There are some updates to the LDS Handbook that relate to baptism and sexual topics, but I need to give some background before I get to the discussion. Once upon a time, there was a printed Church Handbook of Instructions (CHI) that was only given to GAs, other senior leaders, and local leaders like your stake president and your bishop. Access to the CHI by lay members was very spotty: either you asked your bishop and he agreed (or didn’t) to let you sit down and read a particular section, or you got access to a pirated copy online or through other means. About ten years ago, the CHI was split into two volumes, Handbook 1 (H1) and Handbook 2 (H2). Most of the good stuff is in H1, which is still restricted, but H2 is available to all Church members (and the reading public) at LDS.org.
Church Policies
The most interesting section of H2 is Section 21, Selected Church Policies and Guidelines. Until H2 was broken out of the CHI and made available to the public, few members of the Church were familiar with most of these policies. I don’t know how you could call them “Church policies” when the lay membership had no access to the text of the policies and were often completely unaware of the existence of particular policies, but hey, no one ever accused LDS church governance procedures of making sense.
There are a lot of policies, grouped rather loosely into five categories.
- Administrative Policies, such as Audiovisual Materials (you can’t use CDs, DVDs, or Powerpoint presentations in sacrament meeting), Recording Talks and Addresses of General Authorities and Area Seventies (don’t do it), and Statements Attributed to Church Leaders (you should not even share notes you make of things GAs say when they visit).
- Policies on Using Church Buildings and Other Property, such as Artwork (no artwork in the chapel), Firearms (only allowed if you are a law enforcement officer, even if you have a concealed weapons permit), and Parking Lots. I think we have the best parking lots in Christendom. I believe you can see them from space. I am fairly certain that having the best parking lots is a sign of the True Church.
- Medical and Health Policies, such as Cremation (strongly discouraged, but if elected by the family the body should be dressed in temple clothes before the cremation is performed), Euthanasia (don’t do it, it’s a sin), and Stillborn Children (“It is a fact that a child has life before birth. However, there is no direct revelation on when the spirit enters the body.”).
- Policies on Moral Issues, such as Abortion (three allowable possible exceptions are explicitly identified), Abuse (“Church leaders and members should fulfill all legal obligations to report abuse to civil authorities.”), Birth Control (“The decision as to how many children to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord.”), Homosexual Behavior and Same-Gender Attraction (“While opposing homosexual behavior, the Church reaches out with understanding and respect to individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender.”), and Surgical Sterilization, Including Vasectomy (strongly discouraged).
- Church Participation, Section 21.5. This is what appears to be new and appears to reflect written guidance on the supposedly updated November Policy that we’ve all been waiting for, as well as some additional directives.
Church Participation
I am going to go through the entire Section 21.5, which is fairly short, and quote the more interesting paragraphs as quotations, with my comments below in straight text. There are four subsections, which I won’t break out for this discussion.
Those who attend should avoid disruptions or distractions contrary to worship or other purposes of the meeting. All age and behavior requirements of different Church meetings and events should be respected. That requires refraining from overt romantic behavior and from dress or grooming that causes distraction. It also precludes making political statements or speaking of sexual orientation or other personal characteristics that detract from meetings focused on the Savior.
[Important update: After this post was published, the wording in Handbook 2 quoted in the preceding paragraph was updated. The last sentence now reads (with the added words in bold font): “It also precludes making political statements or speaking of sexual orientation or other personal characteristics in a way that detracts from meetings focused on the Savior.”]
No political statements. In some wards, that could really change what’s said over the pulpit and in Gospel Doctrine class. I suspect the ban on speaking about sexual orientation is aimed at preventing (or giving the bishop justification for shutting down) young Mormons from coming out at the pulpit during testimony meetings. But this general prohibition seems to bar any discussion of sexual orientation, whether one’s own or anyone else’s. This could be very helpful the next time you have to advise your bishop that anti-gay or anti-trans or anti-whatever comments made at the pulpit are both unwelcome and offensive (this was me a month ago). Now they are also prohibited by the Handbook.
If there is inappropriate behavior, the bishop or stake president gives private counsel in a spirit of love.
Helpful if you need to tell a ward busybody that it’s the bishop’s job to judge your neighbor, not yours.
A minor child age 8 or older may be baptized with the permission of his or her custodial parent(s) or legal guardian(s). The custodial parent(s) or legal guardian(s) should understand the Church doctrine their child will be taught and support the child in making and keeping the baptismal covenant.
