Poll: Majority Of Utah Mormons Want Lds Church To Leave The Boy Scouts

[Calm]

What I could see happening, is the Brethren waiting a year or more and then, when all this controversy has settled down, announcing that we are transitioning to a new in-house version of scouting that is more adaptable to all our youth.  That way, the focus can be on the new program, rather than on the gay issue.

You don't think the media won't connect the two just because there is a year between? And Prop 8 is still being brought up, how many years has that been? Or that the Church won't continue to make comments about religious freedom that will be immediately connected with the LGBT political issues?

[jkwilliams]

You don't think the media won't connect the two just because there is a year between? And Prop 8 is still being brought up, how many years has that been? Or that the Church won't continue to make comments about religious freedom that will be immediately connected with the LGBT political issues?

 

Of course the connection will be made because it is the issue, isn't it? I think a lot of members were surprised by the backlash because of Prop 8, and it seemed that the church was treading a more careful path since then. But the BSA announcement gets the church right back into it.

[Ahab]

I have not liked it either. First, because I am not Jesus so I shouldn't necessarily do what he does. His mission in life is way different than mine. A better question would be, "What would Jesus have me do?"

Secondly, if I knew the answer to the question I wouldn't have to ask myself what he would do. It is easy to answer "should I steal this candy bar?" It is not so easy to answer, "what would Jesus do about my brother who is addicted to heroin?"

Again, the point is to try to think of and do what Jesus would do...in the same situation and circumstances that you (or the person applying the WWJD paradigm) are given.

So while asking What Would Jesus Have Me Do? is a better way to phrase the question and apply the paradigm it basically the same question.

Ans it helps to think of how Jesus submitted to the secular authorities of his days in mortal life than creating and stirring up anarchy or rebellion against those authorities. He didn't do anything wrong, even though he could have blown everybody up to kingdom come and imposed his own authority.

[Scott Lloyd]

Of course the connection will be made because it is the issue, isn't it? I think a lot of members were surprised by the backlash because of Prop 8, and it seemed that the church was treading a more careful path since then. But the BSA announcement gets the church right back into it.

Whether the Church was treading "a more careful path" is very much a subjective judgment. It has never backed away from the public position that homosexual behavior is wrong and that, as pertaining to marriage, "sin, even if legalized by man, is still sin in the eyes of God."

 

The mormonsandgays website was created to address the issue of some Church members, contrary to counsel from the Church, kicking their family members with SSA out of the house, rendering them homeless and making them vulnerable to drug abuse, prostitution and other evils.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Again, the point is to try to think of and do what Jesus would do...in the same situation and circumstances that you (or the person applying the WWJD paradigm) are given.

So while asking What Would Jesus Have Me Do? is a better way to phrase the question and apply the paradigm it basically the same question.

Ans it helps to think of how Jesus submitted to the secular authorities of his days in mortal life than creating and stirring up anarchy or rebellion against those authorities. He didn't do anything wrong, even though he could have blown everybody up to kingdom come and imposed his own authority.

It's not the same question. There is a distinct difference between "What would Jesus do?' and "What would Jesus have me do?"

[Scott Lloyd]

You don't think the media won't connect the two just because there is a year between? And Prop 8 is still being brought up, how many years has that been? Or that the Church won't continue to make comments about religious freedom that will be immediately connected with the LGBT political issues?

 

Truth be told, the Church outgrew BSA a long time ago. It does nothing for Church units outside North America, which now constitute the majority. This latest issue provides the Church a convenient way out and an opportunity to make a firm statement that it won't be cowed into going along with societal whims.

 

There is nothing to be gained by postponing the decision.

 

That's the view from here, anyway, with the caveat that I am not making any predictions.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Ahab]

It's not the same question. There is a distinct difference between "What would Jesus do?' and "What would Jesus have me do?"

Read for comprehension of what I wrote in that post. I explained that the point is to try to do what Jesus would do in the same situation and circumstances.

[rockpond]

This is strictly unsubstantiated third-hand rumor, but I heard something was coming this week, as early as yesterday.

