Boy Scouts Vote To Accept Gay Youth

[Daniel2]

Yesterday in Sacrament Meeting, the bishop read a letter from the First Presidency in regard to the Church's position and participation in BSA.

In essence, the Church will continue to participate in its BSA scouting activities as usual... and, any and all boys joining and participating in the ranks of LDS scout troops will have to agree to adhere to the Church's standards and policies of moral behavior as outlined in the "For The Strength of Youth" booklet.

In other words, any and all boys not willing to adhere to those standards are welcome to join another troop. By the same token, any and all boys who agree to follow the "For the Strength of Youth" standards will be welcome to participate in LDS troops.

GG

So.... My question remains... How should the BSA address this with the boys in their troops?

Do you believe it's a GOOD idea for the BSA leadership to be asking boys if they're sexually active...?

Is there a distinction between BSA leadership and ecclesiastical leadership?

Should there be a distinction?

Daniel2

[Daniel2]

Dup

[Garden Girl]

So.... My question remains... How should the BSA address this with the boys in their troops?

Do you believe it's a GOOD idea for the BSA leadership to be asking boys if they're sexually active...?

Is there a distinction between BSA leadership and ecclesiastical leadership?

Should there be a distinction?

Daniel2

Hello Daniel2...

I haven't read up on all sides of the issue.. but if BSA has agreed that ("openly") gay boys are eligible to join, I would assume they wouldn't be asking specifically about a boys' sexualality since all boys may participate... any more than I would expect an LDS bishop and/or leader to specifically ask a boy... there's no need to...rather, an LDS bishop/leader will provide boys with "For The Strengtrh of Youth" and speak generally about our Church standards of morality, which apply to all boys wanting to participate in an LDS troop and which they must agree to follow... it doesn't matter what a boy's sexuality is... all boys either agree to abide by Church standards or they don't... if not, he can join a different group.

The distinction here is that we have specific Church standards of behavior as is our right, and as long as BSA allows church-affiliated troops then the church should be able to require adherence to its policies and standards of all who wish to participate in an LDS troop, particularly when the majority of its activities take place in church facilities. Its like the Honor Code for BYU students... not all are LDS, but all must agree to adhere to the HC if they want to attend BYU. If not, they're welcome to go elsewhere.

GG

[jwhitlock]

Gay right groups have been pressuring BSA to stop their discriminating against gays to the point that this issue went before the Supreme Court. BSA stood firm in their commitment to not allow gays into their organization and they got the legal approval to do so. Now all the sudden, BSA initiates a change in this policy. What changed? Did the gay right groups become more active then they were 10 years ago when they forced this issue to the Supreme Court? The pressure from gay groups has always been on BSA to be inclusive. You can't blame the current policy on gay groups. If gay rights groups were the catalyst for this change then it would have happened 10 years ago when they were applying much more pressure.

The only thing that has changed is that corporations are refusing to support scouting with its discrimination policy. They have made no secrets about why they are withdrawing their support. Polling over the past 10 years have moved from supporting the BSA on its discrimination stand to disapproving its policy on how it treats gays. It is these two groups that have been the catalyst for the current change to happen. If it was the gay community that caused this policy change, then it would have happened 10 years ago.

That is my point. Now do you get it????

As if in 10 years gay rights groups haven't honed their attacks and methodologies and figured out how to manipulate organizations better.

What you haven't explained is how gay rights groups' demands for inclusion should overrule my right of association. Don't forget that the actual gay agenda is a demand that ALL BSA units be required to accept gay leaders without regard to their lifestyles. I doubt that even gay corporate supporters, who are supporting gay agendas only because they perceive it is in their financial interest to do so, would back that kind of an overruling of freedom of religion.

Hence, the cries of discrimination ring hollow, especially since boys with SSA have been allowed in scouting for years. Gay rights groups' demands for total inclusion, without regard to any other concerns, is problematic on a variety of levels.

BTW, I notice that you haven't really addressed my observation that most Americans really don't know what kind of "discrimination" the BSA is involved in, because they don't think deeply enough to realize that we all discriminate - to use the loosest definition of the word - in various ways in our lives. It's discrimination that I can't go into a woman's restroom. It's discrimination that my five year old granddaughter isn't allowed to drive a car. The list is endless, and yet your talking point is that Americans are opposed to all forms of discrimination. That talking point doesn't bear up very well in the real world when you really start to think about it - which gay rights groups hope most people won't do.

So forgive me if I don't buy into the nonsense that a religiously based, non-sectarian organization with moral standards based on traditional religious values, which was set up to help boys get their moral compasses pointing the right direction, is somehow "discriminating" because they don't think that the role examples and lifestyles of openly gay men fits with how boys should be influenced. If most Americans accept that as discrimination that should be removed, it is additional and clear proof that they haven't seriously thought about what they are supporting.

[Daniel2]

Hello Daniel2...

