Church maintains association with BSA

[Wingnut]

You obviously didn't read the whole thing.

Well, the post I'm questioning has been edited since I first read and quoted it, in my own defense.

I clearly stated that chaste men who for some reason don't marry or become fathers are also MEN.

That part isn't clear to me in your statement.

I'm saying clearly that homosexuals dilute their gender by involving themselves sexually with the same gender.

While I don't necessarily agree with this, I can understand it.

It's subtle Soul. I'm not saying gay men can't be manly- as in possession of 6 packs and can bench 200. But part of "manhood" by Church standards is to become husbands (of women), fathers (with their wives), leaders of families and priesthood holders. It's all the small things boys learn about responsibility, doing hard things, following through, learning skills that will help them in those roles. Gay boys can absolutely benefit from all of this, too.

But the assumption is that unless homosexual young men can commit to deny their same gender attraction and marry a woman and have a family with her, they aren't going to be taking on those traditional roles of "manhood". Even if they "marry" a man and adopt children, it's counterfeit.

This is what I focused on, mostly the first paragraph. You imply that men who don't marry and sire children (except in cases of infertility) aren't fully men, according to church standards. Does that also apply to straight men, or only to gay men?

[Wingnut]

And this is why the agenda is pernicious.

Here we have a self-avowed Latter-day Saint on a Mormon discussion board congratulating someone for deliberately living a life contrary to eternal law and Church teachings.

And hardly anyone blinks at the tacit endorsement...

I'm happy that he's happy. That's it. And Soul knows that, too.

[selek]

I'm happy that he's happy. That's it. And Soul knows that, too.

Is he really?

Seems to me he finds some comfort in his new relationship, but he's clearly unhappy about having to deceive his father.

I won't fault you for empathy- but that's not what you said, above, and I don't believe that your clarification is how most people would interpret you.

For that reason, your initial statement was far more morally problematic.

[Wingnut]

Is he really?

Seems to me he finds some comfort in his new relationship, but he's clearly unhappy about having to deceive his father.

I won't fault you for empathy- but that's not what you said, above, and I don't believe that your clarification is how most people would interpret you.

For that reason, your initial statement was far more morally problematic.

"Congratulations" is an expression of happiness, so yes, that is what I said initially.

Also, it's a good thing that your opinions on the morality of my statements don't mean crap.

[Soulsearcher]

Is he really?

Seems to me he finds some comfort in his new relationship, but he's clearly unhappy about having to deceive his father.

I won't fault you for empathy- but that's not what you said, above, and I don't believe that your clarification is how most people would interpret you.

For that reason, your initial statement was far more morally problematic.

I might address this a bit. I'm happy. After many many years of lying to everyone and being in a very dark bad place( which wing saw me in) I'm starting to get happy and make massive changes. Am I happy about lying to my dad, no, but that's more because i grew up with the idea i needed to be ashamed and my dad comes from the time where the teachings and culture were much different. Wing has commented numerous times to me how much happier and how different i am since i've come out and been able to just be me and i love her for it, that and it's nice to have a fellow wing nut to swap quotes with.

BTW wing I'm forcing him to watch the entire series in return for being forced to watch real housewives.

[pam]

I think this conversation has gone far astray of the church's comments on the BSA.

[selek]

This is what I focused on, mostly the first paragraph. You imply that men who don't marry and sire children (except in cases of infertility) aren't fully men, according to church standards. Does that also apply to straight men, or only to gay men?

Nut, the problem is that you're trying to apply a black-and-white, either/or to a comparison where such binary mindsets and absolutism are not appropriate.

You are, in essence, arguing that is the comparison cannot be applied universally, then it should not be applied at all.

This is both false, and a dangerous mindset which leads to antinomianism (an avowed heresy).

Call it old-fashioned, if you like, but in my opinion, Carlimac's reasoning boils down to one simple word: integrity (or for those of us who grew up in the South, honor).

A "true man" is someone who demonstrates (if not exemplifies) integrity, courage, self-sacrifice, and honor.

Who is more of a man: the one who charges a machine gun nest and saves every other man in his platoon? Or the one who soils himself cowering at the bottom of his fox hole?

Who is more of a man: the father who works eighty or ninety hours a week putting food on the table for his family? Or the welfare king who spends eighty hours a week on his X-Box while others provide for his children?

Who is more of a man: the Priesthood holder who presides in his home with honor and respect for his wife, and who blesses his children? Or the MacDaddy with seventeen kids, three baby-mommas, and who can't keep it zipped for more than eight hours at a time?

Who is more of a man: he who chooses the harder course, regardless of the personal sacrifice because its the right thing to do? Or the hedonist who declares "don't judge me, God made me this way" as an all-purpose excuse to indulge his baser appetites?

