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

[KevinG]

I don't know of any policy on openly fornicating BSA leaders.  However the BSA requires character references on its application forms.  I highly doubt the LDS (Methodists, Baptists, Pastafarians, etc.) would supply chartered organization approval for anyone whose behavior or teachings did not conform to their own.

 

The difference is that no one has sued the BSA for the right to openly practice fornication, or advocate that fornication is not a sin, and insist on being hired as a professional scouter or used as a volunteer leader.  (To my knowledge... if anyone knows of such a case please correct me).

[ttribe]

The subject is openly homosexual adult leaders.

 

I heard the voice of Will Ferrell in character as Alex Trebek when I read this post.

[KevinG]

Oh, so you meant church standards about homosexuality. Fair enough. What you seemed to be saying was that the BSA aligned completely with church standards in all areas until now. I guess it's up to the church to decide if allowing other Scout troops to have gay leaders is a deal-breaker. I hope not.

 

I hope not too.  We will see if the differences are too great for the brethren to see a way to bridge them with the BSA.

 

If there is a split it will be heartbreaking for me.  An avid fan of Scouting as a tool for raising young men and women, as well as a hard headed Mormon.

[Russell C McGregor]

It's lame for the Church to make an issue out of this.

Thank you for your opinion.

But it's lame for the Church to talk all tough because Scouts finally said scout leaders can be gay. This reminds me, and I know people get annoyed by my perspective but oh well, of the priesthood restriction and the racist policies of the Church from many years ago. The Church talked tough sticking to false teaching in order to sale the guise of being led by Christ in all things.

Call for references, please. When and where did all this tough talking take place?

Keeping in mind that I remember the events of the mid to late 1970's rather well.

That's passé, these days. We can see through it now.

Your obligate cynicism is noted.

[jkwilliams]

I heard the voice of Will Ferrell in character as Alex Trebek when I read this post.

 

Or this. 

 

[Gray]

They vote with their volunteer hours and their feet.  The BSA at least polled membership about the last policy change.  This time Gates stood up and made a unilateral announcement that the agreed upon compromise wasn't sustainable, then changed policy at the National Level without input from volunteers.

 

I've mentioned this before.  I know the thread is long, but its kind of irritating hearing you argue points that were already answered several times.

 

 

Sure, everyone has a right to vote with their feet. Just as the BSA governing body has the right to set its own policies. 

[Gray]

Oh, so you meant church standards about homosexuality. Fair enough. What you seemed to be saying was that the BSA aligned completely with church standards in all areas until now. I guess it's up to the church to decide if allowing other Scout troops to have gay leaders is a deal-breaker. I hope not.

 

Heaven knows that a Lutheran scout troop should be forced to adopt LDS policies. That's only fair. 

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

That they "voluntarily chose to make these changes" is true only in the sense of choosing to comply or be driven out of existence by predatory litigation.

Assertions such as yours add insult to injury. I'm not buying it.

It reminds me of the statement attributed to the Mormon pioneers: "We left Nauvoo of our own free will because we were forced to."

Edited July 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Russell C McGregor]

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?

Google the word "jamboree."

[stemelbow]

Thank you for your opinion.

your welcome. There's more where that came from.

Call for references, please. When and where did all this tough talking take place?

Keeping in mind that I remember the events of the mid to late 1970's rather well.

I'm thinking more along the lines of the 40s and before. Although I think the 70s presents some pretty strong words that seem to have been heavily backed off on regarding homosexuality as well. So what are you CFR'ing here? Whether LDS leaders spoke roughly about black people and the black issue? or that LDS leaders spoke roughly about the gay issues?

I do believe there are plenty of both. Just need to know what you want.

Your obligate cynicism is noted.

Don't you forget it.

[stemelbow]

That they "voluntarily chose to make these changes" is true only in the sense of choosing to comply or be driven out of existence by predatory litigation.

CFR.

[jkwilliams]

Google the word "jamboree."

 

I've been to a couple of jamborees. The Bicentennial one we had when I was 12 was pretty great. 

 

So, what you're saying is that LDS Scouts would be forced to be around troops with gay leaders at jamborees or scout camps, and that would be a very bad thing. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Thank you for your opinion.

Call for references, please. When and where did all this tough talking take place?

Keeping in mind that I remember the events of the mid to late 1970's rather well.

.

As do I. Stemelbow is playing fast and loose with the facts.

[ERayR]

That they "voluntarily chose to make these changes" is true only in the sense of choosing to comply or be driven out of existence by predatory litigation.

Assertions such as yours add insult to injury. I'm not buying it.

It reminds me of the statement attributed to the Mormon pioneers: "We left Nauvoo of our own free will because we were forced to."

 

The sad thing is that the more they bow to these predatory pressures the faster they will decline.

[Scott Lloyd]

CFR.

