Sl Trib: Front Page Story. Lds Leader Dismissed.

[KevinG]

If the person speaking is not God Jesus or the Prophet then no one has the aurhority to tell someone what a successfull life is.

Quick, someone get brother Covey to cut it out!!!!

[selek1]

If the person speaking is not God, Jesus or the Prophet then no one has the aurhority to tell someone what a successfull life is. As to say "you need to do X to have a successful life", the implication being that if you don't do X you will not have a successful life, this is placing a judgment on a person which no one other than God, Jesus, and perhaps a Prophet can make.

First, the "you're-not-the-boss-of-me" riff has little or nothing to do with the topic at hand. Frankly, you're fulfilling my earlier comment about "favorite hobby horses" to a tee.

Second, the alleged implication "that if you don't do X you will not have a successful life" is not implicit in the talk itself, but rather is something you are reading in. Frankly, in my opinion, one must be looking to take offense in interpret those words in the fashion you claim to have taken them.

Third, this can all be easily settled by an appeal to the Scriptures.

For that, I refer you to the Doctrine and Covenants 1:38.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

For that, I refer you to the Doctrine and Covenants 1:38.

Pooned.

[mercyngrace]

Since we're discussing scouting, I have a question for those in the know. It's probably something I've known and forgotten because I'm having that deja vu feeling just asking ... but here goes:

If scouting is a church calling, why are we allowed to have non-members in scouting positions? If it isn't really a calling but a volunteer job like seminary instructor, why do we set people apart?

Where is the line between scouts and the church institutionally?

[frankenstein]

First, the "you're-not-the-boss-of-me" riff has little or nothing to do with the topic at hand. Frankly, you're fulfilling my earlier comment about "favorite hobby horses" to a tee.

yes more character attacks, in the words of a great Band "meet the new [one] just like the old [one]"

Second, the alleged implication "that if you don't do X you will not have a successful life" is not implicit in the talk itself, but rather is something you are reading in. Frankly, in my opinion, one must be looking to take offense in interpret those words in the fashion you claim to have taken them.

please enlighten us to this "talk"? Speaking of reading too much into things.

But simple logic would dictate that if three things are NEEDED for a successful life, then that means all three are inseparably connected, and without all three one will not have a successful life; because all 3 all needed. thus a persons life will be a failure because they did not achieve all 3 requirements.

Third, this can all be easily settled by an appeal to the Scriptures.

For that, I refer you to the Doctrine and Covenants 1:38.

Are you saying a YM leader is called and has authority over the 8 year boys and can receive revelation for those boys who are not in the YM group? Isn't God's house a House of Order?

[Senator]

Where is the line between scouts and the church institutionally?

It has been designated the "activity arm of the Aaronic priesthood". Although I'm not quite sure what that means?? What about the Melchizedec priesthood, Relief Society? What are their activity arms, respectively?

[Calm]

Maybe social activity as don't collecting fast offerings and other services count as activities?

[Senator]

Maybe social activity as don't collecting fast offerings and other services count as activities?

Can you revisit that sentence?

[Calm]

Sorry, using the ipad tends to make me want to use fewer words than necessary.

A better term for it would be the social activity arm of the YM as the priesthood services such as fast offerings qualify as "actitivites" in my view.

[KevinG]

But simple logic would dictate that if three things are NEEDED for a successful life, then that means all three are inseparably connected, and without all three one will not have a successful life; because all 3 all needed. thus a persons life will be a failure because they did not achieve all 3 requirements.

Success or Failure is a false dichotomy. The speaker did not say "someone would be a failure if they didn't..." Those were your words.

While I think someone could be a success if they didn't get their Eagle Scout rank, and I think getting the Eagle Scout rank (in the church or out of it) is a success in and of itself. I have never categorized non-Eagle Scouts as failures.

This was the issue I had with your statement. I think you are going out of your way to be offended by this speakers statement.

[KevinG]

Sorry, using the ipad tends to make me want to use fewer words than necessary.

