Vatican approves blessings for same-sex couples in landmark ruling

[Stormin' Mormon]

9 minutes ago, california boy said:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does nothing to help bring committed gay couples to Christ.  Instead, the Church has taken over God's role of judging their relationship, excommunicates them, and doesn't allow their membership or participation 

As far as I can tell, the Church Handbook does not require an automatic membership council for people in a same-sex marriage.  The only sexual sins that require such a council are incest, child pornography, plural marriage, and sexual predatory behavior.  Whether or not a membership council is called for a person in a same sex marriage " depends on many circumstances. For example, a council is more likely to be necessary ... if he or she has violated temple covenants."  

I won't go so far as to claim that the Church treats same-sex and opposite-sex couples the same, but it's equally false to claim that the Church has a single, every-size-fits-all policy for same-sex couples, let alone that its single, every-size-fits-all policy is as harsh as you describe here.  The handbook seems to leave some latitude for local decision-making, based on individual circumstances, on this issue.  

 

[webbles]

9 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

As far as I can tell, the Church Handbook does not require an automatic membership council for people in a same-sex marriage.  The only sexual sins that require such a council are incest, child pornography, plural marriage, and sexual predatory behavior.  Whether or not a membership council is called for a person in a same sex marriage " depends on many circumstances. For example, a council is more likely to be necessary ... if he or she has violated temple covenants."  

I won't go so far as to claim that the Church treats same-sex and opposite-sex couples the same, but it's equally false to claim that the Church has a single, every-size-fits-all policy for same-sex couples, let alone that its single, every-size-fits-all policy is as harsh as you describe here.  The handbook seems to leave some latitude for local decision-making, based on individual circumstances, on this issue.  

 

It used to.  The change was in 2019 (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/policy-changes-announced-for-members-in-gay-marriages-children-of-lgbt-parents?lang=eng).  Previously, a same-sex couple was considered to be in apostasy and those in apostasy require an automatic membership council.  2019 changed it so that they are not considered in apostasy, just immoral conduct.  And that doesn't require an automatic membership council.

[MiserereNobis]

19 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Some progressive Catholics are encouraging the misinterpretation in the hope that this is a step toward sacramentalization. A few priests are likely to go beyond the guardrails that are clearly in this document.

Absolutely. I think there will be something like "the spirit of Vatican II" with this. People won't actually read the document and instead go off of what progressives are saying about it and then take it farther than it actually was meant to go.

19 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Some far-right Catholics are seeing it the same way, and have blinders on when it comes to Pope Francis.

Absolutely again. The very progressive and very traditional wings of the Church are both misinterpreting this.

19 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

There's talk of crafty Jesuits and so on--I don't like talk of that sort. 

Nor I.

19 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

To me, this seems like a Christ-like thing to do, although I am concerned it could be exploited. 

I concur.

Thanks for giving a good explanation to our LDS friends in your full post.

[Stormin' Mormon]

4 minutes ago, webbles said:

It used to.  The change was in 2019 (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/policy-changes-announced-for-members-in-gay-marriages-children-of-lgbt-parents?lang=eng).  Previously, a same-sex couple was considered to be in apostasy and those in apostasy require an automatic membership council.  2019 changed it so that they are not considered in apostasy, just immoral conduct.  And that doesn't require an automatic membership council.

Which is a policy change that should be celebrated, applauded, highlighted, so as to encourage more such policy changes.

A superseded policy that is no longer in effect may be evidence of where the Church was at one point, and may even paint a picture of the historical struggles of the LGBTQ community within the LDS Church.  But in a discussion of current policy and direction, it seems a little out of place.  

[telnetd]

20 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

27.3.2.7 

I included the section as a quote in my post

Thanks.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

This doesn't work because there was no biological sex in the pre-existence. It's not worth getting side-tracked on this though, so I'll bow out at this point.

I agree there was no biology (period) in the pre-existence, and I hope you don't bow out on that point because I think this is what President Oaks meant -- the Family Proclamation speaks to gender as "an essential characteristic of individual premortal [precursory to mortal morphology, physiology, anatomy, behavior, etc. (Moses 3:5, "spiritually, before... naturally upon the earth")], mortal ["biological sex" as he put it], and eternal [the post-natural physical now reconciled with the spiritual precursor] identity and purpose." The biological sex has to do with the management of the covenants in mortality.

