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

[filovirus]

If it's appropriate for you to hold hands or put your arm around your wife, why isn't it appropriate for a gay couple to do the same thing? This is what I mean when I say the issue isn't about our sex lives but about who we are. One of my kids is about to get engaged, and they hold hands and even kiss in public, and no one thinks they are flaunting their heterosexuality. 

I think we're on a disconnect. I would like my son's scout leaders to uphold the values that would lead to temple sealings is all I am trying to say. And unfortunately, same sex couples cannot provide that if their actions are contrary to that goal.

 

The BSA and Mormon Church are deeply intertwined right now, to the degree that the LDS troops can teach their moral values to the kids. BSA just changed their moral values to a degree. The Church stands firm.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

What principles or morality are you talking about? The BSA decision gives individual churches full liberty to choose who to lead their troops. 

 

What more could any church want from the BSA?

Yup just keep saying that. Closing your eyes to the writing on the wall the Smac has posted at least 4 times in this thread. 

 

You people go to great lengths to ignore the obvious. The BSA no longer stands on principals and morals. With the recent ruling practicing homosexuals can now be leaders. That homosexual behavior is immoral. The church is standing for principals and morals. Why would you want to be part of an organization that has now shown it self to be bankrupt on this issue.

 

"

On my honor, I will do my best 

To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; 

To help other people at all times; 

To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight."

 

Oh except if you are gay then we don't care about being morally straight.

 

I'll just close my eyes and ask totally inane questions to draw attention form the obvious.

[Buckeye]

Nope, not spinning it as a delay tactic.  If the church is going to pull out of Scouts it will take a lot of discussion, work, and planning.

 

And I agree with you that it was an expression of displeasure with the BSA leadership.  I'm not sure why they think they've been treated discourteously... the vote was announced well in advance.  My understanding is that the three GA's that we have on the board did cast their votes (they were part of the 21% voting against the proposal).

 

Not to mention that the policy change was first presented over 2 years ago - in January 2013. It's simply incredible to believe that the FP/Q12 have not discussed the substance of the policy since then.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't see how it's standing on principals and morality at all.

OF course you don't. You and your friends seem blind to morality.

 

 

I am fully believing LDS I promise.

[jkwilliams]

I think we're on a disconnect. I would like my son's scout leaders to uphold the values that would lead to temple sealings is all I am trying to say. And unfortunately, same sex couples cannot provide that if their actions are contrary to that goal.

 

The BSA and Mormon Church are deeply intertwined right now, to the degree that the LDS troops can teach their moral values to the kids. BSA just changed their moral values to a degree. The Church stands firm.

 

That's why it's great that the BSA is giving churches and other sponsoring organizations the ability to set their own standards and values. I see that as a good thing. Obviously, I'm in a tiny minority here, but then I usually am. If the church doesn't want gay leaders, it shouldn't be forced to have gay leaders. If some other sponsoring organization is fine with gay leaders, they should be able to do that, too. 

[jkwilliams]

Yup just keep saying that. Closing your eyes to the writing on the wall the Smac has posted at least 4 times in this thread. 

 

You people go to great lengths to ignore the obvious. The BSA no longer stands on principals and morals. With the recent ruling practicing homosexuals can now be leaders. That homosexual behavior is immoral. The church is standing for principals and morals. Why would you want to be part of an organization that has now shown it self to be bankrupt on this issue.

 

 

I'm sure those principals must be getting a little sore with the church standing on them. I don't know, my principal in high school was quite obese, so it might be easier for someone like him.

 

Seriously, though, if the church is going to stand on principle, wouldn't it make more sense for it to stand when its own right to choose its Scout leaders is questioned? Is it a gospel principle to insist that other religions follow the same standards that the church does? 

[KevinG]

As for the Church staying on board for the short term I believe it could have a new program up and running sooner than you think. My hunch is that it already exists on paper, ready for implementation when necessary. It is probably greatly streamlined by comparison, so it wouldn't be necessary to replicate everything.

 

It already exists and has been running for a decade.  A few changes in the requirements to include outdoor skills that the BSA teaches and we're off to the races.

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/faith-in-god-for-boys/faith-in-god-award-requirements?lang=eng 

[stemelbow]

OF course you don't. You and your friends seem blind to morality.

 

 

I am fully believing LDS I promise.

All of my friends do? Which friends are you talking about anyway?

I certainly don't think anything is game if that's your impression. I think there are certainly lines to draw and should not be crossed. But I do agree we all kind of draw our own lines when we define morality. I rather liked Gray's questions to you, in response. I think he nailed it with those.

[Gray]

Yup just keep saying that. Closing your eyes to the writing on the wall the Smac has posted at least 4 times in this thread. 

 

You people go to great lengths to ignore the obvious. The BSA no longer stands on principals and morals. With the recent ruling practicing homosexuals can now be leaders. That homosexual behavior is immoral. The church is standing for principals and morals. Why would you want to be part of an organization that has now shown it self to be bankrupt on this issue.

 

"

On my honor, I will do my best 

To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; 

To help other people at all times; 

To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight."

