Church to allow baptisms, blessings for children of LGBT parents

[drtanner]

Just to be clear on what this means. If you are in a gay marriage and are participating in homosexual behaviors even if you are faithful to the partner, it is still a sin worthy of church discipline.

That is not what it means. If you are in a gay marriage it's obvious that you are having sexual relations. A gay marriage is no longer cause for church discipline.

The marriage is irrelevant. In fact per the church impossible because marriage currently is only defined one way as a union between a man and a woman.

Here is the quote from Mormon Newsroom: (Oaks)

"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."

Same-gender marriage will NOT be treated as apostasy for purposes of Church discipline.

"Immoral conduct in heterosexual and homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way."

What is immoral in a hetero relationship? Whatever that is, it's also immoral in a same-gender relationship. What is moral in a hetero relationship? That will also be moral for a same-gender relationship.

RELATIONSHIPS

Oaks had a distinguished law career. He knows what he is saying.

He does know what he is saying, I just think you don’t know what he is saying.

[Lizzy60]

Example: Is it immoral for a heterosexual dating to kiss? No. Is it immoral for a homosexual dating couple to kiss?
If you are treating them "in the same way" you have to say it's not immoral.

And down the slippery slope we go.

[captainfearnot]

So apostasy is defined by repeated opposition to the Church and it's leaders, unless it has to do with most anything lgbt. Oh and ANYTHING polygamy related. Got it.

I think the definition of apostasy was expanded in 2015 as a matter of expedience in order to justify the new policy barring children from baptism. Now that they have rescinded that policy, there is no need to define gay marriage as apostasy anymore. It's still plenty sinful under the plain old law of chastity. If anything this is a return to the status quo.

[Lizzy60]

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.

[EmmaLee]

Just to be clear on what this means. If you are in a gay marriage and are participating in homosexual behaviors even if you are faithful to the partner, it is still a sin worthy of church discipline.

That is not what it means. If you are in a gay marriage it's obvious that you are having sexual relations. A gay marriage is no longer cause for church discipline.

The marriage is irrelevant. In fact per the church impossible because marriage currently is only defined one way as a union between a man and a woman.

Here is the quote from Mormon Newsroom: (Oaks)

"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."

Same-gender marriage will NOT be treated as apostasy for purposes of Church discipline.

"Immoral conduct in heterosexual and homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way."

What is immoral in a hetero relationship? Whatever that is, it's also immoral in a same-gender relationship. What is moral in a hetero relationship? That will also be moral for a same-gender relationship.

RELATIONSHIPS

Oaks had a distinguished law career. He knows what he is saying.

I wondered the same thing. Oaks' statement is at best, ambiguous - especially this sentence - "the immoral conduct in heterosexual or homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way." What does that mean, exactly? Isn't ALL conduct in any/all "homosexual relationships", immoral? If not, what EXACTLY, what "conduct" (and be specific), inside of a homosexual relationship ISN'T immoral? It is my understanding, according to the last 189 years of official Church doctrine, that ALL homosexual relationships are sinful - has that now changed? Doesn't the Church teach that having same-sex attraction isn't a sin, but as soon as you step beyond that and cultivate those feelings (which, if someone is IN a "homosexual relationship", they most certainly are cultivating, feeding, encouraging those feelings), then it becomes grievous sin. Is that different now?

[drtanner]

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.

[captainfearnot]

Example: Is it immoral for a heterosexual dating to kiss? No. Is it immoral for a homosexual dating couple to kiss?
If you are treating them "in the same way" you have to say it's not immoral.

And down the slippery slope we go.

Where has the church changed the definition of immoral conduct? It has always defined any physical expression of homosexuality as immoral, and still does.

According you your reasoning, homosexuals holding hands, kissing, dating, dancing, etc. became sanctioned by the church back in 1998 when GBH said:

People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are.

But wait, "others" are not disciplined for kissing, so the gays must not be either! Obviously that has not been the case.