There are no exceptions or unlesses in this short paragraph, so the implicit effect of this paragraph is to remove the previous requirement that minor children who have a biological parent who is in a gay marriage or gay relationship needed First Presidency approval before being baptized. Of course, they still need the bishop’s approval, and that can be all over the map.
Here’s a creative workaround if your local leaders are a problem for you. Wait until the child is 9 years old, at which point their baptism is technically a missionary baptism. Their interview and approval for baptism is then done by missionaries and, if further direction is required, by the Mission President. The local leaders are not involved. Sometimes missionaries baptize individuals and the local leaders are not even aware of the baptism. They don’t even need to do it at the ward building; they could go do it at the local swimming pool. The missionaries are much more likely to want that 9-year-old convert baptized, for statistics if nothing else.
All members, even if they have never married or are without family in the Church, should strive for the ideal of living in an eternal family. This means preparing to be sealed as a worthy husband or wife and to become a loving father or mother. For some, these blessings will not be fulfilled until the next life, but the ultimate goal is the same for all.
Faithful members whose circumstances do not allow them to receive the blessings of eternal marriage and parenthood in this life will receive all promised blessings in the eternities, provided they keep the covenants they have made with God (see Mosiah 2:41).
Is it just me, or does that sound condescending? I’m guessing some single members who read this would get the impression that until you are married, you are not really an adult, not really a complete person, not quite a member in good standing. You’re deficient, missing something. I know that in that strange mental and doctrinal space that some Mormons inhabit, they are deeply worried and obsessively anxious that they might end up as ministering angel in the next life. A single, celibate, childless ministering angel. If this subsection and its authoritative reassurance makes such a person feel better about themselves, that’s great. That’s not something people should be worried about. Be kind to others and let God sort it out in the next life. Maybe we need a policy on kindness.
As is so often the case, it is frustrating how bassackwards the Church goes about modifying or changing its doctrines and policies. They say they haven’t changed anything. They don’t tell you when they change something. They don’t provide any list of what they have changed, deleted, or added. And they don’t explain the significance or intended outcome for the changes they make. But hey, these seem like positive changes. Can’t argue with progress.
I correct myself: there is now a Summary of Recent Updates to Handbook 2 included with the online version of H2.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/handbook-2-administering-the-church/summary-of-recent-updates-to-handbook-2?lang=eng
That summary identifies Section 21.5, Church Participation, as a new section added in December 2019.
While I love the idea of using the “silencing” policy as a way to shut down anti-LBGTQIA talk, I have a very, very hard time interpreting that way. That interpretation would mean we can’t discuss the nuclear heterosexual family at church (after all, Jesus never taught that). I highly doubt that’s the meaning. Instead it seems aimed at precluding open discussion of support for our gay and trans folk — anything but positive.
Why do posts from certain authors on this blog always come across as the musings of a heckler?
Some people on Facebook were referring to the new LGBT policy as the Policy of Silence replacing the Policy of Exclusion. Others called it a new “Don’t ask, Don’t Tell.” There person that started the post saw this policy as a step backward.
Okay on the bit about refraining from overt romantic behavior, that’s kind of funny. I mean, I assume that holding hands is still okay? Wedding receptions? But other than that, a general rule against romantic behavior may have prevented an extremely awkward situation in my ward a few years ago when a couple of female teenagers were seen making out in the girls bathroom, causing quite a commotion in the hall afterwards. Well, maybe; it’s unlikely the teens would have known about such a rule.
I don’t think political statements are going to stop. Lol.
“Is it just me, or does that sound condescending? I’m guessing some single members who read this would get the impression that until you are married…”
Two thoughts:
1. I expect that many of today’s single saints receive the pressure to marry as I did when I was single – with annoyance. But that pressure was vital to creating an environment in which even I, a 5 foot 7 introvert with middling grades and greying hair, was able to date often and get married upon graduation. Without cultural pressure agitating for marriage and family, I would probably find myself in the same situation as almost all my non-LDS friends — single and dissatisfied with the dating scene.
2. We must be sensitive to our brothers and sisters who find themselves in situations that are less than ideal, but we cannot be so sensitive that we refuse to promote truth and goodness. The union of man and woman is good. The creation and rearing of children is good. Hiding those truths under a bushel to avoid microaggressing single or childless folks is bad for them, bad for us, and bad for the Kingdom of God.
