Bsa Survey

[rongo]

I received this email from my local BSA council. It contained a link to a survey (which I took), which centered around my degree of support or opposition to a BSA policy change, and what I would do if there was a change or if there was no change. Thought some here would find that interesting

-------

We understand the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has communicated to its members that they can respond individually to a survey and express their own personal opinions. Their personal opinion does not and need not represent the opinion of the Church.

The National Board of Directors of the Boy Scouts of America is currently considering a resolution to remove the organization’s membership restriction regarding sexual orientation.

The current Boy Scout Membership and Leadership Requirements are: The applicant must possess the moral, educational, and emotional qualities that the Boy Scouts of America deems necessary to afford positive leadership to youth. The applicant must also be the correct age, subscribe to the precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle, and abide by the Scout Oath or Promise, and the Scout Law. 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.

As key stakeholders of our organization, your voice is important and necessary to inform our Council and the National Organization about your opinion on this issue.

Please take a moment to review the following questions and provide your feedback. All responses will be anonymous, and the combined results will be provided to the National Organization for review.

--------

[Brian 2.0]

Wow. We were thinking about the same subject. Just posted a question that is related.

Edited March 13, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Brian 2.0]

My personal opinion is to adjust the requirements as such:

The applicant must possess the moral, educational, and emotional qualities that the Boy Scouts of America deems necessary to afford positive leadership to youth. The applicant must also be the correct age, subscribe to the precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle, and abide by the Scout Oath or Promise, and the Scout Law. 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.

Then leave local chapters open to interpret the last sentence as they see fit.

[Scott Lloyd]

We understand the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has communicated to its members that they can respond individually to a survey and express their own personal opinions. Their personal opinion does not and need not represent the opinion of the Church.

Have you received such a communication from the Church, Rongo?

[rongo]

Nope.

I was happy to give my feedback, but it strikes me as testing the wind of public opinion too much. And if it comes to that, BSA will need to make a decision: cater to public pressure, or to internal pressure (my sources tell me that opposition to the policy change among avid Scouters is in the 80 percent range ---- private polling). To stick a thumb in the eye of avid supporters would be suicidal, I think ---- although the political and social pressure is intense.

Should be interesting, either way. . .

[Buckeye]

Have you received such a communication from the Church, Rongo?

I did.

[Buckeye]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/03/the_boy_scouts_survey_on_homosexuality_is_biased_toward_scrapping_its_ban.html

Interesting article by Will Salaten. Expresses my feeling that the survey is far from neutral. Like it or not, the survey is intended to sway opinion more than to gather it. Pretty much all the members in my circles now favor local discretion.

[ERayR]

I received this email from my local BSA council. It contained a link to a survey (which I took), which centered around my degree of support or opposition to a BSA policy change, and what I would do if there was a change or if there was no change. Thought some here would find that interesting

-------

We understand the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has communicated to its members that they can respond individually to a survey and express their own personal opinions. Their personal opinion does not and need not represent the opinion of the Church.

I didn't know I needed a communication from the Church to respond to any survey I wanted to.

[BCSpace]

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/03/13/bsaq.pdf

[rongo]

Pretty much all the members in my circles now favor local discretion.

My former first counselor got his law degree from BYU and his MBA from the U of U. He is well-connected politically, and he is an avid Scouter. He is now on the high council and over young men’s, and he stays abreast of many things (politically, and otherwise ---- in part because of his high-profile occupation). I asked him a few weeks ago what his take on this is, and he told me that BSA has been doing polling through Gallup (I think), and that nationally, more than 80% of “stakeholders” strongly oppose making this change that BSA has clearly been testing the waters with. He said it should be interesting because BSA is under tremendous pressure from the Obama administration and corporate donors (the two are linked) to make the change, but the Catholic/Methodist/Mormon coalition is also a “corporate donor” tugging in the opposite direction. He told me that it was the direct demand of the Great Salt Lake Council that forced BSA to postpone the full member vote until May.

