MorningStar Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Even if the church itself weren't sued, it's still putting money into BSA, which will be sued repeatedly. It makes more sense to cut ties and make our own program.
Brian 2.0 Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 It wasn't enough until BSA itself started knuckling under. Some of that was due to internal pressure amongst their own ranks who were disregarding the national policy. The BSA should have waited for the church to come back from vacation and then knuckled under to them. 1
TheSkepticChristian Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Not to be smart or difficult, but perhaps I missed something you asked and was not answered. This is a fast moving discussion and half my brain is tied behind my back working on some numbers in the office. Can you repeat the question for me here instead of me searching to divine what was left unanswered? Thanks in advance. 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? 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, but are you mad Boy Scouts allows gays? 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, right?
toon Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 The Church can fairly quickly replace it with something that provides what Scouting did provide, if it comes to that. As I mentioned earlier, I think the Church could come up with an even better program that is more inclusive of all our youth's varying needs. While boy scouts worked for most of the young men, it wasn't a good fit for all.
KevinG Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 So, being in the same organization with others who accept gay leaders is the same as eating poop? Wow. No. Do I have to explain everything to you? The old analogy (a bad one I might add) that accepting a little sin because something is desirable (a racy movie for example) is like being willing to eat a brownie with a little poop in it. I can't believe you made it through LDS childhood without hearing that terrible lesson.
Buckeye Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 I guess we are about to find out the Apostolic answer to the age old Institute question. Would you eat a brownie with just a bit of poop in it? I'd try to remove the poop first ... just like I do when reading the BOM to my kids.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 It does? Does the new statement say anything about sexual activity? Did the Scouts previously say anything about their leaders' sexual activity? I'm not seeing it, but if I'm wrong, I'm happy to be shown how.It says in effect that men can lead Scout troops even when they openly acknowledge that they have sex with other men. You might not regard that as immoral. Some of us do.
why me Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) But don't you see that it is the Church, once again, doing the labeling? BSA says that, regardless of sexual orientation, people should be allowed to serve as scout leaders. It is the Church that says, "Wait a minute! Before someone serves as a scout leader (for even other people's kids), we must know that they are straight." Do you honestly not see that it is the Church that is making their sexual orientation an issue and not the would-be gay scout leader? Do you think the Church would accept such a person so long as they lied (or kept quiet) their sexual orientation?I dont see it. The church is not asking for a sex test in order to be a scout leader. Now of course, if I say that I am a gay man and wish to be a scout leader, it will not happen. But if I keep my mouth shut about my sexuality, which is what I should do anyway regardless if I am straight or gay, I can be a scout leader. However, this was the same for the boy scouts in general. No one had to take a sex test. But active gay men who said they were sexually active gay men, were excluded. Edited July 28, 2015 by why me
jkwilliams Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 No. Do I have to explain everything to you? The old analogy (a bad one I might add) that accepting a little sin because something is desirable (a racy movie for example) is like being willing to eat a brownie with a little poop in it. I can't believe you made it through LDS childhood without hearing that terrible lesson. Never heard that lesson (I'm glad). It's an ugly analogy in this case.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 That is a fair point. But I suspect at the end of the day, the costs of developing, implementing, and running a new program likely outweigh the hypothetical costs of defending against an arguably frivolous and certainly meritless lawsuit. But then, if the goal is to eventually substitute boy scouts with a new program, for reasons largely independent of any change in BSA policy, then the Church is going to incur those costs regardless. Of course, if I were to don the "doom and gloom" cap that some here seem to wear, you'd think we're going to get sued regardless. Because isn't the end game of the so-called gay lobby to destroy all that is good in the world.I think you and others greatly underestimate the capacity of the Church to put in place its own program to replace Scouting. For one thing, the infrastructure is already in place with a worldwide network of volunteers ready and willing to serve. Think of all the money that can be saved not funding "Friends of Scouting" drives or paying the six-figure salaries of paid executives.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Judging by the last bit of the press release, I believe the move away was already a done deal, and that they already have been working on a new program for Young Men. This just accelerates the roll-out.
jkwilliams Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 It says in effect that men can lead Scout troops even when they openly acknowledge that they have sex with other men. You might not regard that as immoral. Some of us do. It says that "openly gay" people can be Scout leaders. Last I checked, one can be gay without being sexually active, and acknowledging that one is gay says nothing about with whom they have sex or don't have sex. Does openly acknowledging heterosexuality mean one is sexually active? I was straight before I got married, but I wasn't sexually active until after I got married.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 As I mentioned earlier, I think the Church could come up with an even better program that is more inclusive of all our youth's varying needs. While boy scouts worked for most of the young men, it wasn't a good fit for all.This I wholeheartedly agree with.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 It says that "openly gay" people can be Scout leaders. Last I checked, one can be gay without being sexually active, and acknowledging that one is gay says nothing about with whom they have sex or don't have sex. Does openly acknowledging heterosexuality mean one is sexually active? I was straight before I got married, but I wasn't sexually active until after I got married. In this context, "openly gay" means behavior included.
