Page 1 of 1
General thoughts on new handbook
Posted: February 19th, 2020, 12:50 pm
by justme
The new handbook hit the library app today and there appears to be many things worth discussing.
A few things that are interesting is not using the words excommunication or disciplinary council at all and changing how membership councils are handled at stake level such as no distinction between Melchizedek priesthood holders and women and not requiring involvement of high council.
Any thoughts or other observations.
Re: General thoughts on new handbook
Posted: February 19th, 2020, 12:59 pm
by inho
On the subject of membership councils, this is also interesting:
The person, if present, is then welcomed into the room. If the bishop has been invited to attend a stake membership council, he is also invited into the room at this time. If the person invited the ward Relief Society president or the elders quorum president to be present and provide support, she or he is also welcomed into the room.
Re: General thoughts on new handbook
Posted: February 19th, 2020, 1:06 pm
by justme
inho wrote: ↑February 19th, 2020, 12:59 pm
On the subject of membership councils, this is also interesting:
The person, if present, is then welcomed into the room. If the bishop has been invited to attend a stake membership council, he is also invited into the room at this time. If the person invited the ward Relief Society president or the elders quorum president to be present and provide support, she or he is also welcomed into the room.
Yes I thought so too. This allows the person to have a support person in the room with them, although restricted to one of the two adult presidents in the ward.
I think this is a good step. I would prefer if you could bring a spouse or adult family member though if the circumstances did not prevent that.
Re: General thoughts on new handbook
Posted: February 19th, 2020, 1:46 pm
by Robin Hood
justme wrote: ↑February 19th, 2020, 1:06 pm
inho wrote: ↑February 19th, 2020, 12:59 pm
On the subject of membership councils, this is also interesting:
The person, if present, is then welcomed into the room. If the bishop has been invited to attend a stake membership council, he is also invited into the room at this time. If the person invited the ward Relief Society president or the elders quorum president to be present and provide support, she or he is also welcomed into the room.
Yes I thought so too. This allows the person to have a support person in the room with them, although restricted to one of the two adult presidents in the ward.
I think this is a good step. I would prefer if you could bring a spouse or adult family member though if the circumstances did not prevent that.
This has always been the case.
Re: General thoughts on new handbook
Posted: February 19th, 2020, 1:55 pm
by inho
Robin Hood wrote: ↑February 19th, 2020, 1:46 pm
justme wrote: ↑February 19th, 2020, 1:06 pm
inho wrote: ↑February 19th, 2020, 12:59 pm
On the subject of membership councils, this is also interesting:
The person, if present, is then welcomed into the room. If the bishop has been invited to attend a stake membership council, he is also invited into the room at this time. If the person invited the ward Relief Society president or the elders quorum president to be present and provide support, she or he is also welcomed into the room.
Yes I thought so too. This allows the person to have a support person in the room with them, although restricted to one of the two adult presidents in the ward.
I think this is a good step. I would prefer if you could bring a spouse or adult family member though if the circumstances did not prevent that.
This has always been the case.
"This" refers to what?
Previous handbook doesn't say anything about inviting EQ or RS president (or bishop, if stake council) to be there for support.
Previous or the current handbook does not say anything about inviting family members to the council.
Maybe it has happened that someone has been invited to come and support the member, but now it has been written down.
Re: General thoughts on new handbook
Posted: February 19th, 2020, 2:09 pm
by justme
Correct me if I am wrong and sorry if I am being redundant, but the issue of leaving the Melchizedek priesthood clause out of stake councils seems interesting and worth careful discussion.
It is my understanding, (and I have not been involved in any nor have had access to the old manual), that if a Melchizedek priesthood holder was to be exed it must be done on the stake level but a bishop could ex a woman. Now if the person is endowed regardless of gender it must be on the stake level. This seems more equal. Thus is it a move towards appeasing the feminists? Was the old policy a pro or a con for the men? On one hand it seems to favor the men or make them seem more important if it required a higher authority to discipline them. So is this also a favor to woman now?
Re: General thoughts on new handbook
Posted: February 19th, 2020, 2:18 pm
by inho
justme wrote: ↑February 19th, 2020, 2:09 pm
Correct me if I am wrong and sorry if I am being redundant, but the issue of leaving the Melchizedek priesthood clause out of stake councils seems interesting and worth careful discussion.
