Bsa Considering Ending Ban On Homosexuals

[Saints Alive]

If this is so important (and I am not saying it isn't) I wonder why the church doesn't support the Girl Scouts program. It seems a little one sided to me.

YW don't hold the priesthood, and aren't expected to go on missions. Plus the Girl Scouts to a pro-gay stance a long time ago.

[Questing Beast]

BSA, et al. "public" organizations are not even supposed to inquire into sexuality. It's nobody's business unless or until a victim appears, then the law takes over. The same argument is being made for religions/churches, how they really should not be in the "business" of regulating sexual behavior. Of course this flies directly in the face of traditional religious privilege, for what has typified religions more than pronouncements upon sex? Beginning with paganism sex has always played an inseparable part of defining religions. Why, I don't really know, but it is a fact that if religions cannot legislate their authority in the area of sex, they may as well pack their bags and move out of society. It seems inconceivable how a religion can function at all as any sort of "authority" without being able to define "sexual sin" for itself. Yet if the BSA goes this route, religions, all of them, are not far behind, and the pressure is on....

[rockpond]

According to the LDS Church, it was also homosexuality in vs. 50. Notice the LDS Topical Guide reference to the word "abomination". One is directed immediately to the topic of Homosexuality where one find Ezekiel 16:50 in the list of verses under "see also".

Consider also this additional official doctrine from a current manual:

And yet, there are other statements that support different conclusions...

“In consequence of rejecting the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Prophets whom God hath sent, the judgments of God have rested upon people, cities, and nations, in various ages of the world, which was the case with the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, that were destroyed for rejecting the Prophets.” Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, 192–205. From a discourse given by Joseph Smith in Nauvoo on Jan. 22, 1843.)

“The scriptures abound with evidences of the severe consequences of the sin of pride to individuals, groups, cities, and nations. ‘Pride goeth before destruction.’ It destroyed the Nephite nation and the city of Sodom.” (Ezra Taft Benson, Beware of Pride,” Ensign, May 1989, 4.)

“When love waxes cold, let the poor and the needy beware too, for they will be neglected, as happened in ancient Sodom.” (Neal A. Maxwell, Repent of [Our] Selfishness’ (D&C 56, Ensign, May 1999, 23)

In my opinion, most of the controversy hinges upon one hebrew word: yada (to know). It's used 52 times in the book of Genesis but only a handful of those uses could be perceived as having the sexual connotation. For me, Gen 19:5 does not appear to have a sexual connotation at all. And while Gen 19:8 does seem to use "know" in the sexual sense it begs the question of why Lot would offer up his virgin daughters to a mob of rapists. Yet, even if the men of Sodom were guilty of desiring rape, how does that equate to a condemnation of loving, committed relationships?

And of course, I don't think you can conclude that what happened outside of Lot's house that night is the cause for the destruction of Sodom since the Lord had already decreed to Abraham that the city would be destroyed due to its severe lack of righteous people (Gen 18).

Edited January 29, 2013 by rockpond

[daz2]

I am pretty confident BSA would not change its policy without at least implicit buy in from our Church. Remember that President Monson is the longest serving member of the board that runs BSA. I doubt BSA would have moved to reconsider its policy without at least an informal assurance that our Church would not oppose or even would support the change. Given that our Church supports legislation prohibiting discrimination against LGBT (celibate and noncelibate) in housing and employment, I think its supporting BSA to rescind its across the board ban on LGBT (when consistent with the values of the sponsor of the troop) makes perfect sense and is consistent with the Church's position on gay rights.

See http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/55718242-78/church-lds-scouts-units.html.csp

Edited January 29, 2013 by daz2

[ERayR]

BSA, et al. "public" organizations are not even supposed to inquire into sexuality. It's nobody's business unless or until a victim appears, then the law takes over.

Then its too late and the organization is blamed for not doing enough to protect the victim and the law suits begin.

