Bsa: First Compromise Vs Second Compromise

[Stone holm]

The BSA had two compromises before it regarding its policy concerning the LGBT community. The first. Compromise that was scheduled for a vote would have allowed each Chartered Organization to make its own policy regarding gay scouts and homosexual leaders. The second compromise prohibited discrimination against gay scouts solely on the basis of their gender orientation, but prohibited homosexuals from serving as adult leaders. The Church never took a public stance regarding the first compromise, and it was taken off the table after the Great Salt Lake Council objected and called for a delay of the vote. Shortly after the second compromise was announced the Church pronounced itself satisfied with it before the Great Salt Lake Council took a position, and the Great Salt Lake Council subsequently concurred with the Church's position. While the second compromise is clearly consistent with Church policy and probably reflects how the Church would have managed its units had the first compromise been adopted, strategically which compromise was in the best long term interest of the Church and the BSA?

[Buckeye]

SH, I'll respond to your questions shortly, but first I want to set out the necessary background information. All emphasis in bold is supplied by me.

January 28, 2013. NBCnews reports that BSA is considering changing its membership and leadership policies to defer to local organizations the issue of homosexuality. The LDS church does not immediately respond.

"The Boy Scouts of America, one of the nation’s largest private youth organizations, is actively considering an end to its decades-long

policy of banning gay scouts or scout leaders

, according to scouting officials and outsiders familiar with internal discussions.

If adopted by the organization’s board of directors, it would represent a profound change on an issue that has been highly controversial -- one that even went to the US Supreme Court. The new policy, now under discussion, would eliminate the ban from the national organization’s rules, leaving local sponsoring organizations free to decide for themselves whether to admit gay scouts.

“The chartered organizations that oversee and deliver scouting would accept membership and select leaders consistent with their organization’s mission, principles or religious beliefs,” according to Deron Smith, a spokesman for the Boy Scouts’ national organization"

http://usnews.nbcnew...rs-leaders?lite

January 28. Controversy immediately ensues, including on this board. http://www.mormondia...age__hl__scouts

February 6. In the face of significant outcry, BSA delays a decision on the policy change until May. The LDS church approves the move. It issues two statements the same day as BSA's announced delay. The church expressly states it has not taken a position on any policy change and has not "launched a campaign" either pushing for or resisting a change.

“The Church is following this proposed policy change very closely. We believe the BSA has acted wisely in delaying its decision until all voices can be heard on this important moral issue.”

http://www.mormonnew...o-postpone-vote

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is carefully assessing the consequences of this policy change on the Church’s program to build and strengthen young men, but it has not commented on it and a decision will not be made until we have assessed all of the implications.

We caution others not to speculate about our position or to assume that individual Latter-day Saints inside or outside the Scouting movement speak for the Church. Neither has the Church launched any campaign either to effect or prevent a policy change."

http://www.mormonnew...outing-decision

March and April. BSA surveys local leaders, parents, and scouts. The church provides no counsel to members on how to answer the surveys. Members are left to vote their own conscience.

April 25. After reviewing the surveys, BSA announces a proposed policy change that will be voted on in the May meeting. The change would not be a local option. Instead, all BSA units would be prohibited from excluded boys on the basis of sexual orientation alone. Also, no the national ban on gay leaders would remain in place, even if local units would like to allow them.

"Youth membership in the Boy Scouts of America is open to all youth who meet the specific membership requirements to join the Cub Scout, Boy Scout, Varsity Scout, Sea Scout, and Venturing programs. Membership in any program of the Boy Scouts of America requires the youth member to (a) subscribe to and abide by the values expressed in the Scout Oath and Scout Law, (b) subscribe to and abide by the precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle (duty to God), and © demonstrate behavior that exemplifies the highest level of good conduct and respect for others and is consistent at all times with the values expressed in the Scout Oath and Scout Law. No youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone."

April 25. The LDS church releases a statement endorsing the policy change and referencing the need for a "single standard of moral purity".

"While the Church has not launched any campaign either to effect or prevent a policy change we have followed the discussion and are satisfied that BSA has made a thoughtful, good-faith effort to address issues that, as they have said, remain 'among the most complex and challenging issues facing the BSA and society today.'

"The current BSA proposal constructively addresses a number of important issues that have been part of the on-going dialogue including consistent standards for all BSA partners, recognition that Scouting exists to serve and benefit youth rather than Scout leaders,

a single standard of moral purity

for youth in the program, and a renewed emphasis for Scouts to honor their duty to God.

"We are grateful to BSA for their careful consideration of these issues. We appreciate the positive things contained in this current proposal that will help build and strengthen the moral character and leadership skills of youth as we work together in the future.”

http://www.mormonnew...outs-of-america

May 23. BSA approves the policy change 61-39.