KevinG Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Do Boy Scouts allow unmarried leaders that are living with a woman? Did the Church say something about that? I have not known of any who do, but the LDS church (or its Bishop's) would disqualify a man who did so on moral grounds. I personally would not want that man teaching my youth while demonstrating disregard for moral standards I hold to be important. Do Boy Scouts allow leaders that drink alcohol? They do but never at Scouting events. An LDS Bishop would not call that man to Scouting. 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, but are you mad Boy Scouts allows gays? The dynamics of civil, vs church marriage in Chile vs openly gay leaders in the LDS Scouting program today are two very different things. You will need to elaborate on the parallels if I am to answer this clearly. However- again the LDS church today would not call someone to scouting if they were not actively living the church standards. 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, right? Please give a reference for the LDS marriage policy in Chile and explain what it has to do with selecting youth leaders with standards consistent with church doctrine today. I'm not getting the connection but your statement lacks details.
jkwilliams Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 In this context, "openly gay" means behavior included. CFR
sunstoned Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Yup John says that we don't need to fear anything. Nothing to see everything is fine and dandy. While we bring up 1st amendment rights, I wonder how long it will be 'til there is a law suit, even with a church run program, that we didn't allow a gay leader.The church discriminated against an entire race for over a hundred and thirty years. They survived that and finally, under pressure renounced the racist teachings of past prophets. My guess is that the same thing will happen with regards to this human rights issue.
toon Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 I think you and others greatly underestimate the capacity of the Church to put in place its own program to replace Scouting. For one thing, the infrastructure is already in place with a worldwide network of volunteers ready and willing to serve. Think of all the money that can be saved not funding "Friends of Scouting" drives or paying the six-figure salaries of paid executives. I don't underestimate it. (In fact, as think I've made clear, I'd like to see it.) But the fact that there may be infrastructure in place doesn't mean it wouldn't need to be tweaked further, that there wouldn't be the need for countless trainings, meetings, etc., with some trial and error. Just a small sample -- that people in the Church volunteer their time doesn't mean there aren't associated costs, including opportunity and transactional costs. How many meetings in a given ward do you think it would take to implement a new program? How many people would have to be involved? If you could put a dollar amount to the number of manhours rolling out a new, extensive, and complicated program in the States, I assume that would rival the litigation budgets assigned to some of the most complicated matters.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) As I mentioned earlier, I think the Church could come up with an even better program that is more inclusive of all our youth's varying needs. While boy scouts worked for most of the young men, it wasn't a good fit for all.I cautiously agree. But any program devoid of the survival/outdoors skills aspect would be pointless, and they might as well just merge with the YW. Edited July 28, 2015 by BookofMormonLuvr
KevinG Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Never heard that lesson (I'm glad). It's an ugly analogy in this case. Your distaste for poop humor aside... The point was that we are about to find out if the Apostles are willing to take the whole of the BSA programs, even though a portion of those policies don't align with LDS values regarding marriage and sexuality. Brownie/Poop. Sheesh! Who is having a conniption now? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syV2LkGpQB0
toon Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 I cautiously agree. Any program devoid of the survival/outdoors skills aspect would be pointless, and they might as well just merge with the YW. I can't imagine any program the Church puts out not having this. And YW should be learning outdoor skills. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 I don't underestimate it. (In fact, as think I've made clear, I'd like to see it.) But the fact that there may be infrastructure in place doesn't mean it wouldn't need to be tweaked further, that there wouldn't be the need for countless trainings, meetings, etc., with some trial and error. Just a small sample -- that people in the Church volunteer their time doesn't mean there aren't associated costs, including opportunity and transactional costs. How many meetings in a given ward do you think it would take to implement a new program? How many people would have to be involved? If you could put a dollar amount to the number of manhours rolling out a new, extensive, and complicated program in the States, I assume that would rival the litigation budgets assigned to some of the most complicated matters.I'm not seeing how the costs would be appreciably greater than what is already incurred for training in BSA.
KevinG Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 I cautiously agree. But any program devoid of the survival/outdoors skills aspect would be pointless, and they might as well just merge with the YW. That is my favorite part to teach. I volunteer!
TheSkepticChristian Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) I have not known of any who do, but the LDS church (or its Bishop's) would disqualify a man who did so on moral grounds. I personally would not want that man teaching my youth while demonstrating disregard for moral standards I hold to be important. So what is the problem? National said it was going to respect the religious freedom of churches. I really don't understand what the issue is.Did the church ever get sued for not allowing unmarried leaders that are living with a woman?Did National Boy Scouts force the church to have such leaders? Please give a reference for the LDS marriage policy in Chile and explain what it has to do with selecting youth leaders with standards consistent with church doctrine today. I'm not getting the connection but your statement lacks details. No anymore, Chile now has divorce laws, that is why a lot of LDS couples do not have a temple recommend. I will give you a reference later. Edited July 28, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
Gray Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 I think you and others greatly underestimate the capacity of the Church to put in place its own program to replace Scouting. For one thing, the infrastructure is already in place with a worldwide network of volunteers ready and willing to serve. Think of all the money that can be saved not funding "Friends of Scouting" drives or paying the six-figure salaries of paid executives. I'm up for this, but only if they come up with some awesome new uniforms.
Recommended Posts