Www.Mormonsandgays.Org

[rongo]

Sexuality is actually confusing to a lot of people. A student of mine in high school was baptized in our ward, and she had been a self-declared "lesbian," complete with holding hands and kissing girls at school. She got pregnant the week before her baptism (she did confess the sexual activity in her two baptismal interviews), which many people would chalk up to "well, she was bisexual, then" (how convenient to be able to dismiss every instance like this like that). In reality, I don't think she knew what she was, and it was in flux, influenced by a lot of social factors (I was her bishop at that time).

I think the same is true of a lot of other people ---- they insist they have been "gay" for "as long as they can remember." I think many of these people are simply confused ---- sometimes because of choices they have made, often (very often) because of abuse they did not initiate, and often influenced by the social and media messages of our day.

Edited May 15, 2013 by rongo

[TruthSeeker2013]

Though I would definitely agree with the idea that marriage of that sort would need to proceed with caution, I'm honestly skeptical about either angle: that marriage isn't possible but for a very few or that marriage is possible for most. The stats are few and dependent on that amount of people who volunteer or are willing to participate in such a research topic. Many, especially of the older gens, would prefer not to be apart of that. Many of this community are likely to remain to some extent in the closet, maybe discussing this as an issue of some sort in their life to those closest or that they feel comfortable with. I personally know 2 who aren't out and don't even label themselves as LGBT (I know because I've been told by them). For those that do manage to get married and lead a successful marital life in a generally conservative, religious environment....how many are going to be willing to step forward for a study? How many would even be aware of it? It's likely to skew the data. And it would be difficult to really assess this without an (expensive) longitudinal study that's just not likely to happen (funding, complicated designs, recruitment, etc...it would be difficult).

The rest of what you've mentioned isn't really based on actual research, but current common belief and understanding about sexuality and/or personal experience. Though I don't deny or generally doubt personal accounts, I do not believe most can be generalized to represent the overall population in question. Meanwhile our understanding about sexuality (especially on the general public level) is heavily value-laden based. I think there's faults with multiple views on it as well.

What I dislike most about the statement you've made is this idea that's kinda felt beneath it all. It's like stating: Mixed oriented marriages are bad....then concede that some do make it work well....but before you think of doing it remember it's basically still impossible and you'll have to be like superman to pull that off. It's just as bad as the messages that go along the lines of: yes you have this challenge, and no you shouldn't marry for a cure, but honestly you can still probably marry in a year or two....it's completely doable. Both just ring REALLY inaccurate and moreso based on the values the individual giving the message generally feels.

With luv,

BD

I agree that the data is lacking, but what we do have points to mixed orientation marriages being very likely to fail. Even without the data, it seems to be common sense though that a marriages struggle enough without a total lack of physical attraction so adding that stress on top of the rest is likely to increase the rate of failure. I apologize for coming off as so negative about mixed-orientation marriages. I honestly think they can work for some people, but very few people. I totally agree with Josh Weed's statements on the issue that people should be extremely cautious in considering a mixed orientation marriage.

[TruthSeeker2013]

Sexuality is actually confusing to a lot of people. A student of mine in high school was baptized in our ward, and she had been a self-declared "lesbian," complete with holding hands and kissing girls at school. She got pregnant the week before her baptism (she did confess the sexual activity in her two baptismal interviews), which many people would chalk up to "well, she was bisexual, then" (how convenient to be able to dismiss every instance like this like that). In reality, I don't think she knew what she was, and it was in flux, influenced by a lot of social factors (I was her bishop at that time).

I think the same is true of a lot of other people ---- they insist they have been "gay" for "as long as they can remember." I think many of these people are simply confused ---- sometimes because of choices they have made, often (very often) because of abuse they did not initiate, and often influenced by the social and media messages of our day.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "confusion." If you mean some sort of mental disorder I think that's been definitively disproven for decades by mental health organizations which have long declared that being LGBT is not a mental health disorder (the American Psychiatric Association removed "homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1973).

You mention that sometimes people are gay because of choices they have made. While the church used to suggest that they've backed away from it. I could give you many quotes but the most recent one comes from MormonsandGays.org - "Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them." So it's not a choice (at least according to mental health professionals and the church).

(That's not to say that you can't disagree with the APA or the church, however.)

