rockpond Posted July 29, 2015 Author Posted July 29, 2015 I totally agree. To add, its also so important, perhaps more so, for our children to see the loving, caring, respectful devotion we show to our wives so that they too have a positive pattern to learn and follow to. Our greatest teaching we have with youth is our examples of who we should be and act accordingly so that the youth see it and pattern their lives in similar fashion. That's a great pattern for straight youth. It doesn't really help the gay youth in our wards.
rockpond Posted July 29, 2015 Author Posted July 29, 2015 I don't believe children are gay. And this is why we can't have an intelligent conversation on this topic. 1
jkwilliams Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 Not sure where you are going here but you cannot preach morality if you yourself are not moral by church standards. So, you're saying that other churches' scouting programs need to accept LDS church standards? 3
jkwilliams Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 That's a great pattern for straight youth. It doesn't really help the gay youth in our wards. gmta
KevinG Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 I have a dear friend who lives with his male partner in a loving, loyal relationship. I have not seen fit to ask him to follow my brand of morality and give up his life to become a Mormon. He supports my lifestyle and has no desire to teach my children anything differently about our family beliefs on marriage and sexuality. We disagree on some items. We both respect each others differences. Neither of us pressures the other to be anything but what we are. The bulk of our friendship and shared values is more important than causing a rift by making a single issue more important than all others. He is in every sense an honorary uncle to my children and one of my closest friends since childhood. I continue to be astonished as to why our relationship would be considered respectful, but allowing large groups of people to retain their own identity and standards is bigotry? 2
jkwilliams Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 And this is why we can't have an intelligent conversation on this topic. I work with a lesbian woman who is one of the finest people I have ever known, definitely salt of the earth. She was telling me that the missionaries stop by sometimes because she feeds them. Not long ago, she said that, when she mentioned to an elder that she was gay, he asked, "Oh, when did that happen?" She laughed, but I think it represents the thinking Mormonmaniac is espousing.
Mormonmaniac Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 That's a great pattern for straight youth. It doesn't really help the gay youth in our wards.I am only there to teach how to attain godliness, not pander to immorality.
jkwilliams Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 I continue to be astonished as to why our relationship would be considered respectful, but allowing large groups of people to retain their own identity and standards is bigotry? IMO, the BSA's policy does exactly that: allows large groups of people to retain their own identity and standards. 3
Mormonmaniac Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 So, you're saying that other churches' scouting programs need to accept LDS church standards?No, I am saying that up until Monday, the BSA program upheld church principles. Now it doesnt. In our church the organizations we are affiliated with such as the BSA need to run in line with our standards and if they dont we walk away.
ERayR Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 Do you think a gay man would be OK with Scouts using pornography? Probably not but may not have had the conviction to address it in an LDS frame of reference. 1
rockpond Posted July 29, 2015 Author Posted July 29, 2015 No, I am saying that up until Monday, the BSA program upheld church principles. Ha. Now that's the funniest thing I've read all day!
Mormonmaniac Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 And this is why we can't have an intelligent conversation on this topic.I believe there may be a few rare cases but in general a persons sexual identity is a learned behavior based on past experiences combined with social pressures.
jkwilliams Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 I believe there may be a few rare cases but in general a persons sexual identity is a learned behavior based on past experiences combined with social pressures. Even the church doesn't teach that. 3
Gray Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) So in essence its valid because you agree with it, or the majority of people outside the organization agree with it, or because its more modern a sensibility. And pressure in the form of shaming or legal extortion is moral because it is legal. Flip that for a moment and think what would happen to minority groups you agree with if we excused people from protesting, suing, pressuring, and protesting because it was legal and OK with the majority? That is exactly why the gay rights advocacy organizations were formed to protect gays from. So free speech (association) for me but not for thee is the mob rule of the majority. Don't assumed that kind of thinking is more enlightened in 2015 than it was in 1965, or 1945. I assume this is aimed at me. Certainly we in 2015 do a better job at avoiding the dehumanization of the other that was going on in 1910 (a decade before women had the right to vote). It was pretty common use dehumanizing language to describe people of a different race, religion or sexual orientation. All of those things have slowly fallen away. Some view that as progress, others view it as wickedness. I'm not sure why you think someone is stopping you from speaking your mind. Is your freedom of speech invalidated unless others are prohibited from disagreeing with you? I wouldn't dream of wanting to prohibit anyone from protesting, disagreeing with, sueing or otherwise putting pressure on others. That's how a free society works. Edited July 29, 2015 by Gray
rockpond Posted July 29, 2015 Author Posted July 29, 2015 I believe there may be a few rare cases but in general a persons sexual identity is a learned behavior based on past experiences combined with social pressures. Like I said...