I haven't read up on all sides of the issue.. but if BSA has agreed that ("openly") gay boys are eligible to join, I would assume they wouldn't be asking specifically about a boys' sexualality since all boys may participate... any more than I would expect an LDS bishop and/or leader to specifically ask a boy... there's no need to...rather, an LDS bishop/leader will provide boys with "For The Strengtrh of Youth" and speak generally about our Church standards of morality, which apply to all boys wanting to participate in an LDS troop and which they must agree to follow... it doesn't matter what a boy's sexuality is... all boys either agree to abide by Church standards or they don't... if not, he can join a different group.

The distinction here is that we have specific Church standards of behavior as is our right, and as long as BSA allows church-affiliated troops then the church should be able to require adherence to its policies and standards of all who wish to participate in an LDS troop, particularly when the majority of its activities take place in church facilities. Its like the Honor Code for BYU students... not all are LDS, but all must agree to adhere to the HC if they want to attend BYU. If not, they're welcome to go elsewhere.

GG

BYU is a private, church-owned institution, and is free to set its own private rules, i.e. the Honor Code. Whie BSA is a private organization, it is not owned by any one Faith, and no one Faith may unilaterally impose it's sectarian beliefs on the entire BSA. That's a significant difference.

If each religion is allowed to set troop rules for it's members, why can't Unitarian congregations (which allow openly gay ministers, as well as youth leaders) allow openly gay scouts and leaders...?

What's the point of having a standardized Boy Scouts of America (a religious but non-sectarian organization) policy on this matter?

From my perspective, it seems like you (and/or the letter you reference, which was apparently read from your LDS pulpit) actually advocates the FIRST compromise that the BSA was considering--that each congregation be allowed to set their own membership obligations, with regards to sexuality--rather than the second, which is a general rule that ALL boys (regardless of sexual orientation) be allowed to participate in the BSA (three letters which should not be confusedly interchangeable or synonymous with "LDS").

BTW.... without meaning to be indelicate, I have a hard time believing that most people--even members of the church--don't accept that the majority of young men don't at least engage in some sexual activities (referring to masturbation--a topic which seems to have disappeared from at least the public view of the church's teachings, as opposed to 20-30 years ago, and which is widely regarded today as a normal part of developmental sexuality--especially among young men).

Daniel

[rockpond]

As if in 10 years gay rights groups haven't honed their attacks and methodologies and figured out how to manipulate organizations better.

What you haven't explained is how gay rights groups' demands for inclusion should overrule my right of association. Don't forget that the actual gay agenda is a demand that ALL BSA units be required to accept gay leaders without regard to their lifestyles. I doubt that even gay corporate supporters, who are supporting gay agendas only because they perceive it is in their financial interest to do so, would back that kind of an overruling of freedom of religion.

Hence, the cries of discrimination ring hollow, especially since boys with SSA have been allowed in scouting for years. Gay rights groups' demands for total inclusion, without regard to any other concerns, is problematic on a variety of levels.

BTW, I notice that you haven't really addressed my observation that most Americans really don't know what kind of "discrimination" the BSA is involved in, because they don't think deeply enough to realize that we all discriminate - to use the loosest definition of the word - in various ways in our lives. It's discrimination that I can't go into a woman's restroom. It's discrimination that my five year old granddaughter isn't allowed to drive a car. The list is endless, and yet your talking point is that Americans are opposed to all forms of discrimination. That talking point doesn't bear up very well in the real world when you really start to think about it - which gay rights groups hope most people won't do.

So forgive me if I don't buy into the nonsense that a religiously based, non-sectarian organization with moral standards based on traditional religious values, which was set up to help boys get their moral compasses pointing the right direction, is somehow "discriminating" because they don't think that the role examples and lifestyles of openly gay men fits with how boys should be influenced. If most Americans accept that as discrimination that should be removed, it is additional and clear proof that they haven't seriously thought about what they are supporting.

The BSA is a private organization making its own rules about membership. Gay rights groups did not force the change... If they did anything it was just saying that they didn't want their dollars flowing to the BSA. The right of association is intact.

[Stone holm]

The BSA is a private organization making its own rules about membership. Gay rights groups did not force the change... If they did anything it was just saying that they didn't want their dollars flowing to the BSA. The right of association is intact.

I tend to agree with this. BSA was finding itself on the wrong side of cultural history and was and will continue to be buffeted by corporate and not for profit policy provisions against discrimination which will cut deeply into its revenue stream. It could have sidestepped that with the first compromise, but not with the second. It as a private association has the right to do what it did, but there will be continued consequences that I do not believe the Great Salt Lake Council in their isolated cultural bubble fully appreciated or understood.

[Garden Girl]

BYU is a private, church-owned institution, and is free to set its own private rules, i.e. the Honor Code. Whie BSA is a private organization, it is not owned by any one Faith, and no one Faith may unilaterally impose it's sectarian beliefs on the entire BSA. That's a significant difference.

From my perspective, it seems like you (and/or the letter you reference, which was apparently read from your LDS pulpit) actually advocates the FIRST compromise that the BSA was considering--that each congregation be allowed to set their own membership obligations, with regards to sexuality--rather than the second, which is a general rule that ALL boys (regardless of sexual orientation) be allowed to participate in the BSA (three letters which should not be confusedly interchangeable or synonymous with "LDS").

