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

[sunstoned]

Having openly gay scout leaders is pretty much the same thing as having probation officers being drug dealers also. Just completely the wrong path to take.

This is really over the top. I am glad that this opinion is not supported by the leadership of the church.

[canard78]

Neither of these developments is particularly surprising.

Well, the second one might be, to those who are expecting the Church of Jesus Christ to cave in on same sex "marriage," but not to those who understand LDS life and teaching.

No, not surprising at all these days. The homophobia is too strong to expect any other response than this.

The first half of this paragraph made me guffaw though:

As a global organization with members in 170 countries, the Church has long been evaluating the limitations that fully one-half of its youth face where Scouting is not available. Those worldwide needs combined with this vote by the BSA National Executive Board will be carefully reviewed by the leaders of the Church in the weeks ahead.”

Sure you were... uhuh... nope, don't believe you.

[sunstoned]

Extremely doubtful. Members who are actively involved in scouting through our charter know the importance of leaders with a very very high moral character.

yes, and that is why many would continue with scouting. 

[mormonnewb]

It is also probable that many members would defect and stay with scouting. 

 

I would hope so, but I somehow doubt it.  My wife and I decided earlier today that our son won't be participating in LDS scouting (if such a thing should come to be), but I think most members will just "go with the program."  For one, it's just easier.  You don't have to try to find a new troop, and then arrange for carpooling with people who might not live very close to you.  Second, I think that most members will be energized by the "us against the world" mentality.  After all, this is what they've been promised their entire lives -- a time when the Church will be "under attack."  Everyone wants to think they are living in the end times.  The idea that the world will continue just fine without us is a tremendous blow to the ego.  WE are the culmination of this unfolding human drama.  HF has been saving His best for last.  Heck, if the designers can come up with a fancy enough uniform, we ALL might start wearing it.

[Mormonmaniac]

This is really over the top. I am glad that this opinion is not supported by the leadership of the church.

Well, it seems like they are highly disappointed. Perhaps what you see as over the top is actually spot on!

[Mormonmaniac]

I would hope so, but I somehow doubt it.  My wife and I decided earlier today that our son won't be participating in LDS scouting (if such a thing should come to be), but I think most members will just "go with the program."  For one, it's just easier.  You don't have to try to find a new troop, and then arrange for carpooling with people who might not live very close to you.  Second, I think that most members will be energized by the "us against the world" mentality.  After all, this is what they've been promised their entire lives -- a time when the Church will be "under attack."  Everyone wants to think they are living in the end times.  The idea that the world will continue just fine without us is a tremendous blow to the ego.  WE are the culmination of this unfolding human drama.  HF has been saving His best for last.  Heck, if the designers can come up with a fancy enough uniform, we ALL might start wearing it.

It really appears from all of your posts that you disagree with much of what church leaders say, so yeah, its no wonder you wouldnt participate

[why me]

Nowadays, if one is gay, one should wear it on their shoulder. One must give it publicity even infront of children. I suppose that we all should wear our sexuality on our shoulder. Make an announcement that we are hetero, gay, lesbian, transgendered, transexual etc. Back in the day, we didn't need to wear our sexuality on our shoulder. But now we do. Why? For gays and lesbians it has much to do with identity politics and power as a group identity. But this also true for other identity groups pretaining to race. And we also see this in mormon subgroupings. Society is being divided by race, sexuality, sex and religion. We have sub communities at the expense of the greater community of human beings.

 

Thus, we have gays as scot leaders. However, the scots have had gay men lead them before. The difference was that they didn't wear it on their shoulder. But neither did hetero men. All were just guys doing their part.

 

The United States is a divided society. And it seems to be getting worse. I don't see hope for the better but I do see change. But is this change heading the country in a positive direction?

Edited July 28, 2015 by why me

[thatjimguy]

In the Book of Mormon, the Savior prophesies that latter-day America will become the most wicked nation on the face of the earth, bar none.

 

What chapter should I be studying to read this? Thanks.

[mormonnewb]

Extremely doubtful. Members who are actively involved in scouting through our charter know the importance of leaders with a very very high moral character.