The same parallel has been drawn on several occasions since, by Hinckley again and by Oaks himself in the 2006 interview with Elder Wickman. Yes, it's a bit disingenuous of them to claim that gays and lesbians are held to the same standards as the straight single members of the church, but they've been repeating that line for years, and we all know what it means. Anyone, gay or straight, is allowed to marry someone of the opposite gender and have straight hetero married sex. And nobody, gay or straight, is allowed to so much as hold hands with a member of the same sex in a romantic or sexual context. See, we're all held to the same standards.

That's all Oaks is saying here. In 2015 we raised the sin of gay marriage to the level of apostasy, hoping that it would work as well for us as it did for polygamy. It didn't, so now we're going back to treating it as a mere violation of the law of chastity, like before.

[Col. Flagg]

What goes on behind closed doors between a husband and wife is no one else's business but their own. Even TBM's of the church should be alarmed over the announcements so far today because it brings into question where church decisions are coming from and how/why they're being made because they aren't coming from on high.

[brlenox]

All I know is that we have a God who sure changes his mind a lot. Two serious questions are begged by the repeal of the decision to ban children of LGBT parents from being baptized... 1) if God and Jesus Christ guide and direct the church, why would the decision have been made to institute the ban in the first place if it was wrong and 2) if it wasn't a decision that was 'revelation', then that means it did not come from Jesus Christ or God, which is a huge problem. It's almost getting comical at this point. Two families in our ward left the church over the children of LGBT parents being forbidden from being baptized and now the church is doing a 180???

Sometimes this is the answer to your question:

Matthew 19:6-8

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

[Sarah]

Example: Is it immoral for a heterosexual dating to kiss? No. Is it immoral for a homosexual dating couple to kiss?
If you are treating them "in the same way" you have to say it's not immoral.

And down the slippery slope we go.

I could say that my sister's relationship with me is a homosexual relationship, or in other words - we are of the same sex, and we have a relationship (regardless of the cultural meaning of this phrase). If we give each other a peck on the cheek as a greeting, with no intent to arouse sexual feelings, we have some action associated with a "same-gender relationship." The individual and those involved would have to judge how sexual the behaviors were and how much repentance is needed.

President Oaks simply states that opposite gender and same gender behavior toward each other will be judged the same according to the laws and policies we have - the Law of Chastity and the Laws governing marriage. Any behavior that is engaged in with someone other than a marriage partner (according to the Lord's definition of marriage) that stirs up feelings of sexuality, is breaking the Law of Chastity. I see no change here than what has been already stated, that this is simply making gay sexual behaviors fall under the Law of Chastity.

[lemuel]

Stop defending Sam Young! I have personal knowledge that he is a pervert. He is a total fake. His excommunication was for good reason.

Go on...

[nvr]

So does this mean the church is OK if a person goes ahead and gets married to their same sex partner, and engages in sexual relations with them within that marriage? And that these people are only in trouble as long as they don't cheat on each other? Maybe I'm not capturing the principle.. . Does it mean that these people are considered worthy members of the church while caring out living in a hat marriage lifestyle?

[captainfearnot]

So does this mean the church is OK if a person goes ahead and gets married to their same sex partner, and engages in sexual relations with them within that marriage? And that these people are only in trouble as long as they don't cheat on each other? Basically does it mean that these people are considered worthy members of the church while caring out living this same sex lifestyle?

No. All it means is that such behavior will now be disciplined as a violation of the law of chastity rather than as apostasy.

[Serragon]

So does this mean the church is OK if a person goes ahead and gets married to their same sex partner, and engages in sexual relations with them within that marriage? And that these people are only in trouble as long as they don't cheat on each other? Basically does it mean that these people are considered worthy members of the church while caring out living this same sex lifestyle?

No. All it means is that such behavior will now be disciplined as a violation of the law of chastity rather than as apostasy.