[Stone holm]

Not going to issue this as a specific reply to a specific comment, but to some general themes. I believe it unfair to paint the entire gay community with a pedophile brush. In that relation, I would remind everyone that one of the persons aggrieved by the BSA ruling was a lesbian ousted as a Den Mother. I assume it would be difficult to justify that call on the basis of pedophilia. Also, while it is true that some homosexuals may class themselves as such in order to be hip, or out of loneliness or some similar choice, I suspect that may not be true of quite a few and would suspect that the number declines rapidly once you enter the ranks of active Mormons. As a result the options for a romantic marriage for them or actually a satisfactory experience in the Church are bleak.

[rongo]

I'm not really sure what you mean by "confusion."

I mean “confused,” like I said. The girl in my example, do you think that she was

a) a lesbian, before she got pregnant

b) bisexual

c) confused about who and what she was

If you mean some sort of mental disorder I think that's been definitively disproven for decades by mental health organizations

I didn’t mean “some sort of mental health disorder,” and I don’t know why you would want to portray me as meaning that. Unless it was to set up an APA strawman.

You mention that sometimes people are gay because of choices they have made.

If someone has experimented with pornography/masturbation, group masturbation (happened in a branch in Indiana that my last companion’s dad presided over), homosexuality, etc., and then later have SSA, did these choices play some sort of role? I know that many today would say that experimenting with such things necessarily means that one had SSA to begin with, but that isn’t my experience. Some do appear to be born with SSA, but many others appear not to be. Including men who were sexually abused by men in their early teens who struggle with SSA in adulthood. This wasn’t a choice on the person’s part, but the link is undeniable. Would they still have had SSA had the abuse never happened? Really?

While the church used to suggest that they've backed away from it.

The Church is definitely overtly more supportive of people with SSA (which everyone agrees is a good thing, I think), I don’t see any backing away from the stance that SSA can also be influenced by experiences and choices.

I could give you many quotes but the most recent one comes from MormonsandGays.org - "Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them." So it's not a choice (at least according to mental health professionals and the church).

I think this is a misuse of this (and other) quote(s). When someone has SSA, then he doesn’t choose the attraction (it just is), but that is not to say that choices and experiences don’t or cannot) play a significant role in developing it in the first place. I think insisting that that is the Church’s new stance is simply wrong.

Edited May 16, 2013 by rongo

[BlueDreams]

I agree that the data is lacking, but what we do have points to mixed orientation marriages being very likely to fail. Even without the data, it seems to be common sense though that a marriages struggle enough without a total lack of physical attraction so adding that stress on top of the rest is likely to increase the rate of failure. I apologize for coming off as so negative about mixed-orientation marriages. I honestly think they can work for some people, but very few people. I totally agree with Josh Weed's statements on the issue that people should be extremely cautious in considering a mixed orientation marriage.

I wouldn't say your statement is extremely negative....just that it comes off as double speak. And it's not just you, most that I hear talk about this, and are tentative about it, also view it as an exceptional case. They hear enough from one person (ex. Josh) to acknowledge that a loving marriage can occur. Yet in the same breath continue with a new means of skepticism towards such a practice. I can't state that it's very likely to fail without solid data (we don't have it). It may seem like common sense, but common sense is notoriously wrong, especially about sexuality. From most of the successful marriages I've read or heard about the underlying assumption that there's no physical attraction isn't what I've read. There may be a different amount of attraction and it may be rooted/developed differently than in a same-orientation marriage....but it is quite often there...just spouce-specific.

I don't think their marriage rate would be around the same rate even if we were amazingly capable at getting a fairly representative sample. I expect that it would be higher. Any marriages with enough distinctive differences (especially those not supported/understood by the larger society) are going to have higher rates of divorce. Interracial marriages generally have a higher rate, so do those of couples that cohabitated beforehand, those from differing socio-economic background, etc. It's not for me about the higher divorce rate, it's describing it nigh unto impossible that bothers me. Describing it as "very few," "extremely cautious," and "very dangerous" is more indicative of personal belief without stronger data behind it. People should be cautious. If they're gung-ho about it, it should be with a full knowledge that marriage won't "cure" anything. It should be with the capacity to gain an understanding as to what people have done to create a successful marriage in these situations. And with the development of these skills to some extent hopefully long before they're married.

