Bsa Prez Calls For End To Ban On Gay Leaders

[Scott Lloyd]

Someone has hi-jacked this account!  This is NOT the Robert F. Smith whom I so admire.  It certainly isn't the man to whom I'm personally indebted for his courageous stand for civil rights.

 

Perhaps Robert F Smith is speaking here from wisdom born of experience.

 

Or, to put it another way, maybe in this instance, he feels that protecting vulnerable and impressionable youth from predators trumps adherence to ideology or political correctness.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I think that the top level of BSA leaders will be carefully weighing the consideration you've accurately outlined here.

 

But I think we ought to use caution in assumptions made about LDS/RC pulling out of the BSA.  I know many who thought that the BSA allowing open/avowed gay scouts would cause the Church to disassociate from the BSA but Church leaders didn't seem to even flinch.

That's because the new policy did not conflict in any way with the Church beliefs or practices. I daresay was already allowing boys with SSA into troops into the Church so long as said boys were not acting on those tendencies.

 

Allowing avowed homosexuals as youth leaders, on the other hand, would starkly conflict with Church belief and practice.

[smac97]

According to the BSA's "Current Policy" website under the heading of THE BSA's membership policy, it states:

 

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

The distinction is between individuals who are "open or avowed homosexuals" OR those "who engage in behavior," indicating the BSA delineates between individuals who openly profess their orientation vs. those that engaging in behavior.

 

I don't read the reference to those "who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA" as a specific reference to people who engage in homosexual behavior (I think they would be more aptly categorized in the "open or avowed homosexuals" category, though I suppose a person could fit into both categories). There are all sorts of ways a person could distract from the mission of the BSA.

 

I'm not sure what you see as being problematic about describing individuals who are "open" about their homosexuality, but still "committed to never acting on homosexual impulses," as being "openly homosexual."

I think most people would construe the descriptor "openly homosexual" as being pretty much synonymous with "practicing homosexual," much like a person describing himself as "openly heterosexual" would likely be viewed as a "practicing heterosexual."

Moreover, I question whether a person who goes around broadcasting his sexuality would be an appropriate candidate for working with youth. The scouting program is not a place for discussions about sex and sexuality. A scouting leader who is "open and avowed" about sex and sexuality, regardless of orientation, might make parents a bit nervous. I could see how parents could be reasonably reticent about entrusting their children to the custody of a scout leader so fixated about their sexual orientation and what they do with their sexual organs that they are described as being "open and avowed" about it.

 

I think the difference between our perspectives could be that I define people differently.  That is, I define people principally by our relationship to God, that we are His children. Everything else flows from that presupposition. That is my Starting Point. If we are children of God, then what are we supposed to do while we are here? What will we be doing after we leave this world? How do we prepare for what comes next? What is the purpose of discerning our relationship with God, discerning God's will, and attempting to live according to that will?

Questions like these come first for me. I then act based on the answers I've formulated. I read scriptures and ponder them and pray about them and discuss them with others and seek to apply the principles I learn from them in my daily life. I served in the military, and I served an LDS mission, and I went to college, and I got married, and I had children, and I am focused on being a good husband and father. I attend Church and pay tithing and fulfill a calling in the Church and attend the temple. I serve in my community. I am gainfully employed and pay taxes. I strive to be a law-abiding citizen. I abstain from consuming alcohol, tobacco, illicit drugs, and habit-forming substances. I am faithful to my wife.

I am far from perfect in any of these endeavors. I am a sinner. I fail to obey God in ways small and otherwise every day. But I try to repent and have faith in God. And at the end of the day I am doing these things because they have seemed congruous with God's will and with spiritual promptings I received. I am doing these things because I believe we are all children of God, and that status governs and informs and predominates over all other considerations in my life.

Now, I can also be characterized in other ways, such as having the "status" of being male, as an American, as a person of Euoropean caucasian descent, as a lawyer, as a member of a particular political party, as a heterosexual, as a husband, as a father, and so on. But all of these categorizations are subordinate to the Big One: that I am a child of God. That is my Starting Point. So to the extent there is a behavior that stems from any of these subordinate positions, I want to make sure that the behavior ultimately falls within parameters set by God for His children.  To the extent I am "open and avowed" about any of these, it would be this one.