I think it’s patently obvious that BSA would very much like for the Mormons to just go along with this and stop being a hindrance, but they run the risk of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. How much money pours automatically, year after year, into BSA via North American chartering fees and Friends of Scouting, not to mention the disproportionate leadership and influence provided by the LDS Church? A full withdrawal of the Church from Scouting would be catastrophic to BSA.

Interesting article by Will Salaten. Expresses my feeling that the survey is far from neutral. Like it or not, the survey is intended to sway opinion more than to gather it.

Beyond a doubt. The article points out several examples of how this is a “push poll” rather than a “survey,” and I found the wording in my email to be insulting. “You can break with the position of your church ---- really, it’s okay.”

Another piece of anecdotal evidence? My father-in-law is another avid Scouter, a “lifer” (Silver Beaver) who holds the highest position you can without being paid (he’s over several stakes in the Great Salt Lake Council). He and I have had some spirited and heated discussions over the role of Scouting in the Church and in our young men’s program over the years (I am not a “true believer” and would be just fine if the Church got rid of it). He has met regularly with the Church General Young Men’s President in the past, and this has factored into our “spirited and heated discussions.” He visited us a month ago, and I asked him for his take on this. He completely shocked me by saying that the Church will separate from Scouting if it needs to, and that he’s fine with that if it comes to that. I never would have seen that coming, but that’s what things have come to.

[phaedrus ut]

It's time to change the policy. I've heard from more than a few companies that discourage support of the BSA because they don't want employees belonging to discriminatory organizations and the potential liability that comes with it. Just like the priesthood ban, history is going to be a unkind judge on the Church and the BSA over their treatment of homosexuals.

[rongo]

Do you think "history is going to be an unkind judge on the Church" if BSA changes the policy, and the Church formally withdraws from Scouting and does its own young men's program? Would that, in your view, represent unkind "treatment of homosexuals?"

[phaedrus ut]

Do you think "history is going to be an unkind judge on the Church" if BSA changes the policy, and the Church formally withdraws from Scouting and does its own young men's program? Would that, in your view, represent unkind "treatment of homosexuals?"

I think the church's advocacy for Prop 8 and other related behavior and statements are what will reflect poorly on the church's reputation. IMO discrimination based on sexual orientation is just as morally distasteful as discrimination based on race.

Phaedrus

[rongo]

Aside from Prop 8, though. Would you consider allowing BSA to "be on the right side of history," but separating and holding an independent young men's program, to be discriminatory or reprehensible?

[halconero]

What a BS survey....

[phaedrus ut]

Aside from Prop 8, though. Would you consider allowing BSA to "be on the right side of history," but separating and holding an independent young men's program, to be discriminatory or reprehensible?

If the BSA changed policy and that caused the church to separate and form their own young mens program would I think that to be wrong? Yes

I think it's a simple moral issue. I don't want to support any organization that discriminates based on gender, race, sexual orientation, etc..

[Buckeye]

Beyond a doubt. The article points out several examples of how this is a “push poll” rather than a “survey,” and I found the wording in my email to be insulting. “You can break with the position of your church ---- really, it’s okay.”

The church has no position on this issue. Actually, it does have an official position - "No Position". I would love to have some direction, but the fact is we're not going to get any. Here is the official statement (emphasis mine):

For 100 years, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has enjoyed a strong, rewarding relationship with Boy Scouts of America as both organizations have worked to build and strengthen the moral character and leadership skills of young men.

The recent announcement that BSA planned to make a policy change in its standards for membership and leadership has triggered intense debate from many segments of society. We believe BSA has acted wisely in delaying a vote on this policy issue until the implications can be more carefully evaluated.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is carefully assessing the consequences of this policy change on the Church’s program to build and strengthen young men, but it has not commented on it and a decision will not be made until we have assessed all of the implications. We caution others not to speculate about our position or to assume that individual Latter-day Saints inside or outside the Scouting movement speak for the Church. Neither has the Church launched any campaign either to effect or prevent a policy change.

