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

[KevinG]

I can't imagine any program the Church puts out not having this. 

 

And YW should be learning outdoor skills.

 

Our ward in South Carolina had a Young Woman's program second to none in preparedness and outdoor skills.  No matter what program we run it will be the local volunteers who make it happen.  National BSA seems to forget this when they worry about corporate donations and high profile gay advocacy cases.

[DJBrown]

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.

 

The statement from the church on May 23, 2013 read, "The Church’s long-established policy for participation in activities is stated in the basic instructional handbook used by lay leaders of the Church: “young men … who agree to abide by Church standards” are “welcomed warmly and encouraged to participate” (Handbook 2: Administering the Church [2010], 8.17.3). This policy applies to Church-sponsored Scout units. Sexual orientation has not previously been—and is not now—a disqualifying factor for boys who want to join Latter-day Saint Scout troops. Willingness to abide by standards of behavior continues to be our compelling interest."

 

So the church makes a distinction between an individual's orientation and whether they act on that orientation in the form of homosexual behavior.  The new policy of BSA makes no such qualification or distinction.  Therefore, BSA is open to "openly" gay adult leaders, including those who are involved in homosexual behavior.  It think it is burden of those with your position to show how the BSA makes a distinction between adult leaders with same-sex orientation and homosexual activity.  I do not believe the new  policy makes any such distinction.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I can't imagine any program the Church puts out not having this. 

 

And YW should be learning outdoor skills.

There are old time skills the YW need to learn, but I don't believe they are the exact one's the YM should learn.

^ My "sexism" showing.

[KevinG]

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?

 

 

Now you are catching up with the discussion.  Lambda and other gay rights organizations are threatening to force religious institutions to admit gay leaders.  See Smac's posts and quotes.

[KevinG]

I'm up for this, but only if they come up with some awesome new uniforms.

 

I suspect what will really happen is they will buy uniforms from the BSA service centers, then add patches with Moroni on them to the sleeves.  

[MorningStar]

I've always told my husband, "They'll never get ME to wear those hideous, baby poo brown shirts!"  Let's see some purple! 

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Let's name the new program!

Any ideas?

I like the old RLDS youth program name: "Zioneers"

but it's already taken.

Edited July 28, 2015 by BookofMormonLuvr

[Gray]

I suspect what will really happen is they will buy uniforms from the BSA service centers, then add patches with Moroni on them to the sleeves.  

 

They need to find a better color than khaki. Maybe a nice orange color. Bonus, it would make it easier to find lost scouts in the woods. 

 

I suggest this model uniform:

 

[KevinG]

[sunstoned]

Everyone has their right to their opinion as to what constitutes immoral behavior. But I disagree with your assessment on this issue.

So do I.

[jkwilliams]

The statement from the church on May 23, 2013 read, "The Church’s long-established policy for participation in activities is stated in the basic instructional handbook used by lay leaders of the Church: “young men … who agree to abide by Church standards” are “welcomed warmly and encouraged to participate” (Handbook 2: Administering the Church [2010], 8.17.3). This policy applies to Church-sponsored Scout units. Sexual orientation has not previously been—and is not now—a disqualifying factor for boys who want to join Latter-day Saint Scout troops. Willingness to abide by standards of behavior continues to be our compelling interest."

 

So the church makes a distinction between an individual's orientation and whether they act on that orientation in the form of homosexual behavior.  The new policy of BSA makes no such qualification or distinction.  Therefore, BSA is open to "openly" gay adult leaders, including those who are involved in homosexual behavior.  It think it is burden of those with your position to show how the BSA makes a distinction between adult leaders with same-sex orientation and homosexual activity.  I do not believe the new  policy makes any such distinction.

 

I'm not arguing they make that distinction. I'm saying that sexual orientation does not equal sexual activity, and the BSA's statement says nothing about sexual activity. You guys are the ones saying the BSA is condoning men having sex with men. The policy before had nothing to do with sexual behavior, either, as a celibate gay person was just as ineligible for a leadership position as a promiscuous gay person.

[KevinG]

Practically speaking the number of openly homosexual scout leaders who practice celibacy and don't speak about sexuality in public is probably pretty small.  There was one such case I knew of and he was accommodated as a youth leader in our Stake.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

The following is the statement of Troop 216, a troop chartered through a RLDS Restoration Branch here in Zion:
 

