Scott Lloyd Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 The Baptists in our area have already withdrawn support. If the Catholics and Mormons join them there won't be a BSA like we know today. This is heartbreaking to me. We're very involved in Scouts, Venture Scouts and the Order of the Arrow in my family. Including my youngest daughter. Sadly- regardless of your opinions about gay scout leaders, a small minority forced this change through lawfare, on a larger organization. And the change will not result in a more inclusive BSA, but instead will isolate secular and religious youth programs within their own church structure, resulting in less diverse groups, and less work towards common values.It will be heartbreaking all around. But Scouting enthusiasts in the Church can view it as an opportunity to channel their zeal into whatever the Church offers as a replacement, should it choose to withdraw from BSA. I'm thinking that program, whatever it is, will welcome participation from like-minded families who are non-LDS and will support it in whatever way they deem appropriate, monetary or otherwise.
HappyJackWagon Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Religions are free to join groups as long as they don't offend anyone else? Funny definition of freedom. Gays were never banned from creating and sponsoring groups like the BSA, but they insisted an established group that didn't share their values incorporate their values at threat of lawsuit.Your response doesn't make sense. Don't make the mistake of confusing the church's position with representing freedom of all church's. Even though the church doesn't get its way there is greater freedom for all churches to choose how they interact with BSA. LDS has the ability to choose as does a church that supports gay members and would like them to participate in BSA. It's not a confusing concept so I'm not sure why you're confused about this.
Danzo Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Pedophilia and homosexuality are two unrelated things. SEE http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html According to the article, no one who molests a adolescent teen would be considered a pedophile. I guess it means that it is OK then. 1
KevinG Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Let's set aside the red herring of molested Scouts. I am certain the BSA youth protection policy makes scouts safer in camp then they are in their own neighborhoods, and that most gays or heteros interested in Scouting are not looking for victims. A more realistic situation is Scouts asking an LDS leader about dating, chastity, or same sex attraction. If the BSA has declared "morally straight" inclusive of homosexuality then could there be a conflict between religious troops seeking to instill their own values and the BSA in general who has a different definition of those values? Ultimately the ability to teach our values, while respecting others, is what is a stake, and why I like the 1965 policy of refer it to a parent, clergy or doctor, when it came to statements about sexuality. Frankly I'm not comfortable with a lot of LDS being called to be leaders of youth. Same sex attraction is way down on my list of who I would be uncomfortable with as a leader. Priesthood holders who engage in unrighteous dominion, suffer from Peter Pan syndrome, or lack civility would be on the top of that list for me. Still being an example of LDS doctrines and practices for youth sets a pretty high bar, and making exceptions to that is problematic. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 No one forced the BSA to do anything. They are free to ban anyone they choose, but they've decided not to. This is nonsense. The Scout executive acknowledged last spring that they were compelled by the "staggering" legal costs of litigation brought by gay advocacy groups. Such groups have sworn not to stop until they have gotten everything they want, including the forcing of religious groups to allow openly gay adult volunteers. 1
guerreiro9 Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 The Church's doctrinal position is that sexual orientation is not chosen.CFR. The church has no doctrinal position that sexual orientation is inborn and unchanging in the way you interpret it.The closest they have come is saying that we don't know what causes an individual person's sexuality and that many would choose not to have the temptations they do have.This is completely different than how you have portrayed it. I have many temptations that I wish I did not have, but none of them were inborn and neither is my sexuality.-guerreiro9 3
HappyJackWagon Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 It will be heartbreaking all around. But Scouting enthusiasts in the Church can view it as an opportunity to channel their zeal into whatever the Church offers as a replacement, should it choose to withdraw from BSA. Or scouting enthusiasts can continue to participate with the BSA by joining a local troop. There are many choices available.
