L.d.s. Church To Stay With Scouting

[rockpond]

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

 

Yes... but judging from the press releases,  it seems to have taken them a couple months on the BSA issue.

[rockpond]

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 unions 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.

 

It's a process Scott.  That's why there is still 39 years left on your clock.

 

You can take a look at my sig line to see how far several decades can take us.

[Bob Crockett]

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 unions as marriages in the first place?

 

It is a very common, but in my view very disingenuous, argument for dissident Mormons to say:  Well now that gay marriage is legal, the Church ought to recognize such for temple worthiness.   The same argument could be said, although I don't hear them saying it, about being a merchant open on Sunday (once illegal, now legal), performing an elective abortion as a doctor (once illegal, now legal), selling maryjane (becoming legal), engaging in pornography (once illegal, now legal) etc and etc.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes... but judging from the press releases,  it seems to have taken them a couple months on the BSA issue.

I believe much of that was a generous allowance of time to the BSA corporate officers to do some desperately needed fence mending.

[rockpond]

I believe much of that was a generous allowance of time to the BSA corporate officers to do some desperately needed fence mending.

 

What fence mending do you think happened?

[Scott Lloyd]

What fence mending do you think happened?

The "verbal assurances" mentioned in yesterday's statement had to have occurred at some time and place.

 

I heard a rumor that Gates visited Church headquarters and met personally with the Brethren. I can't vouch for that, but I wouldn't find it surprising.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Russell C McGregor]

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

No. I have not.

 

No ridicule.  Just observation.  And no reassurances.

So you're not trying to imply that no such things could ever happen?

I'm glad to hear it.

[Russell C McGregor]

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

From where I sit, I'm unable to see that you've ever given any credence to the Church's position on homosexuality.

[Stone holm]

It is a very common, but in my view very disingenuous, argument for dissident Mormons to say:  Well now that gay marriage is legal, the Church ought to recognize such for temple worthiness.   The same argument could be said, although I don't hear them saying it, about being a merchant open on Sunday (once illegal, now legal), performing an elective abortion as a doctor (once illegal, now legal), selling maryjane (becoming legal), engaging in pornography (once illegal, now legal) etc and etc.

Nope. Religious ritual within a religious building. Not applicable to any of those. Doctrinally unsound because of our structure of the hereafter. No real need to be sealed as they can't produce spirit children.

[Scott Lloyd]

It is a very common, but in my view very disingenuous, argument for dissident Mormons to say:  Well now that gay marriage is legal, the Church ought to recognize such for temple worthiness.   The same argument could be said, although I don't hear them saying it, about being a merchant open on Sunday (once illegal, now legal), performing an elective abortion as a doctor (once illegal, now legal), selling maryjane (becoming legal), engaging in pornography (once illegal, now legal) etc and etc.

Indeed.

 

The example I always go to is the so-called sexual revolution of the sixties and seventies. It has been going on for a couple of generations now, yet the Church still views pre-marital and extra-marital sex as a grave sin.

 

It will always be thus with homosexual behavior, 40-year timelines notwithstanding.

[Stone holm]

What fence mending do you think happened?

It also would have allowed the Greater Salt Lake Council time to accurately aim monkey wrenches like they did last time.

[Analytics]

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.

 

That depends upon the definition of the word "conceivable."  It's very unlikely that a Mormon would sue the Church because he was deprived of a specific volunteer opportunity.  It's also unlikely that he would get much outside support.  Perhaps if he was such a great scout master that a super-majority of the scouts and their families wanted him to be the scout master, he might get some sympathy.  Otherwise, suing the church over something like this would make whoever do it look much worse that Tom Phillips.  It would be a very expensive, totally and obviously self-defeating move. 

[Scott Lloyd]

It also would have allowed the Greater Salt Lake Council time to accurately aim monkey wrenches like they did last time.

You keep making the same error. I've tolerated it up to now, but it's starting to bug me.

 

The name of it is the Great Salt Lake Council, not the "Greater" Salt Lake Council.

 

It is named after the Great Salt Lake, the famous body of water in northern Utah from which Salt Lake City derives its name.

 

Scout councils in Utah tend to be named after geographic features, as in Utah National Parks Council and Trapper Trails Council.

 

The name has nothing to do with the urban and suburban Salt Lake City area, as you seem to think it does.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

That depends upon the definition of the word "conceivable."  It's very unlikely that a Mormon would sue the Church because he was deprived of a specific volunteer opportunity.  It's also unlikely that he would get much outside support.  Perhaps if he was such a great scout master that a super-majority of the scouts and their families wanted him to be the scout master, he might get some sympathy.  Otherwise, suing the church over something like this would make whoever do it look much worse that Tom Phillips.  It would be a very expensive, totally and obviously self-defeating move. 

That wasn't enough to stop Tom Phillips from his quixotic action, and I don't think it would be enough to stop a bitter dissident Mormon or his gay-rights allies from trying to make as much trouble as they could.

 

Futile or not, it could still be expensive for the Church to defend against it.

[Stone holm]

You keep making the same error. I've tolerated it up to now, but it's starting to bug me.

 

The name of it is the Great Salt Lake Council, not the "Greater" Salt Lake Council.

