Church to allow baptisms, blessings for children of LGBT parents

[gkearney]

Another example. Married couples. Does the church currently ban, or discipline any kind of mutually agreed-upon sexual activity in a heterosexual marriage? No, they do not. They don't even ask. Therefore, to treat a same-gender couple "in the same way" they can't ask them either. Nor can they be disciplined for something the church leaders can't ask about.

They do ask, it is one of the temple recommend questions.

And which question would that be? At one time for a very, very short time when I was first married there was such a question but it was quickly eliminated. Today you would have to read a great deal more into the questions that is there to get to the point of asking about private sexual practices within marriage. For the sake of clarity here are the questions the only one that might even remotely be interpreted to involve such would be number six and I have never heard it said that such was the case, it generally be considered to be speaking of abuse of a family member.

1 Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?

2 Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?

3 Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?

4 Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

5 Do you live the law of chastity?

6 Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?

7 Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

8 Do you strive to keep the covenants you have made, to attend your sacrament and other meetings, and to keep your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel?

9 Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?

10 Are you a full-tithe payer?

11 Do your keep the Word of Wisdom?

12 Do you have financial or other obligations to a former spouse or children? If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations?

13 If you have previously received your temple endowment:

Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple?

Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple?

14 Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been?

15 Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord's house and participate in temple ordinances?

[nvr]

If they're going to condone relations within homosexual marriage, I think this will be detrimental to membership figures. I suspect the news release verbiage was simply worded poorly.

[dezNatDefender]

How will they call it chastity violation when the person claims they are married to their partner? Its obvious to me it's a violation to charity to engage in same sex intimate relations no matter who it is. I guess they'll have to clarify it, though.

"While we still consider such a marriage to be a serious transgression, it will not be treated as apostasy for purposes of Church discipline. Instead, the immoral conduct in heterosexual or homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way."

By equating homosexual immoral conduct to heterosexual immoral conduct it in effect means the same standard will apply for both; i.e. if a heterosexual couple does it and would get disciplined so will a homosexual couple. If a heterosexual couple did it and wouldn't get disciplined, neither will a homosexual couple.

We can still claim the "moral highground" by proclaiming homosexual marriage to be a "serious trangression" but with no actual teeth behind it . . .

Any takers on how long until homosexuals get sealed in the temple? 5 or 10 years?

Get ready for homosexuals kissing and snuggling next to each other at the Ward picnic!

It won't be treated as Apostasy for Church discipline, rather it will be treated as Chastity reasons for Excommunication and church discipline.

If two homosexuals are married, then what chastity issue are they breaking if they are treated in the "same way" as heterosexual relationships?

You have to remember WHY the original policy came out. It came out, just after homosexual marriage was made legal, fall of 2015. It came out to make it perfectly clear, that one could not claim to be acting morally and be married in a homosexual way. The Church KNEW people would try and make this claim, i.e. I'm acting morally b/c I'm married.

In fact, the homosexuals are already making this claim. It is highly doubtful with Elder Oaks making the comparison with heterosexual relationships that homosexual marriages are subject to Law of Chastity discipline.

My guess is that there will be no mention of it in the new Handbook and that it will be up to the Bishops and Stake Presidents to make the call to discipline or not discipline someone who is in a homosexual marriage.

[dezNatDefender]

If they're going to condone relations within homosexual marriage, I think this will be detrimental to membership figures. I suspect the news release verbiage was simply worded poorly.

Lol, nope that's a direct quote.

"Previously, our handbook characterized same-gender marriage by a member as apostasy. While we still consider such a marriage to be a serious transgression, it will not be treated as apostasy for purposes of Church discipline. Instead, the immoral conduct in heterosexual or homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way"

When are we going to call a spade a spade. The Church has caved on homosexuality.

[nvr]

By not condemning its condoning, is it not?