"Today, following this review, the most comprehensive listening exercise in Scouting's history the approximate 1,400 voting members of the Boy Scouts of America's National Council approved a resolution to remove the restriction denying membership to youth on the basis of sexual orientation alone. The resolution also reinforces that Scouting is a youth program, and any sexual conduct, whether heterosexual or homosexual, by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the virtues of Scouting. A change to the current membership policy for adult leaders was not under consideration; thus, the policy for adults remains in place. The BSA thanks all the national voting members who participated in this process and vote.

"This policy change is effective Jan. 1, 2014, allowing the Boy Scouts of America the transition time needed to communicate and implement this policy to its approximately 116,000 Scouting units.

"The Boy Scouts of America will not sacrifice its mission, or the youth served by the movement, by allowing the organization to be consumed by a single, divisive, and unresolved societal issue. As the National Executive Committee just completed a lengthy review process, there are no plans for further review on this matter.

http://www.scouting....on/results.aspx

BSA also issues an Executive Summary, which includes "key findings" considered to be critical to the development of a resolution:

• Attitudes and opinions among Americans related to gay and lesbian relationships have changed rapidly over the past three years.
  
• While a majority of adults in the Scouting community support the BSA’s current policy of excluding open and avowed homosexuals, younger parents and teens tend to oppose the policy.
  
• Views among parents under the age of 50 have changed significantly in the past three years, with a majority now opposing the BSA’s current policy.
  
• Parents in three of four BSA regions oppose the current membership policy.
  
• Of six scenarios presented in surveys to parents, teens, and members of the Scouting community, the one scenario with which overwhelming majorities of parents, teens, and members of the Scouting community strongly agree is that it would be unacceptable to deny an openly gay Scout an Eagle Scout Award solely because of his sexual orientation.
  
• Parents, teens, and the Scouting community do not favor a local chartered organization option.
  
• While adults in the Scouting community strongly support the current membership policy, they are less likely to agree with removing a Scout from the program solely on the basis of sexual orientation as opposed to behavior.
  

http://scoutingmagaz...dy-findings.pdf

May 23. Within minutes of BSA's announcment, the church releases a pre-prepared statement that again endorses the change and reaffirms the importance of Duty to God. This statement asserts that the church's program will not need to change at all because homosexual boys have always been accepted provided that they abide by the church's standards of conduct.

... As the Church moves forward in its association with the Boy Scouts of America, Church leaders will continue to seek the most effective ways to address the diverse needs of young people in the United States and throughout the world.

The Church’s long-established policy for participation in activities is stated in the basic instructional handbook used by lay leaders of the Church: “young men … who agree to abide by Church standards” are “welcomed warmly and encouraged to participate” (

Handbook 2: Administering the Church [2010], 8.17.3

). This policy applies to Church-sponsored Scout units.

Sexual orientation has not previously been—and is not now—a disqualifying factor for boys who want to join Latter-day Saint Scout troops. Willingness to abide by standards of behavior continues to be our compelling interest.

These standards are outlined in the booklet

For the Strength of Youth

and include abstinence from sexual relationships. We remain firmly committed to upholding these standards and to protecting and strengthening boys and young men.

The Church appreciates BSA’s reaffirmation of its commitment to “duty to God,”

which includes service to others and moral behavior—central principles of our teaching to young men. As in the past, the Church will work with BSA to harmonize what Scouting has to offer with the varying needs of our young men. We trust that BSA will implement and administer the approved policy in an appropriate and effective manner.

http://www.mormonnew...ica-policy-vote

Edited June 6, 2013 by Buckeye

[Buckeye]

Stone Holm, now I will substantively respond to your questions. I am not plugged into the SLC scouting environment. I have no basis to speculate on the relationship between the COB and the SL council. What I can analyze are the church's own statements. Obviously, the church approves the second option. The remaining questions are (1) would the church also have approved the first option, (2) if the church would approve both options, which option would it prefer, and (3) what was the church's involvement in the policy change process?

Question 3. Let's begin with the last question first. What was the church's involvement? The church repeatedly stated that it did not “launch a campaign” to either advance or oppose any policy change. I think we can all agree that is correct. No public direction was given by the church. Members were not told how to act. But failure to "campaign" does not equate to "no action." I find it very unlikely that an organization that sponsors 20-25% of scouting's units would not be significantly involved in this issue, at least behind the scenes. The fact that the church issued pre-prepared statements on April 25 and May 23 immediately after the BSA's announcements on those days strongly suggests to me that the church knew of the announcements ahead of time. In fact, enough in advance that church decision makers could agree on a response and the newroom could draft the response.

In contrast to April 25 and May 23, the church did not issue a prompt statement following the January 28 press report about option 1. The church's response came a week later and said the church appreciated time in which to discuss the issue. This strongly suggests to me that the "church" was not fully aware of the proposal to move to option 1. Perhaps some members were involved. Perhaps option 1 was only a discussion point and some BSA staff jumped the gun. Or perhaps the church did sign off on option 1, but held back public avowel until it could see the reaction. We'll probably never know. But from what I can read, I think the most likely reality was that a number of key players in the COB were unaware of the development and so the church took a neutral stance until all decision-makers could agree. From that point on, the church was highly involved behind the scenes at BSA, though not in a "campaign", and every step that BSA took was in accord with the church's approval.