Daniel

The LDS Church is not trying to unilaterally impose its standards on the entire BSA... we only uphold our standards for those who want to participate in our own church-affiliated BSA troops...

As I said, I haven't read the two compromises you mention... and as I understood the letter that was read Sunday, all boys who wish to participate in LDS troops may do so but must agree to adhere to the standards of behavior outlined in our Church booklet, "For the Strength of Youth." No mention was made of specific sexual orientation.

I bet the letter can be found on the Church website, lds.org. Maybe someone here can provide a link (I don't know how).

You mentioned young men and sexual activity, this is also addressed in "For the Strength of Youth," with the counsel that they should individually seek counsel with their bishop and/or parents.

GG

[california boy]

As if in 10 years gay rights groups haven't honed their attacks and methodologies and figured out how to manipulate organizations better.

What you haven't explained is how gay rights groups' demands for inclusion should overrule my right of association. Don't forget that the actual gay agenda is a demand that ALL BSA units be required to accept gay leaders without regard to their lifestyles. I doubt that even gay corporate supporters, who are supporting gay agendas only because they perceive it is in their financial interest to do so, would back that kind of an overruling of freedom of religion.

Hence, the cries of discrimination ring hollow, especially since boys with SSA have been allowed in scouting for years. Gay rights groups' demands for total inclusion, without regard to any other concerns, is problematic on a variety of levels.

I also concur with what others have said. The BSA has a legal right to exclude whoever they want from their association based on the Supreme Court case about this very issue. The change was both initiated and approved by the BSA, not by the courts. You are trying so desperately to make this all about gay activism, but the facts simply do not support your assertion.

BTW, I notice that you haven't really addressed my observation that most Americans really don't know what kind of "discrimination" the BSA is involved in, because they don't think deeply enough to realize that we all discriminate - to use the loosest definition of the word - in various ways in our lives. It's discrimination that I can't go into a woman's restroom. It's discrimination that my five year old granddaughter isn't allowed to drive a car. The list is endless, and yet your talking point is that Americans are opposed to all forms of discrimination. That talking point doesn't bear up very well in the real world when you really start to think about it - which gay rights groups hope most people won't do.

So forgive me if I don't buy into the nonsense that a religiously based, non-sectarian organization with moral standards based on traditional religious values, which was set up to help boys get their moral compasses pointing the right direction, is somehow "discriminating" because they don't think that the role examples and lifestyles of openly gay men fits with how boys should be influenced. If most Americans accept that as discrimination that should be removed, it is additional and clear proof that they haven't seriously thought about what they are supporting.

Your opinion that Americans are sheep following what the media tells them to do on this issue is your opinion. I am sure blaming the news media is much easier for you to do than to actually look at the facts of this issue. The problem you have is that no matter how you try and explain away the reasons for this change in policy, you can not get away from the fact that BSA discriminates against gays. You are confusing two different meanings of the word discrimination when you bring up things like restrooms. To help you understand your misuse of the word discrimination within our discussion let me point you to the dictionary definition of discrimination.

discrimination |disˌkriməˈnā sh ən|noun1 the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex : victims of racial discrimination | discrimination against homosexuals.2 recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another : discrimination between right and wrong | young children have difficulties in making fine discriminations.• the ability to discern what is of high quality; good judgment or taste : those who could afford to buy showed little taste or discrimination.

People in the news media report that BSA discriminates against gays because that is exactly what they are doing. (see definition above). Their new policy discriminates less, but they are still discriminating against gays. I agree with Stone Holm and others that this new policy continues the very issue they are trying to resolve. The first proposal took discrimination away from the BSA and put it upon the organizations sponsoring the program. It was a much better solution for scouting.

[california boy]

Hello Daniel2...

I haven't read up on all sides of the issue.. but if BSA has agreed that ("openly") gay boys are eligible to join, I would assume they wouldn't be asking specifically about a boys' sexualality since all boys may participate... any more than I would expect an LDS bishop and/or leader to specifically ask a boy... there's no need to...rather, an LDS bishop/leader will provide boys with "For The Strengtrh of Youth" and speak generally about our Church standards of morality, which apply to all boys wanting to participate in an LDS troop and which they must agree to follow... it doesn't matter what a boy's sexuality is... all boys either agree to abide by Church standards or they don't... if not, he can join a different group.

The distinction here is that we have specific Church standards of behavior as is our right, and as long as BSA allows church-affiliated troops then the church should be able to require adherence to its policies and standards of all who wish to participate in an LDS troop, particularly when the majority of its activities take place in church facilities. Its like the Honor Code for BYU students... not all are LDS, but all must agree to adhere to the HC if they want to attend BYU. If not, they're welcome to go elsewhere.

GG

I am in agreement with you. I see no problem dealing with how boys are involved in BSA by their worthiness. There is no discrimination in this policy. I actually think that the first proposal would have been acceptable to the church as well. Choosing a scout leader based on worthiness also seems appropriate for a church sponsored scouting organization. And I think that on occasion a bishop might have very well called a worthy out gay member to participate in scouting. Bishops certainly called worthy gay members to serve in scouting in the past. I worked in scouting for years in the church both as young mens president and teachers quorum advisor. Each time I was asked to serve, I specifically asked the bishop if he felt inspired in calling me to that position. The fact that I was not out is irrelevant since the bishop called me based on inspiration.