A better term for it would be the social activity arm of the YM as the priesthood services such as fast offerings qualify as "actitivites" in my view.

The BSA programs provide a lot of infrastructure, training, history, literature,camps and program support that the LDS Church would be hard pressed to provide on their own. In fact our local Stake organizaed a female Venturing program at the request of some of our young women who wanted to lead and participate in high adventure outdoors activities. There is no viable substitute for these programs that would take less volunteer time and resources for the return to the program that the BSA gives.

I cannot count the number of times on a hike or campout I've had the opportuntiy to testify and teach to boys in ways that Priesthood meetings and service projects alone would not provide opportunitites to do. As the father of an Eagle Scout, a Life Scout and a Star Scout I can attest to the value that exploring life skills, hobbies, vocations and avocations through the merit badge requirements provided for my sons. I've even included my daughters and their friends in merit badge classes for critical skills like first aid, gardening and cooking because the Scout curricula was better than anything I could create on my own.

A Latter-day Saint boy who has availed himself of the opportunity to complete his Eagle Rank has succeeded in accomplishing something of value as well as blessed himself with skills he will use throughout his life.

Just as a Latter-day Saint girl who avails herself of the opportunity to complete Young Womanhood goals and her girls camp requirements will likewise have accomplished a great mark of success.

Countries where there are active scouting programs that support growing our young men mentally, physically and morally are a benefit to the Young Men while making the best use of Church volunteer time and resources.

[KevinG]

Since we're discussing scouting, I have a question for those in the know. It's probably something I've known and forgotten because I'm having that deja vu feeling just asking ... but here goes:

If scouting is a church calling, why are we allowed to have non-members in scouting positions? If it isn't really a calling but a volunteer job like seminary instructor, why do we set people apart?

Where is the line between scouts and the church institutionally?

Scouting can be a calling for members and a volunteer opportunity for non-members. I have seen part member spouses perform admirably as leaders for LDS Scouts. I have also led non-LDS boys who chose to be a part of our LDS troops.

[selek1]

yes more character attacks, in the words of a great Band "meet the new [one] just like the old [one]"

I'm sorry, but pointing out the flaws in your arguments is a vastly different thing than attacking your character.

To quote a great television show (one I'm infinitely sure you're familiar with), "One of these things is not like the others..."

But simple logic would dictate that if three things are NEEDED for a successful life,

Again, that's an interpretation YOU are reading in, rather than anything inherent or implicit in the quote.

Success or Failure is a false dichotomy. The speaker did not say "someone would be a failure if they didn't..." Those were your words.

While I think someone could be a success if they didn't get their Eagle Scout rank, and I think getting the Eagle Scout rank (in the church or out of it) is a success in and of itself. I have never categorized non-Eagle Scouts as failures.

This was the issue I had with your statement. I think you are going out of your way to be offended by this speakers statement.

+1 DaddyG

Bravo Zulu for expressing it so clearly.

[frankenstein]

Daddyg and selek.....please please go read the original statement which is "need to do three things for a successful life."

It is utterly astounding that you both are in such a state of denial as to what was posted.

And daddyg it matters not what you think about a non eagle scou. The discussion is about what the YM leader said, so dont move the goal post. The YM leader hinged success in life on three inseparable things. One must achieve all 3, if a person lacks even one they do not have a successful life.

Edited October 5, 2011 by frankenstein

[KevinG]

One of our YM leaders actually told our cubs at a pack mtg presentation that they needed to do three things for a successful life: be an eagle scout, go on a mission, and marry in the temple.

Eagle Scout, Mission and Temple marriage are not causes of success... they are benchmarks or goals that show a young man can set high goals and complete them. Those three items are referred to by many LDS Prophets and Apostles http://lds.org/pa/di...,5171-1,00.html

frankenstein' timestamp='1317577904' post='1209051129']

It's one thing for. Prophet to encourage scouting it is quite another thing and not the place of YM leader to tell kids their life will be a failure if they do not become an eagle scout ....

frankenstein' timestamp='1317765628' post='1209051897']

But simple logic would dictate that if three things are NEEDED for a successful life, then that means all three are inseparably connected, and without all three one will not have a successful life; because all 3 all needed. thus a persons life will be a failure because they did not achieve all 3 requirements.