[Serragon]

It's still not clear to me, if a homosexual couple that is married has relations, are they now in good standing? He seems to be saying hetero and homo couples would both be in transgression if having relations outside of marriage, but this sorta sounds like he implies it's OK for homosexual couples are not in transgression if they're married. I agree, why don't we just quote the Bible on it which says it's an abomination.
.

I think it was not the homosexual relations that were being qualified as apostasy by the Church. It was the act of getting married to someone of the same sex. You wouldn't even have to be a homosexual to do that. You might do it for business or inheritance purposes. It was still considered apostasy because it was in direct violations of the teachings of the church.

I think Elder Oaks is saying that they will no longer look at the act of marrying someone of the same sex as evidence of apostasy. The rules about homosexual relations will continue to be judged as a chastity violation.

I have stated previously that I feel we are heading in a bad direction on this issue. But I don't see this as an announcement that homosexual relationships, including kissing, are now allowed in the church.

[dezNatDefender]

I can think of dozens of ways Oaks could have been clearer if he intended to say that people in gay marriages or relationships will still be subject to church discipline if they engage in any sexual behaviors.

See, there was one.

But he said hetero and homo treated the same.

Yeap, Church just caved on homosexuality .. .I thought they would give women the Priesthood first, I was wrong.

[Lizzy60]

If they're going to condone relations within homosexual marriage, I think this will be detrimental to membership figures. I suspect the news release verbiage was simply worded poorly.

The news release you are referencing is Mormon Newsroom. They quoted the statements by the First Presidency, including Oaks. This was not the SLTrib putting their spin on what was said.

[setyourselffree]

Another example. Married couples. Does the church currently ban, or discipline any kind of mutually agreed-upon sexual activity in a heterosexual marriage? No, they do not. They don't even ask. Therefore, to treat a same-gender couple "in the same way" they can't ask them either. Nor can they be disciplined for something the church leaders can't ask about.

They do ask, it is one of the temple recommend questions.

And which question would that be? At one time for a very, very short time when I was first married there was such a question but it was quickly eliminated. Today you would have to read a great deal more into the questions that is there to get to the point of asking about private sexual practices within marriage. For the sake of clarity here are the questions the only one that might even remotely be interpreted to involve such would be number six and I have never heard it said that such was the case, it generally be considered to be speaking of abuse of a family member.

1 Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?

2 Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?

3 Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?

4 Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

5 Do you live the law of chastity?

6 Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?

7 Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

8 Do you strive to keep the covenants you have made, to attend your sacrament and other meetings, and to keep your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel?

9 Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?

10 Are you a full-tithe payer?

11 Do your keep the Word of Wisdom?

12 Do you have financial or other obligations to a former spouse or children? If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations?

13 If you have previously received your temple endowment:

Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple?

Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple?

14 Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been?

15 Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord's house and participate in temple ordinances?

Being Gay is not living the law of Chasity. If you are in Homosexual marriage you are not living the law of chastity. It is the same as committing fornication or adultery. You can and will be excommunicated for it.

[dezNatDefender]

Another example. Married couples. Does the church currently ban, or discipline any kind of mutually agreed-upon sexual activity in a heterosexual marriage? No, they do not. They don't even ask. Therefore, to treat a same-gender couple "in the same way" they can't ask them either. Nor can they be disciplined for something the church leaders can't ask about.

They do ask, it is one of the temple recommend questions.

And which question would that be? At one time for a very, very short time when I was first married there was such a question but it was quickly eliminated. Today you would have to read a great deal more into the questions that is there to get to the point of asking about private sexual practices within marriage. For the sake of clarity here are the questions the only one that might even remotely be interpreted to involve such would be number six and I have never heard it said that such was the case, it generally be considered to be speaking of abuse of a family member.

1 Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?

2 Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?

3 Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?

4 Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

5 Do you live the law of chastity?

6 Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?

7 Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

8 Do you strive to keep the covenants you have made, to attend your sacrament and other meetings, and to keep your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel?

9 Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?

10 Are you a full-tithe payer?

11 Do your keep the Word of Wisdom?

12 Do you have financial or other obligations to a former spouse or children? If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations?

