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

[Scott Lloyd]

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 would expect someone of average-or-better intelligence to understand the distinction between speaking for an entity and quoting someone else as doing so.

 

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.

 

Purporting to do something is one thing; having the ability, resolve and determination to deliver on that pledge is another.

 

Are you acquainted with Nate Oman's theory, linked to earlier on this board?

 

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.

 

What the Church said is that "any resolution" from the BSA "must affirm that right." The term must was directed outward to the BSA, or more specifically, any resolution passed by the BSA.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

I would expect someone of average-or-better intelligence to understand the distinction between speaking for an entity and quoting someone else as doing so.

Portending to do something is one thing; having the ability, resolve and determination to deliver on that pledge is another.

 

Are you acquainted with Nate Oman's theory, linked to earlier on this board?

 

What the Church's statement said is that any resolution from the BSA must affirm that right. The term must was directed outward to the BSA, or more specifically, any resolution passed by the BSA.

 

But your/CN's disclaimer doesn't say:  "We don't speak for the Church, we only quote those who do."  Your disclaimer says:  Church News is an official publication of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  There's a wide gap between what you are saying and the statement that accompanies your articles.

 

Yes, I discussed Nate Oman's theory with you.

 

I'm speaking factually about the vote -- it grants the church the ability to choose its leaders per its own standards.  And that is what the Church News article (an official publication of the church) said was necessary.

 

Your fear or the Brethren's possible fear of what may come is another matter.

[Jeanne]

You know I have only lived in Utah.  I love the Tooele Bulletin Newspaper (local) as well as my daily dose of the Herald Journal.  But when Tooele started sending portions of Deseret News with the Church News, I was kind of upset.  I mean, really upset.  I felt for my catholic neighbors and wondered what would happen if we got "Catholic News" or a JW pamphlet with each issue..then why not?  It is continuously shoved in people's faces when a paper should not do so.  Tooele Bulletin is good with different voices from different faiths in their religious portion..but to have a separate magazine once a week was a bit much..also advertising for Deseret News along with the faith.  Just my IMO.  It gets irritating when it starts to look like it is supposed to be important to everyone..or that the paper is only for the LDS.  To me, it takes some gall and no doubt some $$$ to do this.  I can just see the Trib NOT doing this!

[Scott Lloyd]

But your/CN's disclaimer doesn't say:  "We don't speak for the Church, we only quote those who do."  Your disclaimer says:  Church News is an official publication of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  There's a wide gap between what you are saying and the statement that accompanies your articles.

 

Being an official publication of the Church is not the same thing as speaking in behalf of it. Read any news story in the Church News. It will be full of attributions and quotations from others, as is the common practice in journalism. In fact, one of the characteristics we specifically check for in editing a news story is whether there is sufficient and appropriate attribution for the information being presented.

 

That would not be necessary if the Church News itself were to be regarded as speaking on its own authority for the Church.

 

Suppose I were to say: "Rockpond is giving a party next week to which any and all are invited."

 

That's not the same thing as saying, "Rockpond told me he is giving a party next week to which any and all are invited."

 

You would have less reason to question the credibility of the second statement than you would the first.

 

If you were taking a journalism course from me, I would have to be certain you understood this distinction before I would give you a passing grade.

 

 

Yes, I discussed Nate Oman's theory with you. I'm speaking factually about the vote -- it grants the church the ability to choose its leaders per its own standards.  And that is what the Church News article (an official publication of the church) said was necessary.

 

 

No, the Church News didn't say that. If anything, the Church News quoted the official news release from the Church -- with appropriate attribution.

 

And the news release says what it says. I have already quoted it above.

 

Here's an exercise for you: Look up the word attribution in a good dictionary.

 

 

Your fear or the Brethren's possible fear of what may come is another matter.