I don't know you. It seems like some folks have a different Starting Point. For some, it's gender. For some, it's race. For some, is political ideology. For some, it's their line of work. For some, its nationality. And for some, it's sexual orientation and sexual behavior. Some people use sexual orientation and perspectives on sexual attraction, sexual activity, and so on as their "Starting Point," so much so that they are "open and avowed" about it.

 

 

I have a hard time believing that, under the current LDS policies, such individuals would ever be called into Boy Scout Leadership positions in LDS troops, even if they retain temple recommends (or, for those still at BYU and potentially attending family wards, even maintain ecclesiastical endorsements).

That depends, I suppose, on differing interpretations on what "open and avowed" means. I think it's generally understood to refer to someone who walks the walk, rather than someone who feels the inclination but has totally suppressed the inclination.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

That's because the new policy did not conflict in any way with the Church beliefs or practices. I daresay was already allowing boys with SSA into troops into the Church so long as said boys were not acting on those tendencies.

 

Allowing avowed homosexuals as youth leaders, on the other hand, would starkly conflict with Church belief and practice.

 

What is the difference between "avowed homosexual leaders" and "avowed homosexual boys"?  Can't both be living the law of chastity?

[Scott Lloyd]

What is the difference between "avowed homosexual leaders" and "avowed homosexual boys"?  Can't both be living the law of chastity?

I never used the term "avowed homosexual boys."  Whom are you quoting here?

[thesometimesaint]

Perhaps Robert F Smith is speaking here from wisdom born of experience.

 

Or, to put it another way, maybe in this instance, he feels that protecting vulnerable and impressionable youth from predators trumps adherence to ideology or political correctness.

 

Maybe, But the use of words like predator also apply to the "Family Values" Duggars and their supporters.

SEE http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141100729

[Scott Lloyd]

Maybe, But the use of words like predator also apply to the "Family Values" Duggars and their supporters.

SEE http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141100729

When I said "ideology," I didn't limit its meaning.

[smac97]

Maybe, But the use of words like predator also apply to the "Family Values" Duggars and their supporters.

SEE http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141100729

 

Are you likewise expansive in your use of the term "predator" to described supporters and acquaintances of Terrance Patrick Bean, a prominent gay rights activist, founder of the Human Rights Campaign, a major donor to and fundraiser for several prominent politicians, who was arrested yesterday "on a Lane County indictment stemming from alleged sex abuse involving a teenage boy in 2013?"

 

Frankly, I am not inclined to tar all of Mr. Bean's acquaintances and "supporters" as "predators" simply based on their association with him.  Perhaps you could extend the same courtesy to the supporters of the Duggars.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited May 22, 2015 by smac97

[mnn727]

I agree with your prediction. While Gates is paying lip service to "religious freedom," now, that won't last long. Eventually, the Church will be obliged to end its BSA affiliation and formulate its own activity program for youth. And it will do it far more cost-effectively, not having to require its membership to help pay for, among other things, the corporate jets and other perqs of executives such as Gates.

Yes, my wife works for the company that does the travel for the local counsel of the BSA - They fly first class and stay in 4 star hotels all paid for by donations, and people wonder why I get a sneer on my face when they  hand out the papers for  "Friends of scouting"

[rockpond]

I never used the term "avowed homosexual boys."  Whom are you quoting here?

 

When the BSA changed their policy to allow scouts who were open/avowed homosexuals into membership, the church did not pull out.  Why do you feel that the BSA allowing open/avowed homosexual leaders would be what makes the church end its association with the BSA?

[thesometimesaint]

Are you likewise expansive in your use of the term "predator" to described supporters and acquaintances of Terrance Patrick Bean, a prominent gay rights activist, founder of the Human Rights Campaign, a major donor to and fundraiser for several prominent politicians, who was arrested yesterday "on a Lane County indictment stemming from alleged sex abuse involving a teenage boy in 2013?"