13 If you have previously received your temple endowment:

Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple?

Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple?

14 Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been?

15 Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord's house and participate in temple ordinances?

Being Gay is not living the law of Chasity. If you are in Homosexual marriage you are not living the law of chastity. It is the same as committing fornication or adultery. You can and will be excommunicated for it.

Not anymore-rules have changed.

[Lizzy60]

I can think of dozens of ways Oaks could have been clearer if he intended to say that people in gay marriages or relationships will still be subject to church discipline if they engage in any sexual behaviors.

See, there was one.

But he said hetero and homo treated the same.

Yeap, Church just caved on homosexuality .. .I thought they would give women the Priesthood first, I was wrong.

They made concessions to the women in the temple changes. Now they are appeasing another militant group. Fair play and all that.

[setyourselffree]

They do ask, it is one of the temple recommend questions.

And which question would that be? At one time for a very, very short time when I was first married there was such a question but it was quickly eliminated. Today you would have to read a great deal more into the questions that is there to get to the point of asking about private sexual practices within marriage. For the sake of clarity here are the questions the only one that might even remotely be interpreted to involve such would be number six and I have never heard it said that such was the case, it generally be considered to be speaking of abuse of a family member.

1 Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?

2 Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?

3 Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?

4 Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

5 Do you live the law of chastity?

6 Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?

7 Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

8 Do you strive to keep the covenants you have made, to attend your sacrament and other meetings, and to keep your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel?

9 Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?

10 Are you a full-tithe payer?

11 Do your keep the Word of Wisdom?

12 Do you have financial or other obligations to a former spouse or children? If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations?

13 If you have previously received your temple endowment:

Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple?

Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple?

14 Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been?

15 Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord's house and participate in temple ordinances?

Being Gay is not living the law of Chasity. If you are in Homosexual marriage you are not living the law of chastity. It is the same as committing fornication or adultery. You can and will be excommunicated for it.

Not anymore-rules have changed.

How so? Did they not say it was a serious sin? Are people who commit adultery also committing a huge sin? I think I remember in the scriptures God saying committing adultery is a sin right next to Murder? So if you quantify it with that, I would say it's very serious. Apostasy just will not be the reason for excommunication. But at this point if I tell you the sky is blue you will say it is not. If I say were to say the sun is shining you would deny.

[drtanner]

Many it seems are hoping or claiming the church said things it did not and believes things it does not about these changes. There will be further clarification in conference that will once again establish the lords doctrine of marriage. How soon we forget the talk president Oaks just gave last conference on the issue.

[dezNatDefender]

And which question would that be? At one time for a very, very short time when I was first married there was such a question but it was quickly eliminated. Today you would have to read a great deal more into the questions that is there to get to the point of asking about private sexual practices within marriage. For the sake of clarity here are the questions the only one that might even remotely be interpreted to involve such would be number six and I have never heard it said that such was the case, it generally be considered to be speaking of abuse of a family member.

1 Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?

2 Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?

3 Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?

4 Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

5 Do you live the law of chastity?

6 Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?

7 Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

8 Do you strive to keep the covenants you have made, to attend your sacrament and other meetings, and to keep your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel?

9 Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?

10 Are you a full-tithe payer?

11 Do your keep the Word of Wisdom?

12 Do you have financial or other obligations to a former spouse or children? If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations?

13 If you have previously received your temple endowment:

Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple?

Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple?

14 Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been?

15 Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord's house and participate in temple ordinances?

Being Gay is not living the law of Chasity. If you are in Homosexual marriage you are not living the law of chastity. It is the same as committing fornication or adultery. You can and will be excommunicated for it.

Not anymore-rules have changed.

How so? Did they not say it was a serious sin? Are people who commit adultery also committing a huge sin? I think I remember in the scriptures God saying committing adultery is a sin right next to Murder? So if you quantify it with that, I would say it's very serious. Apostasy just will not be the reason for excommunication. But at this point if I tell you the sky is blue you will say it is not. If I say were to say the sun is shining you would deny.