I think this is the correct interpretation.

It is still a significant change. Apostasy was a near automatic disciplinary council w/ excommunication being the penalty for a guilty verdict. With chastity violations, there is much more discretion allowed on the part of the bishop on whether there needs to be a council and what the resultant penalty should be.

[nvr]

How will they call it chastity violation when the person tries to claim they are married to their partner? It is obvious to me it's a violation to chastity to engage in same sex intimate relations no matter who it is. I guess they'll be clarifying it

[dezNatDefender]

President Oaks said, today in the Mormon newsroom article, and gay marriage is no longer apostate behavior, only a serious transgression (not a sin?), and that immoral activity in heterosexual and homosexual marriages will be treated equally.

This can only mean that if you are in a gay marriage, and you are faithful to your partner, you will not face church discipline.

Let me tell you, some people are seriously celebrating.

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/ ... HkKRv12Ht0

Just to be clear on what this means. If you are in a gay marriage and are participating in homosexual behaviors even if you are faithful to the partner, it is still a sin worthy of church discipline.

That is not what it means. If you are in a gay marriage it's obvious that you are having sexual relations. A gay marriage is no longer cause for church discipline.

Bingo, what this means is that in effect homosexual marriages are in the Church.

It means that one can be homosexual, act on it-hold hands, kiss, etc. and as long as you don't do the things that would get a heterosexual couple in trouble you are good.

Because being in a homosexual marriage is no longer apostasy, unless it is called out in Handbook 1 (which is dubious), it means that those in homosexuals marriages can live the "law of Chasity" and be members of the Church.

Welcome to the future.

[Sunain]

Stop defending Sam Young! I have personal knowledge that he is a pervert. He is a total fake. His excommunication was for good reason.

I don't know him, nor can I trust your personal knowledge and opinion on if he is a pervert or not. I can only judge what he said publically and what his stance was which was protecting children and the youth during interviews. I still believe that those under 18 should require a guardian with them or someone the youth and guardian approves can go with them in the interview so that in the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses every word is established.

[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!

[setyourselffree]

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.

[Lizzy60]

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!

This is how the pro-LGBT LDS are interpreting Oaks' statement. If this isn't what he meant, he's a very poor lawyer, and messy with his words. And it's not like this was an off-the-cuff press conference with an unexpected query. This was Leadership Meeting preceding General Conference. Prepared speeches.

I pray for Christ's return, and Zion, every day. Please hasten your return Jesus!!

[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.

[nvr]

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.
.

[Sunain]

This is how the pro-LGBT LDS are interpreting Oaks' statement. If this isn't what he meant, he's a very poor lawyer, and messy with his words. And it's not like this was an off-the-cuff press conference with an unexpected query. This was Leadership Meeting preceding General Conference. Prepared speeches.

I pray for Christ's return, and Zion, every day. Please hasten your return Jesus!!

President Oak's was extremely lawyerish to cover himself by being somewhat ambigious with the statement that homosexual conduct in a marriage is fine and not grounds for church discipline. According to him, homosexual relations in the confines of a civic marriage is not a sin. I'm assuming/inferring, that equal homosexual and heterosexual immoral conduct that is still grounds for breaking the law of chastity is sexual relations outside of marriage or with multiple partners.

I wonder if this sudden change is a result of the Equality Act that seemly will be passed into law and they are just preemptively doing these changes instead of being forced by the government? That what it seems like to me at least.

[setyourselffree]

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.

I think with this particular thing you will come to find out you are confused. And that is fine. I'm gonna let this play out. I know what he is talking about. Some people are so far gone from the Church they are gonna take everything that is said and blow it out of proportion.

[Sunain]

I agree, why don't we just quote the Bible on it which says it's an abomination.

Can't do that anymore because under the new apostasy definition for the church, that would be going against the leaders of the church and would make us worth of church discipline for going against the policy. Nice of them to change both at the same time to squash any opposition to this change.