annewandering

Members
  • Posts

    3912
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by annewandering

  1. I think most dreams are just things we are trying to work out in our own minds, not visions from God or from satan.

    These people were smoking cigarettes. It feels more like I am reminding myself to not be judgmental but being torn because sin stinks and who wants to be around stench? It is probably the conflict between the two that my mind hasnt resolved.

  2. But here inlies the BIG problem. Apparently, I just learned on the other thread I started that being "morally clean" as the Scout oath states doesn't necessarily equate to chastity. Apparently, if it's OK with the chartering organization to have sex before marriage, and the young man agrees within himself that's being morally clean, then it's alrighty with the BSA. Doesn't matter to them. So...that means that it's okee dokee also to have sexually promiscuous gay boys in BSA if the chartering org is on board with it and if the boy simply thinks he's being morally clean.

    It's a sham.

    How does that affect the boy scouts sponsored by the church? Our standard of morality is abstinence whether it is the same for another sponsoring organization. We have nothing to do with them, boy scouts or not.

    Doesnt it start to be a matter of trusting the church to do what is right? If it becomes a problem the church will drop the program. I have absolutely no doubt of that at all.

  3. I agree. There are, however, those eager to change that fact in favor of their own predilections.

    I agree, as does being civil to one's fellow Latter-day Saints (such as Carlimac) who are trying to understand both the policy change and its potential implications.

    Telling them they're "overreacting" or "making a mountain out of a molehill" is to be dismissive of their concerns and questions- which is itself uncivil.

    Perhaps you are right and if so I apologize to Carlimac.

    Being cautious is not a bad thing. The boy scouts look like they have been very cautious even under a lot of pressure.

  4. The problem with this smug dismissal is that false teachings, moral "fluidity" and the dismissal and even celebration of morally repugnant behavior IS related to our salvation- and more specifically to that of our sons and neighbors.

    If we do not stand for and teach correct principles, we are both in violation of our covenants and commision and "unprofitable" servants.

    Is it that you unfamiliar with D&C 101:39-40? Or do you simply consider it an incovenient truth to be ignored in return for the praise of Babylon?

    What about D&C 103:9-10?

    These Scriptures are both an explicit commandment and an intrinsic warning.

    I do not believe that the BSA practices immoral and repugnant behavior. The correct principle of loving our neighbor comes to my mind. Being civil and joining with them in an organization dedicated in part to strong moral standards seems to be loving our neighbors.

  5. Oh come on. How would they enforce it? Send out spies or have a network of tattletells then excommunicate them from the Boy Scouts? IF there was overt sexual activities going on then they would probably be booted or suspended. Other than that it really isnt their business, anymore than it is our business if someone has a bishops court in our wards.

  6. I've never seen it as a substitution for church. But I always thought it was at least an organization that encouraged sexual purity that is also taught in every church I know of.

    You, and others, seem to be overreacting. The BSA did not say that they approved, or even tolerated, sexual activity in scouting. The church has never supported shunning any gay person, adult or child. How has that changed? As near as I can tell it has not changed at all. The church does not condone sexual sin. It doesnt matter who does it. How has that changed?

    I think that there is a mountain being made of a molehill.

  7. Your statement is causing a small blood vessel in my forehead bulge. Those people that always insisted on giving grief to kids??????? I have been involved in Scouting since my kids were 6 years old, that is 13 years. I have volunteered and served as a leader of tigers, Bobcats, Wolves and Bears...all outside of the church and in the church as Webeloe leader, 11 year old Scout Leader and as Scout Master and I have NEVER ever heard of anyone giving grief to a kid as you say because of homosexuality. Frankly, I would not have known if a kid has same sex attraction or not nor would I have ever said anything to one if i did know, other than perhaps a gentle correction if they had been acting in a manner not in keeping with Scouting, just as I would have any young person.

    Your statement reeks of ignorance and is so insulting to all of the men and women who have volunteered in the scouting organization over the years because they care.

    I certainly was not referring to people who never hurt any kid. Why would you assume I did? Most people in scouting are good people and do a lot for the kids they work with. I have nothing but admiration for them. The ONLY people I refer to are those that made kids feel unwelcome because they guessed the kid might be gay. You know there are some like that. My guess is they are rare and hopefully become even more rare. Bytor, I have no reason to think that you are anything but a blessing to the kids you come in contact with. I apologize for giving you any reason to think I would have been referring to you or the many multitudes of generous adults who work in the scouting programs.

  8. Before anyone suggests I think this dream is prophetic or anything of the sort, no. It is just a dream but it makes me think.

    I dreamt that the church decided that smoking would be ok for those who wanted to smoke. We all went to church but the doors were not open yet. People started breaking out their smokes while we waited. A cloud of smoke hung over everyone. Those who did not smoke started complaining about the stench of the smoke making very pointed remarks. I was one of those. The doors opened but only the nonsmokers were allowed in. We went in and took our seats around the chapel. Then the smokers were allowed in. They filled the pews and kept smoking. The bishop was one who smoked. (not a recognizable bishop, just generic) The smell was terrible. I wondered about the temple. Would they be allowed to smoke in the temple?

    After I woke up the dream stayed clear. It seemed to me that the smokers were people who were committing visible sins. The rest of us had less visible sins yet we sat there and condemned the visible sins of others as stinking. I am not quite sure what my dream was getting at but I do think it was trying to make a point to me. :)

    Anyway was just wondering what lesson I might take from the dream. Any ideas?

  9. Finding the balance between loving the person and not enabling a sin is not easy to do. That does not mean we have to not try. By backing away we do not help the cause of God's love or justice. Don't these gay boys deserve our help in establishing a strong moral base? We know they are going to have a hard time with earthly desires conflicting with moral laws in their lives. Doesnt it make sense to help them and support them to make good choices and to know that they have a home with us?

  10. I was pleased that they affirmed that it has ALWAYS been policy to not discriminate against gay kids. Chastity is the issue not gayness. Now for those people who have always insisted on giving grief to kids, its time to get with the program that the church has laid out and not give into personal prejudices.

  11. Wow he is determined to have his own way and guess what? He can. He is of legal age and obviously is in need of learning consequences for stupid choices. I would boot him with love.

    Keep in mind he is a horrible example to his siblings as well. Look whats happened already. One of his friends has tried to corrupt your daughter. He needs to go for their welfare if nothing else.

  12. Then perhaps I'm missing something.

    Were any of these organizations under the weight of politically motivated government scrutiny found guilty of violating the law?

    Many organizations have been give tax free status that shouldnt have been on both sides since about 1958 when the law that specifically says 'exclusively' for the social welfare was interpreted as meaning mostly or at least some. In other words they have been given tax free status when they shouldnt have been. Since no one wanted their particular organizations to be taxed they have pretty much ignored the situation.

    Truth is those groups should have been scrutinized, along with all the rest. None should have been exempt. Complain but complain that all havent been scrutinized, and many should have been denied exemption that werent, all along as the law stipulates.