"Instead, the immoral conduct in heterosexual or homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way."

You're not understanding. The reason why they made it apostasy was because people can know claim they are living a chaste life b/c they are married. We don't discipline heterosexual who are married for having sex. The only way for a homosexual relationship to be treated "the same way" is to not discipline married homosexuals for having sex.

He said "While we still consider such a marriage to be a serious transgression" it won't be treated as apostasy. Look apostasy is almost automatic excommunication.

If the Church deems you are apostate-you are excommunicated post haste. Either you are or aren't, no in between. When you say it's a "serious transgression" what that means is that the penalty is now up to the Stake Pres. and/or Bishop.

A serious transgression like adultery may or may not result in excommunication.
Someone who is an apostate will be excommunicated.

What this means is that very liberal SP or liberal Bishop can make the call that someone in a SSM shouldn't really be excommunicated but only disfellowshipped.
Previously, they were excommunicated.

Do you follow now?

[dezNatDefender]

Many it seems are hoping or claiming the church said things it did not and believes things it does not about these changes. There will be further clarification in conference that will once again establish the lords doctrine of marriage. How soon we forget the talk president Oaks just gave last conference on the issue.

And just how much backlash did he get??
Members going to the Bishop and saying they refuse to listen to or have that talk preached to them in Church.

[setyourselffree]

At the end of the day I think the gay marriage has progressed further in a not long period than anyone could have imagined. The Lord loves his children. As members of the Church he wants to keep us safe. I know the brethren love me and want to keep me safe. The end has not come yet, so the Lord is trying to keep us and our children safe in an ever progressive world from Gay activists and politicians who love to nothing more than to destroy our church and our children's lives. In this way the Lord has to be very careful with the words and appropriate guidelines for the church in order for carious s not to erupt. I think we had a glimpse of what could happen when the church first came out with the rule. The brethren realized we are not ready so they petitioned the Lord. This is what he gave them. Stay in the good ship Zion everyone. You will find safety. If you wander out on your own you will be overcome by the waves.

[setyourselffree]

Being Gay is not living the law of Chasity. If you are in Homosexual marriage you are not living the law of chastity. It is the same as committing fornication or adultery. You can and will be excommunicated for it.

Not anymore-rules have changed.

How so? Did they not say it was a serious sin? Are people who commit adultery also committing a huge sin? I think I remember in the scriptures God saying committing adultery is a sin right next to Murder? So if you quantify it with that, I would say it's very serious. Apostasy just will not be the reason for excommunication. But at this point if I tell you the sky is blue you will say it is not. If I say were to say the sun is shining you would deny.

"Instead, the immoral conduct in heterosexual or homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way."

You're not understanding. The reason why they made it apostasy was because people can know claim they are living a chaste life b/c they are married. We don't discipline heterosexual who are married for having sex. The only way for a homosexual relationship to be treated "the same way" is to not discipline married homosexuals for having sex.

He said "While we still consider such a marriage to be a serious transgression" it won't be treated as apostasy. Look apostasy is almost automatic excommunication.

If the Church deems you are apostate-you are excommunicated post haste. Either you are or aren't, no in between. When you say it's a "serious transgression" what that means is that the penalty is now up to the Stake Pres. and/or Bishop.

A serious transgression like adultery may or may not result in excommunication.
Someone who is an apostate will be excommunicated.

What this means is that very liberal SP or liberal Bishop can make the call that someone in a SSM shouldn't really be excommunicated but only disfellowshipped.
Previously, they were excommunicated.

Do you follow now?

No I don't follow. To Murder is an automatic excommunication, but it's not labeled as apostasy. Why does it have to be labeled as apostasy? I know several gay Mormons who are in no way apostate.

[Lizzy60]

Many it seems are hoping or claiming the church said things it did not and believes things it does not about these changes. There will be further clarification in conference that will once again establish the lords doctrine of marriage. How soon we forget the talk president Oaks just gave last conference on the issue.