 

We are definitely not members of the same church because in my Church, there is no guarantee that scout leaders are of very very high moral character.   I know that to be true because MY first calling in the Church was to work with the young men, and I was put through the scouting training/background checks.  As a recent convert, my bishop had no assurance of my very very high moral character.  Prior to being a Mormon, I would drink, smoke, chew and went with girls that do.  Even as a Mormon, I am prone to "loud laughter," I have a limited supply of white shirts and oh yeah, I lie for a living.  In short, if I am indicative of the very very high moral character that you seem to believe is possessed by all LDS scout leaders, we all need to say our prayers tonight.

 

In short, while there are a great many saints of admirable character, we probably shouldn't paint with such a broad brush.  If the saints ever were perfect, that ended on May 8, 2011 when I was confirmed as a member of the Church.

[mormonnewb]

Nowadays, if one is gay, one should wear it on their shoulder. One must give it publicity even infront of children. I suppose that we all should wear our sexuality on our shoulder. Make an announcement that we are hetero, gay, lesbian, transgendered, transexual etc. Back in the day, we didn't need to wear our sexuality on our shoulder. But now we do. Why? For gays and lesbians it has much to do with identity politics and power as a group identity. But this also true for other identity groups pretaining to race. And we also see this in mormon subgroupings. Society is being divided by race, sexuality, sex and religion. We have sub communities at the expense of the greater community of human beings.

 

Thus, we have gays as scot leaders. However, the scots have had gay men lead them before. The difference was that they didn't wear it on their shoulder. But neither did hetero men. All were just guys doing their part.

 

The United States is a divided society. And it seems to be getting worse. I don't see hope for the better but I do see change. But is this change heading the country in a positive direction?

 

I must confess that I'm guilty here of being divisive because I wear my heterosexuality not just on my shoulder, but right in the middle of my forehead.  I talk about my wife and our four sons in front of groups of hundreds (sometimes thousands).  While I never get into the specifics, I think it's reasonable to assume that I have some biological connection with my boys because I constantly talk about how handsome they are (just like their daddy).

 

I don't know why I feel this need to proclaim my heterosexuality so widely.  I probably should be more circumspect and simply say that "my mate and I raise four children of indeterminate biological origin."  No one needs to know that Mrs. Newb is a "she" and that I'm attracted to women.  Why do I keep bombarding people with my heterosexuality?  Just to be divisive, I'd guess.

Edited July 28, 2015 by mormonnewb

[why me]

I must confess that I'm guilty here of being divisive because I wear my heterosexuality not just on my shoulder, but right in the middle of my forehead.  I talk about my wife and our four sons in front of groups of hundreds (sometimes thousands).  While I never get into the specifics, I think it's reasonable to assume that I have some biological connection with my boys because I constantly talk about how handsome they are (just like their daddy).

 

I don't know why I feel this need to proclaim my heterosexuality so widely.  I probably should be more circumspect and simply say that "my mate and I raise four children of indeterminate biological origin."  No one needs to know that Mrs. Newb is a "she" and that I'm attracted to women.  Why do I keep bombarding people with my heterosexuality?  Just to be divisive, I'd guess.

However, gay men have led in the boys scouts. As have hetero men. If a hetero man is single, do they talk about their exwives and children? Many are quite private in such doings. Also, you could be bisexual? Should you make an announcement about it to your troop? So, I do think that you are off base in your post. We are talking about kids. What should kids know about your sex life or if you are gay, hetero or bi? Is it necessary? Remember we are dealing with the boy scouts and not an adult bowling team.

 

Also, there are gay men who have been married to women and have children. Should they make an announcement that they are gay to their troop? Why do so? Should a hetero male make an announcement to their troop that they were once gay? Much better just to be a human being and leave labels home.

 

However, I do know that you enjoy labeling people mainly by race. However, I prefer to see the human being and not the sex, the sexuality or the race. We need to see ourselves not as gay or straight, black, brown, white etc. but a part of a human family. No society can survive well when we are labelled by something or another and as such, be divided.

 

But thank you for your confession.

Edited July 28, 2015 by why me

[mormonnewb]

However, I do know that you enjoy labeling people mainly by race. However, I prefer to see the human being and not the sex, the sexuality or the race. We need to see ourselves not as gay or straight, black, brown, white etc. but a part of a human family. No society can survive well when we are labelled by something or another and as such, be divided.

 

But thank you for your confession.