 

Oh except if you are gay then we don't care about being morally straight.

 

I'll just close my eyes and ask totally inane questions to draw attention form the obvious.

 

Is someone forcing any Boy Scout troop to associate with gay people? Help me understand your problem with this. You seem really angry because other troops get to decide who to lead them. Do you think LDS troops should have control over what other denominations' troops do? 

 

The LDS Church lets gay people have leadership roles too. Do you think the LDS Church is morally bankrupt? 

Edited July 29, 2015 by Gray

[KevinG]

 The LDS Church is acting on behalf of its own religious YM program, as BSA is made compulsory in the LDS YM program. 

 

This is a common misconception.  The Scouting program is not compulsory.  It is not even required for LDS Youth to attend the Temple, Priesthood Quorums, or other youth activities.  It is the provided activity in most wards on 3/4 of youth nights.  Many wards run a parallel youth activity for boys not interested in Scouting.

 

This program:  https://www.lds.org/manual/faith-in-god-for-boys/faith-in-god-award-requirements?lang=eng has existed as a complement to or alternative to the Scouting program for a decade or more.

[Gray]

This is a common misconception.  The Scouting program is not compulsory.  It is not even required for LDS Youth to attend the Temple, Priesthood Quorums, or other youth activities.  It is the provided activity in most wards on 3/4 of youth nights.  Many wards run a parallel youth activity for boys not interested in Scouting.

 

This program:  https://www.lds.org/manual/faith-in-god-for-boys/faith-in-god-award-requirements?lang=eng has existed as a complement to or alternative to the Scouting program for a decade or more.

 

This is true. The Spanish wards in my stake don't tend to have a scouting program. It's just not a part of their culture. 

[ttribe]

I was thinking earlier: I have one boy left in Scouting proper; the other two are in their older teens. Will I want to encourage the younger boy to subscribe to Boy's Life magazine? Who knows what unpalatable ideas or even soft core porn will show up in there under the new order of things?

 

"Soft core porn?" In Boy's Life?  I guess I have to ask what you have in mind when using this phrase because, at first blush, this strikes me as an utterly bizarre concern.

[jkwilliams]

Is someone forcing any Boy Scout troop to associate with gay people? Help me understand your problem with this. You seem really angry because other troops get to decide who to lead them. Do you think LDS troops should have control over what other denominations' troops do? 

 

The LDS Church lets gay people have leadership roles too. Do you think the LDS Church is morally bankrupt? 

 

If I understand correctly, quite a few people believe the next step is that BSA will force the church to accept gay leaders. If the church really expects that, then that would be a valid reason for the church to leave Scouting. But the church's statement said only that it was unhappy about the timing and that the new policy is inconsistent with church doctrine and traditional values. I would hope they'll clarify because, at it stands, the church leaves the impression that they're upset that other churches get to set their own policies.

[Gray]

If I understand correctly, quite a few people believe the next step is that BSA will force the church to accept gay leaders. If the church really expects that, then that would be a valid reason for the church to leave Scouting. But the church's statement said only that it was unhappy about the timing and that the new policy is inconsistent with church doctrine and traditional values. I would hope they'll clarify because, at it stands, the church leaves the impression that they're upset that other churches get to set their own policies.

 

The old slippery slope fallacy.

 

I believe the next point on the slope is human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together. Followed by mass hysteria.

[stemelbow]

If I understand correctly, quite a few people believe the next step is that BSA will force the church to accept gay leaders. If the church really expects that, then that would be a valid reason for the church to leave Scouting. But the church's statement said only that it was unhappy about the timing and that the new policy is inconsistent with church doctrine and traditional values. I would hope they'll clarify because, at it stands, the church leaves the impression that they're upset that other churches get to set their own policies.

Yeah...it certainly feels like a defensive and reactionary response. I guess over the coming days or weeks the Church will soften it's disappointment. It also almost feels like the Church is using this as an excuse to move away from scouting.

Whatever the case, as I said, that response by the Church is just lame.

[KevinG]

The BSA National Officers punted...  They did not take a stand due to political and financial pressure.

 

Gates didn't even pretend to poll the organization's volunteers (where the bulk of resources come from out in the field) to see what they thought.

 

They didn't take a stand for or against the use of openly gay leaders.

 

They sat on the fence and let the individual chartered organizations take the brunt of the criticism and legal risk of setting their own policy.

[KevinG]

The old slippery slope fallacy.

 

I believe the next point on the slope is human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together. Followed by mass hysteria.

 

If you have asked me 25 years ago if the culture in general would consider homosexuality something to celebrate in popular culture I would not have believed you.

 

If you asked me ten years ago that the BSA would reverse their policy on homosexuality being included in morally straight I would not have believed you.

 

If you asked me three years ago if organizations like Lambda would have the gall to threaten suit to force religious organizations to admit gay leaders I would not have believed you.

 

Just last year I had people reassuring me that the BSA policy compromise on youth would satisfy gay rights activists who would not insist on gay leaders.

 

If the slope is really slippery its not a fallacy.  

[ttribe]

The old slippery slope fallacy.

 

I believe the next point on the slope is human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together. Followed by mass hysteria.

