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

[jkwilliams]

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.

 

That's how I see it. The outrage and panic seem drastically misplaced.

[jkwilliams]

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

 

I stand corrected. That said, what gives with the "sky is falling" attitude around here? 

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

I think the BSA has shown itself to be weak-willed, and the sooner we cut ties, the better.

[Scott Lloyd]

I stand corrected. That said, what gives with the "sky is falling" attitude around here? 

You say you stand corrected, yet you still seem to be obtuse.

 

Not very long ago, I don't think any of us would have predicted the juggernaut would have gotten this far so quickly. And they obviously have no intention of backing off or letting up now.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[KevinG]

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/

 

Note that the "files" were a blacklist meant to keep predators away from boys, not a protection for those predators.  Read this more carefully.  The apology was to the victims not an admission that the Scouts had perpetuated the abuse in any way.  The youth protection policies were beefed up long before the lawsuits, and the BSA has historically had lower rates of abuse than in the general public.  Not bad considering perverts target organizations like the BSA thinking they can have easy access to children.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_sex_abuse_cases

[ERayR]

What strengthens your faith?

I know:  Peer reviewed papers.

[smac97]

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.

 

And yet the gay rights folks announced yesterday - as soon as the results of the vote came out - that "the Boy Scouts should not allow church-sponsored units to continue excluding gays", that the BSA "should... begin the process of considering a full national policy of inclusion," that the BSA's policy adopted yesterday is probably not "sustainable," that "the lawsuits (will) keep coming," and that organizations like the LDS Church will have "a period of time where they'll have some legal protection," but that they will "become increasingly marginalized."

 

So I'm a bit curious about the basis for your optimism.  The BSA said that the "staggering costs" of litigation precipitated yesterday's capitulation, and now we have the gay rights folks publishing statements that their "lawfare" efforts will continue, and that the Church will only have "a period of time" with legal protection.

 

I think the Church sees the writing on the wall.  It's a sad day.  This morning I went on a walk with my 13-year old son, who is currently in scouts and loves it.  I asked him how long it would take him to earn his Eagle, and encouraged him to do it as quickly as possible.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[KevinG]

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.

 

Tessier walked into the volunteer office with a lawyer.  You don't suppose he was there to enjoy a tin foil dinner and a cup of bug juice do you?

[jkwilliams]

You say you stand corrected, yet you still seem to be obtuse.

 

I stand corrected about legal pressure for the BSA to allow gay leaders. I still remain puzzled as to why this is such a big deal for the church. If someone tries to force the church to accept gay leaders, then sure, I agree with rock pond, that's the time to leave. Seems really weird to be having conniptions about this now.

[KevinG]

And yet the gay rights folks announced yesterday - as soon as the results of the vote came out - that "the Boy Scouts should not allow church-sponsored units to continue excluding gays", that the BSA "should... begin the process of considering a full national policy of inclusion," that the BSA's policy adopted yesterday is probably not "sustainable," that "the lawsuits (will) keep coming," and that organizations like the LDS Church will have "a period of time where they'll have some legal protection," but that they will "become increasingly marginalized."

 

So I'm a bit curious about the basis for your optimism.  The BSA said that the "staggering costs" of litigation precipitated yesterday's capitulation, and now we have the gay rights folks publishing statements that their "lawfare" efforts will continue, and that the Church will only have "a period of time" with legal protection.

 

I think the Church sees the writing on the wall.  It's a sad day.  This morning I went on a walk with my 13-year old son, who is currently in scouts and loves it.  I asked him how long it would take him to earn his Eagle, and encouraged him to do it as quickly as possible.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

Please note that these quotes are not from chicken little LDS/BSA traditionalists, but from freedom loving gay rights advocates.

[KevinG]

I stand corrected about legal pressure for the BSA to allow gay leaders. I still remain puzzled as to why this is such a big deal for the church. If someone tries to force the church to accept gay leaders, then sure, I agree with rock pond, that's the time to leave. Seems really weird to be having conniptions about this now.