 

Frankly, I am not inclined to tar all of Mr. Bean's acquaintances and "supporters" as "predators" simply based on their association with him.  Perhaps you could extend the same courtesy to the supporters of the Duggars.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

Yep.

 

If you are going to conflate homosexuality and their self righteous supporters with predators then it is only fair to conflate heterosexuality and their self righteous supporters with predators.

 

The Duggars did a few things differently. They waited until the Statute of Limitations was over before reporting it. They had a TV show on TLC extolling their "Christian Family Values", and telling homosexuals they are going to HELL. Gives a whole new meaning to "Christian Family Values" doesn't it?

Edited May 22, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[smac97]

If you are going to conflate homosexuality and their self righteous supporters with predators then it is only fair to conflate heterosexuality and their self righteous supporters with predators.

Before I report you to the mods, please provide a reference, chapter and verse, to where I "conflate(d) homosexuality and their self righteous supporters with predators."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

Just to make sure I understand the Church's position, let me paint a picture of two men.

 

Steve: Steve is straight.  He is a good guy, active in the ward, but doesn't pay a full tithing, and people suspect he has a minor problem with the word of wisdom.

 

Gary: Gary has strong and persistent feelings of same-sex attraction; in other words, Gary is gay.  Nevertheless, he is a returned missionary, Eagle Scout, fully committed and devout to the Church, pays a full tithing, and is committed to never acting on his homosexual impulses.

 

In Mormonism, Steve is qualified to be a scout master, but not to have a temple recommend. Gary qualifies to have a temple recommend, but not to be a scout master.

 

Do I have that correct?

And Steve rolled an ancient rock and put it on youtube.  http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/31/utah-ancient-rock-toppled-felony-charges/5092169/.  

[Tacenda]

Does anyone have statistics on gay and straight pedophiles in the scouting programs? I have an instance of the latter.  My dad was a scout leader and worked with a man who had a wife and children at the time and was later caught abusing a boy/boys.  I remember one time my dad use to complain that this particular leader didn't take precautions with the boys safety.  I was young at the time but do remember him complaining that he let the boys ride in the opened back of a station wagon or something like that.  But he didn't know that this leader was abusing boys/boy.  Maybe this is why he didn't  readily trust some members of the church, he was semi active all of my life.  This happened in the Bountiful area and I know right where the house is that this leader lived in and knew one of his sons. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Before I report you to the mods, please provide a reference, chapter and verse, to where I "conflate(d) homosexuality and their self righteous supporters with predators."

Thanks,

-Smac

He may have been referring to me -- but I didn't do that either.

[Scott Lloyd]

I never used the term "avowed homosexual boys."  Whom are you quoting here?

 

 

When the BSA changed their policy to allow scouts who were open/avowed homosexuals into membership, the church did not pull out.  Why do you feel that the BSA allowing open/avowed homosexual leaders would be what makes the church end its association with the BSA?

You still have not responded to the question. Whom were you quoting when you put "avowed homosexual boys" in quotation marks?

 

And the question of definitions has already come up here. In the minds of most people "open" and "avowed" indicates behavior, not just sexual orientation. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think even the BSA policy permits that among youth enrolled in its programs -- not that there would be much of that in any case among boys 12 and under.

 

But in an case, it is fairly obvious that the Church felt it could live with the policy change because it could easily conform to it with existing practice and belief. That's not the case with a change permitting practicing homosexual men as Scout leaders.

 

There is quite a difference, whether or not you choose to see it.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

You still have responded to the question. Whom were you quoting when you put "avowed homosexual boys" in quotation marks?

 

And the question of definitions has already come up here. In the minds of most people "open" and "avowed" indicates behavior, not just sexual orientation. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think even the BSA policy permits that among youth enrolled in its programs -- not that there would be much of that in any case among boys 12 and under.

