Kicked Out Of Ward Bsa Troop For Sexual Activity?

[Brian 2.0]

I came across a post from an LDS blogger recently regarding the whole BSA ban. Interesting take. I've including the part I want to talk about below.

http://www.jewishjou...and_the_boycott

I am opposed to Scouting’s ban on gay leaders because it only specifies orientation, not behavior. I don’t believe that sexual orientation itself should disqualify someone from teaching kids to be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, etc. In addition, the ban underestimates the influence of other role models besides Scoutmasters (e.g., parents, teachers, church leaders, coaches) in a Scout’s life.

In the end, the best course of action would be for the BSA to lift the ban on gay Scouts and leaders while allowing local units, primarily in the interest of religious freedom, to retain the right to exclude people whose behavior fails to meet their standards.

The Boy Scouts is the youth program for LDS boys, so one certainly shouldn’t expect the church to appoint a Scoutmaster who has a same-sex partner, lives with his girlfriend, or has another lifestyle that is at odds with the church’s moral teaching. However, this kind of exclusion would be based on behavior, not sexual orientation per se.

The idea of exclusion because of behavior vs. orientation is a good one, but it got me thinking... when do we actually exclude because of bad sexual behavior?

These come to mind:

- You are excluded from Temple Worship

- You can be excluded from taking the sacrament

- You can be not asked to pray

- You can be restricted from a calling with the youth (in the case of abuse) or other callings

Any others? Is a member of a youth program who is breaking the Law of Chastity ever excluded from a youth program (BSA or otherwise) or even a youth trip?

For example:

If 16 year old unwed STEVE is involved in a sexual relationship with another man is he kicked out of the ward BSA troop (or Priest Quorum)?

If 16 year old unwed JACK is involved in a sexual relationship with another FEMALE, is he kicked out of the ward BSA troop (or Priest Quorum)?

Does it make a difference if either STEVE or JACK are:

A. Currently repenting from 1st offense

B. Currently repenting of his 10th offense

C. Not repenting and saying "It's a problem, I know it's wrong, but I just don't have the strength to deal with it now."

D. Not repenting and saying, "I find nothing wrong with my actions and will continue with them."

I would hope the course of action for STEVE and JACK are the same if they are both doing the same thing. Anyone have any knowledge of having to deal with this in their youth programs?

Edited March 13, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[rongo]

It depends on the individuals and on the situation. I have (as a bishop) restricted youth from activities when I felt there was a risk of predatory or inappropriate behavior. In (most) other cases of repenting youth, there were no restrictions.

One of mine involved a (mentally-disturbed) boy who had attempted homosexual acts.

[Brian 2.0]

It depends on the individuals and on the situation. I have (as a bishop) restricted youth from activities when I felt there was a risk of predatory or inappropriate behavior. In (most) other cases of repenting youth, there were no restrictions.

One of mine involved a (mentally-disturbed) boy who had attempted homosexual acts.

So you have some leeway to deal with it how you see fit.

If they are "open or avowed" homosexual then you are required to pull or deny membership to the BSA, correct?

But all other actions can fall under "or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA."

[CV75]

I came across a post from an LDS blogger recently regarding the whole BSA ban. Interesting take. I've including the part I want to talk about below.

http://www.bsalegal.org/news-releases.asp (see bottom of page)

This is the policy as fund on that link, followed by commentary from the BSA public information officer / media contact:

“While the BSA does not proactively inquire about the sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA.”

Scouting believes same-sex attraction should be introduced and discussed outside of its program with parents, caregivers, or spiritual advisers, at the appropriate time and in the right setting. The vast majority of parents we serve value this right and do not sign their children up for Scouting for it to introduce or discuss, in any way, these topics.

The BSA is a voluntary, private organization that sets policies that are best for the organization. The BSA welcomes all who share its beliefs but does not criticize or condemn those who wish to follow a different path.

***

My two cents on this:

Open (and someone doesn’t have hide in order to not be open) and avowed (and someone doesn’t have to deny in order to not avow) homosexuals or individuals who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA are not granted membership. Those conditions go beyond simple sexual orientation. Simple discretion and common courtesy is all that is being asked with regards to sexual orientation, and this is a standard most responsible adults would agree with, regardless of sexual orientation.