[David T]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865571663/Boy-Scouts-of-America-to-vote-on-lifting-ban-of-gay-Scouts-and-leaders.html

Speaking for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the single largest organizational sponsor of Scouting in Utah and one of the largest in the United States, Michael Purdy said that “the church is aware that the BSA is contemplating a change in its leadership policy.”

“However,” Purdy continued, “BSA has not yet made any such change. Until we are formally notified that it has done so, it would be inappropriate for the church to comment.”

[Scott Lloyd]

It was until the Prophet stood in April 1986 and said:

President Benson was a fervent champion of Scouting. Others of the Church presidents have been as well, including Presidents George Albert Smith and Thomas S. Monson.

My educated guess is that such a high level of approbation is not universal among all of the Brethren. I was interested to learn, for example, when reading the biography of Elder Neal A. Maxwell that his level of enthusiasm for Scouting was not high and that he did not have fond memories of his Scouting experience growing up in a ward near Salt Lake City. On the other hand, Elder Maxwell developed strength of character, dedication and fortitude through his involvement in the 4-H program and raising hogs on the family farm.

Moreover, if you read President Benson's statement closely, you will see that he is not saying that being an Eagle Scout is essential or required for being a good missionary. Rather, he is saying that this and other things promote the kind of preparation that leads to being an effective missionary.

I'll pose the same question here that I did earlier. I have expressed a libertarian attitude pertaining to Scouting and its relative value and usefulness depending on the individual's interests, innate talents and disposition. Does such an attitude make me a candidate for being called to repentance? Does it affect my worthiness to hold callings, worship in the temple, accept priesthood assignments, etc.?

Edited January 29, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Saints Alive]

I am pretty interested to see how the church will respond to this. We aren't even the biggest supporters of the policy, I wonder how the Southern Baptist will respond?

[Scott Lloyd]

So to you, it's fair to completely equate the way you feel about your wife to enjoying a fun show on TV as a kid?

I would probably feel about it the way I do, regarding homosexual behavior as I do, to having you implicitly equate it to a proper marital relationship between a man and a woman.

Perhaps you don't mean to be offensive thereby. I didn't intend to be offensive, but rather to draw an analogy that illustrates that the fact that an inclination or disposition is very intense at the moment does not mean that such disposition will remain with the individual forever, whether it be in this life or the hereafter.

If that seems impossible to conceive of as it pertains to sexuality, consider the fact that many people eventually lose their sexual drive as a result of disease, injury, old age or whatever cause.

Edited January 29, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[David T]

I would probably feel about it the way I do, regarding homosexual behavior as I do, to having you implicitly equate it to a proper marital relationship between a man and a woman.

Perhaps you don't mean to be offensive thereby. I didn't intend to be offensive, but rather to draw an analogy that illustrates that the fact that an inclination or disposition is very intense at the moment does not mean that such disposition will remain with the individual forever, whether it be in this life or the hereafter.

If that seems impossible to conceive, consider the fact that many people eventually lose their sexual drive as a result of disease, injury, old age or whatever cause.

Being Gay isn't just about having sex, Scott. That's what so many don't seem to get. The feelings homosexuals can have for their partners - and in some states, their spouses - are in many cases equivalent to what you feel with your wife. In all ways, and not just sexually. To say a homosexual will somehow inevitably stop their deep love for their spouse is saying somehow you will inevitably stop your deep love for your wife. Your emotional and loving connection to your wife won't (hopefully) end with the end of your sex drive. So why would you assume the same for gay couples?

Repeat: being gay isn't just about sex. To make it so creates a strawman.

Edited January 29, 2013 by David T

[Scott Lloyd]

My father-in-law and mother-in-law were both Silver Beavers with a lifetime of dedication to Scouting (this caused heavy resentment for my wife, who never had her dad on daddy/daughter nights, or many other things because he was doing Scouting). He held the highest position you can hold without being paid (he was over several stakes in the Salt Lake area), and he told me that the Church already has a contingency plan for the Untergang of Scouting: the Catholic, Methodist, and LDS churches would sever ties and have their own program, which would closely resemble Scouting but would have no ties whatsoever to BSA.

There would have to be care exercised in how this is implemented. The Scouting corporate office has shown a disposition in times past to be very litigious regarding its branding and what not.

Edited January 29, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Being Gay isn't just about having sex, Scott. That's what so many don't seem to get. The feelings homosexuals can have for their partners - and in some states, their spouses - are in many cases equivalent to what you feel with your wife. In all ways, and not just sexually. To say a homosexual will somehow inevitably stop their deep love for their spouse is saying somehow you will inevitably stop your deep love for your wife. Your emotional and loving connection to your wife won't (hopefully) end with the end of your sex drive. So why would you assume the same for gay couples?

Repeat: being gay isn't just about sex. To make it so creates a strawman.

With the sexual and reproductive component removed, one is left with platonic love. A marital relationship is not needed to express that.

Edited January 29, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Saints Alive]

My father-in-law and mother-in-law were both Silver Beavers with a lifetime of dedication to Scouting (this caused heavy resentment for my wife, who never had her dad on daddy/daughter nights, or many other things because he was doing Scouting). He held the highest position you can hold without being paid (he was over several stakes in the Salt Lake area), and he told me that the Church already has a contingency plan for the Untergang of Scouting: the Catholic, Methodist, and LDS churches would sever ties and have their own program, which would closely resemble Scouting but would have no ties whatsoever to BSA. This is a little disappointing to me (if true), because I'm also in favor of doing our own Church program and not a knock-off.

Or no Scouting-esque program at all, and we simply do young men's activities with clear purposes in mind and the ingenuity and creativity of our leaders.

I could see the Catholic Church severing ties, we (LDS) could go either way, but I highly doubt the United Methodist church would pull support from the BSA as a whole, they are a pretty gay friendly denomination on the national level. The southern baptists on the other hand have basically said they will pull support if the policy changes.

[daz2]

What makes anyone think the Church would severe ties because the BSA allows other churches or entities to sponsor troops that allow openly GLBT leaders or boys? We didn't sever ties with ScoutsCanada? Do people really think BSA would make such a change without President Monson's buyin?

[Saints Alive]

What makes anyone think the Church would severe ties because the BSA allows other churches or entities to sponsor troops that allow openly GLBT leaders or boys? We didn't sever ties with ScoutsCanada? Do people really think BSA would make such a change without President Monson's buyin?

because that's what they said they would do in 2000, the last time the issue came up. http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/html/lds-2000.html

[ERayR]

President Benson was a fervent champion of Scouting. Others of the Church presidents have been as well, including Presidents George Albert Smith and Thomas S. Monson.

My educated guess is that such a high level of approbation is not universal among all of the Brethren. I was interested to learn, for example, when reading the biography of Elder Neal A. Maxwell that his level of enthusiasm for Scouting was not high and that he did not have fond memories of his Scouting experience growing up in a ward near Salt Lake City. On the other hand, Elder Maxwell developed strength of character, dedication and fortitude through his involvement in the 4-H program and raising hogs on the family farm.

Moreover, if you read President Benson's statement closely, you will see that he is not saying that being an Eagle Scout is essential or required for being a good missionary. Rather, he is saying that this and other things promote the kind of preparation that lead to being an effective missionary.

I'll pose the same question here that I did earlier. I have expressed a libertarian attitude pertaining to Scouting and its relative usefulness depending on the individual's interests, innate talents and disposition. Does such an attitude make me a candidate for being called to repentance? Does it affect my worthiness to hold callings, worship in the temple, accept priesthood assignments, etc.?

Irregardless of the fervency that some church members have for scouting it is not doctrine and there is not a commandment that says: Thou shalt be an Eagle scout. The advancement and ranks of the scouting program are good tools for teaching life skills. However, some boys enjoy camping and hiking but rank advancement is unimportant to them. IMNSHO a good boys program leader will recognize this and work with his boys accordingly.