 

Cool.  I went ahead and posted to my facebook page that "someone from Deseret News told me that an announcement would be published this week".  

[rockpond]

You don't think the media won't connect the two just because there is a year between? And Prop 8 is still being brought up, how many years has that been? Or that the Church won't continue to make comments about religious freedom that will be immediately connected with the LGBT political issues?

 

The connection will always be made.  It's just a matter of how much traction and attention it will get.

 

I tend to agree with Scott that the church has outgrown the BSA.  But I think that the longer the church waits to make the announcement of a split, the more successful they can be in turning the focus to it being about the new program rather than about gays.  And I think that the Brethren would prefer a change be seen as being driven by a new program rather than concerns with gay leaders.

[Stone holm]

I think there is a difference between what amounts to idle speculation on a message board and actively agitating for change in opposition to the Brethren. YMMV

So a poll to see if the Church should ordain women to the Priesthood, or allow them to attend the Priesthood Session of General Conference would be no different than this poll concerning BSA?

[Stone holm]

Ark steadiers.  

Ah yes, but it depends on whose ox is being gored. Its alright to push the Church to speed up its separation from BSA through polls, and advocating based on the polls. And that is not steadying the ark, but to do that on other issues like letting women attend the General Priesthood Conference.... well...

[Stone holm]

Of course the connection will be made because it is the issue, isn't it? I think a lot of members were surprised by the backlash because of Prop 8, and it seemed that the church was treading a more careful path since then. But the BSA announcement gets the church right back into it.

Of course its the issue. The BSA policy change in no way requires the Church to appoint gay leaders. But since we don't want other BSA Chartered Organizations to appoint gay leaders, we leave the BSA and start are own program. Even though this has primarily become an issue in America, Canada has had a similar policy for years. As an interesting anecdote, we used to have a Bishop who publicly expressed his desire to have the Church dump BSA and extolled having the YM implement a program similar to the activities program for the YW. During his relatively long term as Bishop our Ward basically didn't have a Scouting program. I thought he was wrong at that time, but now the issue is somewhat moot because some years after his term as Bishop, one of his sons stood up at Fast and Testimony and came out as gay. About 6 months after that he followed his wife and family out of the Church. Interesting irony I always felt.

[Scott Lloyd]

Read for comprehension of what I wrote in that post. I explained that the point is to try to do what Jesus would do in the same situation and circumstances.

Still not the same thing. What Jesus might do under certain circumstances might not be appropriate for us to do.

 

"What would Jesus have me do?" zeroes in with precision on the point to be made.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

So a poll to see if the Church should ordain women to the Priesthood, or allow them to attend the Priesthood Session of General Conference would be no different than this poll concerning BSA?

It would be quite different. On this the prophets have no spoken and on your examples they have. If the prophet has spoken the thinking has been done.

[Scott Lloyd]

The connection will always be made.  It's just a matter of how much traction and attention it will get.

 

I tend to agree with Scott that the church has outgrown the BSA.  But I think that the longer the church waits to make the announcement of a split, the more successful they can be in turning the focus to it being about the new program rather than about gays.  And I think that the Brethren would prefer a change be seen as being driven by a new program rather than concerns with gay leaders.

But that would not be true.

 

The Church cannot unsay what's been said. And it has made a strongly worded public statement about being "deeply troubled" over the latest action by BSA and that said action has caused the Church to reexamine its relationship with BSA.

[Scott Lloyd]

So a poll to see if the Church should ordain women to the Priesthood, or allow them to attend the Priesthood Session of General Conference would be no different than this poll concerning BSA?

Nehor has already addressed this, but i will affirm that there would be a fundamental difference in that responding yes to such a poll would be at odds with clear and strong statements that have been made by the Church leadership.

[Scott Lloyd]

Ah yes, but it depends on whose ox is being gored. Its alright to push the Church to speed up its separation from BSA through polls, and advocating based on the polls. And that is not steadying the ark, but to do that on other issues like letting women attend the General Priesthood Conference.... well...

