Mormons In Utah Reverse Course, Follow The Brethren's Lead Re: Scouting

[smac97]

Here: 

 

Now that LDS Church leadership has decided to stay in the Boy Scouts of America, a majority of Utahns who say they are “very active” Mormons have done an about face and now want their church to stay in the scouting program, a new UtahPolicy poll shows.

 

Earlier this summer, after the national BSA board voted to allow gay men to be troop leaders, Dan Jones & Associates found that 63 percent of active Utah Mormons wanted to leave the scouting program.

 

At that time the LDS Church issued a statement saying their leaders were out of their Salt Lake City offices for a month and upon return would consider the new BSA stand on gay troop leaders and make a decision on the program’s future in the church.

 

Several weeks ago Mormon leaders announced the church would stay in the scouting program – while not an official part of the Church, indeed a very important voluntary activity for Mormon male youth.

 

Now in a new survey Jones finds that “very active” Mormons say – following their leaders’ decision – their church should stay in the scouting program – 81 percent in favor, 17 percent opposed, 2 percent don’t know.

 

So, it is clear most active Utah Mormons have changed their minds on the Boy Scouts after their leaders – including President Thomas S. Monson, who is considered a prophet of God – decided to stay in the scouts.

 

I think this is cool.  It evinces, I think (hope?) that the Saints are often serious and sincere when they say they "sustain" the Brethren, even when it is difficult to do so.  It's fairly easy to "sustain" a decision by the Brethren to call Brother So-and-So to the Seventy or Sister So-and-So to the Relief Society Presidency.  We generally trust that the Brethren have prayed about such decisions, and that the individuals called are good and decent folk.  But more to the point, there is no pushback from society about such decisions.  We can sustain such decisions because there's not much of a reason not to.

 

But then there are the times when the Saints are asked to sustain the Brethren when there are reasons, even substantial reasons, not to.  Reasonable minds can and do disagree about whether the LDS Church should stay with the Scouting program.  Long-term reservations exist amongst the rank and file about the costs and hassles and other perceived shortcomings associated with the Scouting program.  And yet now that the Brethren make a decision (presumably based on extensive discussion, contemplation, prayer, etc.), a substantial majority of the Saints are deferring to that decision and publicly telling the world that they have altered their views so as to defer to the guidance from the Brethren.  This is not going unnoticed.  From the article:

 

Clearly, comparing the results from the summer poll with the results of the new survey show that by far most active Mormons who wanted out of scouting before their leaders spoke on the issue, now wish to stay in scouting now that their leaders have decided to stay in.

 

When the Brethren speak, loyal Mormons listen – which we knew all along.

...

Apparently, church leaders didn’t follow the wishes of most of their active Utah members in deciding to stay in the Boy Scouts, at least for now.

 

But it doesn’t matter since after that decision an enormous majority of their Utah members go along with that decision and support the church staying in scouting – the two polls find.

 

Today's society seems fairly schizophrenic about group dynamics.  We celebrate diversity of opinion . . . except when we don't.  We celebrate each taking his own way . . . except when we don't.  Groupthink in the modern world seems fairly capricious.  There is not much in the way of logical/moral consistency to it.

 

So I am grateful and hopeful to be part of a community that is not led by Groupthink.  As the author of the article observed: "Apparently, church leaders didn't follow the wishes of most of their active Utah members..."  I think the Brethren do indeed listen to what the Saints are saying and, where possible, accommodate the wishes of the Saints.  But at the end of the day, I think the Brethren are following the guidance from the Scriptures and from the Spirit.  

 

Sometimes this process leads to results where the input from the members and the divine guidance described above coincide.  Take, for example, the recent change involving the opening up of leadership positions in the Church to women (in the Missionary Executive Council and the Temple and Family History Executive Council.  Also consider the increased sensitivity, compassion, pragmatism and wisdom found in the Church's "Mormons and Gays" website.