KevinG Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 It will be heartbreaking all around. But Scouting enthusiasts in the Church can view it as an opportunity to channel their zeal into whatever the Church offers as a replacement, should it choose to withdraw from BSA. I'm thinking that program, whatever it is, will welcome participation from like-minded families who are non-LDS and will support it in whatever way they deem appropriate, monetary or otherwise. I will channel my zeal into whatever program the next generation uses. This future Grandpa isn't goin to waste all of that training. However a major transition like this will isolate us from other religious groups in the BSA (which is one of the rich experiences we get at the district and council level) and take some time to adjust to, cheating perhaps a generation of youth from a high quality, fully supported program. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Let's set aside the red herring of molested Scouts. I am certain the BSA youth protection policy makes scouts safer in camp then they are in their own neighborhoods, and that most gays or heteros interested in Scouting are not looking for victims. A more realistic situation is Scouts asking an LDS leader about dating, chastity, or same sex attraction. If the BSA has declared "morally straight" inclusive of homosexuality then could there be a conflict between religious troops seeking to instill their own values and the BSA in general who has a different definition of those values? Ultimately the ability to teach our values, while respecting others, is what is a stake, and why I like the 1965 policy of refer it to a parent, clergy or doctor, when it came to statements about sexuality. Frankly I'm not comfortable with a lot of LDS being called to be leaders of youth. Same sex attraction is way down on my list of who I would be uncomfortable with as a leader. Priesthood holders who engage in unrighteous dominion, suffer from Peter Pan syndrome, or lack civility would be on the top of that list for me. Still being an example of LDS doctrines and practices for youth sets a pretty high bar, and making exceptions to that is problematic.So you're talking about a broader issue of allowing autonomy among sponsoring organizations in appointing local leaders. That's a good point. 1
rockpond Posted July 28, 2015 Author Posted July 28, 2015 CFR. The church has no doctrinal position that sexual orientation is inborn and unchanging in the way you interpret it.The closest they have come is saying that we don't know what causes an individual person's sexuality and that many would choose not to have the temptations they do have.This is completely different than how you have portrayed it. I have many temptations that I wish I did not have, but none of them were inborn and neither is my sexuality.-guerreiro9 From MormonsandGays.org: Where the Church stands:The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. 2
Danzo Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 I wonder how much of a financial hit this will be for BSA. On the one hand, they will lose the Church. But on the other, they will regain some serious donors like Spielberg and other left-leaning folks with lots of money. Will be interesting to see how this plays out. And FWIW, I think it is about time for the LDS Church to drop BSA and develop their own program. The Eagle Scout isn't as prestigious or recognized as it used to be. Could be a great opportunity to develop a youth program that prepares young men and women for further education, military or civic service, you name it. I would be surprised if they gain more than token contributions form the left leaning folks with lots of money. From the news articles I have read, the Left leaning folks are still unhappy with BSA.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 I will channel my zeal into whatever program the next generation uses. This future Grandpa isn't goin to waste all of that training. However a major transition like this will isolate us from other religious groups in the BSA (which is one of the rich experiences we get at the district and council level) and take some time to adjust to, cheating perhaps a generation of youth from a high quality, fully supported program.Ultimately, the gay advocacy movement will have destroyed BSA. A tragedy, to be sure, but let's place the blame where it belongs.
jkwilliams Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Let's set aside the red herring of molested Scouts. I am certain the BSA youth protection policy makes scouts safer in camp then they are in their own neighborhoods, and that most gays or heteros interested in Scouting are not looking for victims. A more realistic situation is Scouts asking an LDS leader about dating, chastity, or same sex attraction. If the BSA has declared "morally straight" inclusive of homosexuality then could there be a conflict between religious troops seeking to instill their own values and the BSA in general who has a different definition of those values? Ultimately the ability to teach our values, while respecting others, is what is a stake, and why I like the 1965 policy of refer it to a parent, clergy or doctor, when it came to statements about sexuality. Frankly I'm not comfortable with a lot of LDS being called to be leaders of youth. Same sex attraction is way down on my list of who I would be uncomfortable with as a leader. Priesthood holders who engage in unrighteous dominion, suffer from Peter Pan syndrome, or lack civility would be on the top of that list for me. Still being an example of LDS doctrines and practices for youth sets a pretty high bar, and making exceptions to that is problematic. But the church isn't required to call gay Scout leaders. What is the big deal with other organizations being able to choose the leaders they want? I am genuinely mystified why the church is so upset about this. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 From MormonsandGays.org: Where the Church stands:The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. This is not the same as stating definitively that SSA is inborn.