[Brian 2.0]

My two cents on this:

Open (and someone doesn’t have hide in order to not be open) and avowed (and someone doesn’t have to deny in order to not avow) homosexuals or individuals who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA are not granted membership. Those conditions go beyond simple sexual orientation. Simple discretion and common courtesy is all that is being asked with regards to sexual orientation, and this is a standard most responsible adults would agree with, regardless of sexual orientation.

I know Mormons who would consider themselves "OPEN" gay, but do not practice. They say, "I'm gay, but celibate." My reading of the restriction would mean that those people would not be granted membership in the BSA.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

It depends on the individuals and on the situation. I have (as a bishop) restricted youth from activities when I felt there was a risk of predatory or inappropriate behavior. In (most) other cases of repenting youth, there were no restrictions.

One of mine involved a (mentally-disturbed) boy who had attempted homosexual acts.

This is why we haven Bishops. Edited March 14, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[wenglund]

When discussing this issue it may be important to recognize that youth leaders can do certain practical things to decrease the risk of heterosexual improprieties that they can't do with homosexuals.

For example, it is common for youth leaders to organize separate courses and activities for young women and men, and to carefully chaperon mixed activities, and not have late-night or overnight activities, particularly not where young women and men are sleeping and dressing/undressing in the same rooms or tents.

Those same measure are not practical for homosexuals in scouts.

To me, the risks and costs to youth are too high, and their safety and well being so important, that it ought to be paramount, even over the potential for hurt feelings on the part of some or inane attempts at equality by others.

I believe this ought to apply to kids who are openly gay, but say they are celibate, since it isn't much different that were young women and men to argue for mixed sleep-overs, and in the same tents, by saying they are celibate or virgins.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

I know Mormons who would consider themselves "OPEN" gay, but do not practice. They say, "I'm gay, but celibate." My reading of the restriction would mean that those people would not be granted membership in the BSA.

Those who have to administer the policy have to decide what the ramifications of being "OPEN gay" mean beyond one's simple sexual orientation.This is adressed, I beleive, in the link above: "Scouting believes same-sex attraction should be introduced and discussed outside of its program with parents, caregivers, or spiritual advisers, at the appropriate time and in the right setting. The vast majority of parents we serve value this right and do not sign their children up for Scouting for it to introduce or discuss, in any way, these topics." So, if someone says, "I'm gay, but celibate" outside the program (for whatever reason) and then brings this conversation/reputation/knowledge into the program, then the administrators have to make a decision as to whether that is appropriate, and the current policy indicates that it would not be.

[Brian 2.0]

Those same measure are not practical for homosexuals in scouts.

To me, the risks and costs to youth are too high, and their safety and well being so important, that it ought to be paramount, even over the potential for hurt feelings on the part of some or inane attempts at equality by others.

I believe this ought to apply to kids who are openly gay, but say they are celibate, since it isn't much different that were young women and men to argue for mixed sleep-overs, and in the same tents, by saying they are celibate or virgins.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I understand what you are saying, and I'm not sure I have a better answer that wouldn't cause it's own problems... but this set-up sadly restricts the "openly gay, but celibate" groups from a LOT of things. I find that sad, and I'm sure they would find that sad. And if that kid knew the "costs" of being "openly gay, but celibate" I'm sure he would opt to NOT be open so that he could participate in church trips, camping overnights, etc. And I know that choice of not being open about it can be hard for them, because they feel dishonest about themselves.

Basically... my heart goes out to any youth in the church that is gay... I feel they suffer a lot more than most, and I wish we could find a better way to deal with it.

Edited March 14, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[rpn]

I just fail to understand the reasoning here. All young men in the ward are registered in scouting. And decision about who are leaders are supposed to be done prayerfully seeking Heaven's blessing. It is a really safe bet that lds troops have had lots of gay scouts and leaders over the last fifty years, whether or not either were out.

I just don't understand why people think anything will be different by changing the rule so that sponsoring units can decide that they are going to let scouts and leaders be judged on there adherence to the scout law and oath, rather than some label.

