- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Barnstromer wrote:
The Doctrine that is spoken about is basically the Law of Chastity.
The BSA obviously supports the policy that it is OK to have sex with anyone that you choose.
Hi Barnstromer, I hope you’ll bear with me as I try to make sense of this logic. If someone openly acknowledges they are gay that means they believe it is okay to have sex with anyone [any man?] they choose? If I openly acknowledge that I am straight does that also mean I believe it is okay to have sex with any woman that I choose? If not isn’t that a double standard?
If we make the charitable assumption that “I am gay” means “I am a man attracted to men” and nothing more, how would this policy change be promoting the breaking of the law of chastity? It is possible and probable that in the larger [non-Mormon] BSA organization there have been scout leaders who have lived unmarried with a girlfriend. Without a policy in place that prohibit them from serving as scout leaders is that not an equally strong “approval” of disregarding the law of chastity?
On Own Now wrote:Rob4Hope wrote:hawkgrrrl wrote:I think we can’t overlook the fact that BYU considers the Eagle as part of its entrance evaluations. If you are a male and don’t have one, it can hurt your chances just like seminary graduation can.
Such policies baffle me, but that is how things are. If you happen to be a good LDS boy (for example), and your ward didn’t have a very good program–you are held accountable for that?
NOT cool….
Actually, I don’t see anything wrong with this. Eagle Scout is something that is considered. So is membership in NHS. So is a record of community service. So is GPA. So is class rank. Just because one person has achieved, doesn’t mean it is unfair for those who haven’t.I agree – BYU is not the only college that takes Eagle Scout into account. It is an achievement most young men can be proud of. I think some of the examples mentioned here are extreme and rare although I have also seen them happen. Most Eagle Scouts really did earn it, and I have always said behind every good Eagle is a good Eagle Mom – there’s nothing wrong with Mom being a prodding influence.
Rob, BYU does give the applicant an opportunity to explain things. If your ward does not have a troop (and you did not avail yourself to a local troop) you can put that in that section of the application. BYU also considers AP credit, our rural school doesn’t offer AP because of the expense – my kids have each explained that on the application. Eagle Scout and seminary are just part of a big picture that BYU looks at, just like other colleges.
Barnstromer wrote:The Doctrine that is spoken about is basically the Law of Chastity.
The BSA obviously supports the policy that it is OK to have sex with anyone that you choose. The church can not support a group or organization that openly supports the contrary.
1. Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?Just saying
Sorry, in no way does BSA meet that standard now or ever before. The church itself does not condemn homosexuality, only homosexual acts. There are celibate active homosexual members. There are also those who attend church who are not celibate (homosexual and heterosexual) along with a very wide variety of other sinners (me and you included).
I also take issue with the “have sex with anyone that you choose” part. BSA does not endorse pedophilia, and gay
= pedophile.Barnstromer wrote:The Doctrine that is spoken about is basically the Law of Chastity.
The BSA obviously supports the policy that it is OK to have sex with anyone that you choose.
Welcome, Barnstromer. I hope to hear from you as we work through our desires to stay connected with the Church in spite of no longer accepting the whole enchilada. The Law of Chastity has only an indirect relationship with sexual orientation. As Orson pointed out, the LofC covers sex outside of marriage, but says nothing about gender of the parties involved.From the Church’s own mormonsandgays.org:
Quote:Where the Church stands:
The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.
I think that statement is pretty clear that being openly gay is not a sin (Law of Chastity) or contrary to any doctrine of the Church. That’s why it’s so difficult to reconcile the statement in the press release that “the admission of openly gay leaders is inconsistent with the doctrines of the Church.” FWIW, I’ve known openly gay members of the Church. Using the terminology of the press release, it would be inconsistent with the doctrines of the Church to allow members to be openly gay, something we know not to be the case.My wife found a link to this statement in her Facebook feed. It was introduced in the context that the assault on religious freedom that has been feared is now becoming a reality and will get worse and worse. What I believe is lacking from the religious freedom rhetoric and from this church statement is that the church (as the chartering organization) will still have complete control over who leads our church troops (as long as they can pass the BSA background check)
From the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/07/28/why-mormons-are-so-devastated-by-the-boy-scout-vote-on-gay-leaders/ Quote:Facing litigation, the Scouts Monday approved a new policy allowing troops to pick openly-gay volunteer leaders and banning discrimination in the hiring of employees.