This relates to the Vatican's announcement in that marriage, and not “irregular” unions of extramarital sex, is a sanctioned sacrament in mortality. When people of unreconciled biological sex (whether they know it or not, or how the determination was made) enter a sacrament in good faith based on their biological sex (and not even their sexuality), the Lord will bless them. People in a state of sin vis-a-vis this sacrament can still seek God and His blessings, and to a measure receive them.

Edited December 20, 2023 by CV75

[telnetd]

20 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

What has been put forward is that a priest could give a pastoral blessing to LGBTQ+ persons, to persons who are outside of sacramental marriage (divorcees, divorcees who remarried outside the church, people shacking up) and to others. A pastoral blessing is not given as part of Mass, or as a part of any of the seven sacraments (of which marriage between a man and a woman is one, and which is affirmed in this document). If you imagine a priest going to the home of LGBTQ persons and blessing "all that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives and their relationships," which is not, by definition, the sin in their lives, then you're on the right track. This is not unlike an LDS bishop visiting LGBTQ+ members of the ward and giving them a blessing of love, guidance, comfort, and encouragement. It is not like saying, in LDS terms, that those persons can now be married in the Temple, which is what some news outlets and commentators are trying to make it out to be. 

@MiserereNobis

Will this pastoral blessing have a specific set of words like prayers are fashioned after?

[Benjamin McGuire]

18 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I agree there was no biology (period) in the pre-existence, and I hope you don't bow out on that point because I think this is what President Oaks meant --

I think that what President Oaks meant has already been put into the Handbook - 38.6.23:

Quote

The intended meaning of gender in the family proclamation is biological sex at birth.

This particular note seems entirely aimed at people reading the family proclamation with a recognition that it separates biological sex from eternal gender. All it really does is create a conflict that is never resolved. For example, we might contemplate the question of how we should understand the gender of the third part - those who will never be born. Elsewhere the handbook recognizes the reality that people are sometimes born with an indeterminate biological sex. What does this tell us about the pre-existent gender of that person - that is, if gender in the family proclamation is meant to be read as the biological sex at birth. This sort of thing points to the problem of trying to create policy without providing underlying doctrinal direction.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I think that what President Oaks meant has already been put into the Handbook - 38.6.23:

This particular note seems entirely aimed at people reading the family proclamation with a recognition that it separates biological sex from eternal gender. All it really does is create a conflict that is never resolved. For example, we might contemplate the question of how we should understand the gender of the third part - those who will never be born. Elsewhere the handbook recognizes the reality that people are sometimes born with an indeterminate biological sex. What does this tell us about the pre-existent gender of that person - that is, if gender in the family proclamation is meant to be read as the biological sex at birth. This sort of thing points to the problem of trying to create policy without providing underlying doctrinal direction.

I think it makes sense to separate the two for the reasons I mentioned above. Not making sense of it, if that represents a problem for some, can be resolved the same as with other paradigm shifts.

In my thinking of the doctrine, the third part will not have a birth (and so no biological sex). The Eternal God, despite his eternal characteristics, was ultimately rejected and killed as though the third part prevailed (and not us of the greater part). The eternal gender of the greater part individuals is typically expressed in biological terms at birth (but not always), as are other eternal characteristics. The proclamation and the handbook, to me, comport with the doctrine that a Jesus’ and our eternal characteristics can be imperfectly and indeterminately expressed in a mortal setting.

For this reason, I see our doctrine providing direction for both the proclamation (a summarization of doctrine) and the handbook. If gender in the family proclamation is meant to be read as the biological sex at birth (per the handbook), and someone has been born with an indeterminate biological sex (as mentioned in the handbook), pre-existent gender remains an essential characteristic of premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose as idealized in the creation accounts and in the testaments of the redemption, albeit subject to the sometimes-confounding issues inherent in the mortal estate. Both the ideal and the fallible are doctrinal.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

As far as I can tell, the Church Handbook does not require an automatic membership council for people in a same-sex marriage.  The only sexual sins that require such a council are incest, child pornography, plural marriage, and sexual predatory behavior.  Whether or not a membership council is called for a person in a same sex marriage " depends on many circumstances. For example, a council is more likely to be necessary ... if he or she has violated temple covenants."  

