L.d.s. Church To Stay With Scouting

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, now you've heard it from someone who is not hostile to the Church.

 

As the saying goes, "With friends like this ...."

 

No ridicule.  Just observation.  And no reassurances.

 

Branding legitimate concerns as "alarmism" would seem to amount to de facto empty reassurances.

[Buckeye]

As I said: zip.

 

Scott, the point is this. Contrary to the July 27 statement, having gay scout leaders is not against to church doctrine. And affiliating with groups that allow gays in relationships to be leaders is not contrary to church doctrine.

 

On July 13 the church implied there was no doctrinal conflict with the BSA proposed policy. On July 27, the church reversed course and said there was a conflict between the policy change and church doctrine. Yesterday, the church reversed course again, and went back to the original position of affirming that there is no doctrinal conflict.

 

We changed our minds. Not the PR. But the FP/Q12 (speaking collectively of course, not individually).

[Scott Lloyd]

Yeah, what did you expect Michael Otterson to say, oh yes our public affairs department occasionally goes off the rails and the overseers, don't perform their overseeing responsibilities? No, he would cover for them. Frankly, I prefer to remain under the delusion that they didn't check it before it got out, rather than ascribe such a whiny poorly thought out response to the General Authorities. But if you want to say the Apostles like to issue responses like that one, well go ahead.

This paragraph from the Otterson address seems to have particular application here:

 

Sadly, the insight and understanding of some who love to write volumes of commentary seems often in inverse proportion to the amount of words they write. Perhaps it’s simply easier to target Public Affairs because it seems less disrespectful than criticizing Church leaders. If so, we are honored to take those “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.” A thick skin is a prerequisite for Public Affairs employment. This makes me think of that wonderful verse in Acts, when the high priest and his council were attempting to intimidate Peter and the apostles and had them beaten up. Verse 41 of Acts 5 says: “And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.” And the next verse notes, almost parenthetically, “And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ” (Acts 5:41–42).

 

[Scott Lloyd]

 

Is it really too hard to imagine that the confusion in the PR statements is a result of changing views and ongoing discussions within the quorums/presidencies that PR represents?

It is not self-evident that there is "confusion in the PR statements." Your insistence on reading them that way does not make it so.

 

I don't speak for the Church, but from my own observation, I perceive its position to include the following:

 

• Homosexual behavior is sinful in the eyes of God, always has been and always will be.
• Adults called to fulfill positions of leadership over youth must be exemplary in their moral conduct.
• By definition, one who engages in homosexual behavior is not exemplary in his moral conduct and, hence, is ineligible to serve in a leadership calling over youth in the Church.
• The recent capitulation by BSA to the strident gay advocacy movement raised troubling concerns among the Church leadership causing it to re-evaluate whether Scouting is still a good fit for the Church. Those troubling concerns were candidly expressed in the July 27 statement.
• After a period of presumably careful evaluation, during which the Church received written and verbal reassurances from BSA executives that it will never be required to violate its own values and standards with regard to the appointment of local Scout leaders, the Church leaders have determined for now to move forward as a chartering organization in Scouting. This does not say that the recent capitulation by BSA is no longer troubling or that Church leadership would not at some time in the future revisit the matter of whether its affiliation with Scouting is still appropriate.

I see no inconsistency or confusion in the above. Nor do I see any wholesale endorsement of what BSA has done with recent policy changes. Rather, I see a provisional decision to continue with sponsorship of local BSA units with the firm understanding that the Church will not tolerate any requirement or pressure to violate its own values and standards now or in the future as pertaining to leadership or management of its own Scouting units.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

We're really off track here, but hey, I'm happy to keep discussing the PR department. I can only go off of the few years I've spent listening to the newsroom as an interested member (which by the way is not the targeted audience for PR). I believe they are sincere and do not "go rogue." But they often get put in a difficult position because "the church" they represent is not a monolith, but a group of at least 15 men (recently expanding to include a few women) who have differing views on things and even (gasp) sometimes change their own minds.