 

To be fair, I believe there's already one advocacy group saying they are disappointed the BSA isn't forcing all troops to follow the new policy.  So, while I generally dislike slippery slope arguments, there's at least some cause for concern in this case.

[Thinking]

To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight.

 

You do realize that when this was written the context of straight did not mean heterosexual?

 

Kind of like the the Flintstones theme song.

Flintstones. Meet the Flintstones.

They're the modern stone age family.

From the town of Bedrock,

They're a page right out of history.

Let's ride with the family down the street.

Through the courtesy of Fred's two feet.

When you're with the Flintstones

Have a yabba dabba doo time.

A dabba doo time.

We'll have a gay old time.

 

Unless of course...I won't go there.

[Gray]

To be fair, I believe there's already one advocacy group saying they are disappointed the BSA isn't forcing all troops to follow the new policy.  So, while I generally dislike slippery slope arguments, there's at least some cause for concern in this case.

 

If the BSA wanted to do that, it would be within their rights to do so. But I don't think that's a real possibility, not until most of its chartered church groups are on board with gay rights. 

[Gray]

If you have asked me 25 years ago if the culture in general would consider homosexuality something to celebrate in popular culture I would not have believed you.

 

If you asked me ten years ago that the BSA would reverse their policy on homosexuality being included in morally straight I would not have believed you.

 

If you asked me three years ago if organizations like Lambda would have the gall to threaten suit to force religious organizations to admit gay leaders I would not have believed you.

 

Just last year I had people reassuring me that the BSA policy compromise on youth would satisfy gay rights activists who would not insist on gay leaders.

 

If the slope is really slippery its not a fallacy.  

 

I would have believed all of those things. The 20th and 21st centuries have shown a long progression of greater expansion of rights to minorities. Prior to all of those expansions of rights has been the humanization in the media of formerly-dehumanized minority groups. 

 

However, the BSA has no motivation to force its largely conservative members to integrate troop leadership. It's found the perfect compromise with its latest decision. Only when a majority of its members are on board with integration would there be a realistic chance of the policy being binding on all troops. That will probably take another generation. By that time, LDS people will wonder what the big deal was in 2015. 

Edited July 29, 2015 by Gray

[longview]

Is someone forcing any Boy Scout troop to associate with gay people? Help me understand your problem with this. You seem really angry because other troops get to decide who to lead them. Do you think LDS troops should have control over what other denominations' troops do? 

 

The LDS Church lets gay people have leadership roles too. Do you think the LDS Church is morally bankrupt? 

Yes, there is a lot of "forcing" going on.  The activists are relentless.  They will keep persevering for years and decades.  Even if only a small microscopic gain is made, they keep on keeping on.  Give them an inch, they will take a mile.  The fact that separate groups will set their own policies will NOT keep everybody free of contamination.  If the bugler plays an uncertain note, won't the troop feel uncertainty?  This is a major diminishing of tradition of keeping the moral law and honoring God that has been the bulwark of the scouting movement.   Consider the consequence of a national Jamboree holding a mix of different philosophies?  It is not just a "slippery slope" but a relentless agenda of never ending increase of perversions and denial of God.

[KevinG]

Does anyone actually read the conversation in these threads...  After being answered I'm still seeing assume the following things that just aren't true:

- Scouts is compulsory for LDS young men.

- The 2013 policy had no drastic effect on Scout enrollments and chartering organizations

- Schools and Business are sponsoring Scout troops in any significant number

- The Scouts covered up abuse cases

- There is no credible threat of religious units being sued for not admitting gay leaders

- Private organizations values should be subject to public approval

- YM get more money than YW in the church programs

- Gays are more likely to molest boys under their stewardship

 

NONE of these things are demonstrably true.

 

When all the propaganda and misunderstanding is wiped away what were left with is this:

 

- Are private organizations allowed to set their membership standards for behavior and belief with reasonable assurance they are protected by the law?  It should not matter what those beliefs are as long as they don't infringe on others right of free assembly and speech.  

[KevinG]

 

You do realize that when this was written the context of straight did not mean heterosexual?

 

 

You do realize when this was written homosexuality along with a host of other behaviors was considered both sinful and a psychological disorder.

[Gray]

Yes, there is a lot of "forcing" going on.  The activists are relentless.  They will keep persevering for years and decades.  Even if only a small microscopic gain is made, they keep on keeping on.  Give them an inch, they will take a mile.  The fact that separate groups will set their own policies will NOT keep everybody free of contamination.  If the bugler plays an uncertain note, won't the troop feel uncertainty?  This is a major diminishing of tradition of keeping the moral law and honoring God that has been the bulwark of the scouting movement.   Consider the consequence of a national Jamboree holding a mix of different philosophies?  It is not just a "slippery slope" but a relentless agenda of never ending increase of perversions and denial of God.

 

Not all religious people turn a jaundiced eye toward gay people. Not all religious people think homosexuality is a sin. Even our own church has said that at least not acting on it is not sinful, but previous policies excluded people who were worthy even under LDS standards. 

 

No one has been forced to do anything here. You're mistaken about that.