L.d.s. Church To Stay With Scouting

[KevinG]

I am thinking it takes a tad bit more than just a bit of insanity.

 

Guilty as charged.

[Avatar4321]

Not really surprised here. As long as we have autonomy we have no reason to be concerned.

[Buckeye]

CFR

 

I think he means this one from July 13, 2015:

 

 

“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.”

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-comments-on-boy-scouts-of-america-resolution-on-adult-leader-standards

[Daniel2]

I wonder what will happen with the threats of "lawfare." We'll see, I suppose.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I hope someone tries to make good on their threat to attempt to sue the BSA over the current (and very fair-minded, IMO) policy, and I hope the BSA trounces the opposition and prevails with flying colors, including recouping all it's legal fees. 

 

It's a private organization and this compromise justly allows each unit the freedom and autonomy to select leaders that reflect their own values. 

 

While I support many of HRC's initiatives, it would be good to see HRC learn a little humility and remember that winning equality (as we've rightfully done, with marriage, and hopefully will, with regards to non-discrimination law) doesn't mean the right to force your views on private religious organizations who hold a different view.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Daniel2

[Buckeye]

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 teh statement). I believe they dodged a bullet, and they are not on perfectly solid ground even now (note the "at this time" proviso).

 

It's also possible that Otterson only vetted the "reaction" statement with the PR committee members, which does not include President Monson. PR wasn't itself rogue, but the PR committee - including a few apostles - wasn't exactly on the same page as the Prophet.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Buckeye

[Daniel2]

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.

 

Well said.  I agree.  I really can't think of any grounds that such a lawsuit would prevail.

[Kenngo1969]

That's interesting. The initial reactions was, "holy Schmolies, this is a huge problem. Them jerks slighted us".

now the reaction is, "nothing to worry about. everything's cool."

Interesting.

Nope, no oversimplification going on there.  And of course, you're privy to everything you need to know with respect to the relationship between the Boy Scouts of America and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  And it's not like the Church qualified its statement with caveats, or anything.  Yep, you're right.  It was an amazing about-face: Public Affairs and the Brethren sure have egg on their faces after this one.

[Daniel2]

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.

 

So you would decline a calling, if your bishop told you the Lord had called you to be a scout leader...?

[ERayR]

Well said.  I agree.  I really can't think of any grounds that such a lawsuit would prevail.

 

They don't have to prevail to be costly.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think he means this one from July 13, 2015:

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-comments-on-boy-scouts-of-america-resolution-on-adult-leader-standards

This has been quoted before, but he keeps talking about the Church News having reported something.

 

I'm thinking the above is all that was reported, but if so, why does he keep making an issue of it? This did not foreshadow today's announcement any more than it would have foreshadowed an announcement to the opposite effect.

[Daniel2]

They don't have to prevail to be costly.

 

Which is why, as I previously posted, I hope the BSA would be awarded any and all legal fees.

 

Heck--that's one campaign I'd be happy to donate to.

 

In fact, I think the whole national dialogue would highlight how the BSA's current policy really CAN be a win/win for all sides concerned, because this policy truly does respect equality for all views within the BSA.

 

I am curious to see how Scouts for Equality will proceed.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Daniel2

[Scott Lloyd]

It's also possible that Otterson only vetted the "reaction" statement with the PR committee members, which does not include President Monson. PR wasn't itself rogue, but the PR committee - including a few apostles - wasn't exactly on the same page as the Prophet.

I would be astounded to learn that something of this import would not have been fully reviewed by the entire First Presidency or, barring that, that the apostles would be so out of touch with the First Presidency's sentiments that they would go off half-cocked and issue something inconsistent with the views of the First Presidency.

 

From what I've observed of goings-on at Church headquarters over the past 30 years, the Church president and his counselors are not as insulated and hands-off as some here would like to believe.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

This has been quoted before, but he keeps talking about the Church News having reported something.