I'm sitting in a conference typing on a handheld device, so it's not convenient right now.

But just search this thread for the quotes Smac97 has provided repeatedly from Gates, the BSA boss.

Then be careful not to repeat this tall tale about BSA "voluntarily choosing" to make the changes -- or swallowing it when others do so.

[jkwilliams]

The sad thing is that the more they bow to these predatory pressures the faster they will decline.

 

I guess I no longer see things in such cataclysmic terms. The acceptance of gay leaders isn't going to turn the Scouts into a gay pride parade, just as LDS exclusion of gay leaders does not make the organization bigoted. People adjust, and things go on. This too will pass.

[Scott Lloyd]

The sad thing is that the more they bow to these predatory pressures the faster they will decline.

Indeed. I've no doubt that's why the Church appears to be seriously considering severing ties now.

[KevinG]

The sad thing is that the more they bow to these predatory pressures the faster they will decline.

 

I see a parallel with the Confederate flag flap and NASCAR.  In an attempt to placate an audience that was unlikely to ever purchase a ticket to a NASCAR event, NASCAR alienated its core customers by asking them not to fly the Confederate Battle Emblem.

 

Sure, everyone has a right to vote with their feet. Just as the BSA governing body has the right to set its own policies. 

 

They have the legal right.  But is it the right thing to do to change long agreed upon standards, in opposition to the majority of the organizations volunteers, because of largely outside pressure, avoid lawsuits, and the desire to retain corporate donations?

 

Please try to separate opinions of support/opposition about Confederate Battle Emblems being shown in public or gays being able to lead scout troops from the issue of applying financial pressure and the threat of lawsuits in order to force social change on an organization from the outside.

 

For the record I do not support flying the confederate battle emblem as a state flag or as heritage.  I'm more of a Gadsen Flag redneck.

Edited July 29, 2015 by KevinG

[Scott Lloyd]

I guess I no longer see things in such cataclysmic terms. The acceptance of gay leaders isn't going to turn the Scouts into a gay pride parade, just as LDS exclusion of gay leaders does not make the organization bigoted. People adjust, and things go on. This too will pass.

"Turn Scouts into a gay pride parade."

That's a clever turn of phrase. And more prescient than you think. I have no doubt that is precisely what is contemplated by the juggernaut.

[KevinG]

CFR.

 

Asked and answered.  Read the thread.

 

(Sorry that is probably board nannying, but this consistent refusal to acknowledge existing factual information while chastising others for not providing the same information is really irritating). 

Edited July 29, 2015 by KevinG

[ttribe]

"Turn Scouts into a gay pride parade."

That's a clever turn of phrase. And more prescient than you think. I have no doubt that is precisely what is contemplated by the juggernaut.

 

Do you really mean that, or was this sarcasm?

[jkwilliams]

"Turn Scouts into a gay pride parade."

That's a clever turn of phrase. And more prescient than you think. I have no doubt that is precisely what is contemplated by the juggernaut.

 

Clever or not, I simply don't see the horrific consequences you do, such as porn in Boys' Life. Of course, I haven't checked my secret email for the latest from the gay agenda.

[Russell C McGregor]

That they "voluntarily chose to make these changes" is true only in the sense of choosing to comply or be driven out of existence by predatory litigation.

Assertions such as yours add insult to injury. I'm not buying it.

It reminds me of the statement attributed to the Mormon pioneers: "We left Nauvoo of our own free will because we were forced to."

It also reminds me of what happens every time someone is forced out of their job for the crime of having principles. The gay thought police, even while high-fiving each other, insist that "He wasn't fired! He chose to resign!!!"

[jkwilliams]

It also reminds me of what happens every time someone is forced out of their job for the crime of having principles. The gay thought police, even while high-fiving each other, insist that "He wasn't fired! He chose to resign!!!"

 

Would you be upset if someone were fired for discriminating against Mormons? 

[KevinG]

Clever or not, I simply don't see the horrific consequences you do, such as porn in Boys' Life. Of course, I haven't checked my secret email for the latest from the gay agenda.

 

But the vocal and determined opposition is not so secret...  A reminder from Smac's post yesterday:

 

 

"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." - Robert M. Gates, National BSA President

...

 

The Human Rights Campaign, a national LGBT-rights organization, said the Boy Scouts should not allow church-sponsored units to continue excluding gays.

"Discrimination should have no place in the Boy Scouts, period," said the HRC's president, Chad Griffin. "BSA officials should now demonstrate true leadership and begin the process of considering a full national policy of inclusion."

...

Kenneth Upton, a lawyer for the LGBT-rights group Lambda Legal, questioned whether the BSA's new policy to let church-sponsored units continue to exclude gay adults would be sustainable.

"There will be a period of time where they'll have some legal protection," Upton said. "But that doesn't mean the lawsuits won't keep coming. ... They will become increasingly marginalized from the direction society is going."