The baptism of children and no political statements is a good change. But I’m concerned about some of the other ones. Is the dress and grooming one supposed to discourage women wearing pants? What is considered “distracting”? Does this mean bishops can now modesty police and lovingly tell attendees that their dress is a distraction?
And the no overt romantic behavior, is this honestly a problem where they needed a policy on it? Or is it about discouraging any LGBT romantic behavior but they just made a rule for everyone? And what is the list of personal characteristics, such as orientation, we should refrain from discussing? Is someone wants to discuss their experience as a black member of the church or as a women, are those inappropriate personal characteristics?
It seems like some of these changes give bishops more power. With more interpretation at the local level, there is more potential for accommodation as well as abuse.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
Elisa, as is so often the case with LDS pronouncements, we’ll have to wait and see how it is actually applied. It may be the case that “no talk about sexual orientation” really means “no talk that we don’t like, the rest is okay.”
Dsc, you are right and I wish someone at the blog would do something about these hecklers. No heckler am I — I always make sure to include a lot of neutral information in my posts (like the quotations from H2 in this post) so my posts are always setting up a productive discussion in the comments. Which sort of passes the buck to you to be a productive commenter, doesn’t it?
Bryan, it’s a sensitive topic and I’m glad you take such a positive view of these and similar LDS statements about marriage.
Mary, you may be on to something. While those who wrote the policy may have been thinking about women coming to church with pink hair, I can see it morphing into the modesty police (treating sacrament meeting like a youth dance) or just arbitrary bishop policing. And who cares about pink hair? The personal characteristics ban is a bit tougher. People talk about a lot of things that are personal characteristics at the pulpit on Fast Sunday, from medical procedures to disabilities to the painful last days or hours of a dying parent. And then there are confessions about one’s own sins or those of another, which are pretty darn personal. Chances are this aspect of the policy won’t get trotted out very often.
“Distracting” is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder (or listener).
While I don’t care for the results of a lot of local leadership roulette, the attempt to limit correction of distractions to the bishop or stake president’s “private counsel in a spirit of love” is a good thing at least to the extent it may stop the volunteer, unauthorized distraction police. I wonder if anyone accused of distraction by the unauthorized police will dare to respond (in a spirit of love, of course) by pointing out that it’s none of their business.
On the other hand, as attributed to various former Church leaders, noisy children in a worship service are like good intentions They should be carried out promptly. 🙂
All of this sounds like more “correlation” and/or centralized control. I think we should trust local congregations to govern themselves as long as false doctrine is not taught. It’s as if the bureaucracy in SLC is trying to justify its existence by writing more rules and regulations. Just stop. Let’s focus on the Gospel and Christ and not worry about every potential example of non-conformity.
Gosh, Josh, local congregations don’t govern themselves even in the absence of such policies. That governance is by the bishop who is called by the stake president with SLC concurrence. I don’t know where the best balance might be between centralized policies and local leadership roulette. But I’d hate to see what some ward bishops would do without some centralized policy restraint.
I remember a couple years back when there was a video going viral of a 12-yo girl Savannah coming out as a lesbian during F&T meeting and her mic was cut off and she was told to sit down. I think that the leadership knows darn well that someone merely telling people that they are LGBT will likely trigger massive divisions in wards. It will force the issue of how much we accept a particular individual. A few members will support the LGBT person coming out and then there are the homophobes who will passive-aggressively and even overtly take it upon themselves to put the LGBT to shame as well as those in support of him/her.
“Why do posts from certain authors on this blog always come across as the musings of a heckler?”
I guess it takes one to know one? Dsc = notorious heckler and thrower of hissy fits when disagreed with.
I remember a couple years back when there was a video going viral of a 12-yo girl Savannah coming out as a lesbian during F&T meeting and her mic was cut off and she was told to sit down. I think that the leadership knows darn well that someone merely telling people that they are LGBT will likely trigger massive divisions in wards. It will force the issue of how much we accept a particular individual. A few members will support the LGBT person coming out and then there are the homophobes who will passive-aggressively and even overtly take it upon themselves to put the LGBT to shame as well as those in support of him/her.
“Why do posts from certain authors on this blog always come across as the musings of a heckler?”