 

At other times, however, the Church has taken unpopular positions, and has therefore opened itself up to scorn, contempt, ridicule, even hatred.  I think we may see this happening more and more as time goes on.  Daniel Peterson has recently published some thoughts on this issue:

 

Toward Ever More Intelligent Discipleship

Daniel C. Peterson

Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 16 (2015): vii-xvi

 

Abstract: The temporarily rather comfortable “fit” between the Restored Gospel and American civic religion is a thing of the past, and we contemporary Latter-day Saints seem to find ourselves in a more and more marginalized position, theologically and socially. This was where our predecessors, both earlier in this dispensation and among the first Christians, were located, and it may not be an altogether bad thing. It will, for instance, force us to take our beliefs more seriously, less casually. And it may well drive us back to the unique resources provided by the Restoration, which have much to offer.

...

Growing up in the fifties and sixties, it was easy to assume that American society respected Latter-day Saints. We might be out on the theological fringe, regarded as a bit quirky, but American civic religion was at least theoretically pretty much on our side. For example, Americans seemed to honor ideals of faithful, heterosexual marriage, with fathers taking the lead and mothers caring for children. Society was, in other words, largely in sync with, and supportive of, fundamental, practical Mormon values.

...

Today, though, Mormonism and Western society seem to be parting ways in crucial respects. They’re no longer aligned. The most powerful engines of popular attitude-formation and elite opinion in America and Europe are typically amused by, when not altogether contemptuous toward, conservative Christianity — which, in the sense relevant here, certainly includes the Latter-day Saints. In an era when such things aren’t appreciated, Mormonism seems socially retrograde and corporate to many outside observers. Mormonism’s patriarchal orientation, for example, is, to put it mildly, out of fashion in fashionable circles. Its emphasis on heterosexual marriage is often seen as hateful, its insistence on fidelity within marriage as somewhat quaint, and its requirement of chastity outside of marriage as transparently ridiculous.

 

I think this assessment is correct, as is this one:

 

The way in which the Church responds to this challenge will determine much about its future over the next five, twenty, and hundred years. Fortunately, Mormonism is well equipped, in my judgment, with resources that Latter-day Saint thinkers haven’t even begun to employ — including teachings and doctrinal insights that are truly radical, in every meaning of that word including the etymological sense of getting down to the roots (Latin radix; plural radixes or radices).

 

I think one of the key "teachings and doctrinal insights that are truly radical" is that we are led by actual prophets and apostles, that they are in communion with God, that we should generally sustain them in their decisions, and that we should do so both when it is easy (sustaining Brother So-and-So) and when it is not (subordinating our opinions about the Scouting program and sustaining the decision from the Brethren).  

 

I encourage you to read the remainder of Bro. Peterson's article, as it goes on to discuss observations about "the radical distinctiveness of Mormon doctrine" the Catholic theologian Stephen Webb, author of Mormon Christianity: What Other Christians Can Learn from the Latter-day Saints.  Bro. Peterson focuses on two distinctive attributes of Mormonism: 1) "how deeply Christ-centered Mormonism is"; and 2) the "riches in Mormonism," the "original, fascinating, and provocative metaphysics” of Mormonism, which he sees as "sophisticated and radical," and which were provided by (through) Joseph Smith.

 

I am grateful for these precepts.  The central message of Jesus Christ, and the message being given to us in ever-expanding ways through living prophets and apostles, and the confirmation of it all through the Spirit.  It gives me hope and happiness that the Church is and will continue to pursue its mandate in ever-improving degrees.  Bro. Peterson puts it well:

 

I have absolute confidence that Mormonism can prosper if it draws deeply from its own well, which brims with rich and profound insights that Latter-day Saints haven’t even begun to appreciate, let alone adequately to deploy. In this, I agree with the great B. H. Roberts, who provided something of a creed for me when he wrote:

 