[rongo]

The church has no position on this issue. Actually, it does have an official position - "No Position". I would love to have some direction, but the fact is we're not going to get any. Here is the official statement (emphasis mine):

For 100 years, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has enjoyed a strong, rewarding relationship with Boy Scouts of America as both organizations have worked to build and strengthen the moral character and leadership skills of young men.

The recent announcement that BSA planned to make a policy change in its standards for membership and leadership has triggered intense debate from many segments of society. We believe BSA has acted wisely in delaying a vote on this policy issue until the implications can be more carefully evaluated.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is carefully assessing the consequences of this policy change on the Church’s program to build and strengthen young men, but it has not commented on it and a decision will not be made until we have assessed all of the implications. We caution others not to speculate about our position or to assume that individual Latter-day Saints inside or outside the Scouting movement speak for the Church. Neither has the Church launched any campaign either to effect or prevent a policy change.

BSA is (of course) very aware of this official, "safe" public statement (non-statement) from the Church. I don't think anyone would argue that the Church today isn't in an ultra-safe PR mode, and that it is overly-cautious in its public statements, especially on controversial issues.

But that being the case, why then do the BSA councils fall over each other in assuring their Mormon members that it's okay to have views that are different from the Church's position (see my example in the OP)? As you've reminded us, the Church went to great lengths to emphasize that it has no position. Yet, everybody's actions indicate that the Church's actual position is where everybody thinks it is ---- hence the preemptive attempts to assure Mormons that they can run counter to that position in the survey.

The fact is that the Church's ultra-safe track record in its PR releases and public statements has led to people not taking them at face value (wink, wink, nudge, nudge), and reading between the lines.

The silly thing is that, as others including myself have pointed out in other threads, the Church's actual practice in dealing with leaders and Scouts with SSA (as opposed to practicing homosexuals) has been quite "gay-friendly." But, by forcing the issue here with an overt policy change, the Church is being placed in a position where it almost has to react drasctically to avoid the appearance of tacit endorsement or assent. The political and social pressure behind forcing BSA's hand here is approaching the Law of Unintended Consequences, and may end up killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

[Buckeye]

Rongo, the church officially has no position. That's the whole story. I'm sure general authorities have differing views, but they do not speak for the church. And I imagine they've been instructed to not foster any speculation since the church's official statement is "we have no position; we really mean it; don't speculate" (obvious paraphrase).

That said, most members I know assume the church opposes the policy change becuase of the church's work with Prop 8, etc. I've had to counsel numerous members (church and family) that the church's statement means what it says - "no position". It is perfectly acceptable within the gospel framework for a member to encourage BSA to change the policy and allow local discretion.

I can understand why BSA would feel a need to point this out to LDS scouters. Again, many members incorrectly assume that church has a position. Unfortunately, some persist in that assumption even after the church officially says it has not position. I wouldn't be surprised if we heard something at conference to emphasize "no, we really mean it - no position. go vote your conscience".

[rongo]

I can understand why BSA would feel a need to point this out to LDS scouters.

Fair enough. Do you think the Church also has no position on these "push poll" surveys? That the Church is happy with the wording and obvious direction in them?

I know, I know. "No comment." "No official position." But still . . .

Edited March 14, 2013 by rongo

[Buckeye]

I'm getting the feeling that the church may never, ever, again take a position as to a public policy issue regarding homosexuality. [*] In short, Prop 8 was way too painful. We're done!

Why do I get this feeling? Last November the church declined to get involved in the four state referendums on same-sex marriage. Maybe that could be chalked up to a desire to stay out of politics in 2012 because of Romney. But Illinois is now close to getting same-sex marriage through the state legislature and, guess what?, again no church statement. Not even a statement to read over the pulpits. The most that happended was that a seventy signed on with other churches in a general opposition statement.

