Bsa Survey

[Buckeye]

Yes, that's it exactly. Chastity would be expanded to allow same sex relationships, but otherwise kept with the existing bounds.

I also agree that homosexuals have a lot to gain from the gospel we now teach. But I do not think we fully include them so long as we are punting on this issue. Right now, the best we can tell someone is to stay chaste and wait until the next life when hopefully they'll be changed. That's not enough in my book.

[Stone holm]

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.

I like this approach

[Stone holm]

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.

My feeling is they should leave calls like this up to the Chartered Organization. LDS Units do what the Church feels comfortable with other units do what their organizations feel comfortable with and all of us quit playing religious politics with Scouts

[rongo]

My feeling is they should leave calls like this up to the Chartered Organization. LDS Units do what the Church feels comfortable with other units do what their organizations feel comfortable with and all of us quit playing religious politics with Scouts

That will be the solution if there is a policy change (to placate the Mormon and Catholic units). The question is whether either at that point remain with Scouting or withdraw. Scouting may also elect to leave the current policy in place.

What would happen, though, if a chartered organization "does what it feels comfortable with" and had an abuse incident stemming from the individual they made a local exception for. Do you think BSA's lawyers are going to defend that unit, or leave them high and dry?

[JarMan]

Part of me hopes BSA makes the change and the church pulls its support. Based on my experience Boy Scouts is just not appealing to today's teenage boys. We can start from scratch and do better. Actually I've already done that with my own boys.

[Nathair/|\]

Well, it seems that the Boy Scouts will still be relevant in the 22nd century (Captain Archer was/will be an Eagle with 26 merit badges) and possibly longer (Captain Kirk was never a Boy Scout, according to Carol Marcus, but it's mentioned in terms that seem to indicate that the organization is a force in his day.)

Edited March 15, 2013 by Nathair