I won't go so far as to claim that the Church treats same-sex and opposite-sex couples the same, but it's equally false to claim that the Church has a single, every-size-fits-all policy for same-sex couples, let alone that its single, every-size-fits-all policy is as harsh as you describe here.  The handbook seems to leave some latitude for local decision-making, based on individual circumstances, on this issue.  

 

Oh was there some big announcement about this that I missed?  Or are gay couples suppose to get hold of a handbook and go through it page by page to find out they now may or may not be excommunicated depending on how the local leadership roulette works in their areaa.

I got excommunicated because I was not willing to be celibate my whole life.  So hardly can call that as a false claim.  It was not all that long ago that I was labeled an apostate for being with my partner.  Do you honestly think that the Church has made a big effort to let gay couples know they are now welcomed into the Church?  If you do feel like the Church is making an effort to welcome in gay couples, can you point to me where that effort is?  Like did they make some kind of statement at say, General Conference that say gay couples are. now welcomed to participate in the Church?  And what exactly that participation is??  Tell me why my partner and I would feel welcomed back into the Church.

Edited December 20, 2023 by california boy

[Stormin' Mormon]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

I got excommunicated because I was not willing to be celibate my whole life.  So hardly can call that as a false claim.

Not false, but out of date.  It's no longer the policy of the Church, and hasn't been for nearly 5 years.  

[california boy]

4 hours ago, edvantageous said:

It is anecdotal -- so is your statement -- but Charlie Bird (former Cosmo Cougar mascot) and his husband attend their ward actively (briefly discussed in one of their recent podcasts: https://questionsfromthecloset.com/episode/?s=6&e=11). I'm not suggesting this works for everyone or that the church has suddenly shifted its position around same-sex marriage, but it's also not true that gay married couples are automatically excommunicated.

Oh the same Charlie Bird (former Cosmo Cougar mascot) that got publicly attacked by Elder Holland for daring to relate his personal experience of being gay at BYU?  

[california boy]

20 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Not false, but out of date.  It's no longer the policy of the Church, and hasn't been for nearly 5 years.  

Not willing to answer the question I asked of you?

Quote

Do you honestly think that the Church has made a big effort to let gay couples know they are now welcomed into the Church?  If you do feel like the Church is making an effort to welcome in gay couples, can you point to me where that effort is?  Like did they make some kind of statement at say, General Conference that say gay couples are. now welcomed to participate in the Church?  And what exactly that participation is??  Tell me why my partner and I would feel welcomed back into the Church.

Or is this more a technically they are welcome, but we really don't want them to be a part of the Church kind of thing.

[Stormin' Mormon]

50 minutes ago, california boy said:

Oh was there some big announcement about this that I missed?  Or are gay couples suppose to get hold of a handbook and go through it page by page to find out they now may or may not be excommunicated depending on how the local leadership roulette works in their area.

This thing wasn't done in a corner.  It was all over the national news:

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/04/709988377/in-major-shift-mormon-church-rolls-back-controversial-policies-toward-lgbt-membe

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/reader-center/mormon-church-lgbt.html

https://apnews.com/article/north-america-salt-lake-city-us-news-ap-top-news-ut-state-wire-431512d27597499e8b7378c0f387ef1e

27 minutes ago, california boy said:

Or is this more a technically they are welcome, but we really don't want them to be a part of the Church kind of thing.

I haven't claimed anything about the degree or quality of the welcome that gay couples will receive in their local LDS ward.  What I DID claim is that being in a same sex marriage no longer triggers an automatic membership council, and hasn't for five years.  I have also claimed (in other threads, at any rate) that the Church is improving in the LGBTQ arena, and should be given credit for making even small improvements where it believes its doctrines allow it to do so.  Pretending that the Church hasn't changed at all since you left is a mistake, though an understandable one.  

[edvantageous]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Oh the same Charlie Bird (former Cosmo Cougar mascot) that got publicly attacked by Elder Holland for daring to relate his personal experience of being gay at BYU?  

Red herring. Charlie Bird can address that, just like he can explain why he chooses to continue to actively participate in his ward (without being "automatically excommunicated"). That statement of yours is not true.

[Pyreaux]

Some calls for references were made, so I've taken to look... There isn't much.