 

But don't you see that it is the Church, once again, doing the labeling?  BSA says that, regardless of sexual orientation, people should be allowed to serve as scout leaders.  It is the Church that says, "Wait a minute!  Before someone serves as a scout leader (for even other people's kids), we must know that they are straight."

 

Do you honestly not see that it is the Church that is making their sexual orientation an issue and not the would-be gay scout leader?  Do you think the Church would accept such a person so long as they lied (or kept quiet) their sexual orientation?

[Bobbieaware]

What chapter should I be studying to read this? Thanks.

10 And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them. (3 Nephi 16)

In the early decades of the Restored Church. the General Authorities taught that the above prophecy is referring spevifically to the United States. Given the reality of this prophecy, it's incredibly naive for LDS Church members to not be concerned about the very real possibility that many formerly sound and cherished institutions, such as the Boy Scouts of America, could be corrupted and transformed to wicked purposes by the adversary and his earthly agents. Underestimating the cunning of the devil is never a good idea.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[busybee]

In a church that teaches the law of chastity as sexual relations only between a man and a woman, it doesn't make sense to have an actively practicing gay person being their overseer and role model, even if they would be equally or more qualified to teach a scout troop.

Sorry but I read this as 'actively PRANCING gay person' I giggled 

[busybee]

My husband will be devastated if the church pulls out of Scouts.  We have three boys who want to get their Eagle and he loves volunteering.  He earned a higher rank in the military because he had his Eagle.  I highly doubt the military would honor an LDS equivalent of it. 

Just because the church may be pulling out of Scouting doesn't mean that you husband and boys can't join your local troop and reach their goals. Surely it would be a good thing for your husband to continue to volunteer. They need good role models.

[CV75]

I guess to split hairs but openly gay could mean they acknowledge they are gay but don't have sex, just like me I am openly straight but I don't have sex

It certainly could mean that with enough of a stretch—and I thought it was too obvious to even address—but I don’t think that is what the Church statement means when it uses the term “openly.”

 

Synonyms for “openly” include: publicly, for all to see, blatantly, flagrantly, brazenly, boldly, overtly, in full view; shamelessly, immodestly, wantonly…

 

So whatever your sexual orientation, being “openly” so in a BSA youth leadership setting would be inappropriate anyway, but for doctrinal purposes, tacit approval of such from the Church would be at odds with its teachings.

 

If the Church wanted to convey she meant to use "openly" as "acknowledgingly" she would have used "acknowledgingly." I think tehre is a big difference between what is conveyed between the two words.

[rockpond]

You are just trolling now.

Is your ignorance willfully?

Or did you join the church yesterday?

If you can't tell the difference between temptation and sin, you might want to step back a bit.

Have you ever been in a temple recommend interview that asked your orientation? I have never been asked if I liked girls or guys before serving in the scouts.

Not trolling. Not ignorant. And, certainly didn't join the church yesterday. I'm very familiar with the recommend questions. Have you been asked if you liked girls or guys since serving in the scouts?

You are claiming that "openly homosexual" means someone who "practices and promotes sexual relations between those of the same sex" but you have not yet provided any substantiation for such a definition by either our church or the BSA.

The Church's doctrinal position is that sexual orientation is not chosen. Faithful members can be open about having a homosexual orientation while maintaining full fellowship and even a temple recommend.

Further, since other churches believe that God affirms gay unions, they have gay members who do live moral lives under their religious beliefs. You disagree but that's why you are free to associate with an LDS troop. (Although, use caution, because you may just have a bishopric member who doesn't fully agree with your position on gays.)

[CV75]

I talk about my wife and our four sons in front of groups of hundreds (sometimes thousands).  While I never get into the specifics, I think it's reasonable to assume that I have some biological connection with my boys because I constantly talk about how handsome they are (just like their daddy).

But if you were a gay couple, the Church would not put you in a scout leadership postion because such talk runs contrary to the teachings on marriage--whetehr you considet that top be "open" about it or not.

[HappyJackWagon]

This meeting had been anounced for a month or longer so the church's unhappiness about the timing seems a bit misplaced. If they wanted to get board members to the meeting they could have. Claiming that they are all on vacation for the month of July is hardly a good excuse not to participate. 

 

BSA hasn't served the needs of a huge portion of the church for a very long time. I think the church is welcoming this as the wedge they need to disassociate from BSA. They've been planning on this for a while. Now they're floating this dissatisfaction out there to help prepare the church for an upcoming change.