Success or Failure is a false dichotomy. The speaker did not say "someone would be a failure if they didn't..." Those were your words.

While I think someone could be a success if they didn't get their Eagle Scout rank, and I think getting the Eagle Scout rank (in the church or out of it) is a success in and of itself. I have never categorized non-Eagle Scouts as failures.

This was the issue I had with your statement. I think you are going out of your way to be offended by this speakers statement.

Daddyg and selek.....please please go read the original statement which is "need to do three things for a successful life."

It is utterly astounding that you both are in such a state of denial as to what was posted.

And daddyg it matters not what you think about a non eagle scou. The discussion is about what the YM leader said, so dont move the goal post. The YM leader hinged success in life on three inseparable things. One must achieve all 3, if a person lacks even one they do not have a successful life.

Yeah- like I said, neither the speaker, Selek or I used the word failure to describe people who didn't get their Eagle Scout. I don't have an Eagle Scout and I don't consider myself a failure, why would I consider others failures?

I am even more intolerent and judgemental because in addition to the three items above I've taught my children and students that a High School Education, College, Respect for the opposite sex, Volunteer Service, Learning a skill like music or swimming, being a good steward of nature and other things are all part of being successful.

Don't get so bent out of shape that a Young Mens leader considers an Eagle Rank, Mission and Temple marriage hallmarks of success. It smacks of offensisensitivity.

Edited October 5, 2011 by DaddyG

[KevinG]

It is utterly astounding that you both are in such a state of denial as to what was posted.

In the last analysis neither you or I could know the intent of the speaker from a second hand paraphrase. It seems you are intent on giving the intent of the statement the least charitable interpretation possible while I am inclined to give the report a more charitable reading.

But since you are obviously from your assessment in the quote above, a mind reading internet psychologist, who am I to argue with your paranormal diagnostic ability?

[frankenstein]

Yeah- like I said, neither the speaker, Selek or I used the word failure to describe people who didn't get their Eagle Scout. I don't have an Eagle Scout and I don't consider myself a failure, why would I consider others failures?

The issue isn't about what you think, the issue is about a plain, simple and face value of the quote provided. That is 3 things are needed for a successful life.

How about this, if a person does not have successful life, then what do they have? It should be noted that the YM would consider your life to not be successful because you did not earn Eagle Scout.

It seems you are intent on giving the intent of the statement the least charitable interpretation possible while I am inclined to give the report a more charitable reading.

But since you are obviously from your assessment in the quote above, a mind reading internet psychologist, who am I to argue with your paranormal diagnostic ability?

very interesting, you accuse me of mind reading yet you do the same.

As for denials, yes, selek is in denial about the quote and my rephrasing of the quote. The YM said 3 things were needed, selek denies this, and claims it is my interpretation, when I am only quoting the speaker. As for yourself, once again, if 3 things are required for a successful life, and one of those things is not attained, a person can not claim a successful life. So if a person can not claim a successful life what do they have? You can move the goal the post and claim false dicotomies, but that is irrelevant as the discussion is about the exact quote. but move the post if you need.

I do not consider one who has not served a mission, attained eagle scout or married in the temple to not have a successful life, but apparently there are some knuckle heads in the Church who think you and I do not have a successful life because we lack eagle rank.

[KevinG]

very interesting, you accuse me of mind reading yet you do the same.

I don't recall diagnosing you as being in denial.

I wish you success and a good night (which is not to imply if you don't follow my suggession you will automatically fail have a bad night).

[Scott Lloyd]

The issue isn't about what you think, the issue is about a plain, simple and face value of the quote provided. That is 3 things are needed for a successful life.