I guess it takes one to know one? Dsc = notorious heckler
I had some reservations with the wording as I read the part about married and single people because I always try and put myself in the place of the minority when I listen to a talk or lesson. I guess that started on my mission when I would bring investigators to church. I am sure I have said some pretty ignorant statements at times myself, so I try to have patient for those who speak or give lessons too. That being said, I like that the church is striving for the ideal of encouraging people to be married in a loving, heterosexual relationship that worship the Lord and make covenants. I have four children and I also want them to strive for that ideal. In my opinion, it gives them the best chance for happiness and peace. With that being the ideal, how do we make church a more welcome place for the outliers such as single people and gay people while stressing the “ideal”? That is very challenging. You can’t control what crazy people say and some feel a need to testify of eternal, unchangeable truths. Ito quote a very loud member of my ward, “ if we tolerate evil, it is only a matter of time til we accept and then embrace said evil.” Blah blah blah. I am convinced it is an impossible task in some areas of the country. If I were gay or a 50 year old single, there is no way I would attend my ward.
I would hate to write these knowing that every single word is going to be picked apart. The spirit of them seems good to me and I think the changes are good. Keep them coming.
“…grooming that causes distraction. ” Does that mean that all the “natural” blondes will have to abstain from dye, bleach, and hairspray?
It’s not just you, Dave B. This is totally condescending. I speak as a 40+ single sister who is so tired of this treatment. “Be prepared”… what does that look like? Because, dude, I have a life. I spent so much of my 20s waiting and thinking my life wouldn’t start until I was married… well I’m glad I didn’t wait to become myself. I wish the Church would teach this more to it’s YW…instead of focusing solely on your value as a potential spouse and baby maker.
Where is Jesus in all of these rules? Seriously. It’s just rules and more rules. Other than the prohibition of political talk during church services, which I mightily rejoice over and applaud, there is nothing in here that has any real relevance to the worship of the Savior and truly putting His gospel front and center in our lives. Will following all of these rules bring us closer to Christ in a meaningful way? No. Rather it feels like an attempt to further control the members in an attempt to keep them more “obedient”. What ever happened to teaching church members correct principles and then letting them govern themselves? I feel that in the last few years the leaders at the top have become more legalistic than ever before. Scripture tells us exactly what Christ felt about such rules driven religion. Also, when we read about the Savior’s ministry He doesn’t give his followers a great big checklist of things they need to do or avoid doing in order to show their love and honor for His father and by extension to Him. Is it unrealistic to pray for a time when Jesus and His gospel are truly the most important things in the church?
What encourages me is that we can change. I need to focus on that.
I just wish we could be proud of it.
FYI, the policy has been updated (in what I view as a significant improvement and wish had been the original language — they really need to circulate these changes more broadly to get feedback).
IMPORTANT UPDATE: The language in Handbook 2 given in the first quote above, dealing with political statements or statements about sexual orientation, has already been changed! The last sentence now reads, with the limitation “in a way” added:
“It also precludes making political statements or speaking of sexual orientation or other personal characteristics in a way that detracts from meetings focused on the Savior.”
So apparently now one CAN make political statements or talk about sexual orientation (one’s own or that of someone else) as long as it does not detract from the meeting. I imagine that most bishops will now allow statements in line with LDS policies (“Sure am glad I’m hetero and not gay!” or “My sister in Idaho is just heartbroken that her son, who stopped attending church a year ago, came out as gay,,” but not a statement of a kid coming out as gay or a parent reporting that a child came out and got a lot of support from a loving and supportive ward. I mean what can possibly detract from an LDS meeting other than making statements that are not in line with LDS views and positions?
Awe what a change. Good info on that update, Dave B. That is how I anticipated it would be enforced anyways. It looks like it is trying to prevent another Savannah from coming out at church, among other things.
We must not preach the “ideal” so much that we cease to become the Church of Jesus Christ and become instead the Cult of the Family. There are simply not enough men for all the good LDS women that want to marry. I can’t believe God is behind the “who cares if these women feel worthless, we have to preach the ideal” bullsh**.
We must not preach the “ideal” so much that we cease to be the Church of Jesus Christ and become, instead, the Cult of the Family. There are simply not enough men for all the good LDS women that want to marry. I can’t believe God is behind the “we don’t care if these women feel worthless, we have to keep preaching the ideal” bullsh**.
This article in KSL says there are also changes to the
secrethandbook for leaders, mainly regarding children of polygamists.Oops. The link didn’t paste. Here is try number 2:
https://www.ksl.com/article/46693337/handbook-latter-day-saints-shouldnt-talk-politics-sexual-orientation-in-a-way-that-detracts-from-meetings-focus-on-christ
Thank you for the updates on CHI. It seems a bit odd to find information on CHI right here but I don’t otherwise search the CHI for changes.