Who is more of a man: small, frail, Gordon B. Hinckley? Or noted body builder (and hedonistic philanderer) Arnold Schwarzenegger?

Who is the perfect man: who commanded us to be perfect even as he is?

It goes without saying that we will all (even Presidents Hinckley and Monson) fall short.

But someone who chooses to live his life in a way that makes him less like Christ, who chooses a path of indolence and indulgence is, by definition, "less" of a man than one who does what is right, simply because it is right.

Edited May 24, 2013 by selek

[MarginOfError]

You read it Soul, you're not as much of a man as I am because I have a wife and children.

Yay me!

[selek]

Also, it's a good thing that your opinions on the morality of my statements don't mean crap.

For both of us, I'm sure.

To continue the thought in my previous post, however, the Boy Scouts of America is heavily inculcated in the world view I describe above.

Their goal is to produce men; who are, by definition, self-reliant, capable, honorable, honest, and, above all, moral.

Their program is designed specifically to foster and develop these traits in our youth.

They define men as individuals who will do their duty to God and country, who are noble, trustworthy, gallant, and responsible.

Anything less is (in their worldview) less of a man.

I know that such concepts are passé in a world that idolizes hedonism, self-indulgence, and "you're not the boss of me" pedanticism, but those Scout values are (despite the contempt of Babylon) the heart, foundation, and soul not only of the American experiment, but of eternal law as well.

We cannot live up to the fullness of our divine potential through self-indulgence.

We cannot become true sons and daughters of God by making excuses to circumvent eternal law or by "congratulating" others in doing so.

It is adherence to the law (after and through the Atonement) that will exalt us, not excuse making and persecution complexes.

Inasmuch as the change in BSA policy seeks to teach young men integrity, honor, and morality to the widest possible audience, I support it whole-heartedly.

Inasmuch as the change is a doorway to bringing the Scouts into complaince with the customs and mores of Babylon, I deplore it.

I foresee a number of bad actors who, having won this victory, use it as a wedge to further attack the principles upon which the BSA is founded in the name of being "inclusive".

How long do any of you think it will be before the shrill among us start lobbing accusations of harassment and intimidation and demand that the Scouts begin holding mandatory reeducation camps?

Oops, I meant to say "sensitivity training", not that there's much difference.

Edited May 24, 2013 by selek

[Anddenex]

You read it Soul, you're not as much of a man as I am because I have a wife and children.

Yay me!

The comments were pretty clear this wasn't the focal point.

[MarginOfError]

I wonder what it is about having sex with another man that makes one so full of self-indulgence and so incapable of self-sacrifice and selflessness....

oh wait...false dichotomy. How ironic.

[Soulsearcher]

You read it Soul, you're not as much of a man as I am because I have a wife and children.

Yay me!

You mean all it would take is for me to say yes to the women who keep asking me and have them pop out a few kids..........hmmmmmm you mean that's all it would take to be a real boy? not sure i read that in Pinocchio. MOE can you send me that portion of the scout handbook please i need to start handing it out to my gay friends so we can all know exactly what the scouts say about what it takes to be a real man, though i guess now with the change there will have to be an edit :)

[selek]

The comments were pretty clear this wasn't the focal point.

Let it go Anddenex; he knows full well what was said and what was intended.

It's just that mockery is easier than a substantive response.

The Scriptural examples of people mocking eternal truths- and those who speak them- are legion, so why should this board be any different?

[selek]

I wonder what it is about having sex with another man that makes one so full of self-indulgence and so incapable of self-sacrifice and selflessness....

oh wait...false dichotomy. How ironic.

It is indeed a false dichotomy. The only problem is, you're the one who introduced it.

But again, beating up on a strawman is easier than a substantive response.

[Soulsearcher]

I wonder what it is about having sex with another man that makes one so full of self-indulgence and so incapable of self-sacrifice and selflessness....

oh wait...false dichotomy. How ironic.

Now now MOE we know they are right. I mean when i was a nanny it was proven very clear to me. I mean i worked 16 hours a day, 6 days a week for a good LDS family. The father was a man who gave blessings to his family and held a temple recommend. I got to know him very well when i was taking care of his five kids while he locked himself in his computer room and played games and watched porn. I was so greedy i took a whole 500 dollars a month and even sometimes you know worked full 24-7 weeks for free just cause i needed to take all i could from that nice wholesome LDS familly that allowed their oldest son to molest their younger kids and threaten me when i said something needed to be done and then hid it when i did push a bit. When they divorced and the good LDS father ran because he was facing charges of molesting exchange student, i did the most dishonorable thing of buying food, clothing and supplies for the kids and giving my weekends to care for them because their mother had to work in another city to support them.

i mean all of that giving and doing for others, trying to help and make sure others are cared for has nothing to do with being a good man or a good scout. sigh, when will we learn from our betters that we just don't have what it takes

[RipplecutBuddha]

Wow, The LDS church re-emphasizes it's focus on moral purity for all young men involved in scouts. Essentially saying that individual inclinations are not the focus, but that individual conduct is the focus was intended, I assume, to de-fuse the angst that is usually wrought with this subject.