How about this, if a person does not have successful life, then what do they have? It should be noted that the YM would consider your life to not be successful because you did not earn Eagle Scout.

very interesting, you accuse me of mind reading yet you do the same.

As for denials, yes, selek is in denial about the quote and my rephrasing of the quote. The YM said 3 things were needed, selek denies this, and claims it is my interpretation, when I am only quoting the speaker. As for yourself, once again, if 3 things are required for a successful life, and one of those things is not attained, a person can not claim a successful life. So if a person can not claim a successful life what do they have? You can move the goal the post and claim false dicotomies, but that is irrelevant as the discussion is about the exact quote. but move the post if you need.

I do not consider one who has not served a mission, attained eagle scout or married in the temple to not have a successful life, but apparently there are some knuckle heads in the Church who think you and I do not have a successful life because we lack eagle rank.

It seems to be a matter of distinguishing whether the three things are beneficial to a successful life as opposed to being essential for a successful life. I tend to hold with Frankenstein that saying they are "needed" seems to convey the latter rather than the former.

Perhaps it was a case of poor word choice on the part of the speaker. If, say, he had said that the three elements tend to promote a successful life, I would feel far more comfortable with his statement. But that meaning, on its face, is quite different from what he did say and may be different from what he had in mind. Without being able to question him, it is impossible to say with certainty.

Moreover, I don't put the the three things on the same level of importance. In an eternal sense, a temple marriage is, of course, indispensable to exaltation and eternal life. Earning the Eagle Scout rank and serving a mission in one's young adulthood, on the other hand, are indispensable for neither a successful life in mortality nor eternal life. I have observed many men whom I would call successful in life who have achieved neither.

Edited October 5, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

A Latter-day Saint boy who has availed himself of the opportunity to complete his Eagle Rank has succeeded in accomplishing something of value as well as blessed himself with skills he will use throughout his life.

I completely agree with you. My son had the benefit of a decent scout program and I am sure he considers many of their activities the highlights of his youth and I suspect it provided with many growth opportunities he couldn't get another way.

Just in case the use of the term 'social' sounded like I was downplaying it, that wasn't what I meant, I meant something indicating it was nonpriesthood required activity, perhaps secular or community would have been a more precise choice.

[mercyngrace]

Scouting can be a calling for members and a volunteer opportunity for non-members. I have seen part member spouses perform admirably as leaders for LDS Scouts. I have also led non-LDS boys who chose to be a part of our LDS troops.

I've seen that, too, and love that scouting provides an opportunity to draw non-member parents into service within the church community even if they opt out of church membership. This practice of allowing non-member scout leaders should draw a clear boundary beween the institution of the church and the institution of scouting however, setting members apart as scout leaders blurs the line, IMO, and that sometimes causes members to wrongly order programs and activies that ought to be easily prioritized as "good, better, best".

[Scott Lloyd]

Please see my previous post on the last page.

I was trying to post using an iPod Touch last night and couldn't figure out how to get the text typed in. Then I somehow accidentally posted without text.

[Calm]

Please see my previous post on the last page.

I was trying to post using an iPod Touch last night and couldn't figure out how to get the text typed in. Then I somehow accidentally posted without text.

Switching to the mobile theme allowed me to type as I had the same problem or at least I couldn't get the keyboard to come up for the reply box though it worked for everything else. It's down in the left hand corner. Edited October 5, 2011 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

Switching to the mobile theme allowed me to type as I had the same problem or at least I couldn't get the keyboard to come up for the reply box though it worked for everything else. It's down in the left hand corner.

I'll give it a try. Thanks.

I guess I didn't know I could switch to mobile, or perhaps I thought that by logging on with a mobile device I would automatically be in a mobile mode.

I'm having my personal challenges navigating with the newly revamped board, hence the inordinate number of duplicate posts I'm making. And just now, I accidentally gave you a rep point for your last post when I meant to click on "Quote."

[Calm]

And just now, I accidentally gave you a rep point for your last post when I meant to click on "Quote."

Ach! How could you!