Thinking Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 I think the church made the right decision. As I stated before,If the LDS Church is forced to appoint a gay man to be a scout leader, then I think it should break from the scouts. Leaving the scouts because other groups can choose a gay leader flies in the face of all the LGBT support propaganda that the LDS Church has released recently. The LDS Church has received assurances that it will be able to appoint its own scout leaders. By staying in scouting the LDS Church can provide a positive activity for young men. Allowing other groups to choose their leaders without the LDS Church threatening to leave will help with the positive PR that the LDS Church has been working so hard to acquire. 1
rockpond Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 Who said they are empty? In 1991 the General YM President threatened that the Church would leave the BSA over the issue of allowing gay scouts. Here we are, nearly 25 years later with gay scouts and leaders allowed and we haven't followed through on that threat. I've been hearing since the early 2000's that we're all set with a replacement program in place should the BSA decide to allow gays. The Church asks for the vote to be postponed. No dice. 63% of Utah Mormons say that they are ready to cut ties. Empty threats. That said, I do think that we will end our relationship with the BSA within the next two years (Scott can start a clock for that if he'd like). My guess is that the Brethren would like to move to our own internal program that better supports our mission. But I think they want such a change to be about the program itself and not viewed as a reaction to gay scout leaders.
KevinG Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 I think the church made the right decision. As I stated before, The LDS Church has received assurances that it will be able to appoint its own scout leaders. By staying in scouting the LDS Church can provide a positive activity for young men. Allowing other groups to choose their leaders without the LDS Church threatening to leave will help with the positive PR that the LDS Church has been working so hard to acquire. I would like to see a chaste gay man have the same opportunity as a chase straight man to serve our youth. I suspect I already have served with a few but no one made a stink about it or publicly disclosed their sexuality. I would also like to see our Young Women's programs adopt the Venture program for 14 and above for those Young Women who are interested. The Scouting Youth Protection programs are substantial enough to protect youth from predators if followed. I suspect the usual players will complain either way. 1
ERayR Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 That said, I do think that we will end our relationship with the BSA within the next two years (Scott can start a clock for that if he'd like). My guess is that the Brethren would like to move to our own internal program that better supports our mission. But I think they want such a change to be about the program itself and not viewed as a reaction to gay scout leaders. I agree. I think that it would have happened now but that there was a need for more time to finish development and implementation for a replacement program.
KevinG Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 I agree. I think that it would have happened now but that there was a need for more time to finish development and implementation for a replacement program. Duty to God has been used worldwide and in the USA for a decade. We already have that program. I just don't see us severing the relationship as long as we continue to control our own leadership selection standards. And many people might be surprised if a Bishop appointed a chaste gay man to a Scouting position, which is consistent with the Church policy as is. 2
TheSkepticChristian Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 I think it reads "we will continue the relationship as long as the BSA defends our right to select our own leaders, by our own standards". LOL So what happened to the gay Boy Scout alarmism? Scott Loyd? 1
Buckeye Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 LOL So what happened to the gay Boy Scout alarmism? Scott Loyd? Apparently the FP/Q12 decided to keep thinking inside the box. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65821-designing-a-church-based-replacement-for-scouting-thinking-outside-the-box/ 1
Scott Lloyd Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 (edited) Just before the other thread was closed rockpond posted this: I continue to believe that the MormonNewsroom.org release immediately following the BSA exec council vote was not properly vetted. Incredibly, after Michael Otterson's explicit address at the recent FairMormon Conference, which was discussed extensively on this board, rockpond continues to beat the sour-grapes "public-affairs-is-a-rogue-department" drum. Edited August 26, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Ahab Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 Just as long as they don't expect any of my money or any of my time, talents, or abilities to be devoted to the BSA, I will be fine. Oh heck, what am I saying, even if they do expect it I will be fine just not giving any.What you other guys do and pay for is your business. I just won't be wearing any BSA uniform or any BSA badges or going to BSA meetings. 1
KevinG Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 Just as long as they don't expect any of my money or any of my time, talents, or abilities to be devoted to the BSA, I will be fine.Oh heck, what am I saying, even if they do expect it I will be fine just not giving any.What you other guys do and pay for is your business. I just won't be wearing any BSA uniform or any BSA badges or going to BSA meetings. That is fine. You can have the ADD, ADHD boys for Sunday School, and I will supervise them with rope, fire, and knives!
Ahab Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 Just before the other thread was closed rockpond posted this:Incredibly, after Michael Otterson's explicit address at the recent FairMormon Conference, which was discussed extensively on this board, rockpond continues to beat the sour-grapes "public-affairs-is-a-rogue-department" drum.I think he was just trying to be funny.And he does know how to push your buttons, don't he.