The interesting thing is, while I served in this capacity I had three boys that I know of that were gay. I had no idea at the time that they were gay. The issue never came up. It was only after they left high school that they came out. I found out they were gay at the same time everyone else did. To my knowledge none of the boys that I worked with had any idea that I was gay as well. Would it have made a difference to them? Probably not. Would it have made a difference to their parents? Probably not. All of the boys parents knew me pretty well.

I do have one question for you that I would be interested in your response. If a young man whether gay or straight is not morally clean, should he be automatically kicked out of the young men's program? It seems like this approach would further his distance from the church rather than try to correct that behavior.

[Garden Girl]

I do have one question for you that I would be interested in your response. If a young man whether gay or straight is not morally clean, should he be automatically kicked out of the young men's program? It seems like this approach would further his distance from the church rather than try to correct that behavior.

Hello California boy...

Absolutely not... this is why the counsel is given to discuss such matters with their bishop or parents. I agree that to kick a young person out of a program would do more harm than good. There is always a way to repent... and the bishop has heard it all... sometimes the road is bumpy, but if a young man or woman can accept and follow the counsel, it just may surprise them how relieved they feel. Sincere repentance lifts and strengthens one... the bishop is committed to trying to help, no matter what the issue.

I'm a So Cal girl... San Bernardino/Rialto...

GG

[california boy]

Hello California boy...

Absolutely not... this is why the counsel is given to discuss such matters with their bishop or parents. I agree that to kick a young person out of a program would do more harm than good. There is always a way to repent... and the bishop has heard it all... sometimes the road is bumpy, but if a young man or woman can accept and follow the counsel, it just may surprise them how relieved they feel. Sincere repentance lifts and strengthens one... the bishop is committed to trying to help, no matter what the issue.

I'm a So Cal girl... San Bernardino/Rialto...

GG

I tend to agree with you. I wonder how others feel about this.

[Stone holm]

The LDS Church is not trying to unilaterally impose its standards on the entire BSA... we only uphold our standards for those who want to participate in our own church-affiliated BSA troops...

As I said, I haven't read the two compromises you mention... and as I understood the letter that was read Sunday, all boys who wish to participate in LDS troops may do so but must agree to adhere to the standards of behavior outlined in our Church booklet, "For the Strength of Youth." No mention was made of specific sexual orientation.

I bet the letter can be found on the Church website, lds.org. Maybe someone here can provide a link (I don't know how).

You mentioned young men and sexual activity, this is also addressed in "For the Strength of Youth," with the counsel that they should individually seek counsel with their bishop and/or parents.

GG

The two compromises were

First Compromise. Each Chartered Organization make its own policy as to Scouts and leaders.

Second Compromise No Chartered Organization can exclude gay scouts and no Chartered Organization may have gay or lesbian leaders.

The first allowed the COs freedom to follow their own moral standards the second didn't. The first got BSA out of the fight, the second kept it in. The first did not impose a standard on any CO, the second does.

[Calm]

Not sure if this ha been posted or not: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/wp/2013/05/31/why-mormons-back-the-new-scouting-policy/

The dust had barely settled from the May 23 vote on the Boy Scouts of Americamembership policy, when the media analysis and post mortem on this iconic American institution began.

Understandably, virtually all the headlines referred to the inclusion of gay scouts. TheNew York Times described it as a “milestone.” The Washington Post lamented that the policy still excludes gay adult leaders. Time magazine referred to “dramatic change.” And that is probably how history will record it.

But what has been largely missing from the mainstream media coverage of all the lobbying, placard waving and rhetoric on that day in Grapevine, Texas, was one fact that should have been inescapable. Rather than representing another episode of slippage in a very long culture war, as some religionists claimed, or a “step in the right direction,” as some gay advocates defined it, BSA in reality reintroduced and reinforced some of its century-old core values and nailed those colors firmly to the mast in an unmistakable message. And it was that reaffirmation of principle, plainly restated in the Membership Standards Resolution, that enabled some of scouting’s traditional supporters – including America’s largest sponsor of scouting, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – to back the new membership policy.

View Photo Gallery —“The Mormon story is a quintessentially American tale,” writes On Faith columnist Lisa Miller.

What were those principles? A few hours before the vote was taken in Grapevine, Gary E. Stevenson, the Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, delivered the keynote speech to a well-attended breakfast assembly of scout leaders. Bishop Stevenson addressed those principles directly, rather than focusing on the membership vote that was on everyone’s mind.

“I am very aware,” he said, “of the controversial moral, legal, and policy issues that face this great organization. They are deep and they are wide and they will test the best in us. Although I don’t speak directly to these issues this morning, I believe it constructive counsel for each of us to pray that divine direction manifest itself upon those who have the weighty responsibility to lead this organization appropriately.”

Bishop Stevenson then turned to what he termed a foundational principle “as old and deep as the organization itself ” –duty to God. It’s worth repeating part of what he said.