 

Some statements that spirits are engendered

"Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose” (“The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” Liahona, Oct. 2004, 49; Ensign, Nov. 1995, 102).

Because, “[Gender] in large measure defines who we are, why we are here upon the earth, and what we are to do and become. For divine purposes, male and female spirits are different, distinctive, and complementary. … The unique combination of spiritual, physical, mental, and emotional capacities of both males and females were needed to implement the plan of happiness” (David A. Bednar “Marriage Is Essential to His Eternal Plan,” Liahona, June 2006, 51; Ensign, June 2006, 83).

"Female roles did not begin on earth, and they do not end here. A woman who treasures motherhood on earth will treasure motherhood in the world to come” (Julie B. Beck,“A ‘Mother Heart,’” Liahona and Ensign, May 2004, 76).

 

Some statements about how spirits are born.

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught:  “The spirit of man is not a created being; it existed from eternity, and will exist to eternity.” (Smith, J., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 1938, p. 158.)

Mankind began in the premortal world as spirit element which has always existed and is co-eternal with God. (McConkie, B., Mormon Doctrine, Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1966, p. 751.)

Our first birth occurred when our “self-existent spirit element [was] born as spirit children” (McConkie, B., Mormon Doctrine, Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1966, p. 751.)

to our Heavenly Parents who used “the ordained procreative process…” (McConkie, B., Mormon Doctrine, Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1966, p. 84.)

The First Presidency noted:  “All men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity.” (The Origin of Man, (Statement of the First Presidency issued in November, 1909 by Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, Anton H. Lund.)

 

Scriptures about spirit birth, but don't seem to explain much:

spirit shall return unto God who gave it, Eccl. 12:7.

he that giveth … spirit to them that walk therein, Isa. 42:5.

formeth the spirit of man within him, Zech. 12:1.

we are the offspring of God, Acts 17:29.

in subjection unto the Father of spirits, Heb. 12:9.

First spiritual, secondly temporal, which is the beginning of my work, D&C 29:32.

temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual, D&C 77:2.

All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, D&C 131:7.

created all things … spiritually, before they were naturally, Moses 3:5.

beheld the spirits that God had created, Moses 6:36.

I made the world, and men before they were in the flesh, Moses 6:51.

spirits … have no beginning; they existed before, Abr. 3:18.

he stood among those that were spirits, Abr. 3:23.

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, edvantageous said:

It is anecdotal -- so is your statement -- but Charlie Bird (former Cosmo Cougar mascot) and his husband attend their ward actively (briefly discussed in one of their recent podcasts: https://questionsfromthecloset.com/episode/?s=6&e=11). I'm not suggesting this works for everyone or that the church has suddenly shifted its position around same-sex marriage, but it's also not true that gay married couples are automatically excommunicated.

Being out in the Church is to be tolerated. Many members consider you a vague threat but feel they are doing their “duty” by trying to be nice. You are very othered. There is a reason I don’t share that I am lgbt with other church members outside a few people I trust. I also know that the information is out there and the ward grapevine may find it any moment.

[3DOP]

On 12/19/2023 at 3:16 PM, Saint Bonaventure said:

I am going to say that it is not as much of a landmark as news outlets are reporting. I am on the traditional side of the Catholic spectrum, and I don't have a problem with this document.

The USCCB's comments, and a link to an English translation of the document, are here:

Statement of USCCB on Vatican’s Document Addressing Pastoral Blessings | USCCB

Catholic doctrine hasn't changed, the catechism hasn't been changed, the pope isn't speaking infallibly, and the Catholic Church is not sacramentalizing same-sex relationships.

Journalists are not well equipped to parse these kinds of documents; lawyers and academics are going to be the better readers here. Here's the paragraph that is most crucial, I think: 

What has been put forward is that a priest could give a pastoral blessing to LGBTQ+ persons, to persons who are outside of sacramental marriage (divorcees, divorcees who remarried outside the church, people shacking up) and to others. A pastoral blessing is not given as part of Mass, or as a part of any of the seven sacraments (of which marriage between a man and a woman is one, and which is affirmed in this document). If you imagine a priest going to the home of LGBTQ persons and blessing "all that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives and their relationships," which is not, by definition, the sin in their lives, then you're on the right track. This is not unlike an LDS bishop visiting LGBTQ+ members of the ward and giving them a blessing of love, guidance, comfort, and encouragement. It is not like saying, in LDS terms, that those persons can now be married in the Temple, which is what some news outlets and commentators are trying to make it out to be.  