 

Is it really too hard to imagine that the confusion in the PR statements is a result of changing views and ongoing discussions within the quorums/presidencies that PR represents? If so, I'd point you back just a year ago when the church's various branches couldn't agree on whether Women's Session was a part of General Conference (see http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2014/10/do-women-count/ for a good overview). President Uchtdorf said one thing, PR said another, lds.org said something more, and it wasn't settled until the FP issued a statement. In all - remarkably similar to what just happended with scouts.

 

ETA: Otterson's a good guy. It's not just any professional spokesman who can take the heat of explaining situations when prophets/seers/revelators change their minds.

 

Well said.  This is what I meant when I said that it was not well vetted.  Otterson explained that the committee he works with has two apostles and a number of general authorities.  That committee may well have approved the statement but that still doesn't mean it was the right statement to publish.

[Buckeye]

It is not self-evident that there is "confusion in the PR statements." Your insistence on reading them that way does not make it so.

 

Scott, I've laid out the confusion and conflict in the PR's statements re boy scouts. If you don't agree, fine, we disagree. But from this board and many blog posts you can easily see that I'm not alone.

[rockpond]

It is not self-evident that there is "confusion in the PR statements." Your insistence on reading them that way does not make it so.

 

The July 27 statement confused you.  You concluded that we would likely end our affiliation with the BSA.  Others concluded similarly.  And still others concluded that our leaders did not get the opportunity to vote.

 

Additionally, the July 27 statement muddied the waters with respect to our doctrine/policy on gay church members.

[ERayR]

Scott, I've laid out the confusion and conflict in the PR's statements re boy scouts. If you don't agree, fine, we disagree. But from this board and many blog posts you can easily see that I'm not alone.

 

Security in numbers?  Not always a good idea. 

[rockpond]

As the saying goes, "With friends like this ...."

Branding legitimate concerns as "alarmism" would seem to amount to de facto empty reassurances.

 

As I said... 20 years of these "legitimate concerns" being raised.  I wonder why they're losing their power to convince.

[Buckeye]

Security in numbers?  Not always a good idea. 

 

Numbers alone do not mean I'm right. But they do undermine Scott's claim that to believe the statements conflict is "incredible."

[Calm]

 

Is it really too hard to imagine that the confusion in the PR statements is a result of changing views and ongoing discussions within the quorums/presidencies that PR represents? 

Brother Otterson also said he basically had the FP and 12 on speed dial, though he was cautious about using it.  If there was confusion, I don't see in this case it wouldn't be cleared up with a simple phone call before issuing a statement.

 

This is not like mislabeling something.  This is about issuing a PR statement when a PR statement didn't have to be issued, when if there was confusion a day or two wait wouldn't have been a big deal.

Edited August 27, 2015 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

Well said.  This is what I meant when I said that it was not well vetted.  Otterson explained that the committee he works with has two apostles and a number of general authorities.  That committee may well have approved the statement but that still doesn't mean it was the right statement to publish.

More nonsense about rogue apostles and rogue General Authorities.

 

This is getting reminiscent of Scratch and his silliness about "the Oaks faction" and "the Packer faction" and what not.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Numbers alone do not mean I'm right. But they do undermine Scott's claim that to believe the statements conflict is "incredible."

As Russell McGregor quite rightly pointed out, you can expect people of a certain bent to be faithfully espousing the party line on this issue. No surprise there.

[Scott Lloyd]

As I said... 20 years of these "legitimate concerns" being raised.  I wonder why they're losing their power to convince.

It remains to be seen whether they have lost any power.

[rockpond]

More nonsense about rogue apostles and rogue General Authorities.

 

This is getting reminiscent of Scratch and his silliness about "the Oaks faction" and "the Packer faction" and what not.

 

Only when you misrepresent.

 

Again, I haven't said that they "went rogue" nor have I said anything about factions.

 

Are you arguing that the 15 and the auxiliary leaders are always united on everything?