“Boy Scouts of today face issues not faced by generations before them: declining morals, technology, addictive behavior and declining academic performance to name a few. I believe that the key to solving these issues lies in family and duty to God. If boys truly understood what their duty to God entails and lived it, they would grow safely into manhood.

“…It is this common belief in duty to God that has forged the iron-strong connection with Boy Scouts of America we (i.e. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) have shared over the last 100 years. One hundred years of evidence has shown that this impact-proof, non-rusting core principle works better than whatever has been, historically, the next-best idea. Duty to God is where the power lies. Duty to God is what changes lives.

“…Some may not see the sacred gatekeeping role scouting plays. They may see only fundraising and not a foundation. Others may brand scouting activities as merely outdoor recreation, but it can and must be shown that BSA is not a camping club; it is a character university centered on duty to God. I quote again from Robert Baden-Powell: ‘The whole of [scouting] is based on religion, that is, on the realization and service of God.’

“… Scouting must never overlook this core principle. We still need duty to God. We always will. When the societal and political winds come, and they surely will, scouting cannot unhinge itself from this foundational principle.”

Understanding this emphasis makes it easier to appreciate why Latter-day Saints in large numbers supported the resolution that was later passed by 61 per cent of assembled scout leaders. For Mormons, embracing duty to God as a core value is inseparable from the behavior that is expected to follow – behavior that it instills in its young women as well as its young men, and encourages in adults as well as its youth.

One key line in the new resolution that the scouting body approved is worth citing: “…any sexual conduct, whether homosexual or heterosexual, by youth of scouting age is contrary to the virtues of scouting.” That is it, in a nutshell. For the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, this was never about whether the BSA or local scout leaders should try to discern or categorize ill-defined and emerging sexual awareness of pre-pubescent boys and early pubescent young men who make up 90 per cent of scouting. Sexual orientation has not previously been—and is not now—a disqualifying factor for boys who want to join Latter-day Saint scout troops. Rather, it has always about teaching moral behavior to all boys, and instilling the core values that are part of responsible adulthood. As the church said in a statement issued promptly after the BSA vote, it is responsible behavior that “continues to be our compelling interest.”

Where next? The last line of the church’s official response stated it this way: “We trust that BSA will implement and administer the approved policy in an appropriate and effective manner.” In other words, the church is taking the BSA resolution at its word: that duty to God is an “immutable tenet” of scouting; that the “Scout Oath and Law are fundamental to the BSA in preparing youth for responsible citizenship”; that “effective screening, education and training,” is in place, as well as “clear policies to protect youth and provide for their privacy”; that “sexual conduct, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is contrary to the virtues of scouting.”

To be sure, not everyone agrees with these values. Those who don’t are not compelled to become scouts or to embrace what traditional scouting has to offer. They ought now to allow scouting to chart its own future, consistent with its century old values, free from interference, advocacy and agenda-driven politics. Let’s remember, it has always been – and should always be – about the boys.

Michael Otterson is an On Faith panelist and heads the worldwide public affairs functions of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[Stone holm]

Not sure if this ha been posted or not: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/wp/2013/05/31/why-mormons-back-the-new-scouting-policy/

Do you agree with this analysis of what happened?

[thesometimesaint]

BYU is a private, church-owned institution, and is free to set its own private rules, i.e. the Honor Code. Whie BSA is a private organization, it is not owned by any one Faith, and no one Faith may unilaterally impose it's sectarian beliefs on the entire BSA. That's a significant difference.

If each religion is allowed to set troop rules for it's members, why can't Unitarian congregations (which allow openly gay ministers, as well as youth leaders) allow openly gay scouts and leaders...?

What's the point of having a standardized Boy Scouts of America (a religious but non-sectarian organization) policy on this matter?

From my perspective, it seems like you (and/or the letter you reference, which was apparently read from your LDS pulpit) actually advocates the FIRST compromise that the BSA was considering--that each congregation be allowed to set their own membership obligations, with regards to sexuality--rather than the second, which is a general rule that ALL boys (regardless of sexual orientation) be allowed to participate in the BSA (three letters which should not be confusedly interchangeable or synonymous with "LDS").

BTW.... without meaning to be indelicate, I have a hard time believing that most people--even members of the church--don't accept that the majority of young men don't at least engage in some sexual activities (referring to masturbation--a topic which seems to have disappeared from at least the public view of the church's teachings, as opposed to 20-30 years ago, and which is widely regarded today as a normal part of developmental sexuality--especially among young men).

Daniel

I don't know how far that would extend. There are Hindu Scouts, Muslim Scouts, Jews that are Scout, Christians that are Scouts, etc., etc., etc.. It is the stated position that the Boy Scouts are reverent, but the Boy Scouts doesn't preclude any religion.

http://boyscouttrail.com/content/content/scout_law-1760.asp

REVERENT

From the Scout Handbook - "A Scout is reverent. A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others."

As a scout experiences the wonders of the outdoors, stormy weather and calm blue skies, pounding surf and trickling streams, bitter cold and stifling heat, towering trees and barren desert, he experiences the work of God. Appreciating life in its multitude of forms, from the smallest insects to gigantic wildlife, a scout comes to terms with his place in the world. Though humans are the dominant beings on our planet, we need to play the role of steward rather than king - tending and caring for our world instead of taking all we can for our own comfort.

