L.d.s. Church To Stay With Scouting

[Stone holm]

I'm curious about this statement, Stonehelm.  

 

Children of LDS families which are sealed here on earth aren't really going to be spending time with their mortal parents, anyway... because the children will presumably be sealed to their own spouses, and off procreating spirit children of their own.

 

I would say that even 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.

 

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...?

Basically true, but the point of Celestial marriage is somewhat different than Temporal marriage. While Temporal marriage is primarily about intimate affectionate relationship, Celestial marriage is about more than creating a lasting bond with your mortal children -- its also about attaining Exaltation which is the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom. The one thing we know about Exaltation is that only people reaching that status have a "continuation of the seed." I have never heard it ever said that Heavenly Father can or would disown any of his spirit children, not even the Sons of Perdition are disowned. Once a Spirit Child of Heavenly Parents, always such a child -- it is not necessary to seal such children, their very existence makes them such -- just as a child born under the Covenant is automatically sealed, a child born of Heavenly Parents is just that a Spirit Child of such parents.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

A man after my own heart.

[Stone holm]

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.

Well actually that part has some truth. I assume that Heavenly Father is sealed to His Family and lives with them "nigh unto Kolob". We know that this Earth is going to become a Celestial Kingdom whereon we will live if we become Celestial. Since we are going to live with the family to whom we are sealed, we will be living on this Earth which is not "nigh unto Kolob". There is some discussion about whether this Earth was at one point located "nigh unto Kolob", but it isn't now, possibly it will be relocated there during the final restoration of all things -- but there is no indication that it will be merged with the Celestial Orb upon which Heavenly Father lives. If we are exalted, our Spirit Children will grow up with us, but eventually we will be preparing planets for them to dwell on. So the idea that we are going to actually live on the same planet as Heavenly Father seems to me a bit inconsistent with the doctrine as we are taught it.

[Damien the Leper]

A man after my own heart.

You say that now but should see me spout obscenities at the screen when I see those mistakes. I would inspire a drunken sailor to go to Catholic confession and feel better about himself. Edited August 27, 2015 by Valentinus

[Scott Lloyd]

Well actually that part has some truth. I assume that Heavenly Father is sealed to His Family and lives with them "nigh unto Kolob". We know that this Earth is going to become a Celestial Kingdom whereon we will live if we become Celestial. Since we are going to live with the family to whom we are sealed, we will be living on this Earth which is not "nigh unto Kolob". There is some discussion about whether this Earth was at one point located "nigh unto Kolob", but it isn't now, possibly it will be relocated there during the final restoration of all things -- but there is no indication that it will be merged with the Celestial Orb upon which Heavenly Father lives. If we are exalted, our Spirit Children will grow up with us, but eventually we will be preparing planets for them to dwell on. So the idea that we are going to actually live on the same planet as Heavenly Father seems to me a bit inconsistent with the doctrine as we are taught it.

Fussing over questions of where and how and with whom we'll be living and working in the eternities and how much time and space it's all going to take and yada yada yada strike me as so much trivia emanating from our limited mortal understanding.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[KevinG]

Another not pick but I don't see the BSA embracing homosexual leaders as much as the National BSA Officers capitulating to outside pressure.

The LDS Church is on board with assurances they can select their own leadership but many of our local religious sponsors and volunteers are leaving the BSA in the Atlanta area.

[jwhitlock]

You say that now but should see me spout obscenities at the screen when I see those mistakes. I would inspire a drunken sailor to go to Catholic confession and feel better about himself.

 

I'm utterly astounded. You have a sense of humor!

[Damien the Leper]

I'm utterly astounded. You have a sense of humor!

When I'm not being a jerk and antagonizing the conservatives of this board, I can be likeable.

And thank you, sir.

[jwhitlock]

When I'm not being a jerk and antagonizing the conservatives of this board, I can be likeable.

And thank you, sir.

 

You're welcome. You have the distinction of being someone on this board who I typically butt heads with, and then out of the blue find some common cause with from time to time.

 

I suspect my personal repentance is incomplete. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Another not pick but I don't see the BSA embracing homosexual leaders as much as the National BSA Officers capitulating to outside pressure.

The LDS Church is on board with assurances they can select their own leadership but many of our local religious sponsors and volunteers are leaving the BSA in the Atlanta area.

I admit to being disappointed at yesterday's announcement, and I had concluded by day's end that it must have been divinely inspired, because there's nothing I can see to it that makes sense from a limited mortal perspective. 

 

As God said, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, and my ways are not your ways."

 

But as I think about it, more and more I am seeing providential wisdom in it. With all of its problems, the dissolution of the Scouting movement in the United States (which surely would have followed the removal of LDS sponsorship) would have been a great loss and, I believe, would have given the devil cause to rejoice. As it is, he has lost a battle and his nefarious designs have been thwarted.

 

Perhaps the strident gay advocacy movement will realize at length that they can't kill Scouting or altogether force its reinvention through lawfare and ultimately they will back off. One can only hope.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[VideoGameJunkie]

I think scouting is important so I'm glad the church is going to stay with scouting.