I believe “Mormonism” affords opportunity for disciples of the second sort: nay, that its crying need is for such disciples. It calls for thoughtful disciples who will not be content with merely repeating some of the truths, but will develop the truths; and enlarge it by that development. Not half — not one-hundredth part — not a thousandth part of that which Joseph Smith revealed to the church has yet been unfolded, either to the church or to the world. The work of the expounder has scarcely begun. The Prophet planted by teaching the germ-truths of the great dispensation of the fulness of times. The watering and weeding is going on, and God is giving the increase, and will give it more abundantly in the future as more intelligent discipleship shall obtain. The disciples of “Mormonism,” growing discontented with the necessarily primitive methods which have hitherto prevailed in sustaining the doctrine, will yet take profounder and broader views of the great doctrines committed to the Church; and, departing from mere repetition, will cast them in new formulas; cooperating in the works of the Spirit, until they help to give to the truths received a more forceful expression and carry it beyond the earlier and cruder stages of development.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited September 22, 2015 by smac97

[Ahab]

I think it's only right and proper that when any member is asked if he/she should do whatever the leaders of the Church say should be done that the member sees it as his/her duty to do it. That's what leaders are for. They're the ones that make the decisions that those they are leading should follow. And the key word there is should, whether or not they agree to do so.

So what we see here is just a sample of how things should work in any organization, I think. We all have our own individual ideas that we will share with anyone who asks us what we think, and then the leaders decide what they think is the best course of action at that particular time, and then there should be anarchy. No, wait. No anarchy. Of course the members should do what the leaders decide. Otherwise there would be anarchy as members rebelled against those they should be following.

I like the bus driver analogy. The driver is the one who should be driving the bus.

[TheSkepticChristian]

"Blogger Nate Oman applies his legal background in presenting a plausible scenario of how the gay advocacy groups, now that BSA has caved in, could sue and win to make chartering organizations such as the Church appoint sexually active homosexuals as Scoutmasters, and why it would be prudent for the Church to step away now." - Scott Lloyd

 

 

So, it is clear most active Utah Mormons have changed their minds on the Boy Scouts after their leaders – including President Thomas S. Monson, who is considered a prophet of God – decided to stay in the scouts.

 

It is not the first time most Utah Mormons are wrong. 

 

 

 the author of the article observed: "Apparently, church leaders didn't follow the wishes of most of their active Utah members..." 

 

Church leaders probably talked to legal experts. It is highly unlikely for a lawsuit to be successful. 

[smac97]

"Blogger Nate Oman applies his legal background in presenting a plausible scenario of how the gay advocacy groups, now that BSA has caved in, could sue and win to make chartering organizations such as the Church appoint sexually active homosexuals as Scoutmasters, and why it would be prudent for the Church to step away now." - Scott Lloyd

I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you saying Nate Oman's analysis was flawed? If so, how?

 

It is not the first time most Utah Mormons are wrong.

Thanks for proving my point!

 

Church leaders probably talked to legal experts. It is highly unlikely for a lawsuit to be successful.

I think Church leaders also probably prayed about this issue as well.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 22, 2015 by smac97

[rockpond]

I'm not surprised by the change in poll numbers - the 27-July statement gave many members the impression that the Church was going to leave Scouting... poll numbers followed accordingly.  Now, church members are supporting the Brethren's decision.

 

Most church members in my circle want to end our affiliation with Scouting, not because of anything to do with gay scouts/leaders but for other reasons.  But they are also supporting the current decision both in terms of callings and encouraging their sons in the program.

 

My wife is a great example of this... she desperately wants the Church to end its involvement with the Scouting program.  But, now that the decision is made, she is intensely dedicated to working with our oldest son and helping him work towards Eagle.

[KevinG]

If only we could divorce Friends of Scouting without divorcing the BSA.  Now that would be something I could get behind!

[Bob Crockett]

I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you saying Nate Oman's analysis was flawed? If so, how?

 

 

I do, but I haven't read Oman's analysis.  

 

When you add the overlay of a religion (the LDS Church) upon the administrative activities of a charitable organization (Scouting), the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause trumps and will not control the way the Church uses Scouting for its purposes.   Otherwise, the federal government could compel BYU to relinquish its Honor Code, its housing requirements and so forth.  BYU may lose its tax exemption over such practices, or its accreditation, but being compelled to admit homosexuals who use federal loans which BYU accepts is a different matter. 