As technology continues to become more and more prevalent and people visit the wild places less and less, our connection to and understanding of our natural environment lessens. We take shelter, food, comfort, and entertainment for granted rather than needing to work for it. When we never have to harvest an apple from a tree, kill a fish or animal for meat, or put on layers of clothes to stay warm, we lose the sense of awe and respect we should have for nature.

Many outdoors people claim that the wilderness is their 'church' rather than a specific structure or organization. These people revere in the awesome power of God by being in the thick of natural creation. The reverence expressed for the world and its creation is common ground that all scouts can reach when struggling to understand the last point of the Scout Law.

No matter the specific religion or denomination, being reverent toward God should include our natural environment. In nature, there is no good or evil, just survival. Animals don't have the human vices of lust, pride, envy, gluttony, greed, sloth, and anger. We can learn a lot about simplifying and enjoying life from observing the wild creatures. We can also learn how our ability to care for and serve others puts us above the simple animals.

While in the wilds, a scout may come face-to-face with God. He may feel God around him in the wind, the water, the earth, and the open, wild beauty. When the scout returns home, he needs to continue that respect and awe toward God by participating in the practices of his religion. Becoming a complete citizen includes fulfilling expectations of the church to which a person belongs. What a great opportunity to share with other youth and adults in his church, when he returns from a backpacking trek. Faithfully performing his religious duties demonstrates his reverence while in civilization.

Respecting the beliefs of others can be a challenge. It does not mean to accept and believe those other beliefs. It means to allow other people the freedom to believe what they have found to be true in their lives. In a scout troop associated with a specific church, practices of that church can be used on scouting activities with everyone having the same belief structure. But, in troops with scouts from various beliefs, we need to be careful not to promote specific practices of one group. For example, requiring scouts to remove their hats at grace may be appropriate for some religions but may be a demonstration of disrespect to God for another.

Reverence fosters joy and a cheerful heart, able to appreciate and care for the good in life.

A Scout is Reverent.

As to homosexuality http://www.venturingbsa.com/scouting.d/faq.d/issues.d/homosexuality.html

1. The Boy Scouts asserts that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values embodied in the Scout Oath and Law, particularly with the values represented by the terms "morally straight" and "clean." The Boy Scouts asserts that it "teaches that homosexual conduct is not morally straight," (see SCOTUS BSA Brief), and that it does "not want to promote homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior."

Obviously, the Scout Oath and Law do not expressly mention sexuality or sexual orientation. And the terms "morally straight" and "clean" are by no means self-defining. Different people would attribute to those terms very different meanings. For example, some people may believe that engaging in homosexual conduct is not at odds with being "morally straight" and "clean." And others may believe that engaging in homosexual conduct is contrary to being "morally straight" and "clean." The Boy Scouts says it falls within the latter category. It is their organization and they have the right to define their oath any way they wish (that was one of the issues at stake in the Dale case).

Ref: "We believe that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirement in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout Law that a Scout be clean in word and deed, and that homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts." BSA 1991 position statement

The Boy Scouts publicly expressed its views with respect to homosexual conduct by its assertions in a number of court cases. For example, throughout a California case with similar facts filed in the early 1980's, the Boy Scouts consistently asserted the same position with respect to homosexuality that it asserts today. See Curran v. Mount Diablo Council of Boy Scouts of America, No. C-365529 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 25, 1991); 48 Cal. App. 4th 670, 29 Cal. Rptr. 2d 580 (1994); 17 Cal. 4th 670, 952 P. 2d 218 (1998). The SCOTUS said of this policy: "We cannot doubt that the Boy Scouts sincerely holds this view."

2. The BSA wishes Scout leaders to avoid questions of sexuality and teach only by example. The BSA tells the Scouts to look up to the leadership as role models. To be like their Scout leaders. The general mission of the Boy Scouts is clear: "To instill values in young people." The Boy Scouts seeks to instill these values by having its adult leaders spend time with the youth members, instructing and engaging them in activities like camping, archery, and fishing. During the time spent with the youth members, the scoutmasters and assistant scoutmasters inculcate them with the Boy Scouts' values--both expressly and by example.

3. The BSA feels that if an AVOWED homosexual was put in a leadership role in the organization he would be telling the boys, by example, that homosexual behavior was acceptable behavior. So the BSA does not want homosexuals that could be known to the Scouts as homosexual in the organization as adult leaders.

Ref: "The Boy Scouts of America has always reflected the expectations that Scouting families have had for the organization. We do not believe that homosexuals provide a role model consistent with these expectations. Accordingly, we do not allow for the registration of avowed homosexuals as members or as leaders of the BSA." 1993 position statement

Even the sponsoring unit isn't allowed to set up its own bylaws. They all come under the bylaws of the Boy Scouts.

[EllenMaksoud]

Of course the Church had taken a neutral position consistent with (unchanged) doctrine and was ready to roll with which ever way it went.

