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.
This is a really oddly worded statement that could be taken in any number of ways. Does this mean:
- The LDS church still holds that all homosexual relations are sinful. But, there is a category of "apostate" that it is no longer in. But because it's still sinful all homosexual relations will still be subject to disciplinary procedures. The end result being that all persons in homosexual relations will be excommunicated, meaning that not being "apostate" is simply a rhetorical game and this statement is therefore meaningless.
- The LDS church still holds that all homosexual relations are sinful, but because it is no longer "apostacy" it is now no longer an offence which will require excommunication. Thus while one may hold a church court on a homosexual married couple, excommunication is off the table.
- The LDS church is playing on its differing definitions of "transgression" and "sin". As is often explained in LDS doctrine, Adam and Eve trangressed, they did not sin. Hence what Adam and Eve did can be in some sense admired and celebrated, even though it is a direct disobedience of a previous commandment. On this reading, homosexual married couples are disobeying something, but it's not that bad since there is something good that is coming out of it.
- The LDS church is saying that homosexual marriages are not necessarily sinful. This would be one way of making sense of the phrase "the immoral conduct in heterosexual or homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way". How could they be treated in the same way unless there is some way for homosexual relationships to be moral? Presumably there is immoral and moral conduct in both homosexual and heterosexual relationships, otherwise why include the phrase?
- The LDS church is saying that it made a mistake in the past but is issuing vague statements to allow for individual interpretation at the local level. On this interpretation bishops in areas with high populations of homosexual individuals might interpret this as full acceptance of homosexual marriage, while those in more conservative areas would be free to maintain the status quo. This would effectively be the Mormon version of "conscience clauses" that are tried from time to time in Protestant denominations. These clauses allow local clergy to only perform marriages that they feel are right, but different local clergy can come to differing conclusions.
- The LDS church, though populated with gaggles of lawyers, can't issue a clear and unambiguous statement to save their lives and this will be clarified later.
Some are obviously more likely than others. But, I never would have expected them to retract their beloved revelation after a little over 3 years, so I'm not as confident predicting this as I would have been previously.