 

I believe it's well founded, particularly in light of the statements by gay advocacy groups that they don't intend to back off until they get everything they want.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

You know I have only lived in Utah.  I love the Tooele Bulletin Newspaper (local) as well as my daily dose of the Herald Journal.  But when Tooele started sending portions of Deseret News with the Church News, I was kind of upset.  I mean, really upset.  I felt for my catholic neighbors and wondered what would happen if we got "Catholic News" or a JW pamphlet with each issue..then why not?  It is continuously shoved in people's faces when a paper should not do so.  Tooele Bulletin is good with different voices from different faiths in their religious portion..but to have a separate magazine once a week was a bit much..also advertising for Deseret News along with the faith.  Just my IMO.  It gets irritating when it starts to look like it is supposed to be important to everyone..or that the paper is only for the LDS.  To me, it takes some gall and no doubt some $$$ to do this.  I can just see the Trib NOT doing this!

So you're saying readers of the Transcript Bulletin are now getting the Deseret News National Edition bundled with it? What a wonderful benefit for them! That means interested readers can have this extra content at no additional cost to them, while those who are not interested can merely drop it in the recycling bin.

 

But apparently, if you had your way, no Transcript Bulletin subscriber would receive it, even if they wanted it. In effect, you would make the decision for perhaps hundreds -- maybe thousands -- of other subscribers.

 

That doesn't strike me as very fair.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

Being an official publication of the Church is not the same thing as speaking in behalf of it. Read any news story in the Church News. It will be full of attributions and quotations from others, as is the common practice in journalism. In fact, one of the characteristics we specifically check for in editing a news story is whether there is sufficient and appropriate attribution for the information being presented.

 

That would not be necessary if the Church News itself were to be regarded as speaking on its own authority for the Church.

 

Suppose I were to say: "Rockpond is giving a party next week to which any and all are invited."

 

That's not the same thing as saying, "Rockpond told me he is giving a party next week to which any and all are invited."

 

You would have less reason to question the credibility of the second statement than you would the first.

 

If you were taking a journalism course from me, I would have to be certain you understood this distinction before I would give you a passing grade.

 

 

 

No, the Church News didn't say that. If anything, the Church News quoted the official news release from the Church -- with appropriate attribution.

 

And the news release says what it says. I have already quoted it above.

 

Here's an exercise for you: Look up the word attribution in a good dictionary.

 

I believe it's well founded, particularly in light of the statements by gay advocacy groups that they don't intend to back off until they get everything they want.

 

I'm referring to the Church News article that was published two weeks prior to the vote.  I don't know how to find it now because there's so much interference to a google search.  Maybe you can find it so we can clarify what was quoted.

 

I'm curious, what is the point of stating (on each article) that you are an "official publication of the church" if what you really mean is "we don't speak for the church"?

 

Aside from that question, I understand that you feel the church will separate from the BSA and I'm confident I understand your reasons for that conclusion.  I also completely believe that a majority of church members would like the church to make that split.  That certainly matches the impression I get from my circle of friends & family.  So I am not questioning the poll.  But, I assume you and I both agree that the Brethren don't make decisions by popular vote of members.

 

Hopefully you understand, at this point, my reasoning as to why I don't think the church will make the split at this time.  Not that you agree, just that you understand.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm referring to the Church News article that was published two weeks prior to the vote.  I don't know how to find it now because there's so much interference to a google search.  Maybe you can find it so we can clarify what was quoted.

 

I'm curious, what is the point of stating (on each article) that you are an "official publication of the church" if what you really mean is "we don't speak for the church"?

 

Before I answer that question, please answer this one: At the FairMormon Conference held Aug. 6-7, were the presenters there speaking for and in behalf of the Church?

 

Aside from that question, I understand that you feel the church will separate from the BSA and I'm confident I understand your reasons for that conclusion.  I also completely believe that a majority of church members would like the church to make that split.  That certainly matches the impression I get from my circle of friends & family.  So I am not questioning the poll.  But, I assume you and I both agree that the Brethren don't make decisions by popular vote of members.

 

Hopefully you understand, at this point, my reasoning as to why I don't think the church will make the split at this time.  Not that you agree, just that you understand.

 

 

I've avoided making any prediction as to what the Church will do in this matter.

 

As for your reasoning about it not making the split at this time, it appears to be based on the assumption that the Church is ashamed of or wants to back away from its expression of displeasure over the recent BSA action. As I've said, I don't believe that's the case.