[Buckeye]

because that's what they said they would do in 2000, the last time the issue came up. http://www.bsa-discr...l/lds-2000.html

I don't read the 2000 letter that way. I think the sentiment was that the LDS church would leave if it were forced to accept practicing homosexuals as scout leaders.

The key statement is this: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints . . . would withdraw from Scouting if it were compelled to accept openly homosexual Scout leaders ..."

Of course, the current policy change being discussed by BSA would not do that. Local units would still retain discretion to exclude practicing homosexuals.

[Buckeye]

I'll pose the same question here that I did earlier. I have expressed a libertarian attitude pertaining to Scouting and its relative value and usefulness depending on the individual's interests, innate talents and disposition. Does such an attitude make me a candidate for being called to repentance? Does it affect my worthiness to hold callings, worship in the temple, accept priesthood assignments, etc.?

Scott, I'm uncomfortable judging you, but since you've asked twice now I will. Just going off your sentiments here, if I were your bishop, I would have no qualms with you serving in scouting so long as you worked to advance the boys' interests. So if a boy wanted to pursue Eagle, you would actively support him. I would not require you to have a strong a personal view of the importance of the Eagle rank as others in the church may have (even if those others include past and current prophets).

In short, you're good in my book.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't read the 2000 letter that way. I think the sentiment was that the LDS church would leave if it were forced to accept practicing homosexuals as scout leaders.

The key statement is this: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints . . . would withdraw from Scouting if it were compelled to accept openly homosexual Scout leaders ..."

Of course, the current policy change being discussed by BSA would not do that. Local units would still retain discretion to exclude practicing homosexuals.

It would amount to a substantial compromise on a slippery slope. A good reason for the Church to cut its losses now and proceed in a different direction before things get worse.

[rockpond]

With the sexual and reproductive component removed, one is left with platonic love. A marital relationship is not needed to express that.

So the only reason to get married is to have sex and reproduce?

[Saints Alive]

I don't read the 2000 letter that way. I think the sentiment was that the LDS church would leave if it were forced to accept practicing homosexuals as scout leaders.

The key statement is this: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints . . . would withdraw from Scouting if it were compelled to accept openly homosexual Scout leaders ..."

Of course, the current policy change being discussed by BSA would not do that. Local units would still retain discretion to exclude practicing homosexuals.

They would have been free to accept or reject gay leaders in 2000. Since when does anyone beside the bishop decide who is a scout leader in LDS units? However, with the current change in attitude toward SSA I could see the church going either way. It is dishonest to say there is no way the church will stay with the BSA. No one really knows at this point.

[Saints Alive]

So the only reason to get married is to have sex and reproduce?

No but it was the first command God gave to man, be fruitful and multiply.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, I'm uncomfortable judging you, but since you've asked twice now I will. Just going off your sentiments here, if I were your bishop, I would have no qualms with you serving in scouting so long as you worked to advance the boys' interests. So if a boy wanted to pursue Eagle, you would actively support him. I would not require you to have a strong a personal view of the importance of the Eagle rank as others in the church may have (even if those others include past and current prophets).

In short, you're good in my book.

Thanks. I didn't mean to put you in the uncomfortable position of passing judgment. I was only trying to illustrate that someone like Saints Alive, who is contemplating giving back is Eagle award as a show of protest, conceivably could still serve if called as a Scout leader.

Edited January 29, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

So the only reason to get married is to have sex and reproduce?

I didn't say that. I'm saying that there are components to marital love that are not essential for platonic love.

[rockpond]

I'll pose the same question here that I did earlier. I have expressed a libertarian attitude pertaining to Scouting and its relative value and usefulness depending on the individual's interests, innate talents and disposition. Does such an attitude make me a candidate for being called to repentance? Does it affect my worthiness to hold callings, worship in the temple, accept priesthood assignments, etc.?

For the record (and since we tend to disagree more often than we agree), I'll answer your questions...

No, I don't think you have any need to be called to repentance.

And, if I was your bishop and if you approached callings with the same intensity and seriousness with which you approach discussions here, I think I would want you called into our YM organization.