[wenglund]

I understand what you are saying, and I'm not sure I have a better answer that wouldn't cause it's own problems... but this set-up sadly restricts the "openly gay, but celibate" groups from a LOT of things. I find that sad, and I'm sure they would find that sad.

I appreciate your comments and your sentiments. However, I am okay with some people being "sad," and even prefer it to real temporal and spiritual harm.

As an old, single, male adult, it saddens me that I may not be called to certain positions or have certain blessings or be involved in certain activities at this time or perhaps even in this life, but I recognize that such feelings are relatively inconsequential in terms of the bigger picture and what we all ought to be striving for. I can be sad and still work to become like Christ, and in my own appropriate way help others to do likewise

And if that kid knew the "costs" of being "openly gay, but celibate" I'm sure he would opt to NOT be open so that he could participate in church trips, camping overnights, etc. And I know that choice of not being open about it can be hard for them, because they feel dishonest about themselves.

People often have the choice to do right or wrong things for the wrong reasons. But, it doesn't serve anyone's best interest to do so. Nor doesn't make sense to formulate policies, or undo policies, because it might inadvertently encourage dishonesty. Policies should be put into place and kept in place because they are in everyone's best interest.

Basically... my heart goes out to any youth in the church that is gay... I feel they suffer a lot more than most, and I wish we could find a better way to deal with it.

My heart goes out to them as well, though I can think of certain youth who, to me, have or are experiencing far greater challenges than being prudently excluded from certain organizations and activities because of one's open same-sex attraction. There are several youth in my ward who are physically and to some degree mentally handicapped to the point that they can't participate on church or school sports teams, are limited in their ability to attend outdoor activities, and who can't dance, and who may have little hope of dating, let alone entering into a marital relationship, who lack the cognitive skills to fare well in school or in a career, and who have little choice but to be taken care of by others for much if not all of their lives.

The good news is, those kids tend to have a great attitudes, they don't feel sorry for themselves, aren't out to change the system because they were sad, but are gratefully doing the very best they can with what God has given them. And, they are inspiring to me, who has so much more.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 14, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

I just fail to understand the reasoning here. All young men in the ward are registered in scouting. And decision about who are leaders are supposed to be done prayerfully seeking Heaven's blessing. It is a really safe bet that lds troops have had lots of gay scouts and leaders over the last fifty years, whether or not either were out.

I just don't understand why people think anything will be different by changing the rule so that sponsoring units can decide that they are going to let scouts and leaders be judged on there adherence to the scout law and oath, rather than some label.

I don't get why you can't see the obvious sense of the reasoning. To me it seems counter-intuitive to think that ignorance of potential problems in the past somehow means that things wouldn't be different or it wouldn't make sense to take action if we now know of potential problems.

It is analogous to saying that since we didn't know about the health hazards of asbestos in the past, then things won't be any different now nor should we take action now that we know that asbestos is bad. Does that make sense to you?

Sometimes I half-heartedly wonder if the issue of homosexuality somehow and in some way shuts down people critical thinking skills.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 14, 2013 by wenglund

[Brian 2.0]

I don't get why you can't see the obvious sense of the reasoning. To me it seems counter-intuitive to think that ignorance of potential problems in the past somehow means that things wouldn't be different or it wouldn't make sense to take action if we now know of potential problems.

I think one needs to be clear on what those potential problems are. I think some people assume potential problems that are not so.

For instance, the idea that an adult gay Scoutmaster would be more likely to sexually abuse the boy scouts in his troop than a heterosexual Scoutmaster is incorrect.

If anyone wants to CFR that claim here just the first link I found: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

I'm not saying you disagree with that claim Wade, but what the "potential problems" are is up for debate.

[halconero]

Okay....so one of my best friends, who is a returned missionary, active in the Church and his callings, with an incredible love of the Gospel just came out to me the other night.

He did so because we have been planning, along with others, to move in together as roommates next year. He told me that because he respected me he wanted me to know, and have the option of backing out from being his roommate if I felt uncomfortable.