[Ahab]

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.

Uh oh! 30 years already?

When you retire soon how are we going to get the inside information you give us?

Please tell whoever replaces you that reporting to us is just a part of that job. And ask them to use your username and avatar too so we won't even know when you are gone.

Hopefully he or she will have all of the quirks that you do too, which begs the question...

[Scott Lloyd]

Uh oh! 30 years already?

When you retire soon how are we going to get the inside information you give us?

Please tell whoever replaces you that reporting to us is just a part of that job. And ask them to use your username and avatar too so we won't even know when you are gone.

Hopefully he or she will have all of the quirks that you do too, which begs the question...

I won't be retiring soon.

 

I was about to elaborate, but I'll forebear.

 

Edited to add:

 

As for my username and avatar, maybe they could become an institutional icon, like "Dear Abby."

 

We're on our second Abby now. The first one, Pauline Phillips, retired, and then she died in 2013.

 

Her daughter now writes the column.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

Before I answer that question, please answer this one: At the FairMormon Conference held Aug. 6-7, were the presenters there speaking for and in behalf of the Church?

 

I've avoided making any prediction as to what the Church will do in this matter.

 

As for your reasoning about it not making the split at this time, it appears to be based on the assumption that the Church is ashamed of or wants to back away from its expression of displeasure over the recent BSA action. As I've said, I don't believe that's the case.

 

I haven't reviewed the list of presenters at the Fair Mormon conference nor have I reviewed what they said.  But, given the disclaimer that Fair Mormon has on their website I would be confident in saying "no".  With the possible exception of Bro. Otterson standing up and saying, basically, that he speaks for the Church.

 

I guess you haven't understood my reasons.  Primarily, I don't think that this vote is enough of a problem for the Church that the Brethren will decide to end its BSA affiliation.  They will still get to choose straight and celibate gay leaders as they have always done.  I also know that President Monson loves scouting so I have a hard time believing that it will end during his watch.  There have been threats about leaving the BSA and a "substitute program" ready since the 90's... and yet it hasn't happened.  There are logistical/pragmatic problems with terminating our BSA involvement when boys are mid-stream to Eagle.  And, finally, I tend to think that our Leaders will not want to have the Church associated with pulling out of scouts over the issue of gay leaders.

 

Those are my reasons.  I love the program.  I loved it even when I disagreed with their policies relating to LGBT members.  I love it even though they are not particularly considerate of LDS troops here outside of the Mormon corridor where we are a minority.  It's tough and it is a challenge to get my boys through all of the requirements.  My life would be easier without it.  And yet, I am still sad at the thought of it NOT being a part of their youth.

[Scott Lloyd]

Before I answer that question, please answer this one: At the FairMormon Conference held Aug. 6-7, were the presenters there speaking for and in behalf of the Church?

 

I've avoided making any prediction as to what the Church will do in this matter.

 

As for your reasoning about it not making the split at this time, it appears to be based on the assumption that the Church is ashamed of or wants to back away from its expression of displeasure over the recent BSA action. As I've said, I don't believe that's the case.

 

I haven't reviewed the list of presenters at the Fair Mormon conference nor have I reviewed what they said.  But, given the disclaimer that Fair Mormon has on their website I would be confident in saying "no".  With the possible exception of Bro. Otterson standing up and saying, basically, that he speaks for the Church.

 

I've got to run, so I'll only respond to this part of your post and make the point I was going to.

 

I agree that the FairMormon speakers do not speak for the Church -- with the possible exception this time of Michael Otterson, who in fact is employed to speak for the Church. Arguably, his FairMormon speech might be considered as being on behalf of the Church, although I would even question that under these circumstances.

 

But what about Cassandra Hedelius, who spoke on "Mormon Gnosticism," or Daniel C. Peterson, who gave "A Barebones Secular Argument for the Gospel"?

 

We agree that neither could be regarded as speaking for the Church. Nor do any of the other conference speakers. In fact, FairMormon itself gives a disclaimer to the effect that they don't.

