B.s.a. Allows Gay Leaders, Church Responds

[HappyJackWagon]

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."  

CFR's are flying loose today.

[thesometimesaint]

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.

 

That isn't what it says. Age of consent for sex varies from nation to nation, state to state. It is a question of legality not psychology.

[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.

Yes I referenced this in my post. It doesn't mean what you have implied.

I know your position; "sexual orientation" is immutable and eternal. You are wrong, but there's really not much use arguing this with you.

I was assuming you had more than one misinterpreted statement from a church webpage given the certainty of your statement.

You need to rephrase your comment as "Given a single statement on mormonsandgays.org I interpret church doctrine to be thus:"

-guerreiro9

Edited July 28, 2015 by guerreiro9

[KevinG]

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.

 

A few months ago the BSA wasn't required to admit gay Scout leaders.  For years I've heard people crying "slippery-slope" when I worried that private groups like the BSA were being pressured to continually revise standards and policy.  But for years when one threshold is crossed another is challenged.

 

If the LDS Church were to continue to allow non-LDS youth from the public to join their troops, what would prevent these lobbies from challenging their "private" leadership selection process in court?  Right now a non-LDS man can volunteer to lead an LDS troop.  It seems to me that something would have to be done to insulate the troops to LDS leaders in good standing only, or face legal challenges from outside groups about their selection process.

 

While the LDS Church might win those fights I'm sure the brethren are not eager to spend money and time on challenges, when that money and time is better spent on running youth programs.  I suspect this is the real reason for the consideration of separating from the BSA for LDS and other religious troops.  Not the inability to teach their own morals, but the ability to have real autonomy without having to lawyer up to do it.

[rockpond]

Not sure how you get inborn from that statement.

 

I haven't said "inborn".

[Danzo]

That isn't what it says. Age of consent for sex varies from nation to nation, state to state. It is a question of legality not psychology.

 

I think the church is more concerned with questions of morality than legality or psychology.

[jkwilliams]

Yes I referenced this in my post. It doesn't mean what you have implied.

I know your position; "sexual orientation" is immutable and eternal. You are wrong, but there's really not much use arguing this with you.

I was assuming you had more than one misinterpreted statement from a church webpage given the certainty of your statement.

You need to rephrase your comment as "Given a single statement on mormonsandgays.com I interpret church doctrine to be thus:"

-guerreiro9

 

How do you know whether it's not immutable and eternal? If it is something we can change (through willpower or prayer or whatever), it would have to be a choice on some level. Obviously, the church is clear that orientation isn't a choice, so do you have some other information I'm missing from the church?

[KevinG]

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&region=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.    

 

Schools are out of the question.  Most of them left decades ago because of liability issues.  Businesses only support the BSA in part and are not typically sponsoring organizations.  The real fate of the BSA besides church troops is in the hands of dedicated individual volunteers, who by the way have not been advised or asked about the national policy change.  That has left a bitter taste in a lot of volunteer mouths.

[rockpond]

Yes I referenced this in my post. It doesn't mean what you have implied.

I know your position; "sexual orientation" is immutable and eternal. You are wrong, but there's really not much use arguing this with you.

I was assuming you had more than one misinterpreted statement from a church webpage given the certainty of your statement.

You need to rephrase your comment as "Given a single statement on mormonsandgays.org I interpret church doctrine to be thus:"

-guerreiro9

 

It's a statement on a church published website that is preceded by "Where the Church stands".  That's pretty strong.  Having homosexual attractions is not a matter of choice.  That is not just my interpretation, it is published doctrine.

[KevinG]

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.

 

Religious groups should have the ability to choose their affiliation, choose their definition of "morally straight" (and no I'm not arguing that morally straight means heterosexual by definition) and choose their leaders.  

 

Nowhere in the restriction of public lands, stopping fo donations,  lawsuits, and threatened lawsuits towards the BSA is there a recognition of this.

 

In the grownup world there will be organizations that don't agree with other belief systems.  They are allowed to have freedom of association as much as any other group.  Or at least they used to.

[jkwilliams]

A few months ago the BSA wasn't required to admit gay Scout leaders.  For years I've heard people crying "slippery-slope" when I worried that private groups like the BSA were being pressured to continually revise standards and policy.  But for years when one threshold is crossed another is challenged.

 

If the LDS Church were to continue to allow non-LDS youth from the public to join their troops, what would prevent these lobbies from challenging their "private" leadership selection process in court?  Right now a non-LDS man can volunteer to lead an LDS troop.  It seems to me that something would have to be done to insulate the troops to LDS leaders in good standing only, or face legal challenges from outside groups about their selection process.

 

While the LDS Church might win those fights I'm sure the brethren are not eager to spend money and time on challenges, when that money and time is better spent on running youth programs.  I suspect this is the real reason for the consideration of separating from the BSA for LDS and other religious troops.  Not the inability to teach their own morals, but the ability to have real autonomy without having to lawyer up to do it.

 

For one thing, Scout leaders are chosen by calling in the church, so an actively gay man would most likely not be considered worthy to hold such a calling. Nothing in the Scouts' decision requires the church to call gay Scout leaders, and any lawsuit to do so would violate the First Amendment. Again, I don't understand why this is a big deal. The only way it affects the church is that LDS Scout troops might interact with troops that allow gay leaders. It's bizarre to me that the church would put itself out there as not only opposed to gay Scout leaders in its own ranks but on record as insisting that no other sponsoring groups be allowed to choose gay leaders. The upside? They have an excuse to dump Scouting. The downside? They make themselves look unbelievably intolerant.

[Danzo]

How do you know whether it's not immutable and eternal? If it is something we can change (through willpower or prayer or whatever), it would have to be a choice on some level. Obviously, the church is clear that orientation isn't a choice, so do you have some other information I'm missing from the church?

 

There are many things we have no choice over that are not immutable and eternal. 

[KevinG]

Request... can y'all take the LDS beliefs about homosexual orientation to another thread?

[HappyJackWagon]

Yes I referenced this in my post. It doesn't mean what you have implied.

I know your position; "sexual orientation" is immutable and eternal. You are wrong, but there's really not much use arguing this with you.

I was assuming you had more than one misinterpreted statement from a church webpage given the certainty of your statement.

You need to rephrase your comment as "Given a single statement on mormonsandgays.org I interpret church doctrine to be thus:"

-guerreiro9

HOw is that quote being misinterpreted? Could you elaborate. If you are claiming the provided CFR is wrong could you please provide your own reference explaining the church's position isn't what it states on its website.

[Danzo]

Religious groups should have the ability to choose their affiliation, choose their definition of "morally straight" (and no I'm not arguing that morally straight means heterosexual by definition) and choose their leaders.  

 

Nowhere in the restriction of public lands, stopping fo donations,  lawsuits, and threatened lawsuits towards the BSA is there a recognition of this.

 

In the grownup world there will be organizations that don't agree with other belief systems.  They are allowed to have freedom of association as much as any other group.  Or at least they used to.

 

I think the goal has always been the destruction of BSA.  IF they just didn't like it, they would have started their own organization.

[jkwilliams]

There are many things we have no choice over that are not immutable and eternal. 

 

Right, but how do you know sexual orientation is one of those things?

[guerreiro9]

How do you know whether it's not immutable and eternal? If it is something we can change (through willpower or prayer or whatever), it would have to be a choice on some level. Obviously, the church is clear that orientation isn't a choice, so do you have some other information I'm missing from the church?

This is starting to derail... There are countless quotes from prophets and apostles about the ability of Christ's atonement to change our nature, but this thread is not the place to debate this.

-guerreiro9

[HappyJackWagon]

This is starting to derail... There are countless quotes from prophets and apostles about the ability of Christ's atonement to change our nature, but this thread is not the place to debate this.

-guerreiro9

nice dodge

[KevinG]

For one thing, Scout leaders are chosen by calling in the church, so an actively gay man would most likely not be considered worthy to hold such a calling. Nothing in the Scouts' decision requires the church to call gay Scout leaders, and any lawsuit to do so would violate the First Amendment. Again, I don't understand why this is a big deal. The only way it affects the church is that LDS Scout troops might interact with troops that allow gay leaders. It's bizarre to me that the church would put itself out there as not only opposed to gay Scout leaders in its own ranks but on record as insisting that no other sponsoring groups be allowed to choose gay leaders. The upside? They have an excuse to dump Scouting. The downside? They make themselves look unbelievably intolerant.

 

The Church policy on Scout leaders allows for volunteers as well as those called to positions.  I've been a volunteer for 26 years.  Only about half that time I've led boys under a calling, the rest was purely as a parent or volunteer to the troop.

 

If the church chose to refrain from using openly homosexual leaders that policy might have to change to restrict any non-LDS or even non-Temple recommend holder from volunteering with an LDS troop.

 

I don't see anywhere in the LDS news release where they are asking non-LDS troops to live by LDS policies, so that's not an argument here.

[guerreiro9]

HOw is that quote being misinterpreted? Could you elaborate. If you are claiming the provided CFR is wrong could you please provide your own reference explaining the church's position isn't what it states on its website.

It is what it states on the website, it is not what's implied by rockpond.

-guerreiro9

[jkwilliams]

I think the goal has always been the destruction of BSA.  IF they just didn't like it, they would have started their own organization.

 

Who is killing the organization? The folks who want to be part of the organization, or the church that is saying it will leave if it has to be in the same organization as those folks?

[guerreiro9]

nice dodge

No dodge, this is only tangentially related to the topic at hand, and I prefer not to derail other's threads.

-guerreiro9

[Brian 2.0]

This is starting to derail... There are countless quotes from prophets and apostles about the ability of Christ's atonement to change our nature, but this thread is not the place to debate this.

-guerreiro9

 

You are the one who has CFR'd and even changed the course of the debate.  

 

Rockpond said the chruch's stance was the homosexual feeling "are not chosen."  YOU CFR'd that statement.  Rockpond provided a source which backed up his claim perfectly.

 

Now you are debating inborn and eternal.

 

At least give the man credit for fulfilling your CFR perfectly before moving your goalpost.

[KevinG]

I think the goal has always been the destruction of BSA.  IF they just didn't like it, they would have started their own organization.

 

Ultimately I think you are correct.  "If it isn't in our image we will change it or destroy it" seems to be the consistent motto of groups that oppose traditional values based organizations.  I don't find replacing one kind of tyranny with another kind of tyranny any kind of diversity, freedom, or liberty at all.

[jkwilliams]

The Church policy on Scout leaders allows for volunteers as well as those called to positions.  I've been a volunteer for 26 years.  Only about half that time I've led boys under a calling, the rest was purely as a parent or volunteer to the troop.

 

If the church chose to refrain from using openly homosexual leaders that policy might have to change to restrict any non-LDS or even non-Temple recommend holder from volunteering with an LDS troop.

 

I don't see anywhere in the LDS news release where they are asking non-LDS troops to live by LDS policies, so that's not an argument here.

 

The First Amendment guarantees that the church can include or exclude anyone they wish, volunteer or not. This is a slippery slope that doesn't apply This is about the church belonging to an organization that allows its members to choose gay leaders. If the church thinks that's too much to ask, they're within their rights to leave, but I think they're crazy for doing this, as it very publicly bolsters the impression a lot of people already had that the LDS church is intolerant of gays. Like I said, there's no upside to this besides having an excuse to get out of Scouting, but very bad PR downsides.