.

Growing up I couldn't wear store bought underpants because of the elastic, so my Mom made me knickers out of the flour sacking. She didn't use elastic either, but rather they were held on with ribbon threaded through the waist, the leg hem hit my knees. So garment bottoms were a comfy fit for me.
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: JLM on February 20, 2020, 09:19:07 pm
Quote
Yes, on a full moon I find an extra pair of underpants useful as I turn into a werewolf.   

Great!   :-\    Now I've got "Werewolves of London" stuck in my head.     :P  ;)
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: TurkeyLurker on February 20, 2020, 09:44:37 pm
...

I made a covenant to obey.  I am already obeying in ways that are annoying and uncomfortable, but I do it anyway and don’t continually gripe about it.  So forgive me for my knee-jerk reaction.  It’s my way.  I have a ten-minute temper tantrum, then gird up my loins and don’t look back. ....

LOL ditto.  But my tantrum lasts for days.  So, good for you!
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: TurkeyLurker on February 20, 2020, 09:57:54 pm
This makes sense since the newer tops do not seemed designed to accommodate wearing a bra over the top.  I think most women these days wear their bras underneath their garnents anyways.  Not sure why anyone would want to wear another layer under their bottoms though.  Maybe skin sensitivity reasons?

When I work out, I always try if at all possible to wear the garment.  But I wear compression shorts or brief-type underwear underneath, depending on what activity I'm doing.  I'm kind of weird, though. 
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: Roper on February 20, 2020, 10:20:22 pm
When I was in the military, I was instructed to not expose garments to ridicule. They were brown, so under a uniform blouse, they looked just like a military issue brown undershirt. However, when I knew I would be working outside and it was hot, and everyone would be just working in their undershirts, I didn't wear my garments, because the marks were sewn and everyone asked questions. Now, I understand that the marks are silk-screened on the inside so that nobody else sees them when you're just working in your undershirt. I wish they had "exercise garments" like that.
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: LMAshton on February 21, 2020, 04:49:48 am
This makes sense since the newer tops do not seemed designed to accommodate wearing a bra over the top.  I think most women these days wear their bras underneath their garnents anyways.  Not sure why anyone would want to wear another layer under their bottoms though.  Maybe skin sensitivity reasons?
Or during menstruation to either a. keep sanitary napkins in place or b. to keep the garment as unstained as possible.
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: cook on February 22, 2020, 01:34:14 am
I've always had sensory issues. For example the touch of clothing on my skin has always been an issue. I was a bit worried before going to the temple how the clothing would affect me. It was bliss. When I have to wear bra under garment tops, it reminds me quickly why I like it the other way around.
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: GoodyScrivener on February 22, 2020, 01:11:23 pm
 When I first went to the temple (Chicago, about 10 years ago), I was taught to wear my temple garments under other foundations. It felt very strange to me at first, but I became accustomed to it fairly quickly. Now I feel even stranger if I wear them in reverse - which I will do in certain circumstances.

When I escorted my daughter for her first time in the temple (Nauvoo, 3 years ago), there was no instruction given.
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: Curelom on February 22, 2020, 05:34:46 pm
This makes sense since the newer tops do not seemed designed to accommodate wearing a bra over the top.  I think most women these days wear their bras underneath their garnents anyways.  Not sure why anyone would want to wear another layer under their bottoms though.  Maybe skin sensitivity reasons?
Or during menstruation to either a. keep sanitary napkins in place or b. to keep the garment as unstained as possible.

This is what I was referring to here, Laurie. Maybe a bit too subtly.  ;D


As for another layer under the bottom, maybe on a monthly basis depending on individual needs or comfort?
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: Curelom on February 22, 2020, 05:44:23 pm
On a related topic (maybe this ought to be another thread), the BYU Honor Code has been revised to remove references to homosexuality or expressions of homosexual behavior or attraction. Everyone is now simply required to live a chaste & moral life.

Some students & others are interpreting this to mean that students who are attracted to the same sex can now practice the same forms of PDA that straight people have always been able to do, like kissing or holding hands. This, some say, gives gay or lesbian students more freedom to have real dates & express who they are & enjoy social outlets like the majority of the BYU community.

OTOH, Church leaders have taught for ages that dating is preparation for marriage, & people interact with the opposite sex to determine what they are seeking in a spouse. The eventual goal after years of boy-girl dating from adolescence on is marriage. How does this work for same-sex couples who revealed doctrine says will never be able to marry? is the school setting them up for frustration & disappointment by letting boy-boy or girl-girl couples date, be exposed to the same possibilities as boy-girl couples, including maybe falling in love, but not be able to marry each other?

Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: nitasmile on February 22, 2020, 11:37:36 pm
This makes sense since the newer tops do not seemed designed to accommodate wearing a bra over the top.  I think most women these days wear their bras underneath their garnents anyways.  Not sure why anyone would want to wear another layer under their bottoms though.  Maybe skin sensitivity reasons?
Or during menstruation to either a. keep sanitary napkins in place or b. to keep the garment as unstained as possible.

