Does anyone know the specific changes to the handbook that has to do with Temple and Family history
Risposte
-
Well, I think I answered my own question. I looked at the most recent updates, from May 2019. It looks like they were finally put into the handbook. If I'm wrong, please tell me where to look! I serve as a Stake and a Ward Consultant. Just trying to be sure I'm doing what I'm supposed to!
0 -
I am about to update our newsletter. I don't think you are on my list but here is a peek. I borrowed it from my friend Natascha who did such a good job summarizing it. Thank you Mesa Family History! I also have a PDF of Stake job description as we do it in our Stake if you would like it. naswfamilyhistory@gmail.com
0 -
I'm a ward temple and family history leader and even I couldn't see it.
I appreciate the summary, which I suppose I can look online in the callings area of familysearch.org to get a sense of what I'd be doing.
0 -
I'm a stake T&FHC - FHC, and there was nothing in that emailed list of communications for my calling even though I got the email that said there was something for me (my wife has the same calling, and hers was also empty). We could both see older communications such as changes in missionary funding etc., but didn't see anything pertaining to any recent Handbook changes or anything else for that matter - the area where the listed changes were for review, was just blank. However, thanks to my high councilor (who's also an area T&FHC), I was aware that there were very recent Handbook changes, so I'd already reviewed the Handbook. Otherwise I would not have known.
I do wish there were notices of specifically what has changed - sometimes it's difficult to remember what it was before, and how the changes are different now (such as the use of strike throughs to show what was deleted, and perhaps italics or bold print for added portions. That's often done in government manuals, etc., and is extremely helpful to be able to see the actual changes and better understand them. Just my 2¢.
Personally, I'm having a bit of difficulty understanding why Elder Renlund was so very specific in February (starting at about the 10:00 point in the video) when he pointed out that the blue organization pattern (#1) is by far the "standard [leadership] pattern," with three criteria required for deviation from that option (a good reason, approval by the stake president, and confirmation by the Holy Ghost), but then the Handbook now very clearly uses the word "may" when it comes to the bishop choosing whether to have a ward T&FH Leader. Our stake president has said we will follow the instruction given in February, but one or more bishops apparently want to hold on tightly to the word "may" and point to the Handbook, and not use a ward T&FH Leader in a very large ward. It would seem very surprising to me that a member of the Twelve would have used that Leadership Training forum to introduce changes (including the colored "pattern" slides) that were not fully pre-discussed and approved, as opposed to just his off-the-cuff personal opinion. Perhaps it has to do with leaders being expected to actually spend time watching the training directed at them (February in this case), with the Handbook simply following the counsel given in D&C 58:26. After all, Adam and Eve were told exactly what the "rules" were in the Garden, but then were also told that still had agency to choose for themselves. Are we perhaps seeing an application of that here, or does the Handbook actually revise the procedures laid down in the February Leadership Training?
0 -
This is a portion of the notice that has to do with Temple and Family History callings
Notice
Date: August 23, 2019
...Although content has been updated throughout the handbooks, leaders will want to pay particular attention to the following sections:
Handbook 2
5.4.3 Organizing Temple and Family History Work in the Ward (updates throughout)
5.4.4 Temple and Family History Consultants (updates throughout)
I went through and read all of the sections mentioned. It looks to be the changes from earlier. It's very clearly written as always.
0