Question 1. At the end of the day, would the church have approved option 1? I believe so. The church's statements expressly said the church is not "launching a campaign" to oppose option 1. I'm sure views differed strongly with the COB, as they do here, but if the BSA was intent on pursuing option 1 then I believe the church would have accepted the move. Option 1 would not force the church to accept any scouts or leaders it does not approve of. In fact, as Stone Holm points out, option 1 is actually more in line with the church's standards. Under option 2, a bishop cannot call a celibate gay man as scoutmaster even though the church handbook allows it. Option 1 would have fully aligned BSA's policies with the church's by saying, in effect, that the local organization's policies are BSA's policies for that organization.

Question 2. Despite the above, I believe the church prefered option 2 and that it why it carried the day. In fact, option 1 was never put to a vote in the May 23 meeting. I come to the conclusion because of two statements: (i) the April 25 church statement expressing a need for a "single standard of moral purity" across BSA and (ii) the May 23 executive summary stating (without citation) that "Parents, teens, and the Scouting community do not favor a local chartered organization option."

This gets your real question - why prefer option 2? Option 1 has a clear benefit for BSA - it removes the issue completely from the national stage. Option 1 also has some benefit for the LDS church as celibate gay adult leaders could be called. And option 1 would not have lead to any more of an exodus from scouting than option 2 is causing (perhaps even less).

I do not claim to know why. But my best guesses for why the church prefers option 2 are the following:

1. The church clearly wants BSA to include Duty to God as part of the national program. Belief in God was never part of the current debate, but it is possible the church was concerned that a move to a local option on homosexuality would open the door to a local option on Duty to God.
   
2. Legal concerns. In Dale v. BSA (US 2000), the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that BSA was allowed to discriminate in its membership policies. A key finding in the decision was that BSA's discrimination policy was a core part of its mission and the policy was supported by local units. In the following 13 years, public views on gays have changed dramatically. It is possible the church was concerned that a local option would undermine the factual finding necessary for Dale. In other words, a local option could lead to courts requiring all BSA units to accept gay leaders - celibate or otherwise - since some local units (e.g., Unitarians) approve of non-celibate gay scout leaders.
   
3. Safety concerns. As parents of 3 scouts, my wife and I have no concerns with gay scout leaders, so long as BSA protection policies are followed. However, I know that many other parents do have concerns. A large segement of our population still distrusts gays around boys. It is possible that some portion of church leadership shares this concern.
   
4. A desire to push the church's moral views onto all BSA organizations. Homosexuality is a moral issue for the church. The church's April 25 statement said that BSA should have a "single standard of moral purity". I personally find this position difficult to defend, as the church also views abortion, smoking, belief in the divinity of Christ, and many other issues as "moral", but does not insist on a uniform BSA policy to apply to all BSA units for those issues.
   

Conclusion: Regardless of the option BSA chose, BSA is still pinned between a rock (religious chartered organizations) and a hard place (corporate america) so long as any discrimination is in place against any gay boys or leaders. The only ways to end this dilemma are (i) for public opinion to change and approve of discrimination within BSA so as to remove the corporate pressure, (ii) for religious chartering organizations to change and allow non-celibate gays to serve in scouting, or (iii) for BSA to choose between the corporate and religious sponsors. Which of these options is most likely? My wild speculation puts the odds at 20%, 30%, and 50% respectively.

[Stone holm]

Stone Holm, now I will substantively respond to your questions. I am not plugged into the SLC scouting environment. I have no basis to speculate on the relationship between the COB and the SL council. What I can analyze are the church's own statements. Obviously, the church approves the second option. The remaining questions are (1) would the church also have approved the first option, (2) if the church would approve both options, which option would it prefer, and (3) what was the church's involvement in the policy change process?

Question 3. Let's begin with the last question first. What was the church's involvement? The church repeatedly stated that it did not “launch a campaign” to either advance or oppose any policy change. I think we can all agree that is correct. No public direction was given by the church. Members were not told how to act. But failure to "campaign" does not equate to "no action." I find it very unlikely that an organization that sponsors 20-25% of scouting's units would not be significantly involved in this issue, at least behind the scenes. The fact that the church issued pre-prepared statements on April 25 and May 23 immediately after the BSA's announcements on those days strongly suggests to me that the church knew of the announcements ahead of time. In fact, enough in advance that church decision makers could agree on a response and the newroom could draft the response.

