Bsa Considering Ending Ban On Homosexuals

[Damien the Leper]

Thanks for your summary in another post to me, as it helped me to see what I missed. Now how about if you tell me why you think that wasn't the reason for their destruction? I know it wasn't the only reason, but it was part of the reason, and that abomination still applies to that sexual act between people of the same sex because of the culture that is doing the talking.

In other words, an abomination is anything not part of the culture of heaven. You sin, you pay the price, in God's culture.

Keep in mind that the culture of the Jews at the time, according to the Jews, was not binding on anyone who, themselves, were not part of the covenant.

I agree with Ezekiel concerning hospitality. Look at the Genesis narrative where the visitors first visit Abraham. He invites them in, gives them a feast, a place to rest, etc. He then sends these visitors to Lot in Sodom. Lot does the same as his uncle, Abraham. According to Jewish law and cultural practice, it was binding on the Jews to be hospitable to visitors and guests. The people of Sodom explicitly rejected this. The fact that the people of Sodom demanded that Lot let them "know" the visitors is not evidence of homosexuality being a sin. The sin, in fact, was that the people of Sodom wanted to be inhospitable, or rape, these visitors.

[go_utes01]

Modern revelation and contemporary theology are not the arbiters of what is historically and textually correct ideology. At best, they are interpretations used to promote an existing opinion and standard which draw on history to validate their perceptions.

Couldn't modern revelation, be just as the term implies - revelation from God for our day? I don't feel like modern revelation is as you claims "at best" an interpretation used to promote an existing opinion - that is a pretty cynical view of modern revelation.

[Ahab]

I disagree. I allow scripture to stand on its own.

But in what context?

I allow the different books to stand on their own rather than to be dependent on each other.

Not dependent but still related, though, right? Some things in some books have a direct bearing on things in another book, too. Take the "gospels", for example. They're all talking about the same thing in the same time period of history, so what one author says has some bearing on what another author says about the same thing that happened in history.

I don't read the Hebrew Bible in light of the New Testament and likewise I don't read the New Testament in light of the Hebrew Bible.

Then you're excluding a lot of light in your studies, and I think it helps to see the connections.

Most Christians would read this to point out that LORD is God and Lord is Jesus. But to the Psalmist, this would be illogical and make no sense considering the fact that 1) according to Jews, Jesus is not the Son of God nor the Messiah and 2) the Psalmist knew nothing about Jesus and was not actually prophesying.

You don't realize that the psalmist (David I think) understood there to be both a "LORD" and a "Lord" with both of them being God in heaven and 1 of them being the Messiah. Just because some of Israel later became some apostate Jews doesn't mean that psalmist didn't know that about those 2 God persons, and it also doesn't mean some Jews contemporary with that plalmist also didn't know that about them. And that psalmist wasn't the first person who understand that about those 2 God persons, either. Lots and lots of people have known that throughout all of our history.

Modern revelation and contemporary theology are not the arbiters of what is historically and textually correct ideology. At best, they are interpretations used to promote an existing opinion and standard which draw on history to validate their perceptions.

Well, yes, I pretty much agree with you here, but considering who the modern revelation is coming from, I think you can go ahead and consider him/them to be the correct arbiters, or at least arbitrators, to rely on.

[Damien the Leper]

Couldn't modern revelation, be just as the term implies - revelation from God for our day? I don't feel like modern revelation is as you claims "at best" an interpretation used to promote an existing opinion - that is a pretty cynical view of modern revelation.

But does it not? I'm not being cynical. I just don't see modern revelation and contemporary theology, as I said before, as arbiters of a "true" standard.

[Ahab]

Keep in mind that the culture of the Jews at the time, according to the Jews, was not binding on anyone who, themselves, were not part of the covenant.

Not quite. Keep in mind that anyone who didn't accept that covenant, after becoming aware of it, was expected to accept it and live by it, otherwise they would remain subject to the penalies for all of their sins. In God's culture it was still a sin for anyone to have sexual relations with someone of the same sex, and all people were and still are expected to accept God's culture and God's covenant otherwise they would and will be subject to the penalties for all of their sins.