But it leaves it to individual troops and councils, most of which are faith-based, to choose leaders who reflect their own values. Quote:The Catholic Church’s scouting association put out a statement Monday saying the new policy seemed workable — if it continues to allow church-affiliated troops to pick their own leaders, and if clear guidelines are set for how “sexual orientation” is described.
Catholic teaching accepts that people are gay or lesbian in their identity but forbids same-sex sexual behavior. That last sentence that I underlined is so familiar. Isn’t that our policy and our doctrine or am I missing something? Is there anything that might have prevented us from responding in a similar way as the Catholic scouting association?
I felt that part from the LDS church statement about always welcoming gay boys into LDS troops seemed less than forthcoming.
Also from the Washington Post:
Quote:When the Scouts welcomed openly gay youth
in 2013, the Mormon Church made clear that its teachings call all youth to chastity and that gay youth are welcome along with straight youth. In other words, they tried to downplay the difference. Is the church trying to claim that they had a policy of admitting and welcoming openly gay boys into their troops prior to 2013 and in violation of the BSA policy?
More than anything I am tired of this being the rallying cry for the Mormon faithful. It seems that every time I hang out with Mormons someone brings up the gay agenda and how the world is deteriorating.
DW feels similarly. Next month the “enrichment night” theme is about being the generation that walks away from the “world.” (I jokingly asked what it might mean to “walk away from the world.” Are we going to shun modern conveniences and go live with the Amish? Oh, just about gay marriage again huh?
:yawn: ) DW says that she would have voted against gay marriage if she could but it is one thing to vote your conscience and another thing to develop an exclusionary environment in our faith community. How can we serve our fellow men in the world while at the same time “walking away”?DarkJedi wrote:Rob, BYU does give the applicant an opportunity to explain things. If your ward does not have a troop (and you did not avail yourself to a local troop) you can put that in that section of the application.
That actually does help.
NightSG wrote:IMO, BSA has incapacitated itself over the years since I was a Scout with liability concerns and politically correct garbage.
Yep. I was a scout leader a couple years ago. I was teaching the boys about first response and first aid. I got to the part in the book about fires and it said something like “help the person out of the fireonlyif there is no danger to yourself.” I looked at the boys and said, “Wow, this crap is written by some lawyer. Listen, boys, if you need to pull someone out of a fire, your going to have to take a risk. Don’t stand there watching a person burn to death.” (I’m paraphrasing myself. What I actually said was probably not that awesome.)
For this reason and the mounds of chartering paperwork required each year, I want the church to ditch the BSA.
Fellow blogger Ronan got the money quote in WaPo! http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/07/28/why-mormons-are-so-devastated-by-the-boy-scout-vote-on-gay-leaders/ mom3 wrote:Why say anything?
The BSA left room for individual charters to make their own decision, the church already said it would only staff heterosexual men in the leadership callings. Lastly – what doctrine.
I’m stumped.
When did the church say this? I was under the impression that temple worthy gay men that are living the law of chastity were worthy to work in scouting. The Press Release just set back all the ground gained by the church with its Mormons and Gays web site. The press release should have used a qualifier such as “sexually active gay men,” or “men not following our standards of sexual purity.” Just a blanket statement that LDS doctrine forbids the appointment of gay men as scouting leaders. This seems to fly in the face of public relations motivated statements in recent years, which have emphasized that gay LDS members can participate fully and hold callings, provided they are celibate.
From the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/29/us/catholic-panel-urges-churches-to-continue-sponsoring-scout-troops.html?_r=0 Quote:The [Catholic] committee’s stance, in a statement issued late Monday, suggests that wholesale defections from the Boy Scouts by religious sponsors are not likely any time soon, despite the markedly more negative response from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which said it would consider severing ties.
The Catholic Committee, which maintains an office inside the Boy Scout headquarters in Irving, Tex., expressed deep concern about any possible endorsement of sexual behavior outside of traditional marriage. But it praised the assurances of Scout leaders that despite the new policy on openly gay leaders, local church-based units will remain free to select volunteer leaders who share their religious principles.
[snip]
But a fracturing of the Boy Scouts still seems possible. The response of the Mormon Church to Monday’s decision had a strident tone that took many Scout leaders by surprise.
Calling the new leadership standard “inconsistent with the doctrines of the church,” the statement made no reference to the exception carved out for religious groups.
In an unusual public display of irritation over internal Scout proceedings, the Mormon Church also said that “in spite of a request to delay the vote, it was scheduled at a time in July when members of the church’s governing councils are out of their offices and do not meet.”
“When the leadership of the church resumes its regular schedule of meetings in August,” the statement said, “the century-long association with scouting will need to be examined.”
Sheldon wrote:I was under the impression that temple worthy gay men that are living the law of chastity were worthy to work in scouting. The Press Release just set back all the ground gained by the church with its Mormons and Gays web site. The press release should have used a qualifier such as “sexually active gay men,” or “men not following our standards of sexual purity.” Just a blanket statement that LDS doctrine forbids the appointment of gay men as scouting leaders. This seems to fly in the face of public relations motivated statements in recent years, which have emphasized that gay LDS members can participate fully and hold callings, provided they are celibate.
It is my understanding that the church will put a star next to your name in the church records if you have confessed to homosexuality. This star will forevermore preclude you from a calling working with children or the youth. This information comes from the Mormon Stories interview of Mormon Dance Champion Benji Schwimmer.
Roy wrote:It is my understanding that the church will put a star next to your name in the church records if you have confessed to homosexuality. This star will forevermore preclude you from a calling working with children or the youth. This information comes from the Mormon Stories interview of Mormon Dance Champion Benji Schwimmer.
I always thought that to “confess to homosexuality” you have to have acted on it. Since the church has repeated taught (recently) that there is no sin in having “same sex feelings” then there would be nothing to confess to a bishop. Thus, no star. I do know from the time I was bishop that if you have ever confessed to a sin against children, then you can never work with them, and you have that “star” on your record.
Sheldon wrote:I always thought that to “confess to homosexuality” you have to have acted on it. Since the church has repeated taught (recently) that there is no sin in having “same sex feelings” then there would be nothing to confess to a bishop. Thus, no star. I do know from the time I was bishop that if you have ever confessed to a sin against children, then you can never work with them, and you have that “star” on your record.
If I remember correctly Benji had been talking to the bishop in hopes of working through his same sex attraction. I believe that around this same time he had kissed another young man but I might be wrong about that. What I do remember clearly was that at no time was Benji in breach of the law of chastity (as in sexual relations) and he still got a star on his record and was told that he would never be able to work with the youth. Reportedly his bishop felt terrible about it but his hands were tied by church policy.
[Admin Note]: No more responses about Barnstromer’s comment will be allowed. I was not online and missed that comment when it was posted, or it would have been deleted – with a PM to Barnstromer to explain why. I apologize to him or her for having to do this publicly, but the comment is so egregiously inaccurate – such a horrible misrepresentation of the BSA decision and policy, as well as homosexual people in general – that discussion of it is over. I write that as someone who hated Scouting when I was a youth, who did not support it actively when my boys were that age, who does not support it financially now and who would like to see the LDS Church disassociate from it.
I think the reaction, while more strident than normal, is not surprising for two simple reasons: one referenced in the response and one kind of implied: 1) The vote was taken at a time when high-ranking members of the Church’s leadership and the Scouting organization were not able to be present. The implication is either that the meeting was called without adequate notice to change plans or that the Church requested a delay and was rebuffed.
2) The LDS Church is the largest sponsor of BSA in the United States, and I wouldn’t be surprised at all if it is the largest monetary contributor, per Scout and troop, as well. If a request was made to allow more voice in the decision, and if that request was rebuffed, it is easy to understand why the leadership would feel like the partnership was no longer a real partnership.
My sense is that impression has been building for a long time – and that there has been a growing strain between the two organizations for a while. The BSA isn’t happy about the participation model (particularly at the local leader level), and the Church isn’t happy about the general direction the BSA has been going in many aspects.
Alone, I don’t think this recent decision would have caused nearly this reaction; as a final straw . . .
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.