In contrast to April 25 and May 23, the church did not issue a prompt statement following the January 28 press report about option 1. The church's response came a week later and said the church appreciated time in which to discuss the issue. This strongly suggests to me that the "church" was not fully aware of the proposal to move to option 1. Perhaps some members were involved. Perhaps option 1 was only a discussion point and some BSA staff jumped the gun. Or perhaps the church did sign off on option 1, but held back public avowel until it could see the reaction. We'll probably never know. But from what I can read, I think the most likely reality was that a number of key players in the COB were unaware of the development and so the church took a neutral stance until all decision-makers could agree. From that point on, the church was highly involved behind the scenes at BSA, though not in a "campaign", and every step that BSA took was in accord with the church's approval.

Question 1. At the end of the day, would the church have approved option 1? I believe so. The church's statements expressly said the church is not "launching a campaign" to oppose option 1. I'm sure views differed strongly with the COB, as they do here, but if the BSA was intent on pursuing option 1 then I believe the church would have accepted the move. Option 1 would not force the church to accept any scouts or leaders it does not approve of. In fact, as Stone Holm points out, option 1 is actually more in line with the church's standards. Under option 2, a bishop cannot call a celibate gay man as scoutmaster even though the church handbook allows it. Option 1 would have fully aligned BSA's policies with the church's by saying, in effect, that the local organization's policies are BSA's policies for that organization.

Question 2. Despite the above, I believe the church prefered option 2 and that it why it carried the day. In fact, option 1 was never put to a vote in the May 23 meeting. I come to the conclusion because of two statements: (i) the April 25 church statement expressing a need for a "single standard of moral purity" across BSA and (ii) the May 23 executive summary stating (without citation) that "Parents, teens, and the Scouting community do not favor a local chartered organization option."

This gets your real question - why prefer option 2? Option 1 has a clear benefit for BSA - it removes the issue completely from the national stage. Option 1 also has some benefit for the LDS church as celibate gay adult leaders could be called. And option 1 would not have lead to any more of an exodus from scouting than option 2 is causing (perhaps even less).

I do not claim to know why. But my best guesses for why the church prefers option 2 are the following:

1. The church clearly wants BSA to include Duty to God as part of the national program. Belief in God was never part of the current debate, but it is possible the church was concerned that a move to a local option on homosexuality would open the door to a local option on Duty to God.
   
2. Legal concerns. In Dale v. BSA (US 2000), the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that BSA was allowed to discriminate in its membership policies. A key finding in the decision was that BSA's discrimination policy was a core part of its mission and the policy was supported by local units. In the following 13 years, public views on gays have changed dramatically. It is possible the church was concerned that a local option would undermine the factual finding necessary for Dale. In other words, a local option could lead to courts requiring all BSA units to accept gay leaders - celibate or otherwise - since some local units (e.g., Unitarians) approve of non-celibate gay scout leaders.
   
3. Safety concerns. As parents of 3 scouts, my wife and I have no concerns with gay scout leaders, so long as BSA protection policies are followed. However, I know that many other parents do have concerns. A large segement of our population still distrusts gays around boys. It is possible that some portion of church leadership shares this concern.
   
4. A desire to push the church's moral views onto all BSA organizations. Homosexuality is a moral issue for the church. The church's April 25 statement said that BSA should have a "single standard of moral purity". I personally find this position difficult to defend, as the church also views abortion, smoking, belief in the divinity of Christ, and many other issues as "moral", but does not insist on a uniform BSA policy to apply to all BSA units for those issues.
   

Conclusion: Regardless of the option BSA chose, BSA is still pinned between a rock (religious chartered organizations) and a hard place (corporate america) so long as any discrimination is in place against any gay boys or leaders. The only ways to end this dilemma are (i) for public opinion to change and approve of discrimination within BSA so as to remove the corporate pressure, (ii) for religious chartering organizations to change and allow non-celibate gays to serve in scouting, or (iii) for BSA to choose between the corporate and religious sponsors. Which of these options is most likely? My wild speculation puts the odds at 20%, 30%, and 50% respectively.

I agree with much of your analysis which makes sense. I am, however, a little skeptical about your analysis as to what the Church may or may not have been doing before the GSLC objected and called for a delay. I still find it hard to believe that the first option got scheduled for a vote without tacit approval from the Church. My pure speculation is that there was a communication failure between the Church leadership and the GSLC which caught Church leadership off guard and put the Church in an awkward situation so it couldn't really then leap out and accept the first compromise. When the second compromise was put out, the Church rushed to endorse it before GSLC had made any decision in order to preempt the GSLC and fend off the GSLC from throwing another public monkey wrench in the gears.

Your analysis of what may have been the thinking of the Church is astute and reasonable. However, it seems,nevertheless, to me that the first compromise was better for both the BSA and the Church. You have already stated why it would have been better for BSA. The reason I think it would have been better for the Church is that attention would have ceased to be on the BSA and consequently would also have ceased at least slightly to be on the Church which appears to be where the Church is headed namely to disengage from the public debate on this matter. In addition it would have reinforced the scouting concept of the CO owning and controlling the units. It would also have gotten the BSA out of the struggle regarding adult leadership and made it less likely that the LGBT activists would have continued to push for a policy change at the national level with regards to adult leadership. So if the Church is serious about retaining its affiliation with the BSA, which I believe it is, the last thing it wants is for the struggle over adult leadership to continue because that might indeed result in a policy change for all units which might force the Church to withdraw.