I agree with Ezekiel concerning hospitality. Look at the Genesis narrative where the visitors first visit Abraham. He invites them in, gives them a feast, a place to rest, etc. He then sends these visitors to Lot in Sodom. Lot does the same as his uncle, Abraham. According to Jewish law and cultural practice, it was binding on the Jews to be hospitable to visitors and guests. The people of Sodom explicitly rejected this. The fact that the people of Sodom demanded that Lot let them "know" the visitors is not evidence of homosexuality being a sin. The sin, in fact, was that the people of Sodom wanted to be inhospitable, or rape, these visitors.

That was a sin, not the sin, although it might have been their last really big sin before their destruction.

Imagine having angels come to visit you and all you want to do is rape them. Sheesh. I'd torch them in an instant.

[go_utes01]

But does it not? I'm not being cynical. I just don't see modern revelation and contemporary theology, as I said before, as arbiters of a "true" standard.

What is this "true standard" you speak of? I receive modern revelation and believe that my modern personal revelation is the best source or arbiter of truth, at least for me.

[Damien the Leper]

But in what context?

Academic study and somewhat in my spiritual formation.

Not dependent but still related, though, right? Some things in some books have a direct bearing on things in another book, too. Take the "gospels", for example. They're all talking about the same thing in the same time period of history, so what one author says has some bearing on what another author says about the same thing that happened in history.

Of course, related. But when I read the Gospels, especially Matthew, Mark and Luke, I have to (for me at least) keep the Synoptic Problem in mind so that I am able to read each Gospel on its own terms.

Then you're excluding a lot of light in your studies, and I think it helps to see the connections.

Not really. For example, when an author in the Gospels quotes Jesus quoting another prophet...I don't read Jesus' words in light of HB prophets. I try to look closely at what Jesus is quoting from the HB, absolutely keep it in its Jewish historical context, and explore what the Jewish understanding is as it relates or does not relate to Jesus' quoting of the text.

You don't realize that the psalmist (David I think) understood there to be both a "LORD" and a "Lord" with both of them being God in heaven and 1 of them being the Messiah. Just because some of Israel later became some apostate Jews doesn't mean that psalmist didn't know that about those 2 God persons, and it also doesn't mean some Jews contemporary with that plalmist also didn't know that about them. And that psalmist wasn't the first person who understand that about those 2 God persons, either. Lots and lots of people have known that throughout all of our history.

You're not keeping it within the context. Be careful NOT to conflate the Jewish understanding of the Messiah with the Christian view. They are not the same and it is illogical, when trying to understand from a Jewish perspective, to look at this through Christian lenses.

Well, yes, I pretty much agree with you here, but considering who the modern revelation is coming from, I think you can go ahead and consider him/them to be the correct arbiters, or at least arbitrators, to rely on.

I'm not LDS and so I can't agree with you here. I don't believe that Thomas Monson is THE Prophet of God. I see him as a prophet; one among many who views the gospel of Jesus Christ through a specific lense and worldview. Like scripture, I believe that "modern revelation" is heavily influenced by human experience and is subjected to a specific worldview.

[Damien the Leper]

What is this "true standard" you speak of? I receive modern revelation and believe that my modern personal revelation is the best source or arbiter of truth, at least for me.

Exactly! For you! The LDS church has a standard in place that it identifies with. "True" is subject to interpretation. Why do you think that not even the Restoration Movement couldn't even stay intact? They schismed, not necessarily because of the poorly defaulted excuse of "apostasy", but because different people had different conclusions and opinions concerning what scripture said, and meant, and what theology developed from scripture.

[rockpond]

Imagine having angels come to visit you and all you want to do is rape them. Sheesh. I'd torch them in an instant.

Agreed. But remember, the Lord had previously decreed Sodom's destruction to Abraham. I tend to doubt that this attempted rape was the first in Sodom (though probably the first with holy messengers as the targeted victims).

[Ahab]

Academic study and somewhat in my spiritual formation.

Tells me nothing I can use for comparison. People are all over the place with those standards.