Yep that's why! Time of month is horrible and garments make it worse with pads moving as Laurie said! Iblike slightly looser attire and so that did not bode well. Honestly for me by the end, as well as on bad days, I stopped using garment bottoms as that time of month was so dreadful.
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: nitasmile on February 22, 2020, 11:43:56 pm
There's a ward in my Stake that taught a great lesson. There was a period of time where the deacons sat on the stand choir seats for a couple months rather than on the pews in front of the sacrament table. They did this for a month, and after Sacrament meeting once, the Bishop came to their Deacon's quorum meeting and asked them why they thought they did this now. There were many doctrinal reasons they came up with, trying to find a deep significance. At the end the Bishop nodded, smiled, and then said, "About 2 months ago, someone in the ward that meets before us threw up on those seats. I quickly invited you up here while the cleaning dried. You just kept coming up week after week. It's time to go back."

You can find deep significance in anything. And that doesn't mean it can't become truly meaningful and significant. It just doesn't necessarily mean it has anything to with the original impetus behind an action. I truly believe most of the things that are done were ALREADY done by other cultures, and God gave them NEW meaning and significance, divorcing them from their original reasons.

This is how lived religion works, and the Church leaders have the full right to do it. Some people like every single thing they do to be imbued with deep meaning. I just think it's worth acknowledging the process, like dyany does.

I'm reminded of this, from OSC:

Quote
“Call them stories. When things happen, we invent stories about them. About why they happened. That’s all science is, and history—stories about why things happen or happened. They are never, never true—never complete and always at least a little bit wrong, and we know it. But they’re true enough to be useful. I doubt our minds could even grasp the whole truth about anything—the nets of causality spread too wide to be held within a single mind. But the stories, the useful lies—we share those and pass them on and when we learn more we improve on them, or when we need different stories for new circumstances, we change them and pretend we always told them that way.”

This reminds me of the story about the lady that always cut the ends off of a roast before cooking it, because that's what her mom did and there must be a reason. Turns out her mom's pan was just too small for most roasts.

However, it's no skin off my nose to use my right hand to take the Sacrament if the Brethren saw it important enough to specify. "Whether by mine own voice or the voice of my servants...". If they're mistaken, it doesn't hurt anything. If they have deeper reason, someday I'll find out and be glad I complied.

Our Deacons sit in the choir seats!
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: LMAshton on February 23, 2020, 03:24:10 am
This makes sense since the newer tops do not seemed designed to accommodate wearing a bra over the top.  I think most women these days wear their bras underneath their garnents anyways.  Not sure why anyone would want to wear another layer under their bottoms though.  Maybe skin sensitivity reasons?
Or during menstruation to either a. keep sanitary napkins in place or b. to keep the garment as unstained as possible.

Yep that's why! Time of month is horrible and garments make it worse with pads moving as Laurie said! Iblike slightly looser attire and so that did not bode well. Honestly for me by the end, as well as on bad days, I stopped using garment bottoms as that time of month was so dreadful.
I feel for you. I did the same thing when mine were at their worst. SO glad menopause hit so early for me.
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: Taalcon on February 23, 2020, 08:39:51 am
Here's an interesting blog post by the always worth reading Jonathan Stapley on the timeline history of the ritual of the Sacrament and the Right Hand in Latter-day Saint tradition.

2020 Handbook: The Lord's Supper and the Right Hand (https://bycommonconsent.com/2020/02/23/2020-handbook-the-lords-supper-and-the-right-hand/?fbclid=IwAR0d5ZMFAMRq8avjcSFrTmvaRckn3PHIj6YTwF9TrVvvQXi7h6oUv1I5UNs)
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: Roper on February 23, 2020, 06:52:24 pm
Thanks for the link, Taalcon. The historical perspective was really interesting.

Some of the comments on Stapley's article, and many of the comments on news outlets like KSL cast this new announcement as "nit-picking," "Pharisaical," etc. My thinking is that, "If you don't like it, then don't do it." It's not a commandment. It's not even a requirement. It's a statement. It doesn't change the ordinance.
Title: Re: Major overhaul of Church Discipline
Post by: kazbert on February 24, 2020, 08:54:19 pm
Some of the comments on Stapley's article, and many of the comments on news outlets like KSL cast this new announcement as "nit-picking," "Pharisaical," etc. My thinking is that, "If you don't like it, then don't do it." It's not a commandment. It's not even a requirement. It's a statement. It doesn't change the ordinance.

The church leaves a great deal of the daily doings of the saints to direction by the Spirit. They really don't want to get into the business of detailing how to do everything. The few things that are detailed are temple ordinances, baptism, and the sacrament. Doesn't sound very Pharisaical to me.

It is our privilege to seek out the meaning of all things in study and prayer. But where the rubber meets the road what God asks of us is trust, including trusting in our church leaders. Much of what we receive is by way of counsel, not commandment. I think our willingness to do as we are asked is every bit as important as our willingness to do as we are commanded.
SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2020, SimplePortal