 

Yet I have reported the FairMormon speeches of Otterson, Hedelius and Peterson in the Church News within the past two weeks (Dan's talk will be reported in this Saturday's print edition, and that report is already online; see the thread I just started). Under your reasoning, they would now have to be regarded as speaking for the Church, since their presentations were reported in the Church News, even though you and I agree that they don't, in fact, speak for the Church. That puts you in a classic dilemma.

 

The only way to escape the dilemma is for you to acknowledge what I have been trying to get across: that the Church News can be an official publication of the Church without being regarded as speaking for the Church on its own authority. This is a simple enough concept to grasp if you regard the Church News as a journalistic publication that quotes and attributes information to others in a traditional journalistic style. In that, it is distinguished from, say "Mormon Newsroom" on lds.org that presents the official position of the Church, with or without attribution.

[Rain]

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.

I've always understood the point. I've just not found it useful in my life and it irritates me. It's great if it helps others.

[Rain]

You know I have only lived in Utah. I love the Tooele Bulletin Newspaper (local) as well as my daily dose of the Herald Journal. But when Tooele started sending portions of Deseret News with the Church News, I was kind of upset. I mean, really upset. I felt for my catholic neighbors and wondered what would happen if we got "Catholic News" or a JW pamphlet with each issue..then why not? It is continuously shoved in people's faces when a paper should not do so. Tooele Bulletin is good with different voices from different faiths in their religious portion..but to have a separate magazine once a week was a bit much..also advertising for Deseret News along with the faith. Just my IMO. It gets irritating when it starts to look like it is supposed to be important to everyone..or that the paper is only for the LDS. To me, it takes some gall and no doubt some $$$ to do this. I can just see the Trib NOT doing this!

I've lived in the south where the baptists had a huge presence. It never would have occurred to me to think those kind of things. My thought would be, "baptist news. We have lots of baptists here. Makes sense."

[ERayR]

I won't be retiring soon.

 

I was about to elaborate, but I'll forebear.

 

Edited to add:

 

As for my username and avatar, maybe they could become an institutional icon, like "Dear Abby."

 

We're on our second Abby now. The first one, Pauline Phillips, retired, and then she died in 2013.

 

Her daughter now writes the column.

 

Or maybe "The Dread Pirate Roberts".

[Ahab]

I've always understood the point. I've just not found it useful in my life and it irritates me. It's great if it helps others.

Baffled. Something tells me you really don't understand the point even though you say you do.

The point is that Jesus would want us to do what he would do and that is to do what our Father would also do too. They want us to do what they would do given the same situation and circumstances. It's along the same line as following the Prophet, who while acting as the Prophet is doing and saying what Jesus would do and say and is actually doing and saying by acting through/as a Prophet of God.

But go ahead and be irritated if you want to be irritated as if that is what Jesus would do or want you to do.

[rockpond]

I've got to run, so I'll only respond to this part of your post and make the point I was going to.

I agree that the FairMormon speakers do not speak for the Church -- with the possible exception this time of Michael Otterson, who in fact is employed to speak for the Church. Arguably, his FairMormon speech might be considered as being on behalf of the Church, although I would even question that under these circumstances.

But what about Cassandra Hedelius, who spoke on "Mormon Gnosticism," or Daniel C. Peterson, who gave "A Barebones Secular Argument for the Gospel"?

We agree that neither could be regarded as speaking for the Church. Nor do any of the other conference speakers. In fact, FairMormon itself gives a disclaimer to the effect that they don't.

Yet I have reported the FairMormon speeches of Otterson, Hedelius and Peterson in the Church News within the past two weeks (Dan's talk will be reported in this Saturday's print edition, and that report is already online; see the thread I just started). Under your reasoning, they would now have to be regarded as speaking for the Church, since their presentations were reported in the Church News, even though you and I agree that they don't, in fact, speak for the Church. That puts you in a classic dilemma.

The only way to escape the dilemma is for you to acknowledge what I have been trying to get across: that the Church News can be an official publication of the Church without being regarded as speaking for the Church on its own authority. This is a simple enough concept to grasp if you regard the Church News as a journalistic publication that quotes and attributes information to others in a traditional journalistic style. In that, it is distinguished from, say "Mormon Newsroom" on lds.org that presents the official position of the Church, with or without attribution.