[Damien the Leper]

You're welcome. You have the distinction of being someone on this board who I typically butt heads with, and then out of the blue find some common cause with from time to time.

I suspect my personal repentance is incomplete.

But it has been fun. If everyone agreed on everything then we'd have conformity without harmony and community. Edited August 27, 2015 by Valentinus

[Calm]

With all of its problems, the dissolution of the Scouting movement in the United States (which surely would have followed the removal of LDS sponsorship) would have been a great loss 

 

 

Even though the LDS Church has the resources to create their own programs so that an alternative is available to all its young men (and possibly expanded to its young women as well), I think it would be very hard for the small congregation or local community group to find similar resources for training and camps, etc. without having the BSA to appeal to.  If BSA were to fold for whatever reason, I think that would be very unfortunate as the people that it would hurt the most would be the nonLDS kids in these areas.  I figure the adults can manage just fine; if they are competent at their jobs they will find others, volunteers will have many other charitable organizations to choose to devote their time and passion to...but for the kids, there could very well be a void that won't be filled before it is too late for them to take part in.

 

It is possible that given the current situation, that in time there will be other comparable resources as larger groups who have withdrawn or will withdraw develop their own programs, especially if many ban together.  I believe there are already some programs in place, just not as widespread as needed yet nor do I see them as having the ability to fully step in without some chaos occurring with the result some kids are going to miss out.  And I can't imagine BSA has not started on making contingency plans of its own for the loss of a significant part of its support systems, both leaders and financial.  Whatever else happens, the more time they have to get these in place and functioning, the more likely they will survive.  So for both situations, the alternatives to BSA and BSA itself, I am glad there is more time to prepare whatever else happens for the sake of the kids.

[Daniel2]

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.

Perhaps the strident gay advocacy movement will realize at length that they can't kill Scouting or altogether force its reinvention through lawfare and ultimately they will back off. One can only hope.

And in a surprising turn of events, Scott and I finally agree on something!

Two (and counting) can most certainly hope!

Edited August 27, 2015 by Daniel2

[Analytics]

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.

 

Regarding Phillips, Touché.  But unlike the cases involving gay wedding cakes, there is not any basis for a "practicing homosexual" to sue the Mormon Church because he wants to be a scout master in a Mormon troop and the bishop didn't call him.  I have a hard time imagining any lawyer representing such a thing.  Never mind whether it would be frivolous, is there any basis in law and fact for such a lawsuit?  I can't think of any.  If a lawyer filed such a suit, I'd fully expect him to face professional discipline.  Defending against a lawsuit that is literally baseless is superlatively inexpensive in America.  Filing such lawsuits is risky and expensive.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Analytics

[jwhitlock]

Regarding Phillips, Touché.  But unlike the cases involving gay wedding cakes, there is not any basis for a "practicing homosexual" to sue the Mormon Church because he wants to be a scout master in a Mormon troop and the bishop didn't call him.  I have a hard time imagining any lawyer representing such a thing.  Never mind whether it would be frivolous, is there any basis in law and fact for such a lawsuit?  I can't think of any.  If a lawyer filed such a suit, I'd fully expect him to face professional discipline.  Defending against a lawsuit that is literally baseless is superlatively inexpensive in America.  Filing such lawsuits is risky and expensive.

 

Not if a judge decides that a progressive agenda can be moved forward by such a case.

[Scott Lloyd]

And in a surprising turn of events, Scott and I finally agree on something!

Two (and counting) can most certainly hope!

I'm glad you and I agree that it's time for them to back off.

[Scott Lloyd]

Even though the LDS Church has the resources to create their own programs so that an alternative is available to all its young men (and possibly expanded to its young women as well), I think it would be very hard for the small congregation or local community group to find similar resources for training and camps, etc. without having the BSA to appeal to. If BSA were to fold for whatever reason, I think that would be very unfortunate as the people that it would hurt the most would be the nonLDS kids in these areas. I figure the adults can manage just fine; if they are competent at their jobs they will find others, volunteers will have many other charitable organizations to choose to devote their time and passion to...but for the kids, there could very well be a void that won't be filled before it is too late for them to take part in.

It is possible that given the current situation, that in time there will be other comparable resources as larger groups who have withdrawn or will withdraw develop their own programs, especially if many ban together. I believe there are already some programs in place, just not as widespread as needed yet nor do I see them as having the ability to fully step in without some chaos occurring with the result some kids are going to miss out. And I can't imagine BSA has not started on making contingency plans of its own for the loss of a significant part of its support systems, both leaders and financial. Whatever else happens, the more time they have to get these in place and functioning, the more likely they will survive. So for both situations, the alternatives to BSA and BSA itself, I am glad there is more time to prepare whatever else happens for the sake of the kids.

It may have been such an altruistic attitude that drove the decision by the Brethren. It would certainly be characteristic of them.

[Scott Lloyd]

Regarding Phillips, Touché. But unlike the cases involving gay wedding cakes, there is not any basis for a "practicing homosexual" to sue the Mormon Church because he wants to be a scout master in a Mormon troop and the bishop didn't call him. I have a hard time imagining any lawyer representing such a thing. Never mind whether it would be frivolous, is there any basis in law and fact for such a lawsuit? I can't think of any. If a lawyer filed such a suit, I'd fully expect him to face professional discipline. Defending against a lawsuit that is literally baseless is superlatively inexpensive in America. Filing such lawsuits is risky and expensive.