Some progressive Catholics are encouraging the misinterpretation in the hope that this is a step toward sacramentalization. A few priests are likely to go beyond the guardrails that are clearly in this document.

Some far-right Catholics are seeing it the same way, and have blinders on when it comes to Pope Francis. There's talk of crafty Jesuits and so on--I don't like talk of that sort. 

To me, this seems like a Christ-like thing to do, although I am concerned it could be exploited. 

All Catholics were called by Smiley, and that is the main reason I am making a post simply to say that I concur with St. B. About journalists, about progressives, about the far-right, about the guardrails, that it seems Christ-like, and I also am concerned that it will be exploited.   

The pope is the vicar of Christ, and Christ is the living Head of the Church, and it is my place to try to understand what the Head of the Church and His Vicar on earth have proposed in its best light. I am also on the Traditional side of the Catholic spectrum. It is Traditional to try one's best to reconcile doctrinal and disciplinary decisions of those in authority with the perennial teaching of the Church. Or better yet, it may be remembered that Tradition does not even require that the faithful must always wrestle with every apparently disturbing issue that comes up! It is okay to rest peacefully in the Bark of Peter, without paying so much attention to the waves.  

Great post St. B!            

[MiserereNobis]

41 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

All Catholics were called by Smiley, and that is the main reason I am making a post simply to say that I concur with St. B. About journalists, about progressives, about the far-right, about the guardrails, that it seems Christ-like, and I also am concerned that it will be exploited.   

The pope is the vicar of Christ, and Christ is the living Head of the Church, and it is my place to try to understand what the Head of the Church and His Vicar on earth have proposed in its best light. I am also on the Traditional side of the Catholic spectrum. It is Traditional to try one's best to reconcile doctrinal and disciplinary decisions of those in authority with the perennial teaching of the Church. Or better yet, it may be remembered that Tradition does not even require that the faithful must always wrestle with every apparently disturbing issue that comes up! It is okay to rest peacefully in the Bark of Peter, without paying so much attention to the waves.  

Great post St. B! 

So great to hear from you Rory! You and I and St. B. are in agreement.

I love how you say "It is okay to rest peacefully in the Bark of Peter, without paying so much attention to the waves."

That is one of that many many beauties and treasures of our Catholic faith: it offers us this type of peace.

+PAX+

Jesse

 

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

This thing wasn't done in a corner.  It was all over the national news:

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/04/709988377/in-major-shift-mormon-church-rolls-back-controversial-policies-toward-lgbt-membe

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/reader-center/mormon-church-lgbt.html

https://apnews.com/article/north-america-salt-lake-city-us-news-ap-top-news-ut-state-wire-431512d27597499e8b7378c0f387ef1e 

I haven't claimed anything about the degree or quality of the welcome that gay couples will receive in their local LDS ward.  What I DID claim is that being in a same sex marriage no longer triggers an automatic membership council, and hasn't for five years.  I have also claimed (in other threads, at any rate) that the Church is improving in the LGBTQ arena, and should be given credit for making even small improvements where it believes its doctrines allow it to do so.  Pretending that the Church hasn't changed at all since you left is a mistake, though an understandable one. 

Maybe I am missing something?  I read your links.  I did not find a single word in those articles that said the Church in some instances are not excommunicating gay partners any longer.   I see no announcement that gay couples should now find a Church handbook to see if they will get excommunicated.

 

 

[Stormin' Mormon]

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

Maybe I am missing something?  I read your links.  I did not find a single word in those articles that said the Church in some instances are not excommunicating gay partners any longer.   I see no announcement that gay couples should now find a Church handbook to see if they will get excommunicated.

 

 

From the AP article, at least:

"People in same-sex relationships will no longer be considered “apostates,” a term the religion uses for people who teach inaccurate doctrine or publicly defy guidance from church leaders. Apostates can be kicked out of the religion."

Each of these stories had links to the Church press release, although now, five years later those links are broken. Fortunately, @webbles has provided a working link to the press release (page 2 of this thread, second post from the top). Anyone reading these stories five years ago would have clicked the link and gotten the detailed description of this policy change.