I've been very curious about this topic and I can state from what I've read that the people who decide this aren't above and beyond exceptional. Their path is not easy, and many common factors also are found in those where marriages do not succeed (for example, not telling the spouse beforehand, not fully personally accepting until later in the marriage, etc). But I also don't think it's not doable.

With luv,

BD

Edited May 16, 2013 by BlueDreams

[Stone holm]

I wouldn't say your statement is extremely negative....just that it comes off as double speak. And it's not just you, most that I hear talk about this, and are tentative about it, also view it as an exceptional case. They hear enough from one person (ex. Josh) to acknowledge that a loving marriage can occur. Yet in the same breath continue with a new means of skepticism towards such a practice. I can't state that it's very likely to fail without solid data (we don't have it). It may seem like common sense, but common sense is notoriously wrong, especially about sexuality. From most of the successful marriages I've read or heard about the underlying assumption that there's no physical attraction isn't what I've read. There may be a different amount of attraction and it may be rooted/developed differently than in a same-orientation marriage....but it is quite often there...just spouce-specific.

I don't think their marriage rate would be around the same rate even if we were amazingly capable at getting a fairly representative sample. I expect that it would be higher. Any marriages with enough distinctive differences (especially those not supported/understood by the larger society) are going to have higher rates of divorce. Interracial marriages generally have a higher rate, so do those of couples that cohabitated beforehand, those from differing socio-economic background, etc. It's not for me about the higher divorce rate, it's describing it nigh unto impossible that bothers me. Describing it as "very few," "extremely cautious," and "very dangerous" is more indicative of personal belief without stronger data behind it. People should be cautious. If they're gung-ho about it, it should be with a full knowledge that marriage won't "cure" anything. It should be with the capacity to gain an understanding as to what people have done to create a successful marriage in these situations. And with the development of these skills to some extent hopefully long before they're married.

I've been very curious about this topic and I can state from what I've read that the people who decide this aren't above and beyond exceptional. Their path is not easy, and many common factors also are found in those where marriages do not succeed (for example, not telling the spouse beforehand, not fully personally accepting until later in the marriage, etc). But I also don't think it's not doable.

With luv,

BD

So you are suggesting a platonic marriage of convenience say between say a person who some singles back in the day would self identify as a "lifer" in other words single for life and say a gay man or a lesbian. I have never actually heard of a marriage of religious convenience. Or perhaps a gay brother and a lesbian sister? Why does this sound like a recipe for disaster?

[Calm]

Data shows (if my memory serves me correctly) that those marraiges fail around 70% of the time (John Dehlin collected and published this data)....So, yes, it's possible that some very very very small percentage of LGBT people will have a change in sexual orientation and/or marry someone of the opposite sex.

30% success rate? Wow, that is much better than I expected, especially when compared to typical US marriages failing at the rate of 40-50% for the first marriage (higher for later marriages). 30% compared to 50-60%? That is better than interfaith marriages IIRC. So it would seem whether there is a change in sexual orientation or not, there is a decent amount of LGBT in working marriages.

[TruthSeeker2013]

30% success rate? Wow, that is much better than I expected, especially when compared to typical US marriages failing at the rate of 40-50% for the first marriage (higher for later marriages). 30% compared to 50-60%? That is better than interfaith marriages IIRC. So it would seem whether there is a change in sexual orientation or not, there is a decent amount of LGBT in working marriages.

I was also surprised that the divorce rate isn't higher. I suspect better data would show that it is. In any case, its doable, but as Josh Weed said, one who is considering such a marriage should proceed with the upmost caution. Divorce can be a terrible thing for a couple and and even worse for children. To each his/her own, and I'd wish anyone considering a mixed orientation the best of luck if they feel it's the best choice for them.

[california boy]

I was also surprised that the divorce rate isn't higher. I suspect better data would show that it is. In any case, its doable, but as Josh Weed said, one who is considering such a marriage should proceed with the upmost caution. Divorce can be a terrible thing for a couple and and even worse for children. To each his/her own, and I'd wish anyone considering a mixed orientation the best of luck if they feel it's the best choice for them.

I read a Sunstone article a while back written by a professor at BYU who worked with married gay men. Of the 300 he worked with, all but 5 were divorced after 5 years. Unfortunately I didn't save the article.