You're not addressing the hypothetical I presented. In my scenario the man was already a Scoutmaster but got released when it was found out he was engaging in homosexual behavior.

[thatjimguy]

I'm cool with the church sticking with the scouts. Got to learn to get along with people with different values and viewpoints.

 

However, I know there are a few good reasons they might want to do their own thing. But I hope when it does that the LDS scouts who love scouting will still participate and not jump ship. 

 

I do hope that any church based program will have different activities besides "scouty" things to avoid kids feeling like they are dragged along. I would hope that the majority of things in the new program would not be even near scout oriented. All the basic principals learned through scouting can be learned in various activities. The heck with ranks too for that matter in the new program if it ever happens.

[rockpond]

But as I think about it, more and more I am seeing providential wisdom in it. With all of its problems, the dissolution of the Scouting movement in the United States (which surely would have followed the removal of LDS sponsorship) would have been a great loss and, I believe, would have given the devil cause to rejoice. As it is, he has lost a battle and his nefarious designs have been thwarted.

 

Amen!

[Analytics]

You're not addressing the hypothetical I presented. In my scenario the man was already a Scoutmaster but got released when it was found out he was engaging in homosexual behavior.

 

That's a distinction without a difference.  Courts will have sympathy if somebody gets fired from a job for being gay--people need jobs in order to provide for themselves and their families.  In contrast, nobody needs to be a scout master to provide for himself and his family.  Somebody suing because they were released as a scout master would be like somebody suing because the bishop revoked a temple recommend.  Courts would laugh, and likely punish the plaintiff and his attorney for filing a lawsuit with literally no legal basis whatsoever. 

 

People say that a case doesn't have a legal basis.  However, that is usually rhetorical; there are usually two sides to each story--different perspectives that each have some plausible legal validity when looked at in a certain way.  In contrast, suing the church because you were released as scout master literally has no basis.  There isn't a perspective with a plausible legal argument; at least none that I've heard and none that I can imagine.

Edited August 28, 2015 by Analytics

[Buckeye]

I admit to being disappointed at yesterday's announcement, and I had concluded by day's end that it must have been divinely inspired, because there's nothing I can see to it that makes sense from a limited mortal perspective. 

 

As God said, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, and my ways are not your ways."

 

But as I think about it, more and more I am seeing providential wisdom in it. With all of its problems, the dissolution of the Scouting movement in the United States (which surely would have followed the removal of LDS sponsorship) would have been a great loss and, I believe, would have given the devil cause to rejoice. As it is, he has lost a battle and his nefarious designs have been thwarted.

 

Perhaps the strident gay advocacy movement will realize at length that they can't kill Scouting or altogether force its reinvention through lawfare and ultimately they will back off. One can only hope.

 

This is a very gracious approach, Scott. My compliments. I hope that I would have reacted as positively if the church decided to cut ties.

 

I wonder if you've reconsidered your previous statement that, despite Wednesday's announcement, you still expect the church to eventually cut ties with BSA. If we judge things from the angle of the church helping BSA, shouldn't we hope that such a day is very far off, if at all?

 

FWIW, I'm with you (and Daniel) about the HRC overreaching.

[ERayR]

That's a distinction without a difference.  Courts will have sympathy if somebody gets fired from a job for being gay--people need jobs in order to provide for themselves and their families.  In contrast, nobody needs to be a scout master to provide for himself and his family.  Somebody suing because they were released as a scout master would be like somebody suing because the bishop revoked a temple recommend.  Courts would laugh, and likely punish the plaintiff and his attorney for filing a lawsuit with literally no legal basis whatsoever. 

 

People say that a case doesn't have a legal basis.  However, that is usually rhetorical; there are usually two sides to each story--different perspectives that each have some plausible legal validity when looked at in a certain way.  In contrast, suing the church because you were released as scout master literally has no basis.  There isn't a perspective with a plausible legal argument; at least none that I've heard and none that I can imagine.

 

You are not looking at this the way it will happen.  The lawsuit will not be against the bishop.  It will be against the BSA and the LDS church as a chartered group of the BSA.  The BSA has agreed to allow homo-sexual scoutmasters.  As a chartered appendage of the BS the Church is bound to that agreement irregardless of what the BSA has now assured the Church.

[TheSkepticChristian]

The LDS Church is on board with assurances they can select their own leadership but many of our local religious sponsors and volunteers are leaving the BSA in the Atlanta area.

 

I am glad church leaders didn't fall for the propaganda and alarmism.

I don't think church leaders are worried that someone may try to sue the church, because it is very unlikely to be successful. Let alone the fact that the church has an army of lawyers.

 

The decision of the church is a reason why we shouldn't take Scott Lloyd's alarmism seriously.

 

The church said " At this time," because

a) It is "concern for the substantial number of youth who live outside the United States and Canada"

b) because they feel sorry for the alarmists, they simply want to make them feel better.

Edited August 28, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian