busybee Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) That's how I see it. The outrage and panic seem drastically misplaced.I bet you said the same thing when the Proclamation on the Family was presented. Edited July 28, 2015 by busybee
Scott Lloyd Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) Good news. It appears the catholics are going to keep their affiliation with BSA: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/29/us/catholic-panel-urges-churches-to-continue-sponsoring-scout-troops.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0A single committee does not the Catholic Church make. But my reaction to this is meh. What the Catholics do is up to them. It does not change the fact that the gay juggernaut is making BSA an inhospitable place for Church members and will continue to do so, and that it's appearing more and more likely the Church will cut ties with BSA. What other chartering organizations do after that is of little concern to me. Edited July 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Bobbieaware Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 You're being unnecessarily combative and accusatory. Mellow out.So when a fault-finding former member of the Church says that some local leaders of the Church in his area are deceivers who run church activities that kill the testimonies of the youth, it's inappropriate to energetically challenge the accusation? Poster has been removed.
jkwilliams Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 So when a fault-finding former member of the Church says that some local leaders of the Church in his area are deceivers who run church activities that kill the testimonies of the youth, it's inappropriate to energetically challenge the accusation? Oh, for heaven's sake, let's dial down the hyperbole. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Perfect summary of the situation. What I see in it is the left-of-center rant that I have come to expect from Stone holm. If things had transpired as he says they should have, there would scarcely be any difference. The juggernaut would still be gunning for the religious chartering organizations in BSA.
why me Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 A single committee does not the Catholic Church make. But my reaction to this is meh. What the Catholics do is up to them. It does change the fact that the gay juggernaut is making BSA an inhospitable place for Church members and will continue to do so.The scout program is world wide. The scouts oversees are not so influenced by american problems. So, I am sure that there are gay men in the scouts oversees for quite some time. And mormons are in the scouts in europe etc. I dont see them going anywhere else. So, this is very american centered and not world wide.
Bobbieaware Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 I'm not finding fault, just explaining that the whole experience was very upsetting. I'll skip the details, but during the follow-up fireside, the stake president told everyone about a miracle they had experienced. My son had told me the story when he got home, and there wasn't anything miraculous about it. While the SP was talking, my son (who was 16 or 17 then) turned to me and said, "Dad! I was there! None of that happened! Why would he make that stuff up?" I told him I thought that people see things differently, and he obviously interpreted it differently than my son. My son said, "No, Dad. None of that happened. It's a lie."And I take exception to your suggestion that i have a "jaundiced perspective on all things LDS." It's only jaundiced on some things.If you're willing, PM me the details. I have an open mind.
rockpond Posted July 28, 2015 Author Posted July 28, 2015 What I see in it is the left-of-center rant that I have come to expect from Stone holm. If things had transpired as he says they should have, there would scarcely be any difference. The juggernaut would still be gunning for the religious chartering organizations in BSA. I doubt it. First amendment is too strong - I think they'd leave us alone. To the extent that religion may be in the sites of certain gay rights groups, I think it's more a result of us going after them first. I think Section 134 was inspired for our day as well as Joseph's.
MorningStar Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 So when a fault-finding former member of the Church says that some local leaders of the Church in his area are deceivers who run church activities that kill the testimonies of the youth, it's inappropriate to energetically challenge the accusation?Crap happens on treks. Parents should be allowed to be upset about it. One of my best friends' son went on trek a week or two ago and someone mixed up the bleach with the cooking oil. Chicken stew with bleach. She's faithful and was extremely unhappy about that because her son ate a bite of it. I'm guessing they wanted the containers to look old fashioned, leading to a mix-up. Major mistake. Poor kid took a bite and decided it was inedible, but thankfully he was OK. One of his friends said, "It's OK. The bleach cooks out." Um, I don't think so.
