Tacenda Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 I'm certain the Church members in Utah and elsewhere will do just fine. For one thing, we won't have to put up with those nasty "Friends of Scouting" drives any longer. And it's Utahns, not "Utahans."I knew you were going to correct me on this, dang!
KevinG Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 That's incorrect. The 2013 resolution allowed gay youth to join, but kept in place the policy against gay adult leaders. http://www.scouting.org/sitecore/content/MembershipStandards/Resolution/results.aspx The recent resolution reverses the ban on gay leaders. There's nothing in the resolution about advocating homosexuality, openly or not. Of course the organization will be changed by the inclusion of gay leaders, but I am at a loss as to how that will affect the church's implementation of Scouting. You are correct- I mis-characterized the 2013 statement. Practically speaking if they did not advocate or publicize their sexuality they could serve. For 102 years this was the case. I have no doubt that gays served along side me. The only reason I had any suspicion of anyones orientation is because some of them had children. Yet even that was not a given.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Both are technically correct."Utahans" is substandard and illogical. But I've made that case previously. I won't derail the thread to do it here,
Scott Lloyd Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 I knew you were going to correct me on this, dang! Why did you do it then?
jkwilliams Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 You are correct- I mis-characterized the 2013 statement. Practically speaking if they did not advocate or publicize their sexuality they could serve. For 102 years this was the case. I have no doubt that gays served along side me. The only reason I had any suspicion of anyones orientation is because some of them had children. Yet even that was not a given. So, you're saying it was a don't-ask-don't-tell policy? As I understand it, if someone acknowledged being gay, and the Scouts found out, that person would be kicked out.
jkwilliams Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 "Utahans" is substandard and illogical. But I've made that case previously. I won't derail the thread to do it here, I don't see what the fuss is over this. It affects only a small number of people, so it's hardly worth the notice of a reporter.
rockpond Posted July 28, 2015 Author Posted July 28, 2015 This is the thing that's being ignored by rockpond, John Williams and others on this thread who claim to be "mystified" by the stance the Church is taking. What does any of that have to do with the Church's stance? If the BSA is going to get sued, they'll get sued with or without us.
KevinG Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 No, I'm not ignoring it. Please explain to me how there is any more incentive for these lawsuits to go forward than there was last week. The very clear precedent is that the BSA changed their policy in 2013 to accommodate gay youth, and the first one that turned 21 and wanted to volunteer as an Adult brought a lawyer along with him to the Volunteer Center. This despite the clarifying points of the new BSA policy stating: By reinforcing 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, and that no member may use Scouting to promote or advance any social or political position or agenda, this resolution rightly recognizes there is a difference between kids and adults while remaining true to the long-standing virtues of Scouting. Given recent history and the vocal admission of lawyers and gay rights activists saying they are against religious groups being able to choose their own leadership standards vis a vis sexual practices, I'd say its more likely than not these challenges will go forward until chartered organizations have no say over their own leadership selection standards in order to be a part of the BSA. Now show evidence that it isn't a strong possibility... 3
KevinG Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 I don't see what the fuss is over this. It affects only a small number of people, so it's hardly worth the notice of a reporter. I hear they have printing presses behind the Zion Curtain.
KevinG Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) What does any of that have to do with the Church's stance? If the BSA is going to get sued, they'll get sued with or without us. "Without us" costs us no tithing in the form of legal fees. I strongly suspect that is one of the more powerful motivations behind the Church retreating into its own programs and no longer trying to bridge the gap between the BSA and LDS/BSA programs. As JKW pointed out there are already stresses in that relationship. This may be the final "Its not worth trying to continue down this path" straw. This would not be the first time the Church has withdrawn from an important program in order to save the church organization as a whole from legal jeopardy. Polygamy comes to mind. Perhaps that little lesson should comfort me here. As we are promised if we are prevented from laying up a sacrifice through no fault of our own, the Lord will accept it as though it was given in full, and bless us accordingly. If the LDS Church chooses to pull out of the BSA for moral reasons, legal reasons or both I can assume whatever youth program replaces it will be inspired, fruitful, and bless our children. Edited July 28, 2015 by KevinG 3
Popular Post smac97 Posted July 28, 2015 Popular Post Posted July 28, 2015 No, I'm not ignoring it. Please explain to me how there is any more incentive for these lawsuits to go forward than there was last week. I think the "incentive" is that the BSA has now established that it will capitulate to "lawfare" initiated against it by gay rights groups. If the BSA capitulated on yesterday's vote, it could also capitulate in the future. The gay rights folks recognize this, as evidenced by their published intention to continue their "lawfare" efforts against the BSA until the exemption for religious chartering organizations is eliminated. Thanks, -Smac 5
Scott Lloyd Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 What does any of that have to do with the Church's stance? If the BSA is going to get sued, they'll get sued with or without us.The fear of being sued will ultimately cause them to infringe on the autonomy of their chartering organizations, including the Church of Jesus Christ.
toon Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 I would hope so, but I somehow doubt it. My wife and I decided earlier today that our son won't be participating in LDS scouting (if such a thing should come to be), but I think most members will just "go with the program." For one, it's just easier. You don't have to try to find a new troop, and then arrange for carpooling with people who might not live very close to you. Second, I think that most members will be energized by the "us against the world" mentality. After all, this is what they've been promised their entire lives -- a time when the Church will be "under attack." Everyone wants to think they are living in the end times. The idea that the world will continue just fine without us is a tremendous blow to the ego. WE are the culmination of this unfolding human drama. HF has been saving His best for last. Heck, if the designers can come up with a fancy enough uniform, we ALL might start wearing it. Scouting is not and has never been something that worked for all LDS young men. While I thrived in scouting when growing up, it was not something my son was even remotely interested in. He enjoyed YM activies and lessons, but when things focused on the scouting side of the equation, he would check out. Uniforms, merit badges, ranks, etc., were all things he could not care less about. This meant he would pick and choose which activities to attend. And while he would still attend most of the time, there were still a good number where he would not. And he was not the only kid in our ward that felt this way. I actually think an independent program ran by the Church would be more inclusive of the varying needs and interests of the youth. I would like the Church to move in that direction. I hate now the possibility that it will be seen as a reaction to BSA's move to grant local charters more flexibility. 2
jkwilliams Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 The very clear precedent is that the BSA changed their policy in 2013 to accommodate gay youth, and the first one that turned 21 and wanted to volunteer as an Adult brought a lawyer along with him to the Volunteer Center. This despite the clarifying points of the new BSA policy stating: Given recent history and the vocal admission of lawyers and gay rights activists saying they are against religious groups being able to choose their own leadership standards vis a vis sexual practices, I'd say its more likely than not these challenges will go forward until chartered organizations have no say over their own leadership selection standards in order to be a part of the BSA. Now show evidence that it isn't a strong possibility... The issue was decided in Dale v. Boy Scouts, so the challenge to the policy has been going on a lot longer than 2013.
jkwilliams Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 I think the "incentive" is that the BSA has now established that it will capitulate to "lawfare" initiated against it by gay rights groups. If the BSA capitulated on yesterday's vote, it could also capitulate in the future. The gay rights folks recognize this, as evidenced by their published intention to continue their "lawfare" efforts against the BSA until the exemption for religious chartering organizations is eliminated. Thanks, -Smac So, 13 years after Dale, the BSA capitulated to "lawfare." Really?