We're still going to be roommates. I feel absolutely no risk that it will result in anything sexual...you know why? Because being gay does not equal being a sex-crazed pedophile. I've never (and I use that word carefully) read a sexual-abuse case where the perpetrator was an openly gay individual, have you? If so please reference. It's a CFR.

Edited March 14, 2013 by halconero

[wenglund]

I think one needs to be clear on what those potential problems are. I think some people assume potential problems that are not so.

For instance, the idea that an adult gay Scoutmaster would be more likely to sexually abuse the boy scouts in his troop than a heterosexual Scoutmaster is incorrect.

If anyone wants to CFR that claim here just the first link I found: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

I'm not saying you disagree with that claim Wade, but what the "potential problems" are is up for debate.

Statistics can reasonably be interpreted either way about the potential for child abuse among homosexuals. In other words, the debate is still open about what is correct or not. Here is a statistic from the other side: "Homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses: Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children." (See HERE)

However, with the scouting program, we aren't just talking about children. We are also talking about young impressionable adults who are coming of age, so to speak, and are just beginning to discover and ferret out their sexuality. This posses a high-risk for men who are sexually attracted to men (young men or otherwise). It would be like were heterosexual men to be called as young women's teachers and to sleep with the young women at girls camp. It doesn't make sense.

So, why don't we find well-intending people like yourself calling into question the prohibition against heterosexual men being called as young women's leaders? Are you kidding me?

Besides, with all the public concerns raised about what has happened in the Catholic Church over the last several decades, with the abuse of children and young men among homosexual priests, religious groups would have to be enormously stupid not to heighten their sensitivity towards and take preventative action in this regard. Failing to do so is a devastating lawsuit waiting to happen, and worse yet there are the potential causes for and fall-out from such lawsuits.

This, to me, seems so obvious that I am surprised that I have to explain it. Again, I don't know why it may be, but the issue of homosexuality seems to shut down people's critical thinking skills to the point that common sense goes out the widow in favor of the whims of pop culture. Oh well, such is the world we now live in.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 14, 2013 by wenglund

[Calm]

From your link, Wade

A study in the Journal of Sex Research found, as we have noted above, that "approximately one-third of [child sex offenders] had victimized boys and two-thirds had victimized girls." The authors then make a prescient observation: "Interestingly, this ratio differs substantially from the ratio of gynephiles (men who erotically prefer physically mature females) to androphiles (men who erotically prefer physically mature males), which is at least 20 to 1."[17]

In other words, although heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a ratio of at least 20 to 1, homosexual pedophiles commit about one-third of the total number of child sex offenses.

If I am reading this right, all this is saying is that pedophiles are attracted to male children 1/3 of the time, not that homosexuals (those that are attracted to adults of the same sex) are committing 1/3 of child sexual abuse.

If so, this does nothing to predict whether a declared adult homosexual is also attracted to children or not.

[RobertAC]

My personal view is that the blanket ban on gay scouts has been a disaster for the BSA to begin with. By making this issue into what it has become, the BSA risked, and continues to risk, moving to the fringe of society where the organization attracks the radical, and undesirable, elements of our society. The leave-it-to-the-individual-troops response is the one that should have been given in the first instance to the question "Should there be gay scouts and gay scout masters in the BSA?" It respects religious beliefs, and it allow individual scouts to choose which troop to join should they be concerned that they may run afoul of the troop's standards?

[wenglund]

From your link, WadeIf I am reading this right, all this is saying is that pedophiles are attracted to male children 1/3 of the time, not that homosexuals (those that are attracted to adults of the same sex) are committing 1/3 of child sexual abuse.

If so, this does nothing to predict whether a declared adult homosexual is also attracted to children or not.

Keep reading. The gay-friendly psychiatric community is doing everything it can to obscure the common-sense implication in the fact that the vast majority of pedophiles are men, and the vast majority of victims of pedophiles are boys.

But, like I said, the statistics can reasonably be interpreted either way, and that the legitimate concern for the BSA extend beyond those statistics. Men who are sexually attracted to their same sex have no more business being leaders of young men as men who are sexually attracted to the opposite have business being leaders of young women. To me, it's a no-brainer.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

it can to obscure the common-sense implication in the fact that the vast majority of pedophiles are men, and the vast majority of victims of pedophiles are boys.