Of course, related. But when I read the Gospels, especially Matthew, Mark and Luke, I have to (for me at least) keep the Synoptic Problem in mind so that I am able to read each Gospel on its own terms.

Try both methods. Go for an understanding of each separately and then look for any connections between them which could give you an even deeper understanding, dependent upon the additional light you get from both together. And then combine that understanding from those 2 with another, and then another, building an even deeper understanding from all of them together. You can still focus on only one without being dependent on another, but once you have that understanding you should look for additional light and then build on all that.

Not really. For example, when an author in the Gospels quotes Jesus quoting another prophet...I don't read Jesus' words in light of HB prophets. I try to look closely at what Jesus is quoting from the HB, absolutely keep it in its Jewish historical context, and explore what the Jewish understanding is as it relates or does not relate to Jesus' quoting of the text.

Okay, but from that point you should add in what Jesus is saying, too, to arrive at an even greater understanding. Sometimes some people misunderstood what he said through his prophets so he later clarified through another prophet, or by speaking himself.

You're not keeping it within the context. Be careful NOT to conflate the Jewish understanding of the Messiah with the Christian view. They are not the same and it is illogical, when trying to understand from a Jewish perspective, to look at this through Christian lenses.

Jews were once Christians, even though they didn't always know exactly when and where he would be born, or what his name would be when he was born. And then he was born and some Jews didn't recognize he was the Christ, or Messiah, that they were expecting to come. They're still Christians now, too. They just don't know who the Christ is.

I'm not LDS and so I can't agree with you here. I don't believe that Thomas Monson is THE Prophet of God. I see him as a prophet; one among many who views the gospel of Jesus Christ through a specific lense and worldview. Like scripture, I believe that "modern revelation" is heavily influenced by human experience and is subjected to a specific worldview.

You're right. That is all true, but that doesn't mean you can't build on what each prophet has said as they have been inspired by God to share a message.

[Damien the Leper]

What I'm amazed at is the bartering with God concerning the destruction. God was willing to spare Sodom if a certain number of righteous men could be found. That says more about God than God actually destroying Sodom.

[go_utes01]

Exactly! For you! The LDS church has a standard in place that it identifies with. "True" is subject to interpretation. Why do you think that not even the Restoration Movement couldn't even stay intact? They schismed, not necessarily because of the poorly defaulted excuse of "apostasy", but because different people had different conclusions and opinions concerning what scripture said, and meant, and what theology developed from scripture.

So I'm confused then. You said modern revelation is "at best" an interpretation used to promote an existing position or standard - that has not been my experience with personal revelation (necessarily modern). Revelation has opened up entire new areas of understanding for me.

[Damien the Leper]

Tells me nothing I can use for comparison. People are all over the place with those standards.

I agree.

Try both methods. Go for an understanding of each separately and then look for any connections between them which could give you an even deeper understanding, dependent upon the additional light you get from both together. And then combine that understanding from those 2 with another, and then another, building an even deeper understanding from all of them together. You can still focus on only one without being dependent on another, but once you have that understanding you should look for additional light and then build on all that.

The way I study scripture personally and academically, as of now, keeps me busy enough. Your suggestion sounds exhausting. No offense, of course.

Okay, but from that point you should add in what Jesus is saying, too, to arrive at an even greater understanding. Sometimes some people misunderstood what he said through his prophets so he later clarified through another prophet, or by speaking himself.

As I stated, I study the Jewish context of what Jesus is quoting and compare it to what how Jesus used it.

Jews were once Christians, even though they didn't always know exactly when and where he would be born, or what his name would be when he was born. And then he was born and some Jews didn't recognize he was the Christ, or Messiah, that they were expecting to come. They're still Christians now, too. They just don't know who the Christ is.

Jesus followers in the first century were Jews, not Christians. The move toward what eventually became what I see as Constantianism was Christianity.

This does nothing to answer the Messianic Secret problem in Mark's Gospel.