KevinG Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 The issue was decided in Dale v. Boy Scouts, so the challenge to the policy has been going on a lot longer than 2013. The issue as Scott has pointed out is not that they would necessarily win, but that it will cost the BSA and the LDS Church lots of resources and funds that may be better spent on an internally controlled program, rather than pouring it into continued challenges. (And those challenges as SMAC has shown are real, and ready to come). 3
smac97 Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 It looks like we aren't the only group responding negatively to yesterday's capitulation. See here: Earlier in the summer, some Southern Baptist leaders urged their churches to sever ties with the Boy Scouts of America over the pending new policy. Instead, leaders of America's largest Protestant denomination voted at their annual meeting in June on a resolution that criticized the policy change and called for the ouster of Boy Scout board members and staff who supported the inclusion of gays. But the new ruling will undoubtedly affect the participation of Baptist churches in the organization. "In recent years I have seen a definite cooling on the part of Baptist churches toward the Scouts," the Rev. Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, told the Associated Press. "This will probably bring that cooling to a freeze." The Roman Catholic Church has also opposed the new policy, but seemed to have a more nuanced reaction to the ruling so far, indicating that it would not break ties with the Boy Scouts organization as a whole. About 8 percent of Scout troops are run by Catholic churches. Noting that the resolution allows troops sponsored by religious groups the right to set their own standards for leaders, the National Catholic Committee on Scouting said in a statement that “it appears that the resolution respects the needs of Catholic-chartered organizations in the right to choose leaders whose character and conduct are consistent with those of Catholic teaching.” However, the organization expressed “strong concern about the practical implications of this resolution, especially for our young people in Scouting.” It also reaffirmed the church’s position that the only acceptable adult sexual conduct “should be reserved to a husband and a wife in marriage.”
rockpond Posted July 28, 2015 Author Posted July 28, 2015 "Without us" costs us no tithing in the form of legal fees. If the BSA gets sued, why would we need to use tithing for legal fees?
KevinG Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 So, 13 years after Dale, the BSA capitulated to "lawfare." Really? Yes. Otherwise the courts would be arguing Tessier vs. Boy Scouts today.
rockpond Posted July 28, 2015 Author Posted July 28, 2015 The fear of being sued will ultimately cause them to infringe on the autonomy of their chartering organizations, including the Church of Jesus Christ. For me, that would be the point where we'd need to part ways with the BSA. Right now, I still feel like the BSA is trying to give us and its other chartering orgs the ability to run the programs as we see fit. So I believe the Church will stick with the program.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 An old adage applies to this situation:"Give them an inch and they'll take a mile."The church gave them an inch, now they have gone their mile.
smac97 Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 So, 13 years after Dale, the BSA capitulated to "lawfare." Really?I think this will be the fourth time I've quoted this statement by BSA President Robert Gates (made yesterday in conjunction with the vote): "Due to the social political and legal changes taking place in our country and in our movement, I did not believe our adult leadership policy could be sustained," Gates said in a video announcement Monday. "Any effort to do so was inevitably going to result in simultaneous legal battles in multiple jurisdictions and at staggering cost." So yes, really. Yesterday's vote was a capitulation to lawfare against the BSA. Thanks, -Smac 1
KevinG Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 If the BSA gets sued, why would we need to use tithing for legal fees? LDS Units would be a likely target for those suits. Go back and read Smac's post. The quotes are pretty clear that the advocacy lawyers are going to target units sponsored by religious organizations.
jkwilliams Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Yes. Otherwise the courts would be arguing Tessier vs. Boy Scouts today. Except Tessier wasn't challenging them in the courts, as the issue was already decided in the Dale case. What you guys seem to believe is that the BSA allowing troops to choose gay leaders increases the likelihood that there will be lawsuits to force church-sponsored units to have gay Scout leaders.
mtomm Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Not true. They did not release private investigation files to the public for legal reasons. Even then the rate of abuse was much lower than in the general public. Not true? The Scouts even issued an apology for it. Lawsuits made the information public. Your last sentence doesn't matter. The Church didn't seem too upset about these revelations but letting in the gayz is worthy of leaving. Seems homophobic to me and much less about protecting the children. At least these revelations brought about change in the organization. There is that. http://youthtoday.org/2012/09/boy-scouts-of-america-apologize-for-sex-abuse/
Recommended Posts