Regardless of how fast it's actually moving there, would you say that Church policies are at least moving in the right direction on this issue? And we can quibble over that speed and where the final end point on LGBTQ policy should be, but can't we rejoice together that the Church has made the right moves so far?

 

[california boy]

4 hours ago, edvantageous said:

Red herring. Charlie Bird can address that, just like he can explain why he chooses to continue to actively participate in his ward (without being "automatically excommunicated"). That statement of yours is not true.

That is a beautiful talk.  It would certainly move the Church in a much better direction towards the LGBT community.  Unfortunately I have no hope in the near future of hearing of such a talk given by the leaders of the Church.  

My statement about Charlie Bird was not a question about what he thinks of the Church.  My statement was about how Elder Holland in a public meeting personally attached Charlie Bird for relating his experience of being gay at BYU during his graduation speach

[california boy]

1 minute ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

 

From the AP article, at least:

"People in same-sex relationships will no longer be considered “apostates,” a term the religion uses for people who teach inaccurate doctrine or publicly defy guidance from church leaders. Apostates can be kicked out of the religion."

Each of these stories had links to the Church press release, although now, five years later those links are broken. Fortunately, @webbles has provided a working link to the press release (page 2 of this thread, second post from the top). Anyone reading these stories five years ago would have clicked the link and gotten the detailed description of this policy change.

I guess you really are not interested in addressing what I have stated.  You ignore it and go somewhere other than what I have stated in my post.  If you are interested, here it is again.

 

Quote

Maybe I am missing something?  I read your links.  I did not find a single word in those articles that said the Church in some instances are not excommunicating gay partners any longer.   I see no announcement that gay couples should now find a Church handbook to see if they will get excommunicated.

 

 

1 minute ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Regardless of how fast it's actually moving there, would you say that Church policies are at least moving in the right direction on this issue? And we can quibble over that speed and where the final end point on LGBTQ policy should be, but can't we rejoice together that the Church has made the right moves so far?

Moving away from prohibiting of underaged children from being baptized?  Yeah

No longer calling gay couples apostates?  Yeah

Making a gesture to gay couples being welcomed back into the Church?   Well I guess the Church no longer automatically excommunicates any gay couple, but rather makes a few exceptions? Yeah.  

But that is not really well known except to those that read the Church handbook or have heard about it.  Since you haven't provided any link that addresses this, I am guessing that the Church has never publicly said the policy has been somewhat modified.  Keeping it not well known I don't think helps gay couples feel like they are welcomed or even acknowledged.

[Stormin' Mormon]

15 minutes ago, california boy said:

I guess you really are not interested in addressing what I have stated.  You ignore it and go somewhere other than what I have stated in my post.  If you are interested, here it is again.

 

No, I'm not interested in addressing a shifting goal post.  I engaged in this discussion to demonstrate that your original contention, that the church handles members of same sex marriages by excommunicating them, was based on obsolete policy or out of date information.  Now that the goal post has moved to asking me to show that the policy change was sufficiently publicized or that it resulted in a sufficiently welcoming Church are beyond the scope of my initial engagement.

21 minutes ago, california boy said:

Since you haven't provided any link that addresses this, I am guessing that the Church has never publicly said the policy has been somewhat modified.  

Pointing to the link that Webbles posted in this very thread wasn't sufficient?  Sigh, very well.  Here it is.  A link from the Church saying that the policy has been somewhat modified.  Again, this same link can be found in Webble's post on this thread, second page, second post from the top:  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/policy-changes-announced-for-members-in-gay-marriages-children-of-lgbt-parents?lang=eng:

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

People in same-sex relationships will no longer be considered “apostates,” a term the religion uses for people who teach inaccurate doctrine or publicly defy guidance from church leaders. Apostates can be kicked out of the religion."

I find the use of “transgression” and not “sin” an interesting choice given how “transgression” is often defined and applied in the Church.

Quote

In addition, the Church will no longer characterize same-gender marriage by a Church member as “apostasy” for purposes of Church discipline, although it is still considered “a serious transgression.”

“Serious sins” is a term used in the handbook, it may mean nothing to use transgression instead, of course.

Edited December 21, 2023 by Calm