More sour grapes.

 

Ordaining women to the priesthood is not the least bit likely to ever happen.

 

Disengaging from Scouting, on the other hand, does appear likely at this point.

 

Edited to add:

 

Admitting women to the priesthood session is all but a non-issue. Other than a physical presence in the building, which doesn't make substantial difference in this day and age, women have just as ready access to the priesthood session as do men.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

 

 

Admitting women to the priesthood session is all but a non-issue. Other than a physical presence in the building, which doesn't make substantial difference in this day and age, women have just as ready access to the priesthood session as do men.

 

My stake leaders would disagree. Our boundaries are pretty big and so stake conference is broadcast to some chapels. The stake is happy with anyone who attends, but prefers that we physically gather to the stake center if at all possible. There's something extra when you're literally together rather than just watching the same broadcast.

[rockpond]

But that would not be true.

 

The Church cannot unsay what's been said. And it has made a strongly worded public statement about being "deeply troubled" over the latest action by BSA and that said action has caused the Church to reexamine its relationship with BSA.

 

The Church has a long and rich history of backing away from (and even, sometimes, attempting to "unsay") statements that we are unhappy with or with which we no longer agree.

 

And, recall, that the Church News published a much softer statement saying that the Church just needed to be able to choose its own leaders per its own standards.

[Scott Lloyd]

The Church has a long and rich history of backing away from (and even, sometimes, attempting to "unsay") statements that we are unhappy with or with which we no longer agree.

 

There is no evidence that I can see that the Church regrets in any way its expression of displeasure over the recent action by the BSA.

 

And, recall, that the Church News published a much softer statement saying that the Church just needed to be able to choose its own leaders per its own standards.

 

The Church News does not speak in behalf of the Church, although it does quote Church leaders or other Church spokesmen or spokeswomen as doing so. That might not be an important distinction to you, but it is to me.

 

And if you're referring to the earlier statement the Church made in reaction to the proposal to alter the policy, I didn't get the same impression of it you did. It struck me as a warning that the Church would not be backed into a corner or made to capitulate on the matter of choosing its own leaders in accordance with its own standards. As I recall, the verb that was used was "must," which is about as imperative as verbs get.

 

Edited to add:

 

Here is the July 13 news release as pubished on "Mormon Newsroom" on the Church website:

 

“As a chartering organization, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has always had the right to select Scout leaders who adhere to moral and religious principles that are consistent with our doctrines and beliefs.  Any resolution adopted by the Boy Scouts of America regarding leadership in Scouting must continue to affirm that right.”

 

 

 

Notice the use of the word must, and notice that it is directed not toward the Church itself but toward "any resolution adopted by the Boy Scouts of America regarding leadership in Scouting."

Edited August 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

The Church News does not speak in behalf of the Church...

 

Really?  In the online version, each article comes with the following statement:

 

The LDS Church News is an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The publication's content supports the doctrines, principles and practices of the Church.

 

I think most people would read that as a statement the the Church News does, in fact, speak on behalf of the church.  My old CES supervisor considered the Church News to be living scripture (he told us as much in an inservice meeting) and my father-in-law seems to feel that we are heretical for not subscribing and having it delivered to our house in paper form.

 

But you write for the Church News... who reviews/approves your articles?

 

And if you're referring to the earlier statement the Church made in reaction to the speech Gates made when he presented the proposal to alter the policy, I didn't get the same impression of it you did. It struck me as a warning that the Church would not be backed into a corner or made to capitulate on the matter of choosing its own leaders in accordance with its own standards. As I recall, the verb that was used was "must," which is about as imperative as verbs get.

 

Sometimes I wonder if you just express disagreement with me out of habit.  

 

The part I bolded above is basically the same thing I said in my post:  that the church insisted on being able to choose it own leaders according to its own standards.

 

And the BSA vote still grants that ability to the church.

[Scott Lloyd]

Really?  In the online version, each article comes with the following statement:

 

The LDS Church News is an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The publication's content supports the doctrines, principles and practices of the Church.