 

I'm thinking the above is all that was reported, but if so, why does he keep making an issue of it? This did not foreshadow today's announcement any more than it would have foreshadowed an announcement to the opposite effect.

 

I don't get the Church News. The "two week" timing is what made me think of this.

 

I think his point (and I agree) is that the July 13 statement suggests the Church would be okay with the BSA policy change so long as there was strong local control. That's quite similar to what the newsroom issued today. And quite different from the tone in the press release right after the vote, which expressly said the Church opposed the direction.

 

I can understand why so many members are confused by this back and forth.

[HappyJackWagon]

I would be astounded to learn that something of this import would not have been fully reviewed by the entire First Presidency or, barring that, that the apostles would be so out of touch with the First Presidency's sentiments that they would go off half-cocked and issue something inconsistent with the views of the First Presidency.

 

From what I've observed of goings-on at Church headquarters over the past 30 years, the Church president and his counselors are not as insulated and hands-off and some here would like to believe.

Is there some kind source that would inform us about the inner workings of the CoB? I'd be very interested if there is. So it's not a matter of what I would "like to believe" but I have no reason to think otherwise. It's all guess work and assumptions

[Buckeye]

I would be astounded to learn that something of this import would not have been fully reviewed by the entire First Presidency or, barring that, that the apostles would be so out of touch with the First Presidency's sentiments that they would go off half-cocked and issue something inconsistent with the views of the First Presidency.

 

From what I've observed of goings-on at Church headquarters over the past 30 years, the Church president and his counselors are not as insulated and hands-off and some here would like to believe.

 

The statement issued right after the vote says that the church was handicapped because so many people were on vacation. I'm not plugged in like you, but it doesn't strike me as impossible that the PR committee was sort of winging this one at the time. How else do you justify that statement's claims that the BSA policy change conflicts with church doctrine verses today's statement that we're still cool with BSA?

[ERayR]

The statement issued right after the vote says that the church was handicapped because so many people were on vacation. I'm not plugged in like you, but it doesn't strike me as impossible that the PR committee was sort of winging this one at the time. How else do you justify that statement's claims that the BSA policy change conflicts with church doctrine verses today's statement that we're still cool with BSA?

 

Did you read this part?

 

In the resolution adopted on July 27, 2015, and in subsequent verbal assurances to us, BSA has reiterated that it expects those who sponsor Scouting units (such as the Church) to appoint Scout leaders according to their religious and moral values “in word and deed and who will best inculcate the organization’s values through the Scouting program.” At this time, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will go forward as a chartering organization of BSA, and as in the past, will appoint Scout leaders and volunteers who uphold and exemplify Church doctrine, values, and standards.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't get the Church News. The "two week" timing is what made me think of this.

 

These days, you can read the Church News online for free. You don't have to wait for print copies to be mailed to you.

 

I think his point (and I agree) is that the July 13 statement suggests the Church would be okay with the BSA policy change so long as there was strong local control. That's quite similar to what the newsroom issued today. And quite different from the tone in the press release right after the vote, which expressly said the Church opposed the direction.

 

 

I think you are reading meaning into the initial statement that isn't there. I've discussed this before, but I saw the first statement as more of stern warning of what any BSA policy change "must" do. And even with that, I see no advance assurance or guarantee in it that any policy change would be acceptable.

 

I can understand why so many members are confused by this back and forth.

 

What members, and confused by what "back and forth"?

Edited August 26, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

Which is why, as I previously posted, I hope the BSA would be awarded any and all legal fees.

 

My (admittedly uneducated in this area and limited to internet searches) research that I posted awhile ago (if someone is curious) seemed to indicate that awarding legal fees to the defendant is not all that common in civil cases so I don't think BSA or any one else with a decent attorney would be approaching any lawsuits from that basis...which means some sort of settlement to avoid going to court even if they expect to win is much more likely to occur.

[Scott Lloyd]

The statement issued right after the vote says that the church was handicapped because so many people were on vacation. I'm not plugged in like you, but it doesn't strike me as impossible that the PR committee was sort of winging this one at the time.