Demons knew Christ:

"What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are--the Holy One of God." Mk 1:24

And he healed many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons. And he would not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him. Mk 1:34

The Roman Centurion knew who Jesus was:

³⁹ Now when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in this way he breathed his last, he said, “Truly this man was God’s Son!” Mk 15:9

But Christianity constantly makes the claim that Jesus wants us to know him. That's not evidenced by Mark's Gospel either:

⁴² Immediately the leprosy left him, and he was made clean. ⁴³ After sternly warning him he sent him away at once, ⁴⁴ saying to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.” ⁴⁵ But he went out and began to proclaim it freely, and to spread the word, so that Jesus could no longer go into a town openly, but stayed out in the country; and people came to him from every quarter.

Mk 1:42:44

⁴⁷ When evening came, the boat was out on the sea, and he was alone on the land. ⁴⁸ When he saw that they were straining at the oars against an adverse wind, he came towards them early in the morning, walking on the sea. He intended to pass them by. ⁴⁹ But when they saw him walking on the sea, they thought it was a ghost and cried out; ⁵⁰ for they all saw him and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, “Take heart, it is I; do not be afraid.” ⁵¹ Then he got into the boat with them and the wind ceased. And they were utterly astounded, ⁵² for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened Mk 6:47-52

And they were filled with great awe and said to one another, “Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?” Mk 4:41

In context, this isn't a rhetorical question. They didn't know Jesus even after the parables.

²⁷ Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” ²⁸ And they answered him, “John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.” ²⁹ He asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Messiah.” ³⁰ And he sternly ordered them not to tell anyone about him. Mk 8:27-30

The question, ultimately, is this: why didn't Jesus want anyone to know who he was or about him? The text doesn't even beging to answer or allude to providing an explanation.

You're right. That is all true, but that doesn't mean you can't build on what each prophet has said as they have been inspired by God to share a message.

I agree. That is why I take all that the prophets, past and present, with a grain of salt.

[Damien the Leper]

So I'm confused then. You said modern revelation is "at best" an interpretation used to promote an existing position or standard - that has not been my experience with personal revelation (necessarily modern). Revelation has opened up entire new areas of understanding for me.

Apologies. That statement was made in a generalized context. Personal revelation, in my experience, works differently.

[Ahab]

The way I study scripture personally and academically, as of now, keeps me busy enough. Your suggestion sounds exhausting. No offense, of course.

All it requires is an attempt to understand from another perspective, and when you get tired of thinking you can just stop for a while until you get enough rest to start thinking again.

As I stated, I study the Jewish context of what Jesus is quoting and compare it to what how Jesus used it.

Oh, okay. I missed part of that earlier. Sounds like you're already doing what I am suggesting, then.

Jesus followers in the first century were Jews, not Christians. The move toward what eventually became what I see as Constantianism was Christianity.

Depends on how you define the term Christian, doesn't it. I define it as the people who follow Christ, and the Jews once did when they followed Jehovah even though they didn't know it was the same person who was born in Bethlehem as a baby boy who was then named Jesus.

This does nothing to answer the Messianic Secret problem in Mark's Gospel.

Demons knew Christ:

The Roman Centurion knew who Jesus was:

But Christianity constantly makes the claim that Jesus wants us to know him. That's not evidenced by Mark's Gospel either:

In context, this isn't a rhetorical question. They didn't know Jesus even after the parables.

The question, ultimately, is this: why didn't Jesus want anyone to know who he was or about him? The text doesn't even begin to answer or allude to providing an explanation.

No, the question is why did he tell people to not tell others about him or what he had done. You're presuming he didn't want anyone to know or find out for themselves. You're presuming you know what he meant when he told others not to tell who he was or the things he was doing.

I'd tell you, but then that would take the fun out of you finding out from God for yourself, presuming you would believe me.

I agree. That is why I take all that the prophets, past and present, with a grain of salt.

Salt is good. Keep collecting it until you get a whole bunch of it while spreading it around all over the place when you can.

[Damien the Leper]

Depends on how you define the term Christian, doesn't it. I define it as the people who follow Christ, and the Jews once did when they followed Jehovah even though they didn't know it was the same person who was born in Bethlehem as a baby boy who was then named Jesus.