It is my understanding, (and I have not been involved in any nor have had access to the old manual), that if a Melchizedek priesthood holder was to be exed it must be done on the stake level but a bishop could ex a woman. Now if the person is endowed regardless of gender it must be on the stake level. This seems more equal. Thus is it a move towards appeasing the feminists? Was the old policy a pro or a con for the men? On one hand it seems to favor the men or make them seem more important if it required a higher authority to discipline them. So is this also a favor to woman now?
You are correct. I like the current way. If a couple does something together, so that both should be excommunicated, I mean membership withdrawn, now it is not anymore so that bishopric could excommunicate the wife, but the husband should be excommunicated by stake presidency and high council. I guess in practice, stake would have handled both of them, but this is more equal.
In my opinion, the temple endowment is a good criterion for taking the issue to stake level. It is a some kind of indicator of maturity in the gospel.
Re: General thoughts on new handbook
Posted: February 19th, 2020, 2:26 pm
by inho
On the subject of membership councils, there was also a minor detail which I found interesting. In past, I have participated in several councils as a ward clerk. During those councils, I always stayed in the room, when the bishopric was discussing the outcome. Now General Handbook says:
After all relevant information has been presented, the bishop or stake president excuses the member from the room. The clerk is also excused, unless the high council has participated in a stake membership council. If the member’s bishop is present for a stake membership council, he is excused. If the Relief Society president or the elders quorum president is attending to provide support, she or he is also excused.
This kind of makes sense, since clerk "Does not participate in the discussion or decision in the council." (This has not changed.)
Re: General thoughts on new handbook
Posted: February 19th, 2020, 2:42 pm
by Robin Hood
inho wrote: ↑February 19th, 2020, 1:55 pm
Robin Hood wrote: ↑February 19th, 2020, 1:46 pm
justme wrote: ↑February 19th, 2020, 1:06 pm
inho wrote: ↑February 19th, 2020, 12:59 pm
On the subject of membership councils, this is also interesting:
Yes I thought so too. This allows the person to have a support person in the room with them, although restricted to one of the two adult presidents in the ward.
I think this is a good step. I would prefer if you could bring a spouse or adult family member though if the circumstances did not prevent that.
This has always been the case.
"This" refers to what?
Previous handbook doesn't say anything about inviting EQ or RS president (or bishop, if stake council) to be there for support.
Previous or the current handbook does not say anything about inviting family members to the council.
Maybe it has happened that someone has been invited to come and support the member, but now it has been written down.
Bishops always attend a stake disciplinary council in support of the member. Wife/husband too if desired. I have never been in one where this has not occured.
And the person who is subject to the council has always been able to nominate someone to go in with them.
This has been standard practice for many years.
Re: General thoughts on new handbook
Posted: February 19th, 2020, 2:59 pm
by inho
Robin Hood wrote: ↑February 19th, 2020, 2:42 pm
Bishops always attend a stake disciplinary council in support of the member.
I have never seen this happen, not even heard about it. And Handbook 1 didn't say anything about it.
Re: General thoughts on new handbook
Posted: February 19th, 2020, 3:40 pm
by Robin Hood
inho wrote: ↑February 19th, 2020, 2:59 pm
Robin Hood wrote: ↑February 19th, 2020, 2:42 pm
Bishops always attend a stake disciplinary council in support of the member.
I have never seen this happen, not even heard about it. And Handbook 1 didn't say anything about it.
I've never seen it not happen.
Perhaps what's happened here is the church have simply codified what is and has been standard practice for many years.
Re: General thoughts on new handbook
Posted: February 19th, 2020, 3:48 pm
by Sunain
They ditched the gay mormon website and now its just a topic page. At least that's been rectified. I didn't like that they had their own special website. That was very inappropriate.
The changes to Excommunication and disfellowshipment terms is a symptom of society currently unable to cope with being disciplined. How dare they discipline people that have sinned!
Re: General thoughts on new handbook
Posted: February 23rd, 2020, 10:54 am
by inho
One more interesting tidbit on church discipline. The Leader and Clerk resources has this guidance (accessible for bishops and clerks):
Any member who was on Informal Probation or Formal Probation prior to February 19, 2020 is now considered to have “Informal Membership Restrictions.” A membership council will not be reconvened to lift the “Informal Membership Restrictions” - even if the member was on “Formal Probation” previously