The "PR committee" with its "rogue" apostles and General Authorities? Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? Did you even read Michael Otterson's recent FairMormon address?

 

How else do you justify that statement's claims that the BSA policy change conflicts with church doctrine verses today's statement that we're still cool with BSA?

 

I don't see in today's statement the ringing endorsement of recent BSA actions and policy changes that you seem to.

 

The implication that "verbal assurances" were required, and the proviso "at this time" indicates to me the BSA corporation got by this one by the skin of its teeth, and they are yet on tenuous ground. I think one more concession to the gay advocacy movement, coerced or not, would be quite enough to terminate the relationship for good.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

My (admittedly uneducated in this area and limited to internet searches) research that I posted awhile ago (if someone is curious) seemed to indicate that awarding legal fees to the defendant is not all that common in civil cases so I don't think BSA or any one else with a decent attorney would be approaching any lawsuits from that basis...which means some sort of settlement to avoid going to court even if they expect to win is much more likely to occur.

The fact of the matter is, the vast majority of lawsuits are settled out of court.

 

Which means more concessions to the gay advocacy movement. I think the Church has had a belly-full of that from the BSA as it is.

[KevinG]

The fact of the matter is, the vast majority of lawsuits are settled out of court.

 

Which means more concessions to the gay advocacy movement. I think the Church has had a belly-full of that from the BSA as it is.

 

 If we start paying more to lawyers than we put into the youth programs that could be a very good reason to cut and run.  A possibility that would likely encourage a group like Lambda, not discourage them, from filing a lawsuit.

 

I'm not going to kid myself that admission of chaste gay leaders was the final objective of the more radical LGBT groups.  Many of them would be happy to take shots at both the BSA and the LDS Church, who represent oppressive traditional values to them.

[Scott Lloyd]

Is there some kind source that would inform us about the inner workings of the CoB? I'd be very interested if there is. So it's not a matter of what I would "like to believe" but I have no reason to think otherwise. It's all guess work and assumptions

I can only give you my own observation from 30 years personal experiencing covering Church headquarters for a news publication owned by the Church. Call it "guesswork" if you like, but that doesn't make it so.

[Calm]

I'm not plugged in like you, but it doesn't strike me as impossible that the PR committee was sort of winging this one at the time.

 

 

So someone else mentioned that threats of terminating the relationship with BSA have been going on for quite sometime.  If there were that many years involved where the possibility has been seriously considered, it seems to me likely that there has been tons of discussions about it (given that it is the activity program for YM in the Church in the States and Canada at least) and that any senior leader is well aware of other senior leaders' opinion on the matter plus the leadership probably has a number of scenarios in planning based on current events that could easily be referred to.  

 

The idea that someone in top leadership jumped the gun and acted in contradiction to more senior leaders because they didn't know the opinions and desires of the more senior leadership seems rather ludicrous given the amount of time they spend consulting with each other over issues (and requiring that they come to a unanimous position).

 

While it sounds possible when first heard, comparing it to what we know about these men, how long they have been serving with each other and how the Quorum works...I just can't see it.

Edited August 26, 2015 by calmoriah

[TheSkepticChristian]

I'm not sure what that is but I'm guessing it would be FABULOUS!

 

Let me know when someone sues the church for not allowing openly gay leaders

 

Alarmism 

[rockpond]

This has been quoted before, but he keeps talking about the Church News having reported something.

 

I'm thinking the above is all that was reported, but if so, why does he keep making an issue of it? This did not foreshadow today's announcement any more than it would have foreshadowed an announcement to the opposite effect.

 

That July 13 statement was also published in the Church News (which is where I originally read it).

 

And, the July 13 statement is, in part, what led me to believe that the Church would stay with Scouting for now.

 

On the other hand, the July 27 statement, based on your comments here, seems to be what led you to erroneously think that the Church would disaffiliate with the BSA because of the recent vote.

 

I cite the contrast to support my belief that the July 27 statement was not well vetted prior to release.