Danzo Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 I'm pretty sure both keep you out of the temple, which was your argument.One will get you out of the church though
KevinG Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Your response doesn't make sense. Don't make the mistake of confusing the church's position with representing freedom of all church's. Even though the church doesn't get its way there is greater freedom for all churches to choose how they interact with BSA. LDS has the ability to choose as does a church that supports gay members and would like them to participate in BSA. It's not a confusing concept so I'm not sure why you're confused about this. I'm not going to indulge in the personal insults you seem to pepper your comments with... But I'm not limiting my opinion to just LDS troops. In fact the majority of church sponsored troops in my area are not Mormon. We are a small minority here. The Baptists who have already stopped sponsoring troops have led to about a 1/3 drop in the number of chartered organizations in our area. A huge hit to the area scout programs. When I say church I don't limit it to LDS. This is a much broader issue for troops that charter with value based organizations that do not necessarily adopt the view that homosexuality is consistent with "morally straight". All of those groups were forced into the decision to accommodate homosexuals in scouting programs, or face lawsuits and loss of access to donations, facilities, and programs. It isn't agency if you can only have it when agreeing with others point of view. 2
rockpond Posted July 28, 2015 Author Posted July 28, 2015 This is not the same as stating definitively that SSA is inborn. I didn't use the word inborn. I used the word "chosen". 1
KevinG Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 So you're talking about a broader issue of allowing autonomy among sponsoring organizations in appointing local leaders. That's a good point. Yes and if anyone believes the gay rights lobby (distinct from individual gays who could care less what I do with my spare time) would stop at allowing the LDS, Catholics, Baptists, and others to appoint only straight leaders in troops that are open to the public... I have a bridge I want to sell you. 2
Brian 2.0 Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 But the church isn't required to call gay Scout leaders. What is the big deal with other organizations being able to choose the leaders they want? I am genuinely mystified why the church is so upset about this. Because now they know the pressure will be focused on them. Now that the policy has changed it's the Church and not the BSA that is not allowing gay leaders in the troop. I don't think they like the negative press and public pressure and possible lawsuits that may come with that. You could look at it the other way... now the focus is on the Church and the church can stand up for it's moral stance and the world can see that it doesn't cave to pressure come what may.
jkwilliams Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) Ultimately, the gay advocacy movement will have destroyed BSA. A tragedy, to be sure, but let's place the blame where it belongs. This makes no sense to me. I can see leaving Scouts if they were forced to have gay Scout leaders, but the church is going to pull the plug on Scouting because they don't want other groups to be able to choose gay leaders? I don't get this at all. If the church were looking for an excuse to dump Scouting, why would they choose something that just makes them look really bad? Edited July 28, 2015 by jkwilliams
Tacenda Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/us/boy-scouts-end-nationwide-ban-on-gay-leaders.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1 Interesting article where they quote the church's recent newsroom statement. And mention that other religious organizations possibly following the church if it leaves. It also mentions that BSA will need to rely on schools or businesses to help keep the program going. I have relatives that are super into scouting. My MIL's brother has earned some of the highest awards possible as a leader. I wonder how this might alter their feelings about gays, and if they'll let it warp their feelings. Not only them, but many out there. Will this cause a backlash, will gays get hurt in any of this, just by being innocent bystanders. Scary.
HappyJackWagon Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 I'm not going to indulge in the personal insults you seem to pepper your comments with... But I'm not limiting my opinion to just LDS troops. In fact the majority of church sponsored troops in my area are not Mormon. We are a small minority here. The Baptists who have already stopped sponsoring troops have led to about a 1/3 drop in the number of chartered organizations in our area. A huge hit to the area scout programs. When I say church I don't limit it to LDS. This is a much broader issue for troops that charter with value based organizations that do not necessarily adopt the view that homosexuality is consistent with "morally straight". All of those groups were forced into the decision to accommodate homosexuals in scouting programs, or face lawsuits and loss of access to donations, facilities, and programs. It isn't agency if you can only have it when agreeing with others point of view.You're still missing the point. Whether it is LDS only or all religiously sponsored groups that agree with the LDS position, it still only represents one position and denies the freedom of a religious organization with a different belief to act on that belief. And I'm sure you're not suggesting that "morally straight" is specifically referring to the gay issue, are you? And no, they are not forced to accommodate homosexuals. They can choose their own leadership and they can choose to opt out all together. They have a couple of reasonable choices.
DJBrown Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 The question is really aimed at people who support polygamist groups. The church recently said that members in good standing can be gay rights activists. So obviously affiliating/supporting groups that are gay friendly is not a temple recommend issue. CFR. I know many LDS based blogs make that claim. But I have never heard that from a church source. I think it is presumptuous to take that position. CFR also on the church saying members could be "gay rights activists."
KevinG Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 I would be surprised if they gain more than token contributions form the left leaning folks with lots of money. From the news articles I have read, the Left leaning folks are still unhappy with BSA. That money is not coming back. Don't kid yourself that the liberal establishment values the BSA past the ability to make a social stand about homosexuality and acceptance into the broader culture. IN fact they aren't fond of the hyper patriotic paramillitary group (as one of my left leaning LDS brothers described the BSA to me once). 1
Danzo Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 From MormonsandGays.org: Where the Church stands:The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. Not sure how you get inborn from that statement.
Recommended Posts