I sincerely hope what you are saying is true. However, Oaks seems to have reinforced the most compelling (to them) argument the LDS for LGBT acceptance groups have put forth, and that is, with gay marriage a legal contract now, then committed fidelity in that marriage should be accepted by the church as living the law of chastity. I've read this argument in several papers written by the LDS for LGBT rights groups. I can't imagine that I would know of this rationale and argument of theirs, but not a single employee in the COB has informed the second-ranking General authority of the Church, especially a lawyer.

If Oaks, or another of the Brethren clarify his statement of equal treatment to mean what you and I believe, that hetero sex in marriage is good, and gay sex in gay marriage is sinful, we will see THOUSANDS of resignations. I'm not sure they can put this cat back in the bag.

[Sunain]

"Instead, the immoral conduct in heterosexual or homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way."

You're not understanding. The reason why they made it apostasy was because people can know claim they are living a chaste life b/c they are married. We don't discipline heterosexual who are married for having sex. The only way for a homosexual relationship to be treated "the same way" is to not discipline married homosexuals for having sex.

He said "While we still consider such a marriage to be a serious transgression" it won't be treated as apostasy. Look apostasy is almost automatic excommunication.

If the Church deems you are apostate-you are excommunicated post haste. Either you are or aren't, no in between. When you say it's a "serious transgression" what that means is that the penalty is now up to the Stake Pres. and/or Bishop.

A serious transgression like adultery may or may not result in excommunication.
Someone who is an apostate will be excommunicated.

What this means is that very liberal SP or liberal Bishop can make the call that someone in a SSM shouldn't really be excommunicated but only disfellowshipped.
Previously, they were excommunicated.

Do you follow now?

That's not going to work out either because if one stake president excommunicates them for homosexual relations doesn't mean another stake president might not excommunicate them for the same offense by that same person. Leaving it up to the decision of the Stake President without having a direct discipline for the offense in the handbook is a huge can of worms. By not listing homosexuality as a sin and apostasy, it creates a judgement system based on a person rather than the offense or sin. The ONLY person that can do that is the Lord himself, no one else. He can look upon the heart and knows us personally. This looks bad considering the number of lawyers in the quorum of the 12. This will cause even more problems.

[Hie'ing to Kolob]

Reversing themselves again from the debacle of several years ago that their focus groups couldn't even predict the social outrage. This announcement will be met with great applaud.

One step closer to recognizing gay marriage.

You know it's coming.

Gay marriage recognition and women in the Priesthood are coming. Let's just get it over with...

[dezNatDefender]

Not anymore-rules have changed.

How so? Did they not say it was a serious sin? Are people who commit adultery also committing a huge sin? I think I remember in the scriptures God saying committing adultery is a sin right next to Murder? So if you quantify it with that, I would say it's very serious. Apostasy just will not be the reason for excommunication. But at this point if I tell you the sky is blue you will say it is not. If I say were to say the sun is shining you would deny.

"Instead, the immoral conduct in heterosexual or homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way."

You're not understanding. The reason why they made it apostasy was because people can know claim they are living a chaste life b/c they are married. We don't discipline heterosexual who are married for having sex. The only way for a homosexual relationship to be treated "the same way" is to not discipline married homosexuals for having sex.

He said "While we still consider such a marriage to be a serious transgression" it won't be treated as apostasy. Look apostasy is almost automatic excommunication.

If the Church deems you are apostate-you are excommunicated post haste. Either you are or aren't, no in between. When you say it's a "serious transgression" what that means is that the penalty is now up to the Stake Pres. and/or Bishop.

A serious transgression like adultery may or may not result in excommunication.
Someone who is an apostate will be excommunicated.

What this means is that very liberal SP or liberal Bishop can make the call that someone in a SSM shouldn't really be excommunicated but only disfellowshipped.
Previously, they were excommunicated.