 

Are you arguing that there was nothing confusing about the July 27 statement?   It was clear?  Didn't contradict current church policy?

 

I love that you believe in the fallibility of our church leaders but will never actually admit that a mistake could have been made.

[rockpond]

It remains to be seen whether they have lost any power.

 

From where I sit, the proclamations by church leaders against homosexuality are rapidly losing credibility.  You should believe what you want.

 

What's that countdown clock on anyway?  A couple more pivotal events and we might need to shave 5-10 years off the prediction.

[Buckeye]

It is not self-evident that there is "confusion in the PR statements." Your insistence on reading them that way does not make it so.

 

I don't speak for the Church, but from my own observation, I perceive its position to include the following:

 

• Homosexual behavior is sinful in the eyes of God, always has been and always will be.
• Adults called to fulfill positions of leadership over youth must be exemplary in their moral conduct.
• By definition, one who engages in homosexual behavior is not exemplary in his moral conduct and, hence, is ineligible to serve in a leadership calling over youth in the Church.
• The recent capitulation by BSA to the strident gay advocacy movement raised troubling concerns among the Church leadership causing it to re-evaluate whether Scouting is still a good fit for the Church. Those troubling concerns were candidly expressed in the July 27 statement.
• After a period of presumably careful evaluation, during which the Church received written and verbal reassurances from BSA executives that it will never be required to violate its own values and standards with regard to the appointment of local Scout leaders, the Church leaders have determined for now to move forward as a chartering organization in Scouting. This does not say that the recent capitulation by BSA is no longer troubling or that Church leadership would not at some time in the future revisit the matter of whether its affiliation with Scouting is still appropriate.

I see no inconsistency or confusion in the above. Nor do I see any wholesale endorsement of what BSA has done with recent policy changes. Rather, I see a provisional decision to continue with sponsorship of local BSA units with the firm understanding that the Church will not tolerate any requirement or pressure to violate its own values and standards now or in the future as pertaining to leadership or management of its own Scouting units.

 

Scott, everything you said above may be right. I'm sure the FP/Q12 were and are "troubled" and "concerned" about the BSA policy vote. All three LDS members of the executive committee who voted cast a "no" vote (Monson abstained).

 

But you're still avoiding the key statement in the July 27 newsrelease: "the admission of openly gay leaders is inconsistent with the doctrines of the Church and what have traditionally been the values of the Boy Scouts of America." That is what changed. Either admitting openly gay leaders into BSA conflicts with our doctrine or it does not. Initially we said it doesn't. On July 27 we said it does. Today we say it does not. That is where the direction changed, and the primary source of confusion (at least for me).

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, everything you said above may be right. I'm sure the FP/Q12 were and are "troubled" and "concerned" about the BSA policy vote. All three LDS members of the executive committee who voted cast a "no" vote (Monson abstained).

 

But you're still avoiding the key statement in the July 27 newsrelease: "the admission of openly gay leaders is inconsistent with the doctrines of the Church and what have traditionally been the values of the Boy Scouts of America." That is what changed. Either admitting openly gay leaders into BSA conflicts with our doctrine or it does not. Initially we said it doesn't. On July 27 we said it does. Today we say it does not. That is where the direction changed, and the primary source of confusion (at least for me).

I see that as applying to Scout leaders within the Church. Calling men who engage in homosexual behavior to lead Scout units in the Church is indeed inconsistent with the doctrines of the Church. That has not changed. It never will.

 

And the statement is quite correct in that such values have traditionally been embraced by Boy Scouts of America.

[Scott Lloyd]

From where I sit, the proclamations by church leaders against homosexuality are rapidly losing credibility.  You should believe what you want.

 

What's that countdown clock on anyway?  A couple more pivotal events and we might need to shave 5-10 years off the prediction.

If anything, this event further solidifies the understanding that the Church will never change with regard to homosexual behavior being an intolerable sin. The fact that the Church came very, very close to withdrawing from its association with BSA over the matter and demanded "verbal and written assurances" as a condition for continuing it speaks volumes.

