Boy Scouts Of America Compromise?

[CASteinman]

They say it is still discrimination. Which it is.

Pretty much every rule, every law is either based upon or creates some sort of discrimination -- or both. That's just part of the program.

For example: We have mens and women's restrooms -- with different facilities. We have been taught for years that "separate is inherently unequal". And these are not just vaguely unequal in some "inherent" way but measurably different. Discriminatory. Yet its a good thing. And as a society we like it.

Because gender -- and the attractions related to gender as well as other preferences -- are very very basic fundamental things.

Edited April 23, 2013 by CASteinman

[Scott Lloyd]

They say it is still discrimination. Which it is.

So the take-away point, I guess, is that discrimination is not necessarily a bad thing.

[rockpond]

It's possible to believe anything, but if you mean believe and have such a belief be acceptable to God, then it depends on what you mean, but generally no, one can't. The Romans 1:32 principle prevents it. "pleasure in them that do" is lexically interpreted as aiding, abetting, supporting etc. One could certainly support one's right to a different belief or for gays to marry between themselves. But one could not support, for example, the state recognition of gay marriage as this enshrines wickedness in law.

How do you reconcile that interpretation with D&C 134:4 -- "but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience"?

Does not one's beliefs with respect to marriage fall under the realm of "private devotion" and "conscience"?

Edited April 23, 2013 by rockpond

[Scott Lloyd]

Or feel free to create their own.

That's what I meant by "form their own parallel organization."

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes -- I guess I see the affiliation and even the shared events as a fair part of the compromise.

And I, on the other hand, don't see that as acceptable.

Agreed, BCSpace's suggestion is fair but, I imagine, will result in the BSA losing a great deal of its financial support. But maybe other entities will step up and replace those donors.

Or BSA will be compelled to function more efficiently and cost-effectively. Which may not be a bad thing.

Edited April 23, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

How do you reconcile that interpretation with D&C 134:4 -- "but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience"?

Does not one's beliefs with respect to marriage fall under the realm of "private devotion" and "conscience"?

Implied in that passage is that people of like-minded beliefs are entitled to unite themselves into groups, organizations, societies. It in no way compels such groups, once formed, to accept into fellowship those who don't share those beliefs.

[BCSpace]

It's possible to believe anything, but if you mean believe and have such a belief be acceptable to God, then it depends on what you mean, but generally no, one can't. The Romans 1:32 principle prevents it. "pleasure in them that do" is lexically interpreted as aiding, abetting, supporting etc. One could certainly support one's right to a different belief or for gays to marry between themselves. But one could not support, for example, the state recognition of gay marriage as this enshrines wickedness in law.

How do you reconcile that interpretation with D&C 134:4 -- "but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience"?

What's to reconcile? Have I proposed any of these things? God allows our agency but He still has standards as to what is right and wrong. Sure, believe in and pass gay marriage into law. Does that mean one is right with God? Of course not.

Does not one's beliefs with respect to marriage fall under the realm of "private devotion" and "conscience"?

Of course. But when did I propose outside forces regulating that? However, do you believe that I should not fight against actions by the government because someone else believes differently? Why then should they not stop fighting for their cause because I believe differently?

I am not proposing forced actions. I'm merely pointing out what is and is not acceptable to God. Should we not fight for that?

Edited April 23, 2013 by BCSpace

[CASteinman]

How do you reconcile that interpretation with D&C 134:4 -- "but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience"?

Does not one's beliefs with respect to marriage fall under the realm of "private devotion" and "conscience"?

FYI -- 134 was not revealed by God and Joseph Smith was not even really involved in its writing nor its inclusion in the D&C. He wasn't actually happy about it, but it was included by a voice of the people.

That's not to say he would disagree with the above quote, but its important to realize what 134 actually is.

Having said that, 134 does not require you to throw your religious beliefs away when governing or legislating -- but rather to engage in a pluralistic approach to legislation and governance whereby all religious parties are able to find themselves happy and free in exercising their own beliefs.

Contrary to some views, that is not the same thing as Secularism.

[california boy]

So the take-away point, I guess, is that discrimination is not necessarily a bad thing.

I personally could care less if BSA discriminates against gays. But they are seeing that discriminating against gays does have it's consequences. I as well as every gay group that I have read are just saying that this current proposal does not eliminate discrimination against gays and BSA will still have to live with the consequences of that continued discrimination.

I actually have much bigger issues with those that run BSA and most of it has to do with the horrible way it treats the church scouting units in California. Being a venture leader for 8 years and trying to work with the local scouting board completely turned me off of the scouting organization a long time ago. I got tired of them treating LDS units as "not real scouting units". They always wanted our money, but rarely wanted to help our local units. But hey, maybe I just lived in a bad BSA district. I personally would be delighted if the church broke away from the BSA and formed their own young men's program. But i also know it would have a huge impact on the scouting program itself, which I do believe in and support.

[rockpond]

Or BSA will be compelled to function more efficiently and cost-effectively. Which may not be a bad thing.

Agreed. "A scout is thrifty."

[USU78]

It would seem so.

I wonder what the Gay pressure groups have to say about this as a possible solution.

No drama. No bullying. Why wouldn't they embrace it?

[rockpond]

Implied in that passage is that people of like-minded beliefs are entitled to unite themselves into groups, organizations, societies. It in no way compels such groups, once formed, to accept into fellowship those who don't share those beliefs.

Scott - We've got a couple conversations going, so just to clarify, my comments with respect to D&C 134 were referring to the issue of gay marriage in the U.S. (admittedly off topic but I was responding to something that had come up in the thread.. maybe we should drop that tangent).

I just wanted to be clear that I don't think D&C 134 is a reason that the BSA should be forced to accept homosexuals. I strongly disagree with forcing the BSA to change their membership policy.

[rockpond]

What's to reconcile? Have I proposed any of these things? God allows our agency but He still has standards as to what is right and wrong. Sure, believe in and pass gay marriage into law. Does that mean one is right with God? Of course not.

Of course. But when did I propose outside forces regulating that? However, do you believe that I should not fight against actions by the government because someone else believes differently? Why then should they not stop fighting for their cause because I believe differently?

I am not proposing forced actions. I'm merely pointing out what is and is not acceptable to God. Should we not fight for that?

When it comes to matters of worship and devotion, matters of personal conscience that do not infringe on the rights of others... I believe that we should support and fight for those freedoms. It's why I believe that the BSA has every right to exclude homosexuals. And, it's why I believe that homosexual marriages should be legally recognized (even if they are condemned by God).

[rockpond]

FYI -- 134 was not revealed by God and Joseph Smith was not even really involved in its writing nor its inclusion in the D&C. He wasn't actually happy about it, but it was included by a voice of the people.

That's not to say he would disagree with the above quote, but its important to realize what 134 actually is.

Having said that, 134 does not require you to throw your religious beliefs away when governing or legislating -- but rather to engage in a pluralistic approach to legislation and governance whereby all religious parties are able to find themselves happy and free in exercising their own beliefs.

Contrary to some views, that is not the same thing as Secularism.

I am aware that 134 was not a revelation to the prophet. But it is part of our canon in the same way that Romans 1:32 is. Do you have a reference that Joseph was not happy about its inclusion? That is something that I was not aware of.

I agree with your statement that we should "engage in a pluralistic approach to legislation and governance whereby all religious parties are able to find themselves happy and free in exercising their own beliefs". For me, that means that where some believe in a god who affirms homosexual marriages, we should be giving those unions the same legal recognition as the marriages that we affirm in our church.

[CASteinman]

For me, that means that where some believe in a god who affirms homosexual marriages, we should be giving those unions the same legal recognition as the marriages that we affirm in our church.

There is no requirement that the government recognize the efficacy or legitimacy of any religious belief for those religious beliefs to be exercised freely. Even if people want to make it somehow a religious thing to have gay sex -- the government doesn't have to recognize that as legitimate marriage.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott - We've got a couple conversations going, so just to clarify, my comments with respect to D&C 134 were referring to the issue of gay marriage in the U.S. (admittedly off topic but I was responding to something that had come up in the thread.. maybe we should drop that tangent).

I just wanted to be clear that I don't think D&C 134 is a reason that the BSA should be forced to accept homosexuals. I strongly disagree with forcing the BSA to change their membership policy.

Got it. I'll stand down.

[rockpond]

There is no requirement that the government recognize the efficacy or legitimacy of any religious belief for those religious beliefs to be exercised freely. Even if people want to make it somehow a religious thing to have gay sex -- the government doesn't have to recognize that as legitimate marriage.

But as long as the government has gotten into the business of recognizing marriages, I think it is inconsistent with D&C 134 (and the 11th Article of Faith) to choose which belief systems get their marriages recognized, and which don't.

But, this line of thought is off topic. You can respond how you wish and have the last word but I'm going to drop it after that so the thread can stay on the BSA subject. I just ask that you not hit me back with questions that I'll be tempted to answer.

Edited April 23, 2013 by rockpond

[Scott Lloyd]

I personally could care less if BSA discriminates against gays. But they are seeing that discriminating against gays does have it's consequences. I as well as every gay group that I have read are just saying that this current proposal does not eliminate discrimination against gays and BSA will still have to live with the consequences of that continued discrimination.

Be that as it may, I can conceive of unlimited scenarios where discrimination would be desirable.

I actually have much bigger issues with those that run BSA and most of it has to do with the horrible way it treats the church scouting units in California. Being a venture leader for 8 years and trying to work with the local scouting board completely turned me off of the scouting organization a long time ago. I got tired of them treating LDS units as "not real scouting units". They always wanted our money, but rarely wanted to help our local units. But hey, maybe I just lived in a bad BSA district. I personally would be delighted if the church broke away from the BSA and formed their own young men's program. But i also know it would have a huge impact on the scouting program itself, which I do believe in and support.

Whatever I may be, I am not an apologist for BSA.

[CASteinman]

But as long as the government has gotten into the business of recognizing marriages, I think it is inconsistent with D&C 134 (and the 11th Article of Faith) to choose which belief systems get their marriages recognized, and which don't.

And I do not. Having said that though, they are not recognizing any particular belief system. Just marriage as defined by the state.

Maybe there is another thread to bring this up in.

Edited April 23, 2013 by CASteinman

[Stone holm]

When it comes to matters of worship and devotion, matters of personal conscience that do not infringe on the rights of others... I believe that we should support and fight for those freedoms. It's why I believe that the BSA has every right to exclude homosexuals. And, it's why I believe that homosexual marriages should be legally recognized (even if they are condemned by God).

Although my comments may not appear to. I in general agree with this thinking. My views regarding the compromise stem from my deep respect for the value of Scouting and my years, now past, devoted to it. While the BSA should not be forced to change its rules, I feel that failure to have voluntarily accepted the original compromise and having accepted this flawed compromise is ultimately going to harm the organization and make it more difficult for the Church to ultimately control policy in its units. In order to maintain its ability to control policy in its own units it should, and for all we know it may have, supported the right of other Chartered Organizations to control this policy in their own units rather than have a required policy that is going to result in COs leaving Scouting altogether.

[CASteinman]

a required policy that is going to result in COs leaving Scouting altogether.

An interesting point. We shall have to see if that actually happens (I think not likely). But whether they leave or not, I think this is a better policy. Either one though would have been pretty close to what is actually happening in my opinion.

[Stone holm]

An interesting point. We shall have to see if that actually happens (I think not likely). But whether they leave or not, I think this is a better policy. Either one though would have been pretty close to what is actually happening in my opinion.

It may well be that there is no mass exodus, if so it will be because they have already left, but I think there will be more leaving as more and more embrace non-discrimination. This may, however, be offset by very conservative groups seeking to sponsor units. It is hard to say, but I suspect it will lose its iconic status.

[california boy]

Dissenting Scouts Draft Resolutions on Gay Ban

In a sign of discord within the Boy Scouts of America ahead of a key May vote, Scouting leaders in Baltimore and Los Angeles proposed their own resolutions to end the group’s longstanding ban on adult gay and lesbian leaders.

The proposals,

submitted by leaders of the Los Angeles Area Council

and Northeast Region Executive Vice President

Jay Lenrow

, contrast with

a proposal released on Friday

by national Scouts leaders. That proposal would end the organization’s ban on gay youth while continuing to bar gay adults from staff or volunteer leadership roles. Some 1,400 Scouting leaders are set to vote on that issue at an annual meeting that begins May 22.

It is becoming apparent to me that this issue is going to tear BSA apart until they drop their non-inclusive policy. It seems like no one is happy with the current proposed policy.

[Avatar4321]

No drama. No bullying. Why wouldn't they embrace it?

Maybe that's not their goal. Who knows?

[KevinG]

Now policy draft published by BSA http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/60733-bsa-proposed-policy-statement-on-sexual-orientation-and-membership/