mtomm Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Is there a prohibition against lesbian leaders for the Young Women? Is there a policy against gay men leaders for the Young Men? What does the handbook say? If there are already policies in place then it seems like a pretty easy decision.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) Some news outlets are commenting that the statement the Church issued yesterday is uncharacteristically strident and negative. Which leads me to wonder what the back story is on this. Has the BSA governing body become so insufferable in its relations with the Church leaders that it is no longer deemed desirable to pull punches in public statements about the matter? My hunch is the situation is even more serious than it appears on the surface. Edited July 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 The scout program is world wide. The scouts oversees are not so influenced by american problems. So, I am sure that there are gay men in the scouts oversees for quite some time. And mormons are in the scouts in europe etc. I dont see them going anywhere else. So, this is very american centered and not world wide.Yesterday's statement from the Church indicates that Scouting is unavailable to the Church in much of the world outside the U.S.
ttribe Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Then I have to wonder why you included mine, since I didn't want the thread derailed either. [sigh] Never mind. <-----[can't inject any humor without motives being questioned]
Scott Lloyd Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) I doubt it. First amendment is too strong - I think they'd leave us alone. To the extent that religion may be in the sites of certain gay rights groups, I think it's more a result of us going after them first. I think Section 134 was inspired for our day as well as Joseph's.Section 134 admonishes us to befriend the sort of government the Constitution protects. It doesn't say we have to trust that others will do so when they clearly don't have the reverence for it that we do. And we didn't go after gay rights groups. Edited July 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
ERayR Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Good point. I agree. But I stand by my 11th A of F statement. Homo-sexuality is a religion?
KevinG Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) CFR For starters http://politicalaffairs.net/the-communist-movement-and-gay-rights-the-hidden-history/ There are some good references on this article between the connections between the formative gay rights years and the communist party. Neither is a friend to the traditional values crowd (LDS hyper patriotism included). Now tell me where is the groundswell of units being chartered to accommodate gay youth, and the gay activist organizations sponsorship of those groups, to replace the chartered organizations who have withdrawn from the Scouts because they are not consistent with their values? I can tell you what has happened in our council (not Utah). None, nada, zip, zilch... No new units sponsored by secular organizations. No gain in membership due to new more open policies on membership. Those who sought to impose their values on a private organization despite the Supreme Court decision in Dale vs. Boy Scouts have not stepped up to provide services to youth. They just sought to make the BSA in their own likeness without contributing to the BSA in significant fashion. Edited July 28, 2015 by KevinG 1
KevinG Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Is there a prohibition against lesbian leaders for the Young Women? Is there a policy against gay men leaders for the Young Men? What does the handbook say? If there are already policies in place then it seems like a pretty easy decision. I doubt there are express policies on Lesbianism and callings... but due to recent events you can darn well believe they are being considered. There have always been, and always should be the ability of private organizations to choose their leadership criteria.
ERayR Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 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. All the BSA is doing is trying to straddle the fence. Eventually all that will do is get them a sore crotch. 1
KevinG Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 One of his friends said, "It's OK. The bleach cooks out." Um, I don't think so. Thank goodness it wasn't cooking wine! 2
KevinG Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 I would have volunteered, but they wanted couples, and my wife was having some health issues. Put her in the cart for realism! 2
mtomm Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) I doubt there are express policies on Lesbianism and callings... but due to recent events you can darn well believe they are being considered. There have always been, and always should be the ability of private organizations to choose their leadership criteria. The part I bolded makes me wonder why we have a multiple page thread about this subject then. And if there is no policy about Lesbiansim, how come? Have we only been concerned about the young men? Edited July 28, 2015 by mtomm
ttribe Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 The part I bolded makes me wonder why we have a multiple page thread about this subject then. Because it's the Internet, and arguing is what we do. [There I go trying to get humor in...uh oh.]
KevinG Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 The part I bolded makes me wonder why we have a multiple page thread about this subject then. Its the "should be" that is being challenged by gay rights organizations, and I no longer believe that is a slippery slope argument given how fast we're travelling down the slide at the moment. Once again see the quote from Lambda that Smac provided for some contect.
jkwilliams Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 If you're willing, PM me the details. I have an open mind. Nah, I shouldn't have brought it up in the first place.
rockpond Posted July 28, 2015 Author Posted July 28, 2015 Section 134 admonishes us to befriend the sort of government the Constitution protects. It doesn't say we have to trust that others will do so when they clearly don't have the reverence for it that we do. And we didn't go after gay rights groups. We went after gays and marital rights. Before that we fought against housing rights for them. Section 134 repeatedly speaks to protecting free exercise of conscience.
Recommended Posts