 

I son't suppose you would support spending tithing and human resources on continued lawsuits when the same effort and resources could insure an LDS led and LDS friendly program for their youth?

 

The "conniption" started a decade ago with the new Faith In God program for North American YM.  However the LDS Church continued its relationship, albeit a slightly strained one concerning policy and programs, because it was mutually beneficial.

 

Prophets are nothing if not proactive in this case.

[smac97]

I stand corrected about legal pressure for the BSA to allow gay leaders. I still remain puzzled as to why this is such a big deal for the church. If someone tries to force the church to accept gay leaders, then sure, I agree with rock pond, that's the time to leave. Seems really weird to be having conniptions about this now.

 

I have repeatedly quoted yesterday's news article in which gay rights folks specifically state that they will continue their lawsuits until the exemption to the policy currently granted to religious chartering organizations is eliminated.

 

The BSA capitulated yesterday to ongoing litigation and its attendant "staggering costs."  So it seems a bit odd to think that the BSA will stand resolute in the face of further threatened litigation.  It also seems odd to expect the Church to take a "wait and see" approach, particularly since we already know what is going to happen (further litigation until the exemption is eliminated) and what is likely to happen (the BSA will capitulate due to that further litigation and eliminate the exemption for religious chartering organizations).

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited July 28, 2015 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

That's how I see it. The outrage and panic seem drastically misplaced.

If you don't mind, I think I'll go with the assessment of the Church leadership, who up to now have been more than accommodating to BSA.

[jkwilliams]

I have repeatedly quoted yesterday's news article in which gay rights folks specifically state that they will continue their lawsuits until the exemption to the policy currently granted to religious chartering organizations is eliminated.

 

The BSA capitulated yesterday to ongoing litigation and its attendant "staggering costs."  So it seems a bit odd to think that the BSA will stand resolute in the face of further threatened litigation.  It also seems odd to expect the Church to take a "wait and see" approach, particularly since we already know what is going to happen (further litigation until the exemption is eliminated) and what is likely to happen (the BSA will capitulate due to that further litigation and eliminate the exemption for religious chartering organizations).

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

Again, if someone tries to infringe on churches' First Amendment rights, they will face very long odds. If and when the day comes that a court even accepts such a case, that's when the church would be well-advised to walk away. But I don't understand the panic and fear based on possibilities. 

[CV75]

I stand corrected about legal pressure for the BSA to allow gay leaders. I still remain puzzled as to why this is such a big deal for the church. If someone tries to force the church to accept gay leaders, then sure, I agree with rock pond, that's the time to leave. Seems really weird to be having conniptions about this now.

It’s not a conniption; the Church does not wish to misconvey tacit approval of same-sex marriage and immoral sexual relations, and no longer belonging to an organization that does is a viable approach to take for accomplishing that.

[jkwilliams]

If you don't mind, I think I'll go with the assessment of the Church leadership, who up to now have been more than accommodating to BSA.

 

No one is asking you to do otherwise. 

[Scott Lloyd]

I stand corrected about legal pressure for the BSA to allow gay leaders. I still remain puzzled as to why this is such a big deal for the church. If someone tries to force the church to accept gay leaders, then sure, I agree with rock pond, that's the time to leave. Seems really weird to be having conniptions about this now.

See posts 332 and 335.

[Bobbieaware]

And yet the gay rights folks announced yesterday - as soon as the results of the vote came out - that "the Boy Scouts should not allow church-sponsored units to continue excluding gays", that the BSA "should... begin the process of considering a full national policy of inclusion," that the BSA's policy adopted yesterday is probably not "sustainable," that "the lawsuits (will) keep coming," and that organizations like the LDS Church will have "a period of time where they'll have some legal protection," but that they will "become increasingly marginalized."

 

So I'm a bit curious about the basis for your optimism.  The BSA said that the "staggering costs" of litigation precipitated yesterday's capitulation, and now we have the gay rights folks publishing statements that their "lawfare" efforts will continue, and that the Church will only have "a period of time" with legal protection.

 

I think the Church sees the writing on the wall.  It's a sad day.  This morning I went on a walk with my 13-year old son, who is currently in scouts and loves it.  I asked him how long it would take him to earn his Eagle, and encouraged him to do it as quickly as possible.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

When one no longer believes in the prophecies of scriptures and the words of the living prophets concerning the world ripening in iniquity in the last days, he no longer worries about those warnings because he doesn't take them seriously.

[TheSkepticChristian]

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

 

Do Boy Scouts allow unmarried leaders that are living with a woman? Did the Church say something about that?

Do Boy Scouts allow leaders that drink alcohol?

 

 

Religious groups should have the ability to choose

 

and the Boy Scouts allow religious groups to choose, so where is the issue? What is the problem?

 

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

 

The Church allowed unmarried couples to live together in Chile about 15 years ago, because there were no divorce laws. The church allowed them to have a temple recommend, sacrament, priesthood, and you are mad that Boy Scouts allows gay leaders?

 

I don't know why the Church is very concerned about the US government's definition of marriage, the church didn't care about Chile's definition of marriage 15 years ago.

[jkwilliams]

It’s not a conniption; the Church does not wish to misconvey tacit approval of same-sex marriage and immoral sexual relations, and no longer belonging to an organization that does is a viable approach to take for accomplishing that.

 

The conniption is what I see here and on Facebook and other places, where people are talking like it's the end of the world. The BSA's announcement says nothing about same-sex marriage, and the BSA has never excluded leaders based on sexual immorality. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Again, if someone tries to infringe on churches' First Amendment rights, they will face very long odds. If and when the day comes that a court even accepts such a case, that's when the church would be well-advised to walk away. But I don't understand the panic and fear based on possibilities. 

I think a fair point (which you have also ignored) has been made that there is a cost to defend against these unconstitutional lawsuits, "very long odds" or not, and that the money would be better spent on youth programs than defending against predatory litigation.

 

It's time to cut ties.

[KevinG]

 

and the Boy Scouts allow religious groups to choose, so where is the issue? What is the problem?

 

 

Read the quotes from advocates that say they will challenge the religious units right to choose their own leadership.  Smac has provided them several times.

 

National did not resolve the issue they just washed their hands of it and pushed it off on individual units and chartering organizations.

 

As I said before if I'm wrong I'll repent of my paranoia.  But its a pretty darn well informed paranoia at this moment in time.

[Scott Lloyd]

Read the quotes from advocates that say they will challenge the religious units right to choose their own leadership.  Smac has provided them several times.

 

National did not resolve the issue they just washed their hands of it and pushed it off on individual units and chartering organizations.

 

As I said before if I'm wrong I'll repent of my paranoia.  But its a pretty darn well informed paranoia at this moment in time.

As often as these uncomprehending questions keep getting repeated here, we should probably save Smac's quotations as boilerplate.

[KevinG]

 

It's time to cut ties.

 

I'm not sure I'm there yet.  I trust the brethren who have led the North American youth programs for the church and worked extensively with the BSA National office to make an informed decision on continuing as we are currently or creating our own independent programs.

 

In none of the church statements is there a "sky is falling" or "end of the world" conniption.  However I do see a lot of people heavily invested in the LDS/BSA chafing at outside influences demanding they change their traditions and modify their expression of their values, especially since the pressure is coming from appointed national leaders, not local volunteers and chartering organizations, and especially after we "won" the debate over selecting our own membership in Dale vs. Boy Scouts.

 

Chafing / Connpition...

 

I guess we agree that the proper characterization of this starts with a C.

[KevinG]

As often as these uncomprehending questions keep getting repeated here, we should probably save Smac's quotations as boilerplate.

 

I know but in between doing real work, I'm trying to respond and my clipboard is full of spreadsheet numbers, which leaves no space for quoting Smac.