[jbarm]

Friends of Scouting is dead to me.  Will not solicit or donate to Friends of Scouting no matter the current tentative relationship the Church has with BSA.

BSA's days are numbered with regard to the Church. But the Church will go out on its terms, not the BSA's.

I can't imagine that many wealthy LDS folks will make big donations of land or money to BSA from now on, given the uncertainty.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you saying Nate Oman's analysis was flawed? If so, how?

 

Thanks for proving my point!

 

I think Church leaders also probably prayed about this issue as well.

Thanks,

-Smac

As my name has been brought up here, I will affirm that I am one who sustains the decision of the Brethren, but I am not backing away in the least from what I said before. I don't believe that Nate Oman's hypothetical is any the less plausible. As Smac has alluded, Providence may intervene, but that doesn't make Oman's theory less plausible.

 

Furthermore, the recent announcement had an element of conditional tentativeness to it. The Church's affiliation with Scouting could yet be rescinded in response to changing circumstances.

 

We'll see what happens.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Five Solas]

 

...

It is not the first time most Utah Mormons are wrong. 

...

 

Okay, I'll bite--In your opinion, what was the first time the majority of Utah (state or territory) LDS got it wrong?  Or at least give an example from an earlier time, if identifying the exact first proves difficult for you. 

;0)

 

--Erik

[rockpond]

Friends of Scouting is dead to me.  Will not solicit or donate to Friends of Scouting no matter the current tentative relationship the Church has with BSA.

BSA's days are numbered with regard to the Church. But the Church will go out on its terms, not the BSA's.

I can't imagine that many wealthy LDS folks will make big donations of land or money to BSA from now on, given the uncertainty.

 

I'm exhausted with the high-pressure tactics our stake uses for the Friends of Scouting campaign (as well as the involvement that my current calling requires).  Even though I agree with the BSA's decision to lift the restriction on gay leaders, I hope that the church's seemingly reluctant commitment to the BSA might prompt my stake leaders to back off a bit on FoS.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm exhausted with the high-pressure tactics our stake uses for the Friends of Scouting campaign (as well as the involvement that my current calling requires).  Even though I agree with the BSA's decision to lift the restriction on gay leaders, I hope that the church's seemingly reluctant commitment to the BSA might prompt my stake leaders to back off a bit on FoS.

For the sake of you and members of your stake, I'll join you in that hope.

[TheSkepticChristian]

As my name has been brought up here, I will affirm that I am one who sustains the decision of the Brethren, but I am not backing away in the least from what I said before. I don't believe that Nate Oman's hypothetical is any the less plausible. As Smac has alluded, Providence may intervene, but that doesn't make Oman's theory less plausible.

 

but Church leaders are not worried about that. 

 

Anything is possible, someone can sue the church for not hiring gays (openly gay) as institute teachers, janitors, and other church jobs,  I think that is more plausible. 

 

PS I don't agree with the libertarian doctrine that employers should have the right to discriminate. 

Edited September 23, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Bob Crockett]

Friends of Scouting is dead to me. .

Things are probably different in Utah, but in California I welcome the opportunity to donate to Scouting through the FoS program, and our stake always swamps the support provided by the non-member troops which have more than 50% of the boys in the district.  

 

I can see how Scouting benefits the inner city youth, and the programs the scouts employ to try and penetrate the black and hispanic neighborhoods.  I see Scouting as a much better alternatives for boys, and yes girls, than any other program available.  

 

But, I'm not much of a scouter myself and have no patience to go through the training.  I've never been a Scoutmaster.

[Daniel2]

I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you saying Nate Oman's analysis was flawed? If so, how?

 

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Nate Oman's "analysis" is seriously flawed.  In fact, it’s a stretch to even call it an “analysis” simply because Mr. Oman doesn’t cite any legal precedent upon which he bases his hypothetical scenario.  He even acknowledges his lack of specifics throughout his post:

 

I have a theory about this, but it is only a theory.