[rpn]

The Boy Scout statement does not preclude leaders with same gender attraction, it merely acknowledges scouts of same gender attraction. BSA has articulated the no adult ssa as a byproduct of the actual words.

But just like the LDS church has never made gender attraction a condition of scouting membership, by virtue of the fact that it enrolls every young man ages 8-16 in scouts, it is highly probably that the LDS church has also called as scoutmasters men who deal with ssa. The operable distinction is that they are called, and that youth leadership callings are pretty much exclusively given to those with faithful adherence to a range of commandments and expectations and faithfulness. The church leaders issuing the calls do not ask about ssa, and you can't tell it by looking at someone either.

The LDS position is likely that it doesn't matter to your success as a scout leader that you deal with ssa, openly or privately. It only matters whether you live church standards. It should surprise no one who has been reading for the last few years about how the church is talking about ssa, that people have callings, serve missions, hold recommends, and do all things that members who do not have ssa do within the church. The line is behavior contrary to the standards for adults too.

So I suspect that LDS scoutmasters will continue to be called as they always have been, and some of them will be ssattracted, and it won't make a smidgeon of difference within the wards they serve.

[Buckeye]

I agree with much of your analysis which makes sense. I am, however, a little skeptical about your analysis as to what the Church may or may not have been doing before the GSLC objected and called for a delay. I still find it hard to believe that the first option got scheduled for a vote without tacit approval from the Church. My pure speculation is that there was a communication failure between the Church leadership and the GSLC which caught Church leadership off guard and put the Church in an awkward situation so it couldn't really then leap out and accept the first compromise. When the second compromise was put out, the Church rushed to endorse it before GSLC had made any decision in order to preempt the GSLC and fend off the GSLC from throwing another public monkey wrench in the gears.

Your analysis of what may have been the thinking of the Church is astute and reasonable. However, it seems,nevertheless, to me that the first compromise was better for both the BSA and the Church. You have already stated why it would have been better for BSA. The reason I think it would have been better for the Church is that attention would have ceased to be on the BSA and consequently would also have ceased at least slightly to be on the Church which appears to be where the Church is headed namely to disengage from the public debate on this matter. In addition it would have reinforced the scouting concept of the CO owning and controlling the units. It would also have gotten the BSA out of the struggle regarding adult leadership and made it less likely that the LGBT activists would have continued to push for a policy change at the national level with regards to adult leadership. So if the Church is serious about retaining its affiliation with the BSA, which I believe it is, the last thing it wants is for the struggle over adult leadership to continue because that might indeed result in a policy change for all units which might force the Church to withdraw.

I am certain that BSA would not have put forth the first option without believing the church would support it. I would be very surprised, therefore, if there was no church involvement in drafting that option. It's interesting to speculate as to why things fell apart after the announcement. In hindsight, if the church really wanted option 1, it should have made sure the GSLC was in line. Or perhaps the church simply does not have the much control over the GSLC. Again, I have no knowledge of the relationship.

That said, what happened in January-February is moot. The real question is why the church and BSA did not put forth option 1 on April 25 after they had reviewed the survey data. Read again the church's April 25 statement about the need for a single standard of morality. That's what makes me think the church does not support the local option. Maybe it did in January, but if so, it certainly changed its mind after looking at the surveys (or maybe doing more analysis of the consequences of a local option).

I also agree with you that the church very much wants to maintain its ties with BSA. Personally, I would have preferred option 1 too. But it seems clear to me that by April 25, the church had decided that option 2 was the better bet for maintaining the tie. Time will tell. Perhaps neither option would work in the end. Perhaps either would. I'm just happy that the relationship is continuing now and that my boys are in scouts.

[Stone holm]

The Boy Scout statement does not preclude leaders with same gender attraction, it merely acknowledges scouts of same gender attraction. BSA has articulated the no adult ssa as a byproduct of the actual words.

But just like the LDS church has never made gender attraction a condition of scouting membership, by virtue of the fact that it enrolls every young man ages 8-16 in scouts, it is highly probably that the LDS church has also called as scoutmasters men who deal with ssa. The operable distinction is that they are called, and that youth leadership callings are pretty much exclusively given to those with faithful adherence to a range of commandments and expectations and faithfulness. The church leaders issuing the calls do not ask about ssa, and you can't tell it by looking at someone either.

The LDS position is likely that it doesn't matter to your success as a scout leader that you deal with ssa, openly or privately. It only matters whether you live church standards. It should surprise no one who has been reading for the last few years about how the church is talking about ssa, that people have callings, serve missions, hold recommends, and do all things that members who do not have ssa do within the church. The line is behavior contrary to the standards for adults too.

So I suspect that LDS scoutmasters will continue to be called as they always have been, and some of them will be ssattracted, and it won't make a smidgeon of difference within the wards they serve.

Adult leaders who have come out as gay remain banned.

[Stone holm]

I am certain that BSA would not have put forth the first option without believing the church would support it. I would be very surprised, therefore, if there was no church involvement in drafting that option. It's interesting to speculate as to why things fell apart after the announcement. In hindsight, if the church really wanted option 1, it should have made sure the GSLC was in line. Or perhaps the church simply does not have the much control over the GSLC. Again, I have no knowledge of the relationship.

That said, what happened in January-February is moot. The real question is why the church and BSA did not put forth option 1 on April 25 after they had reviewed the survey data. Read again the church's April 25 statement about the need for a single standard of morality. That's what makes me think the church does not support the local option. Maybe it did in January, but if so, it certainly changed its mind after looking at the surveys (or maybe doing more analysis of the consequences of a local option).

I also agree with you that the church very much wants to maintain its ties with BSA. Personally, I would have preferred option 1 too. But it seems clear to me that by April 25, the church had decided that option 2 was the better bet for maintaining the tie. Time will tell. Perhaps neither option would work in the end. Perhaps either would. I'm just happy that the relationship is continuing now and that my boys are in scouts.

Was the GSLC announced opposition and request for delay before the the April 25th? There were groups attacking Compromise 1 as resulting in a gerrymandered policy when the Church was still not taking a stance. The problem with that is that the Church Scouting program has frequently been different in some respects than the National program with some variance in standards, so the Church is used to that sort of thing. For example the Church Units are not supposed to have Tiger Cub programs, and back when the rest of BSA went with co-educational Explorer Posts the Church was allowed to stick with boys only, in addition there was the Blazer Program for many years that kept the younger scouts from going on overnight campouts unless their father was going to be present, etc. etc. Granted these, except for maybe the decision on disallowing co-educational Explorer Posts, were not as controversial -- still Scouting LDS style has some very clear peculiarities.

[rpn]

Read the statement.

WHEREAS, the current adult leadership standard of the Boy Scouts of America states:

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

While the BSA does not proactively inquire about sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA.

It appears to be flexible enough to allow any ssattracted person who is following gospel standards to serve as scout leader. I suspect leaders with ssattraction HAVE SERVED AS SCOUT LEADERS, whether their orientation was known by the bishop or not, and I expect they will continue to so serve. (There are after all, about there are about ten must have scout calling in every ward when you include two deep leadership and committee chairs.)

[Bernard Gui]

The beginning of the end of BSA.

[Buckeye]

Read the statement.

It appears to be flexible enough to allow any ssattracted person who is following gospel standards to serve as scout leader. I suspect leaders with ssattraction HAVE SERVED AS SCOUT LEADERS, whether their orientation was known by the bishop or not, and I expect they will continue to so serve. (There are after all, about there are about ten must have scout calling in every ward when you include two deep leadership and committee chairs.)

No it doesn't. Mitch Mayne is an openly avowed homosexual who was called by his bishop to serve as the ward executive secretary in his bay-area ward. (http://www.mitchmayne.com/) Under BSA policy, brother Mayne could not be called as a scoutmaster. Now, if the bishop called him and everyone was happy, would BSA actually step in and have him removed? Probably not. But current BSA policy precludes a person who identifies as homosexual from serving in any scout leadership role, even though LDS policy would allow a person to serve so long as they kept church standards.

BTW, I fully agree that gays have been and currently serve within all levels of BSA leadership. The point is they do so in secret. As soon as they are found out, they are gone. At least per BSA's policy.

[Buckeye]

The beginning of the end of BSA.

I prefer Churchill's view: It's the end of the beginnning! While we've stepped into some darkness, I have hope that the light will gather around and we will soon see our way forward.

[Buckeye]

Was the GSLC announced opposition and request for delay before the the April 25th? There were groups attacking Compromise 1 as resulting in a gerrymandered policy when the Church was still not taking a stance. The problem with that is that the Church Scouting program has frequently been different in some respects than the National program with some variance in standards, so the Church is used to that sort of thing. For example the Church Units are not supposed to have Tiger Cub programs, and back when the rest of BSA went with co-educational Explorer Posts the Church was allowed to stick with boys only, in addition there was the Blazer Program for many years that kept the younger scouts from going on overnight campouts unless their father was going to be present, etc. etc. Granted these, except for maybe the decision on disallowing co-educational Explorer Posts, were not as controversial -- still Scouting LDS style has some very clear peculiarities.

I don't have time to pull citations now, but "yes", the GSLC's opposition statements came out during February. My recollection is the first statement was made before the church's Feb. 6 statement. After the church's April 25 statement approving option 2 the GSLC opposition largely simmered down.

[Stone holm]

I don't have time to pull citations now, but "yes", the GSLC's opposition statements came out during February. My recollection is the first statement was made before the church's Feb. 6 statement. After the church's April 25 statement approving option 2 the GSLC opposition largely simmered down.