 

It is named after the Great Salt Lake, the famous body of water in northern Utah from which Salt Lake City derives its name.

 

Scout councils in Utah tend to be named after geographic features, as in Utah National Parks Council, Trapper Trails Council.

 

The name has nothing to do with the urban and suburban Salt Lake City area, as you seem to think it does.

Sorry, Great Salt Lake Council, point remains.

[Scott Lloyd]

Sorry, Great Salt Lake Council, point remains.

It wasn't much of a point.

 

What monkey wrenches thrown when?

 

Never mind. I'm not really interested in your ill-informed surmising.

[rockpond]

The "verbal assurances" mentioned in yesterday's statement had to have occurred at some time and place.

 

I heard a rumor that Gates visited Church headquarters and met personally with the Brethren. I can't vouch for that, but I wouldn't find it surprising.

 

I wouldn't find it surprising either.

[rockpond]

No. I have not.

 

So you're not trying to imply that no such things could ever happen?

I'm glad to hear it.

 

You've got an interesting definition of hostile.

[rockpond]

From where I sit, I'm unable to see that you've ever given any credence to the Church's position on homosexuality.

 

Oh, I definitely did.  I had a change of heart back around 2005-2006, I think.  Prior to that I was about as strong a supporter of the Church's position on homosexuality as anyone you know.

[Damien the Leper]

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.

No way. Not possible. There is no way the Lord would allow that.

[Stone holm]

It wasn't much of a point.

 

What monkey wrenches thrown when?

 

Never mind. I'm not really interested in your ill-informed surmising.

The Great Salt Lake Council threw the monkey wrench which stalled the BSA on the first compromise position which was to allow each Chartered Organization to set its own policy, and resulted in the second compromise which allowed gay scouts, but not gay scouters. They threw the monkey wrench before the Church acted formally.

[Damien the Leper]

 

Incidentally, I have observed that the key pillars of homosexualist policy when it comes to Mormon matters are (1) ridicule, and (2) empty reassurances.

 

What a surprise...

Holy crap! I honestly agree with you here, Russell. I know I'm guilty of #1. I am not proud of this.

It's crazy that a jerk (wink wink) like you can get a devil like me to agree with you on occasion. You're a total Jedi Master.

[Daniel2]

Doctrinally unsound because of our structure of the hereafter. No real need to be sealed as they can't produce spirit children.

 

I'm curious about this statement, Stonehelm.

 

Children of LDS families which are sealed here on earth aren't really going to be residing with their mortal parents, anyway... because a) how would such a sealed chain all fit/reside together?? and b) adult children will presumably be sealed to their own spouses, and off procreating spirit children of their own.

 

I would say that even potentially non-procreative couples (such as same-sex couples) would demonstrate as much of a need and desire to be sealed to one another in a post-mortal existence, even if they have no children.  The ability to be "together forever" is just as appealing (if not more) to a family of two (plus any children they adopted on earth) than it would be to a family composed of members as countless as the sands of the seas...

 

Also, it's not LDS doctrine that post-mortally-produced spirit children are sealed to their deified parents anyway... at least, not that I'm aware...?

 

Sorry for the off-topic comment.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Daniel2

[Damien the Leper]

You keep making the same error. I've tolerated it up to now, but it's starting to bug me.

 

The name of it is the Great Salt Lake Council, not the "Greater" Salt Lake Council.

 

It is named after the Great Salt Lake, the famous body of water in northern Utah from which Salt Lake City derives its name.

 

Scout councils in Utah tend to be named after geographic features, as in Utah National Parks Council and Trapper Trails Council.

 

The name has nothing to do with the urban and suburban Salt Lake City area, as you seem to think it does.

I love you, Scott. Title and grammar/mechanic mistakes drive me crazy. I find the misuse of homonyms, heteronyms, heterographs, homophones, etc. to be reprehensible.

Misuse of the following is most common and annoying:

Then

Than

It's

Its

To

Too

Two

There

Their

They're

Also...it's Community of Christ and not the Community of Christ church. The article "the" and the qualifier "church" do not belong.

For example:

Correctly stated a person would say, "I'm a member of Community of Christ."

Incorrectly stated a person would say, "I'm a member of the Community of Christ church."

So stop doing it people!! Good grief it's annoying.

Sorry for the derail.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm curious about this statement, Stonehelm.

 

Children of LDS families which are sealed here on earth aren't really going to be residing with their mortal parents, anyway... because a) how would such a sealed chain all fit/reside together?? and b) adult children will presumably be sealed to their own spouses, and off procreating spirit children of their own.

 

I would say that even potentially non-procreative couples (such as same-sex couples) would demonstrate as much of a need and desire to be sealed to one another in a post-mortal existence, even if they have no children.  The ability to be "together forever" is just as appealing (if not more) to a family of two (plus any children they adopted on earth) than it would be to a family composed of members as countless as the sands of the seas...

 

Also, it's not LDS doctrine that post-mortally-produced spirit children are sealed to their deified parents anyway... at least, not that I'm aware...?

 

Sorry for the off-topic comment.

Where is it written in LDS doctrine that children sealed to mortal parents will be off on their own? I see this as lore akin to the "get your own planet" notion.