Ask any Jew in the first century if they are a Christian. And again, you are reading the Hebrew Bible text from a Christian perspective. That's fine but it doesn't hold water for a Jew...unless they are a Messianic Jew.

No, the question is why did he tell people to not tell others about him or what he had done. You're presuming he didn't want anyone to know or find out for themselves. You're presuming you know what he meant when he told others not to tell who he was or the things he was doing.

I have presumed nothing. I have presented, from an academic perspective, what is called the Messianic Secret. Your question is correct. Why did he tell people not to tell? Read further below...

I'd tell you, but then that would take the fun out of you finding out from God for yourself, presuming you would believe me.

Again, Mark's Gospel doesn't explain or even attempt to explain why. All you have is an idea.

[Ahab]

Ask any Jew in the first century if they are a Christian.

That was a little before my time, as a mortal on this Earth I mean, but I'm sure the person who was once named Saul and later named Paul would tell me he was, regardless of when I asked him, bother before and after he found out the Christ was born as a boy baby named Jesus.

And again, you are reading the Hebrew Bible text from a Christian perspective.

From both, actually. I can switch my perspective at will.

That's fine but it doesn't hold water for a Jew...unless they are a Messianic Jew.

I was speaking of the Jews collectively, as a people, both before and after the birth of their Messiah. Generally, they either look forward to the coming of the one and only Messiah or they know he has already come as a baby boy that was named Jesus.

I have presumed nothing. I have presented, from an academic perspective, what is called the Messianic Secret. Your question is correct. Why did he tell people not to tell? Read further below...

Again, Mark's Gospel doesn't explain or even attempt to explain why. All you have is an idea.

You seem to be presuming I'm limited in my ability to know the truth about this as if I'm dependent only on Mark to know the answer, but I'm not. My idea on this was given to me by God and he has explained at least some of the why to me. Rather than me tell you about him I'd rather you get to know about him for yourself in your own personal relationship with him.

[Damien the Leper]

That was a little before my time, as a mortal on this Earth I mean, but I'm sure the person who was once named Saul and later named Paul would tell me he was, regardless of when I asked him, bother before and after he found out the Christ was born as a boy baby named Jesus.

That is very possible.

I believe that the first time that "Christians" may have been used was in Acts 11:26. However, in Codex Siniaticus, it says "Chrestians". This could just be a misspelling. But it would be odd that this misspelling would occur 2 more times in Codex Siniaticus (Acts 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:15).

From both, actually. I can switch my perspective at will.

Ok.

I was speaking of the Jews collectively, as a people, both before and after the birth of their Messiah. Generally, they either look forward to the coming of the one and only Messiah or they know he has already come as a baby boy that was named Jesus.

Keep in mind that Peter was familiar with the Messiah in a Jewish context. He declared that Jesus was the Messiah but when he pulled Jesus aside to rebuke him. Jews had an understanding that the Messiah would not suffer and die. But this is evidenced differently from the perspective of Mark's Gospel:

²⁷ Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” ²⁸ And they answered him, “John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.” ²⁹ He asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Messiah.” ³⁰ And he sternly ordered them not to tell anyone about him.

³¹ Then he began to teach them that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. ³² He said all this quite openly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. ³³ But turning and looking at his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.”

From Judaism 101:

The Mashiach

The mashiach will be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). The mashiach is often referred to as "mashiach ben David" (mashiach, son of David). He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments (Isaiah 11:2-5). He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15). But above all, he will be a human being, not a god, demi-god or other supernatural being.

It has been said that in every generation, a person is born with the potential to be the mashiach. If the time is right for the messianic age within that person's lifetime, then that person will be the mashiach. But if that person dies before he completes the mission of the mashiach, then that person is not the mashiach.

There are certain similarities between Jesus and the Jewish Mashiach. But I would not go so far as to say that Isaiah 53 is speaking of Jesus. From the Jewish perspective, any of the prophets could have been the person described in that chapter.

You seem to be presuming I'm limited in my ability to know the truth about this as if I'm dependent only on Mark to know the answer, but I'm not. My idea on this was given to me by God and he has explained at least some of the why to me. Rather than me tell you about him I'd rather you get to know about him for yourself in your own personal relationship with him.