Yeah, that is the way I remember the sequence. That is why I speculated about a communication failure. I also think that the Church Leadership is, how do I say this, more understanding of people with SSA than necessarily all of the membership or even all of the membership involved in Scouting. So when the Church leadership held its cards close to the vest on the 1st Compromise, there was anything restraining the GSLC from doing its thing. But when the Church quickly got a pronouncement of satisfaction on the 2nd Compromise, that took the wind out of the GSLC sails. I am finding on other blogs, however, to my dismay -- that a lot of both conservative and progressive Mormons seem to be becoming hostile to BSA, so i fear that the affiliation may be doomed regardless -- which saddens me, because Boy Scouts was a major part of five of my sons positive Church experiences -- our family produced 3 Eagles and a Life Scout and I hate to see the tradition end, one of my sons is an LDS Scoutmaster and I expect that another will become one (perhaps not in an LDS Unit) when his son is old enough. But am finding that people either love Scouting or have a distaste for it.

[Buckeye]

As to the leadership's views vs. membership, I would call it "ahead of the curve". I don't get the sense that leadership consciously tried to keep things close to the vest. I think things at BSA were moving too quickly for the church to get everything in line. The corporate dominoes really started falling fast in the fall of 2012. That's what forced BSA's hand. While I think the church would support either option 1 or 2, the church wasn't the driving force here.

As for the future, my family will feel the pain if the church cuts ties, but we love scouting enough to move to another a non-LDS troop. Living well outside Utah the non-LDS troops are actually stronger. That's not to critique the LDS scout leaders my boys have had - they are outstanding. It's just our numbers are so small compared to typical troops. I have no doubt my boys will obtain eagle either way. But we're much more into scouting than most LDS families.

[Stone holm]

As to the leadership's views vs. membership, I would call it "ahead of the curve". I don't get the sense that leadership consciously tried to keep things close to the vest. I think things at BSA were moving too quickly for the church to get everything in line. The corporate dominoes really started falling fast in the fall of 2012. That's what forced BSA's hand. While I think the church would support either option 1 or 2, the church wasn't the driving force here.

As for the future, my family will feel the pain if the church cuts ties, but we love scouting enough to move to another a non-LDS troop. Living well outside Utah the non-LDS troops are actually stronger. That's not to critique the LDS scout leaders my boys have had - they are outstanding. It's just our numbers are so small compared to typical troops. I have no doubt my boys will obtain eagle either way. But we're much more into scouting than most LDS families.

Yeah so was I and my boys, and you are right LDS Units are weaker. Although my deceased wife and I developed a huge Pack that drew Cubs from four communities and two counties. But it was about 90% nonmormon . We were also mavericks who bent and broke some rules. We had Tiger Cubs which was a complete no no, we refused to have the pinewood derbies because parents became too obnoxious, so we alternated between the regatta and the space derby and gave medals to all participants, we refused to have any of the overly competitive sports and concentrated on marbles and ultimate frisbee tournaments. All our leader had basic training and most had taken train the trainer and I and my Asst had taken Cub Scout Woodbadge and my wife and I both attended camp school. All while holding major callings. I followed my boys up into Scouts but we were not as successful there as we were very small and besides my own kids and our neighbours we only got the LDS Scouts the other troops rejected. It was weird, in our county there were four troops, only ours was LDS, but three of the four Scoutmasters were LDS. Our Elders Quorum Pres was the Scoutmaster for the Catholic troop, and our Bishop was the Scoutmaster for the Methodist Troop, but when I started graduating Webelos they wouldn't take some of my Webelos so finally I got drafted to start an L DS troop even though my boys weren't old enough. But we had fun, and some who were border line LDS juvenile delinquents have straightened up and have their own kids in scouts.

[daz2]

ScoutsCanada permits GLBT scouts and leaders, and has for some time. To my knowledge, it did not weaken the Church's partnership in Canada with ScoutsCanada, I have heard no complaints from LDS scouts or leaders there, and I imagine it would work in the USA as well.

[blackstrap]

ScoutsCanada permits GLBT scouts and leaders, and has for some time. To my knowledge, it did not weaken the Church's partnership in Canada with ScoutsCanada, I have heard no complaints from LDS scouts or leaders there, and I imagine it would work in the USA as well.

The issue of gay scouts has not been of much interest where I live in Canada, coed camps is more concerning. The biggest issue with Scouts Canada is a monetary one. The wards and stakes spend a great deal of money on registration and see little if any benefit in return. There is more and more an attitude that we could create our own programs and provide a better outcome for less money. In Canada there is less public esteem to Scouting than in the US so the Church in the US would find it much more difficult to distance itself from the BSA .

I must add the caveat that my comments come from a Western Canadian perspective, not an Eastern Canadian one. Two VERY different worlds !

Edited June 7, 2013 by blackstrap

[USU78]

The beginning of the end of BSA.