Do you follow now?

No I don't follow. To Murder is an automatic excommunication, but it's not labeled as apostasy. Why does it have to be labeled as apostasy? I know several gay Mormons who are in no way apostate.

I'll tell you why. From Handbook 1

"Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority."

The reason why it was called out was to protect the Church as an institution from individuals advocating a particular life-style as good and wholesome. It's not so much about the act, but about the ideology

Look at the hypocrisy. You can't advocate for plural marriage in the Church or act on it or you are labeled an apostate.

But you can act on homosexual marriage and advocate for it and it's only a "transgression".

If the Church didn't want to be hypocritical they would do this exact same thing for polygamous individuals. But they don't b/c of socio-political pressure.

[dezNatDefender]

Reversing themselves again from the debacle of several years ago that their focus groups couldn't even predict the social outrage. This announcement will be met with great applaud.

One step closer to recognizing gay marriage.

You know it's coming.

Gay marriage recognition and women in the Priesthood are coming. Let's just get it over with...

I completely agree. Do and and be done with it so those who don't accept such filth can figure out what to do . . rather than drag it on and on.

[Hie'ing to Kolob]

If they're going to condone relations within homosexual marriage, I think this will be detrimental to membership figures. I suspect the news release verbiage was simply worded poorly.

Lol, nope that's a direct quote.

"Previously, our handbook characterized same-gender marriage by a member as apostasy. While we still consider such a marriage to be a serious transgression, it will not be treated as apostasy for purposes of Church discipline. Instead, the immoral conduct in heterosexual or homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way"

When are we going to call a spade a spade. The Church has caved on homosexuality.

It's the d##n handbook's fault!

[Col. Flagg]

The mental gymnastics some of you are doing in order to defend the church at all costs in light of the obvious is entertaining.

[dezNatDefender]

"Instead, the immoral conduct in heterosexual or homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way."

You're not understanding. The reason why they made it apostasy was because people can know claim they are living a chaste life b/c they are married. We don't discipline heterosexual who are married for having sex. The only way for a homosexual relationship to be treated "the same way" is to not discipline married homosexuals for having sex.

He said "While we still consider such a marriage to be a serious transgression" it won't be treated as apostasy. Look apostasy is almost automatic excommunication.

If the Church deems you are apostate-you are excommunicated post haste. Either you are or aren't, no in between. When you say it's a "serious transgression" what that means is that the penalty is now up to the Stake Pres. and/or Bishop.

A serious transgression like adultery may or may not result in excommunication.
Someone who is an apostate will be excommunicated.

What this means is that very liberal SP or liberal Bishop can make the call that someone in a SSM shouldn't really be excommunicated but only disfellowshipped.
Previously, they were excommunicated.

Do you follow now?

That's not going to work out either because if one stake president excommunicates them for homosexual relations doesn't mean another stake president might not excommunicate them for the same offense by that same person. Leaving it up to the decision of the Stake President without having a direct discipline for the offense in the handbook is a huge can of worms. By not listing homosexuality as a sin and apostasy, it creates a judgement system based on a person rather than the offense or sin. The ONLY person that can do that is the Lord himself, no one else. He can look upon the heart and knows us personally. This looks bad considering the number of lawyers in the quorum of the 12. This will cause even more problems.

Yeap, I just did a quick read of Handbook 1 . . .it will be very interesting to see what they change.

If they only remove: "Are in a same-gender marriage." from apostasy there are still enough references to homosexuality relations that there are some safe-guards. The big problem occurs, if there is NO mention in the Handbook about SSM, that's gonna leave a hole wide enough to drive a truck through.

Oaks didn't need to say: "Instead, the immoral conduct in heterosexual or homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way." . . .but he did. It's very troubling to for the 1st counselor in the First Presidency to start comparing heterosexual and homosexual relationships like this . . .very troubling.

It means he is already thinking of making comparisons between homosexual and heterosexual relationships as equivalent. That's a problem.