We are saddened by the recent decision of the BSA organization to give in to pressure from worldly 
influences to lift the ban on gay leaders. Fortunately, any decision made so far does not affect the 
ability of individual troops to completely control who is and is not allowed to participate. 
We, at the restoration Boy Scout Troop 216, will not allow any person who confesses to be involved in 
any way in the homosexual lifestyle to participate with our organization. We will also not in any form 
allow our troop to promote the homosexual agenda or allow any discussion regarding these kinds of 
issues at troop functions. We will continue the troop only as long as the BSA does not demand we do 
so. 
We are RLDS restoration, but as the LDS church has stated, "As a chartering organization, The 
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has always had the right to select Scout leaders who 
adhere to moral and religious principles that are consistent with our doctrines and beliefs. Any 
resolution adopted by the Boy Scouts of America regarding leadership in Scouting must 
continue to affirm that right.” 
So far, the BSA has continued to affirm that right. 
It is our belief that the scouting program is still an asset to the boys and leaders who continue 
the long history of high and godly moral standards. In our troop, we will not move from this 
stand. 
Some parents have decided the BSA is not a group to support because they no longer have put a 
ban on those who are involved in the sin of homosexuality. Yet, there are many organizations 
that children in the church are involved in such as sports and arts organizations. These groups 
have long accepted homosexual participants and in many cases have funded the promotion and 
tolerance” of this evil agenda. 
One example is Major League Baseball, who has an official Ambassador for Inclusion” who is 
commissioned by them to provide guidance and training related to efforts to support those in the 
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community throughout Major League Baseball.” Many 
church families fully support MLB, purchase tickets, attend games, purchase products and promote their 
teams by wearing their logo attire. 
The commissioner of the NFL also has stated that gay football players are accepted in their organization. 
The military has accepted the homosexual agenda as well and allows men and women who have fallen 
into this sin to be a part of their ranks. 
Arts organizations have always accepted these sins as normal and even as superior to God’s holy plan 
for men, women, marriage and families. 
Though we disagree with these organizations and their decisions regarding this issue, we still support 
the military, arts, and sports teams. 
We have decided that we can continue to support our troop as long as there is no pressure from the BSA 
to change our stand, or until another nationwide boys organization comes along that will allow the 
same.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

Uniforms? Who needs them?

 

That should be among the first things discarded in any Church devised program to replace Scouting, say I.

 

It's a needless expense. And the boys don't really like them, as evidenced by the infrequency with which they are worn and the haphazard way they do wear them.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

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.

Wouldn't that be too late to avoid legal costs? If sued, it would be becaused they were refused so even if the Church then cut ties, there would still be grounds for the suit?

Can a lawyer clarify please?

[Scott Lloyd]

Wouldn't that be too late to avoid legal costs? If sued, it would be becaused they were refused so even if the Church then cut ties, there would still be grounds for the suit?

Can a lawyer clarify please?

I'm no lawyer, but that makes sense to me.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Uniforms? Who needs them?

 

That should be among the first things discarded in any Church devised program to replace Scouting, say I.

 

It's a needless expense. And the boys don't really like them, as evidenced by the infrequency with which they are worn and the haphazard way they do wear them.

 

Agreed, to an extant. I think polo's for formal things and t-shirts otherwise would be good. "Uniforms" build a sense of community. 

[toon]

Uniforms? Who needs them?

 

That should be among the first things discarded in any Church devised program to replace Scouting, say I.

 

It's a needless expense. And the boys don't really like them, as evidenced by the infrequency with which they are worn and the haphazard way they do wear them.

 

Exactly.

[provoman]

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

 

The Supreme Court ruling in favor of private organizations, and the Supremecy Clause, what "stragering" fight could there be using State law to trump to Federal Law? It would seem that any suit, would fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

 

Now could there be other legal avenues the opposition could attempt; exclusion from public grounds, or denial of public benefits.

 

Do you suppose the BSA would have difficulty finding Pro Bono work? Or an organization willing to absorb much financial burden to litigation.

[Scott Lloyd]

Agreed, to an extant. I think polo's for formal things and t-shirts otherwise would be good. "Uniforms" build a sense of community. 

I can see polos and T-shirts -- if they can be provided inexpensively.

[sethpayne]

I knew you were going to correct me on this, dang!

Both usages are acceptable. But Scott prefers one over the other for a number of reasons.

[Gray]

Uniforms? Who needs them?

 

That should be among the first things discarded in any Church devised program to replace Scouting, say I.

 

It's a needless expense. And the boys don't really like them, as evidenced by the infrequency with which they are worn and the haphazard way they do wear them.

 

This is likely a symptom of the uniforms not being awesome enough. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Just occurred to me:

 

The youth handcart pioneer treks are a phenomenon that has emerged in the last two or three decades among our people. They emphasize heritage, outdoor skills, resourcefulness, unity, teambuilding, service, unselfishness, religious devotion, etc.

 

Perhaps this could be the kernel of a new program that would not only replace Scouting but would benefit girls as well as boys. And it has a direct tie to our Latter-day Saint culture, more so than Scouting ever did.

 

Thoughts? Maybe I should start a new thread with this.

[Scott Lloyd]

Both usages are acceptable. But Scott prefers one over the other for a number of reasons.

"Utahan" is pretty much unacceptable among Utahns.

[Scott Lloyd]

This is likely a symptom of the uniforms not being awesome enough. 

"Awesome" is in the eye of the beholder -- which is an inherent problem with uniforms.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd