Headlines: Thousands Resign from Church

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

I feel that on my shoulders also.

I do agree the more I hear about some of the possible legal reasons I can see a scenario where the church asks its legal council for some ways to protect itself and some of the corporations it owns as well as BYU. The lawyers come up with some legal protections. The brethren don’t comprehend where the heart and mind of the church are at (and even leaders that have access to Handbook 1) and without really thinking about it they release this not knowing what they are going to do. I heard someone quote that they feel like the church contradicted it’s doctrine in exchange to be in a better legal position to fight a cultural war against gays.

I have wondered if there was a legal threat that if children of gay couples were baptised, it would open up lawsuit possibilities of gay parents suing the church because the church would be preaching against them, as parents, to their children. From the very beginning this felt like the reason for this policy to me.

Was the church placed in a position where it felt it had no other choice but to create such a policy? I honestly don’t know the answer to this–but if this WAS the reason for the policy, it feels kindof like a teenie lie to me for the church to say the decision was to protect the children from confusion. How about saying: “We had to pass this policy to protect the church from dangerous and costly law suits.”

I am frustrated about what seems like another lie.

[Anonymous]

I think the church is always considering how to reduce lawsuits. In our society, they won’t avoid it. I would think just like the Catholic church.

But they seek what is best for building the kingdom of God. It can’t be so simple they made this policy for small reasons. It is all part of their vision of protecting their teachings around the family. It is based on how they see it now, and their prior teachings.

It’s not just about lawsuits. But it is not void of legal advice from their lawyers. Certainly.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

I think the church is always considering how to reduce lawsuits. In our society, they won’t avoid it. I would think just like the Catholic church.

But they seek what is best for building the kingdom of God. It can’t be so simple they made this policy for small reasons. It is all part of their vision of protecting their teachings around the family. It is based on how they see it now, and their prior teachings.

It’s not just about lawsuits. But it is not void of legal advice from their lawyers. Certainly.

I know there were many reasons they felt they had to pass such a policy. But it is discriminatory, violates scripture, and seems rather calloused. I might feel better if the church were more forthcoming with the real reasons behind the choice. But, I”m sure we will never hear that part…..like we never heard the real reason for the priesthood ban. We did hear innuendo, but not the real reason (as in a mistake).

[Anonymous]

I wish the plain truth was out there too, Rob. Ugh. It would be so much easier.

[Author]

Posts