I am pleased that, at least in our ward, no drastic action has occurred. Mean while in the South, the Baptists are being, well Baptists. It is especially shameful that they are hurting children with their rabid pit bull tactics.

Meanwhile, while I am in support of current policies, I am feeling much more like demanding, and becoming quite obnoxious and noisy about the church in general devoting a considerable share of their um considerable resources and collective brain power to figuring the GBLT issue out in the scientific arena. I believe there is one and it is not ALL about self control and commitment to Heavenly Father.

Elder Oaks spells it out here, and that if fine for now, but this is not the ultimate answer.

It may take 20 or 100 years, but I expect the church to be in the forefront of this investigation and research, and I am not going to shut up until I know they are.

[Scott Lloyd]

Do you agree with this analysis of what happened?

Do you disagree with it?

[Scott Lloyd]

As a Latter-Day Saint who does not reside in Utah but follows the issue closely, and is aware of the Church's influence on the National Council it is basically inconceivable that the 1st Compromise would have gotten scheduled for a vote if the Church wanted it squelched, secondly the 1st Compromise was headed towards a vote until the Great Lake Council made a very public protest and called for the vote to be delayed while other alternatives were considered. So if you have any actual concrete information that contradicts that, would be glad to see it.

Ironic for someone who for weeks has been engaging in Kremlin-watching of Church headquarters to now be demanding "actual concrete information that contradicts that."

[Stone holm]

Ironic for someone who for weeks has been engaging in Kremlin-watching of Church headquarters to now be demanding "actual concrete information that contradicts that."

You contradicted my assertion that the Church had sufficient influence to have prevented the 1st Compromise from being scheduled for a vote, and that the Great Salt Lake Council derail the 1st Compromise from getting to a vote. I admit that the first assertion is speculation, but it is based on the enormous clout that the Church has within the National Council. I believe the second assertion is pretty much beyond dispute as far as was reported in the news since the decision to delay the vote occurred immediately after the Great Salt Lake Council called for a delay and reconsideration. They spearheaded the opposition and as the largest Council in the Nation had considerable clout -- granted not as much clout as the Church, but nevertheless considerable clout. Now if you have something that contradicts either assertion, would be happy to see it. I don't exactly know what the Kremlin-like comment was all about....but am happy to hear your assertions.

[Calm]

since the affair involved considering becoming a plural wife of a Muslim that the person could not be rebaptized without special permission for the First Presidency because she was advocating an apostate group that practiced plural marriage. That kind of took the whole Stake Presidency by surprise that they would consider Islam an apostate group. We had always reserved that for Churches like the FLDS, etc.

I don't buy that the whole of Islam was labeled an "apostate" group because they allow the practice polygyny. They would have to have roots in the LDS faith to be such a one and having started at a significant time prior to the LDS faith....nope, just don't make that connection.

I think the letter was likely not explained well, misunderstood or conveyed to you improperly and it was more likely stated something along the lines of "like those apostate faiths (such as the FLDS or other breakoff sects) that practice plural marriage, anyone who has been involved in polygamy needs to receive permission from the First Presidency".

[Scott Lloyd]

You contradicted my assertion that the Church had sufficient influence to have prevented the 1st Compromise from being scheduled for a vote, and that the Great Salt Lake Council derail the 1st Compromise from getting to a vote. I admit that the first assertion is speculation, but it is based on the enormous clout that the Church has within the National Council. I believe the second assertion is pretty much beyond dispute as far as was reported in the news since the decision to delay the vote occurred immediately after the Great Salt Lake Council called for a delay and reconsideration. They spearheaded the opposition and as the largest Council in the Nation had considerable clout -- granted not as much clout as the Church, but nevertheless considerable clout. Now if you have something that contradicts either assertion, would be happy to see it. I don't exactly know what the Kremlin-like comment was all about....but am happy to hear your assertions.

I'm amazed that, being so political, you are unacquainted with the term Kremlin-watching.

At the height of the Cold War, when there was pretty much a perpetual blackout on news and information about the government of the Soviet Union, some pundits, self-styled experts and other observers engaged in what came to be known as Kremlin-watching. Not having any solid information to go on, they would take note of current events and try to extrapolate or divine what political dynamics might be going on in the Kremlin that may have brought about the observed events. Of course, it was pure conjecture and speculation, but they could hardly do anything else, given the realities of a closed society governed by a totalitarian regime.

My application of the term to what you are doing was metaphorical. You are taking an observed event and from that purporting to know what the position of the Church leadership is. I submit that in so doing, you are engaging in the post hoc fallacy. It's just as likely that the Church leadership elected not to exercise what you call its "clout," relying instead on the Great Salt Lake Council to restrain the pending action until cooler heads could prevail. No, I do not have proof or documentation that this is what happened, but my theory is every bit as solid as the assertion you are making.

I believe the second assertion is pretty much beyond dispute as far as was reported in the news since the decision to delay the vote occurred immediately after the Great Salt Lake Council called for a delay and reconsideration. They spearheaded the opposition and as the largest Council in the Nation had considerable clout -- granted not as much clout as the Church, but nevertheless considerable clout.