Brian 2.0 Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 Just as long as they don't expect any of my money or any of my time, talents, or abilities to be devoted to the BSA, I will be fine.Oh heck, what am I saying, even if they do expect it I will be fine just not giving any.What you other guys do and pay for is your business. I just won't be wearing any BSA uniform or any BSA badges or going to BSA meetings. Did you before the change in policy? Just curious.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 (edited) LOL So what happened to the gay Boy Scout alarmism? Scott Loyd? It was not alarmism. The Church has never before in a public statement indicated so clearly that it was considering disassociation from Scouting. And even now, the relationship is tenuous and provisional. Note the "at this time" proviso. By the way, my last name takes two L's at the beginning. It is of Welsh derivation. Edited August 26, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
TheSkepticChristian Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 And even now, the relationship is tenuous and provisional. Note the "at this time" proviso. Sure, the world is coming to an end, let's prepare for the gay apocalypse LOL
Scott Lloyd Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 (edited) I have a really, really, hard time imagining very many people suing the Church because a bishop didn't call them to be the scout master. If it were to happen, I have a really, really, hard time imagining such a case getting any traction in the legal system.This has been discussed here before. It is conceivable that a sexually active homosexual man serving as a Scoutmaster would be detected and then released, whereupon he takes revenge by calling on the gay advocacy groups and their lawfare attorneys to go after the church of deep pockets of latter-day saints. And whether or not it were to gain traction, the very act of litigating would be a punitive action toward the Church. Edited August 26, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 2
KevinG Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 Sure, the world is coming to an end, let's prepare for the gay apocalypse LOL I'm not sure what that is but I'm guessing it would be FABULOUS!
Scott Lloyd Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 I think he was just trying to be funny.And he does know how to push your buttons, don't he.He can clarify if he wants, but I don't detect any humorous intent there. I think he was in dead earnest. Again, his statement was: I continue to believe that the MormonNewsroom.org release immediately following the BSA exec council vote was not properly vetted. 1
KevinG Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 This has been discussed here before. It is conceivable that a man serving as a sexually active homosexual man serving as a Scoutmaster would be detected and then released, whereupon he takes revenge by calling on the gay advocacy groups and their lawfare attorneys to go after the church of deep pockets of latter-day saints. And whether or not it were to gain traction, the very act of litigating would be a punitive action toward the Church. This has been discussed here before. It is conceivable that a man serving as a sexually active homosexual man serving as a Scoutmaster would be detected and then released, whereupon he takes revenge by calling on the gay advocacy groups and their lawfare attorneys to go after the church of deep pockets of latter-day saints. And whether or not it were to gain traction, the very act of litigating would be a punitive action toward the Church. As much as I would defend and advocate for a chaste gay man as a Scout Leader (and I suspect I have served with a few) this worries me too. Someone would be used as a wedge much like the "bake me a gay wedding cake" scenario for groups hostile to the Scouts in general. I still resent the way this decision came about and groups like Lambda threatening to continue suit against religious organizations. It will be completely defensible however, if the removal is consistent with removals of other leaders who broke serious covenants (which I have also seen done in my wards).
Scott Lloyd Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 I think this pretty much confirms that initial statement was probably a "rogue" comment from somebody in the Public Affairs department regardless of whether the Church backed up the misfire and denied that there was any "daylight". The initial comment was truly badly thought out.Incredible! 1
Scott Lloyd Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 This decision also aligns with what the Church News reported regarding the Church's position two weeks prior to the vote.CFR
Scott Lloyd Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 (edited) I suspect the initial reaction was not correlated with the First Presidency and Apostles like this announcement. It does seem like a knee jerk response to the slight the National Committee gave the LDS committee members when they voted without them. I on the other hand am confident the "initial reaction" reflected the thinking of the Brethren quite accurately at the time. Remember, Michael Otterson said Public Affairs has no private agenda. What probably happened in the meantime is that the BSA executives got in their corporate jet and flew to Salt Lake City to do some serious fence-mending (the "subsequent verbal assurances" mentioned in the statement). I believe they dodged a bullet, and they are not on perfectly solid ground even now (note the "at this time" proviso). Edited August 26, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 2
ERayR Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 Sure, the world is coming to an end, let's prepare for the gay apocalypse LOL Much hyperbole. You certainly have trouble with reading for comprehension. 1
carbon dioxide Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 Hopefully the Church will use this time as a transition period to start its own program. Outside of bishop, being called to a scouting position that I would not have a problem declining.
KevinG Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 Hopefully the Church will use this time as a transition period to start its own program. Outside of bishop, being called to a scouting position that I would not have a problem declining. That is fair. I wouldn't want a reluctant "volunteer" called to Scouting or to lead Young Women's activities. It takes some dedication, passion, and a bit of insanity to be a leader in those organizations. Scouts is one of the few places where non-Member volunteers are used by the Church to fill adult positions. However the recent lawfare exercised and threatened against religious sponsored BSA units could limit our ability to do so in the future. 2
ERayR Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 That is fair. I wouldn't want a reluctant "volunteer" called to Scouting or to lead Young Women's activities. It takes some dedication, passion, and a bit of insanity to be a leader in those organizations. Scouts is one of the few places where non-Member volunteers are used by the Church to fill adult positions. However the recent lawfare exercised and threatened against religious sponsored BSA units could limit our ability to do so in the future. I am thinking it takes a tad bit more than just a bit of insanity.
Recommended Posts