[Calm]

I read a Sunstone article a while back written by a professor at BYU who worked with married gay men. Of the 300 he worked with, all but 5 were divorced after 5 years. Unfortunately I didn't save the article.

I wonder if these men were self-selected though, they were already having problems with their marriage when they saw the professor rather than just a random group.

If so, then it would be well to compare that rate of success to heterosexual marriages that appear to counseling for help, especially in the area of sexual incompatiblity. I would not be surprise if the success rate was much lower for mixed marriages who were already having problems in this area.

[california boy]

I wonder if these men were self-selected though, they were already having problems with their marriage when they saw the professor rather than just a random group.

If so, then it would be well to compare that rate of success to heterosexual marriages that appear to counseling for help, especially in the area of sexual incompatiblity. I would not be surprise if the success rate was much lower for mixed marriages who were already having problems in this area.

It could be. As I recall, they were meeting with the BYU professor because they were gay. But the fact that they were seeking out help probably indicates that they were having problems. I think this professor had a big influence on the church changing its position on marriage being a good option for gay members.

[rongo]

As a result the options for a romantic marriage for them [gay people who marry the opposite gender] or actually a satisfactory experience in the Church are bleak.

This is true for many, but there are also many for whom this is not true. In addition to Josh Weed and FAIR member Josh Johansen,

http://www.fairlds.o...mosexual-desire

I have two families in my ward alone who have "made it work," for decades in some instances. One is an excommunicated brother in his 50s who, with his wife, has had four stellar kids (the youngest is in the MTC right now). He struggled with homosexuality for nearly forty years (he was molested by a school teacher when he was eleven, and he traces his troubles to that point), but has not had homosexual relations for nearly three years now. The other is a mother of (soon to be) three young children, who surprised her husband and me by telling us that she is attracted to women (she was molested by her mother while being raised alone by her nearly homeless mother).

The inevitable response from "orientation dogmatists" is "Well, these two are clearly bisexual. That's not the same thing as SSA." I think this is a woefully naive, agenda-driven knee-jerk response, in my experience. Sexuality can be complicated and confusing for some, but it is possible to work through it. Sometimes, it isn't ---- I've had some experience working with people in this boat, too. But many people's orientation can change over time, when there is resolve for this and depending on factors and circumstances. The above brother told me that he is attracted to his wife, but that his attraction to men is more "exciting" to him. Knowing this, he suppresses that and focuses on living the gospel and not putting himself in harm's way.

Edited May 16, 2013 by rongo

[Stone holm]

This is true for many, but there are also many for whom this is not true. In addition to Josh Weed and FAIR member Josh Johansen,

http://www.fairlds.o...mosexual-desire

I have two families in my ward alone who have "made it work," for decades in some instances. One is an excommunicated brother in his 50s who, with his wife, has had four stellar kids (the youngest is in the MTC right now). He struggled with homosexuality for nearly forty years (he was molested by a school teacher when he was eleven, and he traces his troubles to that point), but has not had homosexual relations for nearly three years now. The other is a mother of (soon to be) three young children, who surprised her husband and me by telling us that she is attracted to women (she was molested by her mother while being raised alone by her nearly homeless mother).

The inevitable response from "orientation dogmatists" is "Well, these two are clearly bisexual. That's not the same thing as SSA." I think this is a woefully naive, agenda-driven knee-jerk response, in my experience. Sexuality can be complicated and confusing for some, but it is possible to work through it. Sometimes, it isn't ---- I've had some experience working with people in this boat, too. But many people's orientation can change over time, when there is resolve for this and depending on factors and circumstances. The above brother told me that he is attracted to his wife, but that his attraction to men is more "exciting" to him. Knowing this, he suppresses that and focuses on living the gospel and not putting himself in harm's way.

I would agree that it can be made to work for some.

[TruthSeeker2013]

I read a Sunstone article a while back written by a professor at BYU who worked with married gay men. Of the 300 he worked with, all but 5 were divorced after 5 years. Unfortunately I didn't save the article.

Wow, if you come across it I'd love to give it a read.

[TruthSeeker2013]

It could be. As I recall, they were meeting with the BYU professor because they were gay. But the fact that they were seeking out help probably indicates that they were having problems. I think this professor had a big influence on the church changing its position on marriage being a good option for gay members.