…

I don’t purport to know how this will play out legally…

…

I haven’t looked at the law on this closely…

 

...at least that’s my theory.

 

(italics added)

 

Contrasted with Mr. Oman’s unsubstantiated and unsupported hypothetical blogpost is the highly-annotated report, THE EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ADULT LEADER STANDARD ON RELIGIOUS CHARTERED ORGANIZATIONS, authored by the D.C.-based law firm of Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP (which I first raised here on this boad in a separate thread, here). 

 

This report cites ample legal precedent refuting Mr. Oman’s hypothetical scenario, explaining why his concerns are misguided.

 

Mr. Oman claims that:

 

By dropping its objections to gay scoutmasters, the BSA can no longer claim that the application of anti-dsicrimination laws would interfere with its message regarding what counts as “morally straight.” The BSA would argue that it wants to allow local troops to make their own decision, but this in effect means that the BSA is licensing discrimination in violation of the law and without any reason protected by the First Amendment. (bold added)

 

 

This, the crux of Mr. Oman's arguement, is directly contradicted numerous times by the report of Hughes, Hubbard, & Reed LLP, which did "look at these laws closely" with the intention of understanding "how this could play out legally,"  and has the benefit of 54 legally-based citations backing their position.

 

Their report states:

 

Religious Chartered Organizations Have an Expressive Association Defense Under the First Amendment

 

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides, in part, that “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.”17 The right to freedom of expressive association is guaranteed by this provision of the First Amendment.18 Government intrusion into the internal affairs of a private organization by forcing it to accept a member that it does not want is unconstitutional if the member’s presence affects in a significant way the organization’s ability to advocate public or private viewpoints.19 This right to freedom of association “is a right enjoyed by religious and secular groups alike.”20

 

The First Amendment freedom of association of an organization protects the freedom to not associate with persons whose expression is inconsistent with the expression of the organization.21 Although a state or local government can prohibit discrimination under a place of public accommodation law, the U.S. Constitution bans enforcement of those laws where the First Amendment freedom of association is in conflict with the public accommodations law. In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, the Supreme Court concluded that the freedom of association protects an organization only (1) if forcing the membership of someone from a protected class would conflict with the expression of the private membership organization and (2) if the government does not have a compelling interest that is greater than the expressive association interest of the private organization.22

 

The Supreme Court’s decision in Dale was based on the precedent that allowed the organizers of the St. Patrick’s Day Parade in Boston—the South Boston Allied War Veterans Council—to exclude an LGBT contingent from the parade.23 In Hurley v. Irish American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, the Supreme Court concluded that the First Amendment protected the parade organizers from the Massachusetts place of public accommodation law, and they were not required to include among the marchers a group imparting a message the organizers did not wish to convey.24

 

The Court recognized that the parade included diverse voices that varied from each other and from the parade organizers’ own expression.25 Nevertheless, the selection of this group of voices and the exclusion of others were protected by the First Amendment. The Court held that,

a private speaker does not forfeit constitutional protection simply by combining multifarious voices, or by failing to edit their themes to isolate an exact message as the exclusive subject matter of the speech. Nor, under our precedent, does First Amendment protection require a speaker to generate, as an original matter, each item featured in the communication. Cable operators, for example, are engaged in protected speech activities even when they only select programming originally produced by others. For that matter, the presentation of an edited compilation of speech generated by other persons is a staple of most newspapers’ opinion pages, which, of course, fall squarely within the core of First Amendment security, as does even the simple selection of a paid noncommercial advertisement for inclusion in a daily paper. The selection of contingents to make a parade is entitled to similar protection.26

 

In drawing on yet another analogy, the Court held that “[r]ather like a composer, the Council selects the expressive units of the parade from potential participants, and though the score may not produce a particularized message, each contingent’s expression in the Council’s eyes comports with what merits celebration on that day.”27

 

And here:

 

Religious Chartered Organizations Have Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause Defenses Under the First Amendment

 

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States also provides, in part, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”30 This provision is considered to include two clauses: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. By forbidding the “establishment of religion” and guaranteeing the “free exercise thereof,” the First Amendment ensured that the government “would have no role in filling ecclesiastical offices.”31 The First Amendment thus “gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations.”32

 

The Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed that both of these religion clauses bar the government from interfering with the decision of a religious group to select its ministers, as that term is broadly construed.33 The Supreme Court explained that

The members of a religious group put their faith in the hands of their ministers. Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs. By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments. According the state the power to determine which individuals will minister to the faithful also violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions.34

 

The Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause thus also protect religious organizations from government interference in the selection of leaders.35

 

And here, even in light of the Supreme Court's most recent decision in Obergefell:

 

In the recent decision on the right of same-sex couples to marry, the Court emphasized that the First Amendment protects the rights of religious organizations to adhere to religious principles that do not condone same-sex marriage.

t must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.48

 

There should be no doubt that the right of religious chartered organizations to select their Scouting leaders is protected by the First Amendment.

 

The rest of the report is well worth the read, as it really obliterates the vague hypotheticals and undefined fearmongering of Mr. Oman's blogpost.

 

It appears to me that once LDS leadership examined this type of evidence, as well as the BSA's committment (from the concluding paragraph of the above report) that "the BSA will help safeguard the religious chartered organizations by defending their protected expression and religious liberties in connection with the selection of unit leaders," LDS leadership was satisfied that there was no need to sever ties with the BSA over this issue.

 

Kudos to LDS leaders for doing so, and to the majority of Latter-day Saints for likewise recognizing the value of sticking with the BSA.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Daniel2

[Scott Lloyd]

Nate Oman's "analysis" is seriously flawed.  In fact, it’s a stretch to even call it an “analysis” simply because Mr. Oman doesn’t cite any legal precedent upon which he bases his hypothetical scenario.  He even acknowledges his lack of specifics throughout his post:

 

 

Contrasted with Mr. Oman’s unsubstantiated and unsupported hypothetical blogpost is the highly-annotated report, THE EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ADULT LEADER STANDARD ON RELIGIOUS CHARTERED ORGANIZATIONS, authored by the D.C.-based law firm of Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP (which I first raised here on this boad in a separate thread, here). 

 

This report cites ample legal precedent refuting Mr. Oman’s hypothetical scenario, explaining why his concerns are misguided.

 

Mr. Oman claims that:

 

 

 

This, the crux of Mr. Oman's arguement, is directly contradicted numerous times by the report of Hughes, Hubbard, & Reed LLP, which did "look at these laws closely" with the intention of understanding "how this could play out legally,"  and has the benefit of 54 legally-based citations backing their position.

 

Their report states:

 

 

And here:

 

 

And here, even in light of the Supreme Court's most recent decision in Obergefell:

 

 

The rest of the report is well worth the read, as it really obliterates the vague hypotheticals and undefined fearmongering of Mr. Oman's blogpost.

 

It appears to me that once LDS leadership examined this type of evidence, as well as the BSA's committment (from the concluding paragraph of the above report) that "the BSA will help safeguard the religious chartered organizations by defending their protected expression and religious liberties in connection with the selection of unit leaders," LDS leadership was satisfied that there was no need to sever ties with the BSA over this issue.

 

Kudos to LDS leaders for doing so, and to the majority of Latter-day Saints for likewise recognizing the value of sticking with the BSA.

I earnestly hope your prognostication and that of the law firm you cite proves to be correct.

 

That said, as I have pointed out before, a lawsuit can wreak a lot of havoc even when it is without merit, as it can be expensive to defend against it.

 

Joseph Smith's enemies were wont to use "vexatious lawsuits" as a weapon of harassment; I don't doubt that they could be used as a means to push a political agenda as well.

[Tacenda]

If only we could divorce Friends of Scouting without divorcing the BSA.  Now that would be something I could get behind!

[smac97]

Nate Oman's "analysis" is seriously flawed.  In fact, it’s a stretch to even call it an “analysis” simply because Mr. Oman doesn’t cite any legal precedent upon which he bases his hypothetical scenario.  He even acknowledges his lack of specifics throughout his post:

 

 

Contrasted with Mr. Oman’s unsubstantiated and unsupported hypothetical blogpost is the highly-annotated report, THE EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ADULT LEADER STANDARD ON RELIGIOUS CHARTERED ORGANIZATIONS, authored by the D.C.-based law firm of Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP (which I first raised here on this boad in a separate thread, here). 

 

This report cites ample legal precedent refuting Mr. Oman’s hypothetical scenario, explaining why his concerns are misguided.

 

Mr. Oman claims that:

 

 

 

This, the crux of Mr. Oman's arguement, is directly contradicted numerous times by the report of Hughes, Hubbard, & Reed LLP, which did "look at these laws closely" with the intention of understanding "how this could play out legally,"  and has the benefit of 54 legally-based citations backing their position.

 

Their report states:

 

 

And here:

 

 

And here, even in light of the Supreme Court's most recent decision in Obergefell:

 

 

The rest of the report is well worth the read, as it really obliterates the vague hypotheticals and undefined fearmongering of Mr. Oman's blogpost.

 

It appears to me that once LDS leadership examined this type of evidence, as well as the BSA's committment (from the concluding paragraph of the above report) that "the BSA will help safeguard the religious chartered organizations by defending their protected expression and religious liberties in connection with the selection of unit leaders," LDS leadership was satisfied that there was no need to sever ties with the BSA over this issue.

 

Kudos to LDS leaders for doing so, and to the majority of Latter-day Saints for likewise recognizing the value of sticking with the BSA.

 

Daniel,

 

You seem to be under the impression that I have bought into Nate Oman's analysis.  I have not.  I haven't looked into it with any real rigor (nor into the above "report").  

 

That said, I don't think it's fair to characterize Oman's post as "fearmongering," not when your compatriots (with whom you, as an individual, disagree) are promising an never-ending stream of litigation until they get their way.

 

Let's keep in mind that the BSA capitulated not because it lost in the courts, but because it won, and because your compatriots continued their lawfare tactics, thus forcing the BSA to shoulder "staggering" litigation costs.  This strategy (using the expense associated with litigation, rather than the decisions of the courts, to wear down and coerce private groups into capitulating) worked with the BSA, and it appears it will not be deployed against religious groups.  The merits of the litigation, then, are secondary to the financial costs inherent in defending against that litigation.

 

Nate Oman's speculation is just one of an endless number of theoreticals that could be deployed against religious groups.  Whether he is right or wrong on the law isn't really the point, is it?  

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited September 24, 2015 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

Daniel,

 

You seem to be under the impression that I have bought into Nate Oman's analysis.  I have not.  I haven't looked into it with any real rigor (nor into the above "report").  

 

That said, I don't think it's fair to characterize Oman's post as "fearmongering," not when your compatriots (with whom you, as an individual, disagree) are promising an never-ending stream of litigation until they get their way.

 

Let's keep in mind that the BSA capitulated not because it lost in the courts, but because it won, and because your compatriots continued their lawfare tactics, thus forcing the BSA to shoulder "staggering" litigation costs.  This strategy (using the expense associated with litigation, rather than the decisions of the courts, to wear down and coerce private groups into capitulating) worked with the BSA, and it appears it will not be deployed against religious groups.  The merits of the litigation, then, are secondary to the financial costs inherent in defending against that litigation.

 

Nate Oman's speculation is just one of an endless number of theoreticals that could be deployed against religious groups.  Whether he is right or wrong on the law isn't really the point, is it?  

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

If the juggernaut does prevail in the lawfare it wages, one thing of which we can all be certain is that the response of the Church of Jesus Christ will be to disassociate itself from BSA, not to knuckle under to demands that the Church appoint gay leaders in its chartered Scout units.