Then by this reasoning, no men should be leaders of scout troops.

The page you linked to IIRC stated that girls were the victims in 2/3 of the cases. How does that lead to boys being the vast majority of victims of pedophiles?

Men who are sexually attracted to their same sex have no more business being leaders of young men as men who are sexually attracted to the opposite have business being leaders of young women.

But that is something significantly different than pedophilia.

Especially when those involved are generally past puberty. Using labels that confuse the issue (such as equating a man attracted to adult males with a man attracted to boys by labeling them both homosexual) rather than clarify will only lead to greater difficulties in predicting and preventing abuse.

Edited March 14, 2013 by calmoriah

[wenglund]

My personal view is that the blanket ban on gay scouts has been a disaster for the BSA to begin with. By making this issue into what it has become, the BSA risked, and continues to risk, moving to the fringe of society where the organization attracks the radical, and undesirable, elements of our society.

To me, being relegated to the fringe of an over-sexed and increasingly perverted society isn't necessarily a bad thing even given the risk of attracting undesirable--which seems ironic since the movement to the fringe is somewhat a function of not embracing what the culture now deems desirable but before deemed undesirable.

However, as I see it, decisions ought to be based on what is in the best interest of the children rather than on where the decision might move one in relation to the general culture. But, I recognize that thinking this way has become increasingly less popular and may have moved me to the fringe. And, I am okay with that. Feel free to call me an undesirable radical.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cinepro]

I don't know if I would "kick them out", but even if a man and woman were married, I would consider it highly inappropriate for them to engage in any affectionate activity while chaperoning a youth or BSA trip.

Not sure it that applies to your scenario, but I just thought I would bring it up.

[rongo]

To me, being relegated to the fringe of an over-sexed and increasingly perverted society isn't necessarily a bad thing even given the risk of attracting undesirable--which seems ironic since the movement to the fringe is somewhat a function of not embracing what the culture now deems desirable but before deemed undesirable.

What's the analogy many general authorities have given? As the world grows more wicked, the gulf between our standards and the world will grow to a gaping chasm.

The Church will increasingly be and be labeled "the fringe" ---- in the eyes of the world. As the "default setting" of the world continues to evolve on this trajectory, those who don't want to be seen by the world as being "the fringe" are in for a world of heartache and frustration.

[wenglund]

Then by this reasoning, no men should be leaders of scout troops.

Hence, the rational notion of den mothers.

The page you linked to IIRC stated that girls were the victims in 2/3 of the cases. How does that lead to boys being the vast majority of victims of pedophiles?

My mistake. I checked elsewhere and they said that 3/4 of the victims were girls. So, I was even more wrong than I had initially realized.

But that is something significantly different than pedophilia.

Especially when those involved are generally past puberty. Using labels that confuse the issue (such as equating a man attracted to adult males with a man attracted to boys by labeling them both homosexual) rather than clarify will only lead to greater difficulties in predicting and preventing abuse.

To me, it isn't all that complicated, but common-sense, regardless of how one wishes to interpret the pedophilia statistics. In terms of young adults, particularly where over-night activities are involved, as a practical and wise policy, it makes sense to prohibit men who are sexually attracted to their same sex from being leaders of young adults of their same sex, just as it makes sense to prohibit men who are sexually attracted to the opposite sex from being leaders of young adults of the opposite sex. And, given the growing number female teachers who are having sex with their young-adult students, the same rule ought to apply to them as well.

Therefore, since the BSA is largely comprised of young adult males, it makes sense to prohibit homosexual male leaders or heterosexual female leaders.

Again, this seems like a no-brainer to me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

Hence, the rational notion of den mothers.

Men are the akelas (den leaders) up in Canada, in my experience, though when a man wasn't available, I volunteered.

Apparently Canadians aren't rational, not even LDS ones.

[Calm]

To me, it isn't all that complicated, but common-sense, regardless of how one wishes to interpret the pedophilia statistics. In terms of young adults....

If one is talking about young adults, then pedophilia stats are meaningless and irrelevant.