[SmileyMcGee]

Scout camp, jamborees, merit badge councilors. . .

Not to mention the future versions of the scout handbooks.

Not all of us live with n Utah

And for most lds troops that will be 1-2 weeks out of the year...and during those weeks lds troops may interface maybe a few minutes to hours with a homosexual leader...and it's likely that the topic of the leader's sexuality won't even come up.

[Gray]

So, I'm confused, is this a victory for religious freedom or a sad day for religious freedom?

 

[smac97]

HJW,

> BSA hasn't served the needs of a huge portion of the church for a very long time.

==Agreed. Also, the scouting program is very expensive. I think it has been seen in the past as having benefits to Church members sufficient to justify the expense and effort associated with it, but that both the costs (not just financial costs, either) have been going up and the benefits have been going down.

==And now we see that on the day of the announcement of the policy change (BSA will no longer prohibits openly gay scoutmasters, but chartering organizations can apply their own policies for their units), the gay rights folks immediately threaten to continue their "lawfare" tactics until chartering organizations are compelled to capitulate on their beliefs and moral codes. I think the immediacy of this announcement is as significant, if not more so, that the announcement from the BSA.

> I think the church is welcoming this as the wedge they need to disassociate from BSA.

==I don't think "welcoming" is an apt characterization. I think the Church has cherished its association with the BSA. It will be a very, very sad day for the Church and for Scouting if and when such a dissociation occurs. But I think dissociation is becoming inevitable. The BSA has characterized the litigation costs it has faced as "staggering." And now that the BSA has partially capitulated to the groups inflicting those "staggering" costs, the immediate response from those groups is to . . . threaten to inflict even more litigation until the BSA utterly capitulates.

> They've been planning on this for a while.

==I think the Church has seen the way the wind could end up blowing for a while. But you seem to be characterizing the Church as eager to dump its relationship with the Scouts. I don't think that's right.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

I'm confused about the doctrines that would prevent gay men and women from serving in leadership positions in Scouting. The church already received assurances that they aren't mandated to accept gay leaders or Scouts, so I don't understand what the big deal is. 

[Storm Rider]

I'm confused about the doctrines that would prevent gay men and women from serving in leadership positions in Scouting. The church already received assurances that they aren't mandated to accept gay leaders or Scouts, so I don't understand what the big deal is. 

 

When I read the Church's statement the impression I had was that this created an opportunity to break away and create their own program that could serve all of the youth of the Church, which is not being achieved by the scouting program today. 

 

The Church is the biggest participant group in the BSA.  If I were them and I asked for a delay of one month before a major decision was made and it was ignored; I promise that I would not be happy.  When I am faced with a program that does not serve 1/2 of my people then there is a very real struggle maintaining a commitment to the program. 

 

Why would I stay?  Why would I continue to disenfranchise 1/2 of my youth participants that cannot participate?  Yeah, I guess I drop this like a hot potato and move on.  Regardless, once the Catholics and the Mormons leave the BSA along with other religious groups, the much, much smaller organization will be ready to begin expanding among their new target class of young men.  

[Buckeye]

I'm confused about the doctrines that would prevent gay men and women from serving in leadership positions in Scouting. The church already received assurances that they aren't mandated to accept gay leaders or Scouts, so I don't understand what the big deal is. 

 

Rationally-speaking, you are of course correct. This shouldn't be any different than other moral issues for which BSA national allows differing viewpoints. Camp counselors can smoke and drink despite LDS prohibitions. Some BSA units are affiliated with organizations that tolerate living together, even though LDS doctrine says no. And of course most BSA troops camp over Sundays. We've found ways to work with (and around) these issues for years. For instance, my LDS-affiliated troop will do swim checks a week before camp so we can arrive on Monday morning rather than Sunday afternoon for our camp. And while my boys see their counselors and camp staff drink coffee, none of them have questioned church doctrine because of it.

 

What's different with this issue is the overall environment and sense by church leaders that they are losing control. There is a snow-ball of acceptance of same-sex families is growing. SCOTUS rules, BSA changes policy, the media (even fox) largely supports same-sex families. A divide is growing between youth of the church (and especially young adults) and older generations. The leadership is unsure of how to keep the unity and is lashing out against BSA because it is the closest target.