[Scott Lloyd]

That vexatious litigation is a recognized concept in the legal profession is indicated by this Wikipedia entry.

 

Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action. Filing vexatious litigation is considered an abuse of the judicial process and may result in sanctions against the offender.

 

[Analytics]

Let's keep in mind that the BSA capitulated not because it lost in the courts, but because it won, and because your compatriots continued their lawfare tactics, thus forcing the BSA to shoulder "staggering" litigation costs....

 

That is not the main reason why they changed the policy.  According to Robert Gates, the principal reason why the BSA changed is because their own membership wanted it to change.  The secondary reason was because new laws were weakening their legal defense of the old policies.  In his words:

 

I told you a year ago that I would oppose reopening this issue during my two-year term as president of the BSA. I had hoped then for a respite during which we could focus on healing our divisions from the 2013 decision, improving our program, strengthening our finances and ending our decline in membership.

 

However, events during the past year have confronted us with urgent challenges I did not foresee and which we cannot ignore. We cannot ignore growing internal challenges to our current membership policy, from some councils – like the Greater New York Council, the Denver Area Council, and others – in open defiance of the policy, to more and more councils taking a position in their mission statements and public documents contrary to national policy....

 

We must deal with the world as it is, not as we might wish it to be. The status quo in our movement’s membership standards cannot be sustained. We can expect more councils to openly challenge the current policy. While technically we have the authority to revoke their charters, such an action would deny the lifelong benefits of scouting to hundreds of thousands of boys and young men today and vastly more in the future. I will not take that path.

 

Moreover, dozens of states – from New York to Utah – are passing laws that protect employment rights on the basis of sexual orientation. Thus, between internal challenges and potential legal conflicts, the BSA finds itself in an unsustainable position. A position that makes us vulnerable to the possibility the courts simply will order us at some point to change our membership policy. We must all understand that this probably will happen sooner rather than later.

 

Waiting for the courts is a gamble with huge stakes. Alternatively, we can move at some future date – but sooner rather than later – to seize control of our own future, set our own course and change our policy in order to allow charter partners – unit sponsoring organizations – to determine the standards for their scout leaders. Such an approach would allow all churches, which sponsor some 70% of our scout units, to establish leadership standards consistent with their faith.

[Scott Lloyd]

That the juggernaut will not be satisfied with a live-and-let-live policy regarding sponsoring organizations who won't appoint gay leaders for their chartered units is evidenced by this story out of Los Angeles:

 

The move does not satisfy leaders of the Los Angeles LGBT Center, citing that the BSA can still choose to deny leaders based on sexual orientation.

“I was mostly disappointed because what they’ve done is said, ‘we will allow you to discriminate’,” said Lorri L. Jean, CEO of the LGBT Center. “It’s better than mandatory discrimination. But it’s still not acceptable.”

 

... Jean said she knows people who couldn’t get involved with BSA because they felt they weren’t welcome.

“The only thing it means is if [gay leaders] are fortunate enough to be accepted, then they are OK. But they have no protection if they are with a troop that doesn’t want them,” Jean said. “The message that this sends is still a bad one — especially for youth — that it is still OK to discriminate.”

Jean called the change in policy a half measure and hopes corporations will see through the “calculated step to get back corporate dollars” by making little progress.

“This is them trying to get their cake and eat it too,” she said.

It's clear that she -- and probably others like her -- want to continue to try to starve the BSA into total submission and capitulation with their demands by urging corporations to withhold their support.

 

If that doesn't work all by itself, well, I have no doubt vexatious litigation would be part of the overall strategy.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

That is not the main reason why they changed the policy.  According to Robert Gates, the principal reason why the BSA changed is because their own membership wanted it to change.  The secondary reason was because new laws were weakening their legal defense of the old policies.  In his words:

I don't see in there where he identified that as the "principal reason" or where he assigned a ranking to "the principal reason," "the secondary reason," etc.

[Gray]

 

[Scott Lloyd]

"Vituperous villains," "merry-making mutants"?

 

Sounds pretty apt to me.