Yes, thanks for pointing that out. It's important to note that the Church has changed its previous postion and has stated, "Unlike in times past, the Church does not necessarily advise those with same-sex attraction to

marry those of the opposite sex." (Taken from MormonsandGays.org). Any member considering a mixed-orientation should be aware of the change in the Church's position. The Church seems to be saying, in effect, "proceed with caution."

[BlueDreams]

So you are suggesting a platonic marriage of convenience say between say a person who some singles back in the day would self identify as a "lifer" in other words single for life and say a gay man or a lesbian. I have never actually heard of a marriage of religious convenience. Or perhaps a gay brother and a lesbian sister? Why does this sound like a recipe for disaster?

I have no idea what in the world you're even talking about Stone holm. I never inferred or stated anything that. I said quite clearly that it shouldn't be a marriage for a cure. I really don't think it take much to realize I would also disagree with a marriage of convenience. And certainly not a platonic one either. But you're right...most of those type of marriages would be a royal disaster.

With luv,

BD

[USU78]

I'd say it hasn't been timely enough if 83% of the scouters in the SLC BSA Council oppose changing the BSA policy to allow sponsoring organizations to determine their own policy on welcoming scouts with same gender attraction. Guess a lot of scouters haven't gotten the message that ssa and the church (and scouting) are not incompatible, and we don't need to be afraid of those who deal with ssa.

We shall see whether putting a self-identifying "gay" 15-year-old in the same tent as a 12 year old without adult supervision is going to prove to be a good or a bad idea.

[Stone holm]

We shall see whether putting a self-identifying "gay" 15-year-old in the same tent as a 12 year old without adult supervision is going to prove to be a good or a bad idea.

Personally, I am having trouble imagining that scenario where the older Scouts hadn't already driven that kid inactive even with our anti bullying policy.

[rockpond]

We shall see whether putting a self-identifying "gay" 15-year-old in the same tent as a 12 year old without adult supervision is going to prove to be a good or a bad idea.

I'm curious, USU78, what will be your reaction to the vote next week if the BSA decides to change its current membership policy?

This is not meant to be patronizing -- I know some people here in my stake who have said that they will be done with scouting, regardless of the position taken by the church. There are others who *said* that they would be done with scouting until the new resolution was put forward and the church came out in support of it. Now they are willing to give it a try but are cautious. And of course there are others who have not really cared much either way as they don't see it impacting our scouting programs all that much (this last group represents the majority of my acquaintances in the stake).

Given the strong statement you made above -- I'm just curious where you land.

[EllenMaksoud]

It is hard to deny that the site coming out was prophetic. Only a short time later, now, we are hearing about people from all political parties supporting gay marriage. In 2016 the presidential ballot is likely to have two supporters of gay marriage on it. Then you throw in the fact that is going before the Supreme Court today. The website was undoubtedly prophetic.

http://www.mormonsandgays.org

Two guys smooching, seriously? Ewwwww!

[Stone holm]

I'm curious, USU78, what will be your reaction to the vote next week if the BSA decides to change its current membership policy?

This is not meant to be patronizing -- I know some people here in my stake who have said that they will be done with scouting, regardless of the position taken by the church. There are others who *said* that they would be done with scouting until the new resolution was put forward and the church came out in support of it. Now they are willing to give it a try but are cautious. And of course there are others who have not really cared much either way as they don't see it impacting our scouting programs all that much (this last group represents the majority of my acquaintances in the stake).

Given the strong statement you made above -- I'm just curious where you land.

On another blog spot I was surprised to see how many members wanted to disassociate from Scouts regardless of whether the policy changed or not, which saddened me. They seemed to think the YW program was better and cheaper. My wife and I have always felt they should upgrade the YW program so it was equal to the Scouting program, but this was not the first time I had heard the complaint. So I guess it depends on your perspective, although I did notice that view was predominantly held by single sisters raising boys on their own.

[rongo]

I'm curious, USU78, what will be your reaction to the vote next week if the BSA decides to change its current membership policy?

This is not meant to be patronizing -- I know some people here in my stake who have said that they will be done with scouting, regardless of the position taken by the church. There are others who *said* that they would be done with scouting until the new resolution was put forward and the church came out in support of it. Now they are willing to give it a try but are cautious. And of course there are others who have not really cared much either way as they don't see it impacting our scouting programs all that much (this last group represents the majority of my acquaintances in the stake).