 

But in an case, it is fairly obvious that the Church felt it could live with the policy change because it could easily conform to it with existing practice and believe. That's not the case with a change permitting practicing homosexual men as Scout leaders.

 

There is quite a difference, whether or not you choose to see it.

 

Sorry... I should not have used quotation marks for that phrase... I was referencing BSA policy.

 

Open means accessible, exposed.  Avowed means publicly stated.  Neither of these words indicate that someone is sexually active.

 

But, if I understand your answer you are saying that when the BSA allowed gay youth to join its ranks the church was okay with it because it was assumed that the gay youth would not be "practicing".  But if the BSA were to allow gay leaders the church would disassociate from the BSA under the assumption that some of the gay leaders might be "practicing homosexual men"?

 

Have I understood you correctly?

[Scott Lloyd]

Sorry... I should not have used quotation marks for that phrase... I was referencing BSA policy.

 

Open means accessible, exposed.  Avowed means publicly stated.  Neither of these words indicate that someone is sexually active.

 

But, if I understand your answer you are saying that when the BSA allowed gay youth to join its ranks the church was okay with it because it was assumed that the gay youth would not be "practicing".  But if the BSA were to allow gay leaders the church would disassociate from the BSA under the assumption that some of the gay leaders might be "practicing homosexual men"?

 

Have I understood you correctly?

I'm predicting that likely would be the case, yes.

[rockpond]

I'm predicting that likely would be the case, yes.

 

Got it.

 

I figure that they'll look at it in the same light that they viewed the policy change with respect to youth and decide that we kept the same standards in our troops both before & after the change so we can keep the same standards in our troops when it comes to a policy change with respect to leaders.

[mnn727]

What percentage of scouts are from troops in the church, do you know?  I have to believe it would be a huge hit for them if the church removed itself.

13% of scouts are in LDS troops,

Churches in general account for 71% of scouts

[smac97]

13% of scouts are in LDS troops,

Churches in general account for 71% of scouts

 

I thought it was 18%.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

Got it.

 

I figure that they'll look at it in the same light that they viewed the policy change with respect to youth and decide that we kept the same standards in our troops both before & after the change so we can keep the same standards in our troops when it comes to a policy change with respect to leaders.

That may or may not be.

 

I'm predicting (as I said earlier) that the gay jihad will not be content with what is now being proposed. They will force the issue until the Church of Jesus Christ must either accept their will or withdraw its affiliation. The Church won't knuckle under, it will withdraw its affiliation and the dissolution of the Scouting movement in the United States will follow soon thereafter, a victim of the gay agenda.

[rockpond]

That may or may not be.

 

I'm predicting (as I said earlier) that the gay jihad will not be content with what is now being proposed. They will force the issue until the Church of Jesus Christ must either accept their will or withdraw its affiliation. The Church won't knuckle under, it will withdraw its affiliation and the dissolution of the Scouting movement in the United States will follow soon thereafter, a victim of the gay agenda.

 

Force what issue?

[Scott Lloyd]

Force what issue?

Force the issue of having BSA require all sponsoring organizations accross the board, including religious groups, to admit sexually active homosexuals as leaders.

 

Edited to add:

 

This guy sounds pretty absolutist to me, like he won't tolerate a policy that allows local units to make their own determination:

 

Advocates of gays in Scouting cheered in celebration.

“He's made it clear that if the Boy Scouts don't make the change on their terms, the courts will change it on their terms,” said Zach Wahls, an Eagle Scout and executive director of the advocacy group Scouts for Equality.

 

“Now we need to make sure not only does that ban come to an end, but that it's enforced across the country,” Wahls said, adding, “There needs to be full inclusion for gay adults.”

Do you honestly think they're going to quit until they've gotten everything they want, religious freedom be damned?

Edited May 22, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

Force the issue of having BSA require all sponsoring organizations accross the board, including religious groups, to admit sexually active homosexuals as leaders.

 

You think someone is really going to come along and say:  I see you are no longer prohibiting gay leaders but we've looked into the gay leaders you've got and they aren't having sex with anyone so we're going to sue you?