On the flip side, there was serious talk that the church was considering supporting an anti-discrimination bill in Utah (related to housing and employment, not marriage). But then the church pulled out of that as well.

So what does this mean. I believe there are widely differing views in the COB and the solution (at least for now) is that no position, and no action, will be be taken on any other public issue regarding homosexuality. We are in complete hunker down mode.

[*] Edit to add - of course, the church would take a position on a policy that directly affect it, such as BSA requiring the church to accept practicing gays, or the IRS trying to take awy the church's 503© status.

Edited March 14, 2013 by Buckeye

[Buckeye]

[sorry for the derail]

This thread is about the survey, not our specific views of the policy change. However, I noticed that someone on the other board quoted me here as supporting the status quo. That is not true. I fully support the policy change. I don't see why BSA should require a uniform policy on this issue of morality when it does not require one for other issues of morality on which local units disagree.

[End of derail]

[rongo]

I'm getting the feeling that the church may never, ever, again take a position as to a public policy issue regarding homosexuality. In short, Prop 8 was way too painful. We're done!

This seems to assume no divine involvement or inspiration ---- simply a finger to the wind, and meetings with Edelson Brothers to go over polling and focus group results.

I've shared this before, but Elder Perry's answer in a Q&A with Phoenix area bishops and stake presidencies was that God commanded the Church to move as it did in California at that time, but He has not done so in Maine, Iowa, Massachusetts, Denmark, Canada, etc. (since that 2010 meeting, other states could be added to that list, as you note). Obviously, much of this has to do with resources and relative strength ---- California made sense on paper in ways that Massachusetts does not, for example. But at the end of the day, when the governing quorums of the Church are unanimous and united on a controversial issue (Elder Halstrom’s words), we need to take that very, very seriously.

In many ways, the Church's performance in California had and continues to have a far-reaching effect, even if the Church doesn't "pull out all the stops" in say, Illinois or the next hotbed. That is, it almost makes it so we don't have to "do a California" at every turn because the Church's stance was crystal clear and there for all the media and everyone to see.The stunning victory in California still has gay marriage advocates reeling and wondering how that was possible.

So what does this mean. I believe there are widely differing views in the COB and the solution (at least for now) is that no position, and no action, will be be taken on any other public issue regarding homosexuality. We are in complete hunker down mode.

I agree with you here, to a large degree (see my remarks on the Church's tendency towards "safe" PR. Do you really think that the "complete hunker down mode" will last forever, though? Do you allow for the possibility that God might just tell His servants to move, or to do this or not do that?

[Buckeye]

I agree with you here, to a large degree (see my remarks on the Church's tendency towards "safe" PR. Do you really think that the "complete hunker down mode" will last forever, though? Do you allow for the possibility that God might just tell His servants to move, or to do this or not do that?

Honestly? I think the hunker down mode will continue for awhile. It will end when there is enough support to fully include homosexuals within the plan of salvation. We've overcome harder things in the past. Nothing was said regarding Prop 8 that was not said at least as strongly regarding polygamy and the racial priesthood ban. We'll get through this one too. I only hope its before all the youth take off.

[rongo]

Honestly? I think the hunker down mode will continue for awhile. It will end when there is enough support to fully include homosexuals within the plan of salvation.

Interesting. I've never heard it put that way before. Of course, I believe homosexuals are already "fully included" in the plan of salvation. Obedience, repentance, faith, etc. apply equally to all people.

Would I be assuming too much if I assumed that this happy day would come if the Church recognized sex within legally-accepted gay marriage as chaste? Under this, would you consider gay fornication to be just as serious as straight fornication, or would that somehow be different? Do we have a ways to go before straight fornicators are "fully included in the plan of salvation," too, or are they already covered by it?

Despite the smiley, I'm completely serious. I haven't heard it put this way before, and am genuinely interested in your lines of demarcation.