Given the strong statement you made above -- I'm just curious where you land.

If/when the policy is changed to allow "openly gay" leaders, I will not have anything to do with Scouting (as a calling, or my sons' participation). The expected compromise position is okay with me, because it's what we actually do in the Church anyway, despite the formal BSA policy (i.e., encourage SSA-but-chaste boys to participate). I don't like dancing when we're pistol-whipped by liberal activists, but it's a compromise I can live with. I don't for a second think that those agitating for gay leaders will be any kind of satisfied by the compromise, and BSA is going to have the "moment of truth" soon ---- so they should have tackled the issue head-on this time around, anyway.

I have wrestled with this, because I was released as a bishop in November and called into Cub Scouts. I don't want to make things difficult for the current bishop and cause him stress, but in January when BSA's trial balloon was floated, I struggled with resigning from a calling for the first time in my life. The "let-each-troop-choose-whether-they-will-allow-gay-leaders" policy is unacceptable to me ---- on principle. The stay of execution until May, and the apparent compromise, put off that day, but I don't think it will be for long.

[rongo]

On another blog spot I was surprised to see how many members wanted to disassociate from Scouts regardless of whether the policy changed or not, which saddened me.

Scouting is a mere shell of what it once was ----- it is now a "participation ribbon" version of what it used to be. The ranks, including Eagle, mean nothing today, as almost no one is turned away (symptom of the "merit badge clinic" mentality).

Along with this, it is a pyramid scheme. Everything, including trainings, cost money (extortionately so), and the time and money commitments violate Church policy (at least, Scouting represents an exception to the CHI policies on time and money demands of members ---- policies which stem from the monumental 1990 changes to Church programs and finances).

I think our young men would be well-served by a "young mens" program as opposed to Scouting. Like the intent of the new de-regulated youth curriculum, I think youth leaders should be tapped to use more initiative to meet Duty to God objectives without the Scouting program ---- and I think our boys would be better off.

That said, I sustain our leaders and the current program, and I carry it out to the best of my ability. I'm currently a Bear leader, my oldest son participates in Scouting, and I attended all of Scout camp every year when I was a bishop. I just think we could take the boys camping and work on things without paying extortionate fees to BSA . . .

[Stone holm]

If/when the policy is changed to allow "openly gay" leaders, I will not have anything to do with Scouting (as a calling, or my sons' participation). The expected compromise position is okay with me, because it's what we actually do in the Church anyway, despite the formal BSA policy (i.e., encourage SSA-but-chaste boys to participate). I don't like dancing when we're pistol-whipped by liberal activists, but it's a compromise I can live with. I don't for a second think that those agitating for gay leaders will be any kind of satisfied by the compromise, and BSA is going to have the "moment of truth" soon ---- so they should have tackled the issue head-on this time around, anyway.

I have wrestled with this, because I was released as a bishop in November and called into Cub Scouts. I don't want to make things difficult for the current bishop and cause him stress, but in January when BSA's trial balloon was floated, I struggled with resigning from a calling for the first time in my life. The "let-each-troop-choose-whether-they-will-allow-gay-leaders" policy is unacceptable to me ---- on principle. The stay of execution until May, and the apparent compromise, put off that day, but I don't think it will be for long.

The original compromise would have left it up to the Chartered Organization to determine its own policy with respect to gays. Which meant that the Chartered Organization could have discriminated against both gay Scouts and gay Scouters or it could have discriminated against neither or it could have discriminated against just Scouters. The difference between the first and second compromise is that the Chartered Organizations do not in theory have a choice as to gay Scouts (they cannot bar them so long as they are chaste) and they do not have a choice as to Scouters they cannot appoint gay Scout leaders. There would have been no difference as far as the LDS Units were concerned under either compromise, but the second compromise will make a difference to other Chartered Organizations -- had they went with the first compromise, I think there would have been a strong possibility that the whole gay controversy with respect to Scouts would have ended. Controversy might continue to swirl around the Catholics and the Mormons over gay issues, but it would have been outside of Scouts. It seems to me that since the Chartered Organization picks the unit leaders, that the first compromise would have basically solved our issues and the Catholic issues. Would you have quit your calling over the first compromise? I was a Scoutmaster and Cubmaster for many, many years in the Church as my sons grew up in scouting, I can't see that the first compromise would have had any effect on our troop or pack.