Nope. No dilemma. Obviously when you are quoting someone you aren't speaking on behalf of the Church.

However, if you publish a statement about the church or quote church spokespeople as an "official publication" of the church, you are clearly speaking on behalf of the church. If you don't want people to make such a conclusion than you ought to stop touting yourselves as an official publication of the Church. It's misleading. Though "spin" does seem to be an increasingly important part of church employees' jobs. I don't envy you that.

Fortunately, I still believe in that archaic model of the Prophet being the Lord's mouthpiece so I take everything that the Church News and Mormon Newsroom say with a grain of salt.

[Rain]

Baffled. Something tells me you really don't understand the point even though you say you do.

The point is that Jesus would want us to do what he would do and that is to do what our Father would also do too. They want us to do what they would do given the same situation and circumstances. It's along the same line as following the Prophet, who while acting as the Prophet is doing and saying what Jesus would do and say and is actually doing and saying by acting through/as a Prophet of God.

But go ahead and be irritated if you want to be irritated as if that is what Jesus would do or want you to do.

I get it. I understand it. I have understood it since I first heard it. The concept is simple. I'm fine if others want to use it. While I totally agree with the idea behind it I just don't like how it is expressed.

[Ahab]

I get it. I understand it. I have understood it since I first heard it. The concept is simple. I'm fine if others want to use it. While I totally agree with the idea behind it I just don't like how it is expressed.

So how do you figure out what you should do? Whose standards do you strive to uphold? Don't you think you at least subconsciously ask yourself what God would do or have you do in at least some situations?

What do you think God would do in regards to the BSA situation, for example? Don't you think you should do what God would do in regards to the BSA organization? What do you have against the idea of wanting to do what you think God would do in regards to the BSA organization? Do you thinking the Church is already doing what God would do or wants it to do in that regard, or do you think the Church should make some changes in its relationship with it? How do you even begin to think about what you should do in this situation?

[Stone holm]

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.

You nailed. Church leaders said some pretty harsh things against those who were of African descent.

 

No race bait derails.

[Stone holm]

P

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.

So it depends on your opinion of what the Church is likely to do?

[rockpond]

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

 

And less than three hours later, referring to the Church possibly disengaging from Scouting...

 

I've avoided making any prediction as to what the Church will do in this matter.

 

Okay.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Clearly, it's provoked almost entirely because the BSA has allowed individual units to hire scoutmasters that reflect the values of the individual units--which would mean that some units allow gay leaders.

 

I wonder if some non-LDS units allow unmarried leaders living with a woman, if they do, then I wonder why the church didn't say anything about that.

Edited August 21, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[KevinG]

I wonder if some non-LDS units allow unmarried leaders living with a woman, if they do, then I wonder why the church didn't say anything about that.

 

They should not have.  I'd be very surprised to find any Bishop allowing someone who could not partake of the sacrament to lead Scouts.  This is not the first time I've heard this speculation in reference to gay scout leaders.  Has anyone ever known of such a situation?

 

Edit:  Whoops!  Misread you.

 

I would still be surprised to see any church sponsored unit using someone co-habitating as a leader.  Does anyone know of any?

Edited August 21, 2015 by KevinG

[TheSkepticChristian]

I would still be surprised to see any church sponsored unit using someone co-habitating as a leader.  Does anyone know of any?

 

I am talking about the boy scouts in General, not LDS units. The LDS church will never allow leaders that are not living the law of chastity.

 

The church said something about the Boy Scouts when they decided to allow gay leaders, but if the Boy Scouts allows leaders that are co-habitating, the church didn't say anything about that.  

Edited August 21, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Sleeper Cell]

I wonder if some non-LDS units allow unmarried leaders living with a woman, if they do, then I wonder why the church didn't say anything about that.

 

I doubt that the LDS church even knows the names of the leaders of all of the non-LDS units, let alone who they are living with.  A better question would be whether BSA has a policy that explicitly allows unmarried leaders to live with their girlfriends.  

 

BTW, would you be OK with such a provision?