 

And the countdown clock stands at 39 years, 5 months, 2 weeks, 7 hours, 50 minutes and 40 seconds.

 

Well over half a year has gone by and still no closer to the realization of your vain hope.

[ERayR]

Scott, everything you said above may be right. I'm sure the FP/Q12 were and are "troubled" and "concerned" about the BSA policy vote. All three LDS members of the executive committee who voted cast a "no" vote (Monson abstained).

 

But you're still avoiding the key statement in the July 27 newsrelease: "the admission of openly gay leaders is inconsistent with the doctrines of the Church and what have traditionally been the values of the Boy Scouts of America." That is what changed. Either admitting openly gay leaders into BSA conflicts with our doctrine or it does not. Initially we said it doesn't. On July 27 we said it does. Today we say it does not. That is where the direction changed, and the primary source of confusion (at least for me).

 

It is not about whether openly homo-sexual scoutmasters are or are not allowed but how it affects Church scout troops.  If you read the statements in that context there is no conflict.

[Gray]

 

Well over half a year has gone by and still no closer to the realization of your vain hope.

 

Actually that would make us more than six months closer, wouldn't it?

Edited August 27, 2015 by Gray

[rockpond]

If anything, this event further solidifies the understanding that the Church will never change with regard to homosexual behavior being an intolerable sin. The fact that the Church came very, very close to withdrawing from its association with BSA over the matter and demanded "verbal and written assurances" as a condition for continuing it speaks volumes.

 

And the countdown clock stands at 39 years, 5 months, 2 weeks, 7 hours, 50 minutes and 40 seconds.

 

Well over half a year has gone by and still no closer to the realization of your vain hope.

 

"Very, very close..."  Do you have something to back that up with?

 

In that half year the church publicly supported legislation in favor of LGBT rights (an about face from its CO Amendment 2 days) and now has decided to stay with the BSA regardless of its choosing to allow gay scouts AND gay leaders.

 

I'd say we're ahead of schedule for the realization of my "vain hope".

[Scott Lloyd]

Actually that would make us more than six months closer, wouldn't it?

Only if you can show that the Church leaders are softening their stance on homosexual behavior being sinful -- which they haven't.

 

Dehlin and rockpond left themselves a very comfortable time cushion, but the clock is ticking away notwithstanding.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

"Very, very close..."  Do you have something to back that up with?

 

In that half year the church publicly supported legislation in favor of LGBT rights (an about face from its CO Amendment 2 days) and now has decided to stay with the BSA regardless of its choosing to allow gay scouts AND gay leaders.

 

I'd say we're ahead of schedule for the realization of my "vain hope".

What indication is there that the Church leaders are any closer to declaring homosexual behavior as no longer sinful? To giving temple recommends to those who commit such sin, let alone solemnizing their so-called "marriages" in the temple? To recognizing homosexual relationships as marriages in the first place?

 

What I continue to see are very clear statements in general conference such as those I have highlighted in my sig line.

 

Favoring fair opportunity in employment and housing has nothing to do with redefining marriage or rescinding the law of chastity.

 

I said "Very, very close" because this is the first time I have ever seen such a direct official statement from the Church indicating it was considering ending its involvement with BSA in favor of creating its own international youth organization. It's the first time I've seen such a direct indication of displeasure with what BSA has done in capitulation to the gay advocacy movement.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Only when you misrepresent.

 

Again, I haven't said that they "went rogue" nor have I said anything about factions.

 

Are you arguing that the 15 and the auxiliary leaders are always united on everything?

 

I believe that they have viable discussions from which emerge unanimity on virtually all matters of import.

 

Are you arguing that there was nothing confusing about the July 27 statement?   It was clear?  Didn't contradict current church policy?

 

 

That's precisely what I'm saying.

 

 

I love that you believe in the fallibility of our church leaders but will never actually admit that a mistake could have been made.

 

I won't admit a mistake when there is no indication of one.