Gray Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 I have a dear friend who lives with his male partner in a loving, loyal relationship. I have not seen fit to ask him to follow my brand of morality and give up his life to become a Mormon. He supports my lifestyle and has no desire to teach my children anything differently about our family beliefs on marriage and sexuality. We disagree on some items. We both respect each others differences. Neither of us pressures the other to be anything but what we are. The bulk of our friendship and shared values is more important than causing a rift by making a single issue more important than all others. He is in every sense an honorary uncle to my children and one of my closest friends since childhood. I continue to be astonished as to why our relationship would be considered respectful, but allowing large groups of people to retain their own identity and standards is bigotry? What do you mean? Everyone is free to retain their own standards and identity.
jkwilliams Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 Ha. Now that's the funniest thing I've read all day! Yep, covering up abuse is not in line with LDS standards.
KevinG Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 No, I am saying that up until Monday, the BSA program upheld church principles. Now it doesnt. In our church the organizations we are affiliated with such as the BSA need to run in line with our standards and if they dont we walk away. Ha. Now that's the funniest thing I've read all day! Well, MM did forget to say "in theory". Having taught Boy Scouts for over a quarter century I'd argue that one primary benefit of Scouting is allowing boys to cut, tie up, and burn things in an environment that won't cause damage to home and church. Seriously, having a standard on sexuality that does not conform with popular culture is not necessarily bigoted or narrow minded. It could be that the BSA and LDS BSA troops in particular want to perpetuate what they feel is safe conduct for boys, and they want examples of people living that safe conduct to teach boys. You as an individual have the right to disagree with what safe conduct means, but you do not have the right to dictate your standards to that group. The problem is not that those who disagree petitioned for change, it is that when changes are made to accommodate differences, continued pressure is put on until accommodation becomes a demand for assimilation. If we remember that the BSA is a volunteer program, with no critical services provided that other organizations cannot reasonably provide, then why not let them have their own beliefs, outmoded or not?
Gray Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) Well, MM did forget to say "in theory". Having taught Boy Scouts for over a quarter century I'd argue that one primary benefit of Scouting is allowing boys to cut, tie up, and burn things in an environment that won't cause damage to home and church. Seriously, having a standard on sexuality that does not conform with popular culture is not necessarily bigoted or narrow minded. It could be that the BSA and LDS BSA troops in particular want to perpetuate what they feel is safe conduct for boys, and they want examples of people living that safe conduct to teach boys. You as an individual have the right to disagree with what safe conduct means, but you do not have the right to dictate your standards to that group. The problem is not that those who disagree petitioned for change, it is that when changes are made to accommodate differences, continued pressure is put on until accommodation becomes a demand for assimilation. If we remember that the BSA is a volunteer program, with no critical services provided that other organizations cannot reasonably provide, then why not let them have their own beliefs, outmoded or not? You seem to be forgetting that the BSA voluntarily chose to make these changes. No one forced them to do anything. By your own definition of "dictate" aren't you now trying to dictate how BSA should run it's organization? And the changes they made allowed for greater freedom for all its church-affiliated troops. A major victory for religious freedom. Edited July 29, 2015 by Gray
KevinG Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 Even the church doesn't teach that. The church doesn't teach "how" on a lot of things from evolution to sexuality. What we do teach is "why" we insist on some behaviors being acceptable and others being not acceptable. To keep this in perspective I wouldn't be thrilled with an open swearer, open drinker, or open smoker, leading my kids in Scouts. Fortunately the vast majority of leaders I know in the organization are polite enough to keep their less attractive behaviors closeted. On the other hand bold declarations that gay people are broken or hellbound make me feel like I'm defending the right of loudmouth louts to be heard. The rhetoric on both sides needs to be toned down. 1
jkwilliams Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 Well, MM did forget to say "in theory". Having taught Boy Scouts for over a quarter century I'd argue that one primary benefit of Scouting is allowing boys to cut, tie up, and burn things in an environment that won't cause damage to home and church. Seriously, having a standard on sexuality that does not conform with popular culture is not necessarily bigoted or narrow minded. It could be that the BSA and LDS BSA troops in particular want to perpetuate what they feel is safe conduct for boys, and they want examples of people living that safe conduct to teach boys. You as an individual have the right to disagree with what safe conduct means, but you do not have the right to dictate your standards to that group. The problem is not that those who disagree petitioned for change, it is that when changes are made to accommodate differences, continued pressure is put on until accommodation becomes a demand for assimilation. If we remember that the BSA is a volunteer program, with no critical services provided that other organizations cannot reasonably provide, then why not let them have their own beliefs, outmoded or not? No one is dictating anything to the BSA. They voted on a resolution because organizations within the BSA wanted the freedom to choose gay Scout leaders. Was there pressure from outside, as well as from within? Of course. By threatening to leave, the LDS church is also putting pressure on the BSA to "uphold church standards." Now, if the church really believes that the BSA is moving toward forcing troops to have gay leaders, then, yeah, they obviously couldn't accept that and should leave. I think that's never going to happen for a number of reasons, but it's not my church anymore, so if the church doesn't like having to deal with other troops having gay leaders, they can and should leave. It's a shame, I think, but if it's what the church wants. 1
jkwilliams Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 The church doesn't teach "how" on a lot of things from evolution to sexuality. What we do teach is "why" we insist on some behaviors being acceptable and others being not acceptable. To keep this in perspective I wouldn't be thrilled with an open swearer, open drinker, or open smoker, leading my kids in Scouts. Fortunately the vast majority of leaders I know in the organization are polite enough to keep their less attractive behaviors closeted. On the other hand bold declarations that gay people are broken or hellbound make me feel like I'm defending the right of loudmouth louts to be heard. The rhetoric on both sides needs to be toned down. I was simply pointing out that what was said is not in accordance with current church teachings on homosexuality.
KevinG Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 You seem to be forgetting that the BSA voluntarily chose to make these changes. No one forced them to do anything. By your own definition of "dictate" aren't you now trying to dictate how BSA should run it's organization? And the changes they made allowed for greater freedom for all its church-affiliated troops. A major victory for religious freedom. If by BSA you mean the temporary National officers who are concerned about PR and corporate donations, yes they chose. If by BSA you mean the chartered organizations, parents, and volunteers... No. They were not asked about this last change, and a plurality of them didn't support the last change. It was pressure from outside groups that enabled the change. The jury is still out if this is really a victory for religious freedom. Real lawsuits are being prepared by real lawyers calling the current compromise "unsustainable" and preparing to challenge it until they get full capitulation on the gay leader issue from Nationals. 2
ERayR Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 I was simply pointing out that what was said is not in accordance with current church teachings on homosexuality. What is your understanding of the Churches teachings on homosexuality?
KevinG Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 I was simply pointing out that what was said is not in accordance with current church teachings on homosexuality. I was providing context. Its all good. I truly am interested in having a thorough discussion about the issue and avoiding pithy but misleading soundbites. I don't think those are helping anyone's case.
Recommended Posts