Calling for a delay and reconsideration is not the red-neck, reactionary move you make it out to be. It restrained the national council from rushing pell-mell into an ill-considered decision and gave time and opportunity to conduct a comprehensive and much-needed survey of the views and desires of the chartering organizations nationwide. The result was an action that was a far-better reflection of the views of those who make up the movement and who deal directly with the boys whom the organization is intended to benefit.

If you need something "concrete," I would submit the statement that was issued by the Church endorsing the new policy that is now being implemented. That's more concrete than anything you have to go on.

[Daniel2]

The official catholic response appears very similar to the official LDS response (as well as some of the unofficial reactions from membership of both Faiths):

Catholic leaders urge support for Boy Scouts after shift on gays

David Gibson Religion News Service | Jun. 3, 2013

The U.S. Catholic church's top liaison to the Boy Scouts of America is telling Catholic Scout leaders and troop sponsors that the BSA's new policy welcoming gay Scouts "is not in conflict with Catholic teaching" and they should continue to support scouting programs.

"Scouting is still the best youth-serving program available to all youth," Edward Martin, chairman of the National Catholic Committee on Scouting, wrote in a May 29 letter addressed to "fellow Catholic Scouters."

"We should be encouraged that the change in BSA's youth membership standard is not in conflict with Catholic teaching," Martin said, asking that "Catholic Scouters and chartered organization heads not rush to judgment."

Martin said that despite some concerns, the NCCS had taken a neutral stance on a resolution adopted on May 23 by the BSA's National Council.

In balloting that was seen as a potential watershed in the culture wars, more than 60 percent of the 1,400 members of the BSA council voted to allow gay Scouts while still barring gay men from being Scout leaders. The policy change takes effect Jan. 1.

Martin said in the week following the vote, he and his colleagues consulted with the BSA, with other faith-based Scouting groups and with Catholic experts, and weighed feedback on social media before declaring themselves satisfied that the new policy would not conflict with Catholic teaching.

One of the experts Martin cited was Edward Peters, a canon lawyer popular with church conservatives who wrote that while he disliked the new policy it was not contrary to church doctrine.

Martin noted that Scouting policies still bar sexual activity of any kind, and that the Boy Scouts are still a religiously oriented group that prohibits members from promoting "any social or political position or agenda." He also noted that many young Catholics themselves do not want to leave the Boy Scouts.

Martin's comments will come as a relief to the BSA because religious organizations make up 70 percent of its sponsoring organizations, and many fear the new policy could split American scouting. The Roman Catholic church, which is the BSA's third-largest sponsor, accounts for about 10 percent of the national total of 2.6 million Scouts. Mormons are the top sponsors, followed by United Methodists.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- the Mormons -- has already signaled it does not object to the new policy, and United Methodist Scouting officials said they would continue to support the BSA. On the other side, Southern Baptists and other evangelical and conservative Christian groups have raised strong objections to the move and some have said they will explore alternatives to the Boy Scouts.

Martin's letter may also be important in heading off a potential split within the Catholic church over the new BSA policy.

Following the vote, a number of Catholics said the church should sever its ties with the BSA and launch alternative scouting groups. The Sunday after the BSA decision, Fr. Derek Lappe of Our Lady Star of the Sea in Bremerton, Wash., announced that he was closing the parish's scouting program in a lengthy broadside that called gays "loser men" and listed widely discredited reasons why some men are gay.

But most Catholics appear to be supportive of the move, and church leaders seem willing to find an accommodation given that Scouting is such a popular way of keeping boys connected to church.

Bishop Robert Guglielmone of Charleston, S.C., who is the hierarchy's official adviser to the NCCS, attended the May 23 meeting of the BSA and said afterward while he was "not particularly encouraged" by the vote, "we can live with it."

Since most boys are going to stay no matter what happens, Guglielmone told the National Catholic Register, "We have a real obligation to stay in dialogue and to stay connected to the program."

But he warned the BSA that "if it gets to the point where some of our basic issues are threatened -- such as being able to pick leaders for Catholic chartered groups or in diminishing the role of religion and God -- then we will have to re-evaluate our participation in the program at that time."

Each bishop can decide whether the new membership policy is acceptable. Guglielmone has written to every U.S. bishop, and Martin said the NCCS would develop a plan to ensure "a consistent message is delivered to dioceses, parishes, Catholic Scouters and the media" on the church's views about allowing gay Scouts.

[Stone holm]

I don't buy that the whole of Islam was labeled an "apostate" group because they allow the practice polygyny. They would have to have roots in the LDS faith to be such a one and having started at a significant time prior to the LDS faith....nope, just don't make that connection.

I think the letter was likely not explained well, misunderstood or conveyed to you improperly and it was more likely stated something along the lines of "like those apostate faiths (such as the FLDS or other breakoff sects) that practice plural marriage, anyone who has been involved in polygamy needs to receive permission from the First Presidency".

Actually, no it read as I indicated.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't buy that the whole of Islam was labeled an "apostate" group because they allow the practice polygyny. They would have to have roots in the LDS faith to be such a one and having started at a significant time prior to the LDS faith....nope, just don't make that connection.

This seemed off to me as well.