I quite agree. Within 3-5 years there will be several lawsuits against both the Church and the BSA in which young boys who've been diddled by older, outed boys while on BSA activities will be brought.

The reason for this is that the homophile advocacy groups don't want membership for adult homosexual leaders and homosexual youth: they want the extinction of BSA because of its symbolic value as a bastion of traditional masculine values.

[Stone holm]

I quite agree. Within 3-5 years there will be several lawsuits against both the Church and the BSA in which young boys who've been diddled by older, outed boys while on BSA activities will be brought.

The reason for this is that the homophile advocacy groups don't want membership for adult homosexual leaders and homosexual youth: they want the extinction of BSA because of its symbolic value as a bastion of traditional masculine values.

BSA, like most youth Organizations, has already experienced pedophile issues, etc. I don't see this as giving a particular rise. Because of the cultural stigma which tends to be associated with them outed boys will probably be given closer monitoring so I don't foresee the dramatic rise predicted. However, I believe that BSA has a troubled future because the cultural war has not been laid to rest, and because progressives have in some cases joined the cry for dis affiliation due to the franchise costs, since they failed to extricate BSA from the cultural battlefield, BSA will continue to fall counter to corporate and nonprofit policies which will preclude revenue so its ability to reduce the offensive costs will be crippled. So I likewise see a rough future ahead for different reasons. Was involved with Scouts for decades, never saw it as a bastion for masculine value, whatever the heck that means, it was a considered iconic as promoting self reliance , honesty, and clean living. Those values could have been sustained even in a coeducational program like the popular Catholic explorer posts. Gender stereotyping was never an important part of the program.

[Jude2]

This may be getting a little off topic,

I know there is this abstract idea that we must show love and compassion for everyone but there is another side to this.

My son is an Eagle Scout, when he was in third grade an older boy molested him in the school bathroom. It has left him traumatized and hurts even 30 years later. When he heard that the Scouts were going to let openly gay young men into the program and the Church was going along with it he said “not my son!”

Now we can reason one way to another but there is no going around personal fears and experiences. How is the Church and scouting going to address or calm the fears of this father?

[Stone holm]

This may be getting a little off topic,

I know there is this abstract idea that we must show love and compassion for everyone but there is another side to this.

My son is an Eagle Scout, when he was in third grade an older boy molested him in the school bathroom. It has left him traumatized and hurts even 30 years later. When he heard that the Scouts were going to let openly gay young men into the program and the Church was going along with it he said “not my son!”

Now we can reason one way to another but there is no going around personal fears and experiences. How is the Church and scouting going to address or calm the fears of this father?

You are right this is a bit off topic. Although I admit to being confused about what "openly gay young men" means in the LDS Scouting context, I do not think that the policy change has much if any impact on whether a Scout is or is not going to get molested. One could also argue that if you really are phobic about gays and want to stress heterosexuality as a virtue, then what we should be strongly considering is making Scouting co-educational. I would suspect that the Catholics may have figured that one out, which is why although their religious are still under the celibacy tradition, they wholeheartedly embraced co-educational Explorer Posts.

[Stone holm]

The topic here is a rather narrow one aimed at determining whether the First Compromise or the Second Compromise was the better strategy for the Church, not debating how we should or should not treat people with SSA or the alleged connection between SSA and pedophilia. It assumes that the Church wants to stay affiliated with the BSA and that it is at the same time trying to uphold its current policy standards which appears to be the people with SSA should not be condemned or discriminated against so long as they obey the law of chastity.

[Jude2]

The topic here is a rather narrow one aimed at determining whether the First Compromise or the Second Compromise was the better strategy for the Church,

Rather a dry and unimportant question.

[Stone holm]

Rather a dry and unimportant question.

Dry yes. I wouldn't go so far as to say unimportant because it may ultimately determine whether BSA craters and whether the Church ultimately disaffiliates with BSA. Let me try to explain one potential outcome of having gone with the 2nd Compromise instead of the 1st Compromise. The culture war continues inside of BSA. As many on this thread have indicated, BSA National may eventually feel that financial survival of the program means they have to do something to overcome the increasing number of anti-discrimination policies being adopted by corporations and non-profits which preclude those corporations and non-profits from donating to BSA because it is considered an entity which avowedly discriminates against gays and lesbians as to leadership positions -- so instead of creating an each Chartered Organization makes its own policy position as in the 1st Compromise, it follows the pattern of the 2nd Compromise and extends it to allowing gays and lesbians to be leaders. Since some Churches believe that the law of chastity is satisfied if the pair are married and also recognize SSM -- then suddenly the Church is going to be caught crosswise between its standards and BSA standards -- and at that point there would be an affiliation crisis. If, however, they had followed the 1st Compromise, then BSA would not have been under seige and the pressure would have been on the individual Chartering Org. to change their policies as no policy really needed to be changed at the National Level. So potentially if you feel that the fact that the activity arm of the Aaronic Priesthood is important, you might tend to want to pay attention to this question.