Again, I have presumed nothing. The idea that I said you have is in reference to how God has revealed himself to you. Mark is not the sole Gospel that is binding in this situation. I was demonstrating a point. I wasn't putting you down or trying to downplay your connection to God, Ahab. I sincerely apologize if I came off that way.

[Ahab]

I believe that the first time that "Christians" may have been used was in Acts 11:26. However, in Codex Siniaticus, it says "Chrestians". This could just be a misspelling. But it would be odd that this misspelling would occur 2 more times in Codex Siniaticus (Acts 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:15).

Okay, now I see that you're talking about the term "Christian", but I was and am talking about people who were actuallly Christian whether or not they were or are called by the term "Christian".

Keep in mind that Peter was familiar with the Messiah in a Jewish context. He declared that Jesus was the Messiah but when he pulled Jesus aside to rebuke him. Jews had an understanding that the Messiah would not suffer and die. But this is evidenced differently from the perspective of Mark's Gospel:

Yes, they had that understanding among them as a collective people at one time in their history, but at another time (actually several other times and spanning centuries) they had an understanding that he would suffer and die for their sins. That understanding was given to them by God through his prophets, even though they rejected that understanding and those teachings that would have led them more perfectly to that understanding. Keep in mind that when you say "Jews" that includes all of the people who came to the American continent with Lehi and Nephi and Laban, as recorded in the Book of Mormon. They were all Jews, and they all had that understanding whether or not they accepted it.

From Judaism 101:

There are certain similarities between Jesus and the Jewish Mashiach. But I would not go so far as to say that Isaiah 53 is speaking of Jesus. From the Jewish perspective, any of the prophets could have been the person described in that chapter.

The fact that you may not go that far doesn't mean he wasn't the person who was being referred to. You now have the understanding that he was that person, because I just gave you that understanding, whether or not you accept that idea.

Again, I have presumed nothing. The idea that I said you have is in reference to how God has revealed himself to you. Mark is not the sole Gospel that is binding in this situation. I was demonstrating a point. I wasn't putting you down or trying to downplay your connection to God, Ahab. I sincerely apologize if I came off that way.

I don't think you can see how much you are presuming, and I've only touched on the tip of the iceberg.

[Questing Beast]

While I don't support a change in BSA policy I don't follow your logic. Should we also keep men from teaching high school because of all the budding young women? Or what about coaching girls teams? Are men to be excluded from that too?

Teaching school and coaching sports teams are in no way comparable to camping overnight or for a week at a time....

[Saints Alive]

Teaching school and coaching sports teams are in no way comparable to camping overnight or for a week at a time....

some school sports teams do travel and stay overnight. Especially the more competitive ones.

[Questing Beast]

Still hardly the same thing as scouting, out in the boonies with little or no separation between quarters. A recipe for abuse if the adult leaders have a mind to. And conflating this with pedophilia is just wrong-headed, because there is a point where a young woman is, well, a woman and not a child anymore, regardless of the age. And some men find young women attractive. It is likewise for homosexual men, to find young men attractive, so you surely would be stupid to put a homosexual man in charge of boy scouts. If you don't know the man in question is homosexual, then that isn't a problem is it? Because he obviously keeps his inclinations to himself and on a short leash, just like anyone has to do with biological desires....

[Saints Alive]

Except that the BSA has mandatory two-deep leadership. Anywhere there is a scout there must be 2 adult leaders. I think it would be very unlikely for two or more gay adults to assault a boy, especially in a situation Where there was a group of boys together.

[ERayR]

Except that the BSA has mandatory two-deep leadership. Anywhere there is a scout there must be 2 adult leaders. I think it would be very unlikely for two or more gay adults to assault a boy, especially in a situation Where there was a group of boys together.

You are naive. Where there is a will there is a way.

Edited January 31, 2013 by ERayR

[gkearney]

Consider this for a moment. Which is a better role model for LDS youth in scouting:

A man who lives with his girlfriend out of wedlock and has had children by her.

OR

A self identified gay man who is celibate and is a worthy temple recommend holder.