 

I think most people would read that as a statement the the Church News does, in fact, speak on behalf of the church.  My old CES supervisor considered the Church News to be living scripture (he told us as much in an inservice meeting) and my father-in-law seems to feel that we are heretical for not subscribing and having it delivered to our house in paper form.

 

The Church News, as a journalistic publication, does not speak for the Church, but rather, quotes others as doing so in interviews, speeches, public statements, events, written works, etc.

 

But what do I know? I only spend half of my waking hours five days a week working for the Church News. I have only done so for the past 30 years as of this past Aug. 5. I perhaps should defer to you and your erstwhile CES supervisor, whoever that is. The two of you obviously are more acquainted with the nature of the publication than I.

 

 

But you write for the Church News... who reviews/approves your articles?

 

My editor. This does not change in the least what I have said above. And it's really peripheral to the matter of what the Church was saying in the statement you allude to.

 

 

 

Sometimes I wonder if you just express disagreement with me out of habit.  

 

The part I bolded above is basically the same thing I said in my post:  that the church insisted on being able to choose it own leaders according to its own standards.

 

Did you read my post, the part I added where I quoted the "Mormon Newsroom" statement? It used the imperative word must, and it referred to "any resolution adopted by the Boy Scouts of America."

 

 

And the BSA vote still grants that ability to the church.

 

I doubt that it can continue to do so effectively and permanently. Apparently, the Church itself doubts that also.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Ahab]

Still not the same thing. What Jesus might do under certain circumstances might not be appropriate for us to do.

"What would Jesus have me do?" zeroes in with precision on the point to be made.

You're getting stuck on semantics, Scott.

I agree that is a better way to ask the question but the incorrectly or imprecisely phrased question still seeks the same goal.

"What would Jesus do if he were in exactly the same situation and circumstances that I am in now?" The goal in that paradigm is to do what he would do if he were in exactly the same situation and circumstances. What he would do then is what we should do. If he would pray to find out, then we should too.

[Scott Lloyd]

My stake leaders would disagree. Our boundaries are pretty big and so stake conference is broadcast to some chapels. The stake is happy with anyone who attends, but prefers that we physically gather to the stake center if at all possible. There's something extra when you're literally together rather than just watching the same broadcast.

And undoubtedly for that reason, since the priesthood session of general conference is designed to be a gathering of priesthood holders, the Church invites said priesthood holders to physically gather together, even as it makes the content of the session readily available to others.

 

If there's an event that I know I deliberately haven't been invited to but I'm interested in what goes on there, if the content and goings-on at that event are freely accessible to me -- in real time and without restriction -- I'm going to be content, even though I can't be physically present.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

The Church News, as a journalistic publication, does not speak for the Church, but rather, quotes others as doing so in interviews, speeches, public statements, events, written works, etc.

 

But what do I know? I only spend half of my waking hours five days a week working for the Church News. I have only done so for the past 30 years as of this past Aug. 5. I perhaps should defer to you and your erstwhile CES supervisor, whoever that is. The two of you obviously are more acquainted with the nature of the publication than I.

 

My editor. This does not change in the least what I have said above. And it's really peripheral to the matter of what the Church was saying in the statement you allude to.

 

 

Did you read my post, the part I added where I quoted the "Mormon Newsroom" statement? It used the imperative word must, and it referred to "any resolution adopted by the Boy Scouts of America."

 

I doubt that it can continue to do so effectively and permanently. Apparently, the Church itself doubts that also.

 

I'm not questioning your position with the Church News.  Do you understand how the average member might read that statement that accompanies the Church News articles of you and others?  That it IS an official publication of the church and, as such, I think most would assume that, as such, it speaks for the Church.

 

I saw your note about the word "must".  And the vote does give the Church the ability to choose its own leaders according to its own standards.

 

Now, you and the church can doubt the BSA's ability to guarantee that moving forward.  But, the BSA resolution does give the ability that the Church said it MUST have.