And then it gets brought right back in again because people are talking past each other, staking claims on moral ground that is reserved for Jesus alone, and generally missing the entire point of the press release in the first place.

This may be only a policy matter, however it is directly tied to doctrinal principles that have been in place from the beginning. A discussion on that, I feel, might be more fruitful than, say, discussing what homosexually oriented kids might do when camping.

[Anddenex]

I wonder what it is about having sex with another man that makes one so full of self-indulgence and so incapable of self-sacrifice and selflessness....

oh wait...false dichotomy. How ironic.

No different than a man who decides to have sex with someone who isn't his wife. Isn't it ironic how a person who commits adultery is self-indulgent, lacks self-sacrifice, and is selfish. Indeed ironic.

[MarginOfError]

Okay, something more substantive: (red and blue additions are mine)*

A "true man" is someone who demonstrates (if not exemplifies) integrity, courage, self-sacrifice, and honor. (Gay men do this)

Who is more of a man: the one who charges a machine gun nest and saves every other man in his platoon(Gay men do this)? Or the one who soils himself cowering at the bottom of his fox hole?(Straight men do this)

Who is more of a man: the father who works eighty or ninety hours a week putting food on the table for his family(Gay men do this)? Or the welfare king who spends eighty hours a week on his X-Box while others provide for his children?(Straight men do this)

Who is more of a man: the Priesthood holder who presides in his home with honor and respect for his wife, and who blesses his children(Gay men do this)? Or the MacDaddy with seventeen kids, three baby-mommas, and who can't keep it zipped for more than eight hours at a time?(Straight men do this)

Who is more of a man: he who chooses the harder course, regardless of the personal sacrifice because its the right thing to do(Gay men do this)? Or the hedonist who declares "don't judge me, God made me this way" as an all-purpose excuse to indulge his baser appetites?(Straight men do this)

But someone who chooses to live his life in a way that makes him less like Christ, who chooses a path of indolence and indulgence is, by definition, "less" of a man than one who does what is right, simply because it is right. (And many men who choose to live a gay lifestyle choose other ways in which to make their lives more in harmony with the gospel. I think it would be fair to look at the whole of their person and their choices, not just one aspect of it.)

* None of the statements indicate that "all gay/straight men" or "only gay/straight men" do the things pointed out. These are only to point out that gay men can do as many 'manly' things as straight men can. Again, it isn't about the one attribute we don't like, it's about the sum of all of their attributes and choices.

[MarginOfError]

No different than a man who decides to have sex with someone who isn't his wife. Isn't it ironic how a person who commits adultery is self-indulgent, lacks self-sacrifice, and is selfish. Indeed ironic.

Let's posit a hypothetical for a moment. Take a scoutmaster of 15 years. He's spent countless hours, weeks, weekends, working with youth on service projects, campouts, merit badge classes, etc. He's helped boys find self esteem, confidence, courage, and self-awareness. Can we agree that he is selfless and noble?

Now take a man who has an affair and sleeps with a woman, not his wife, and causes immense damage to his family relationships. Can we agree that he is self-indulgent, lacks self-sacrifice, and is selfish?

Now, what if I told you that these two examples are the same person?

It turns out selfless and self-indulgent aren't as mutually exclusive as we think they are.

[selek]

* None of the statements indicate that "all gay/straight men" or "only gay/straight men" do the things pointed out. These are only to point out that gay men can do as many 'manly' things as straight men can. Again, it isn't about the one attribute we don't like, it's about the sum of all of their attributes and choices.

I agree whole-heartedly.

There are gay men who are, by definition, "more of a man" than many straight men. I never claimed that this standard was binary.

That having been said, those who actively engage in homosexual sex (or indeed, any other form of fornication) are ignoring and violating eternal law in order to indulge their carnal appetites.

That, by definition, is self-indulgent.

As laid out above, they are "less" men than they could be if they chose the harder path of moral purity.

Contrary to the strawman you and Soulsearcher have set up, this isn't a race or a game in which I adjudge myself better than you (or anyone else).

As Skippy470 commented in the other BSA thread, this is about integrity, about being the best, most Christ-like man (or woman) you can be.

By choosing a path of self-indulgence and self-justification, you are choosing to be less than you might have been- which I believe was Carlimac's point all along.

To go back to the example you quoted above:

Who is more of a man: the Soulsearcher who lies to his father to hide his orientation, who chooses a life of sin and fornication?

Or the Soulsearcher who walks uprightly before the Lord, keeping the Law of Chastity in all respects despite the great personal sacrifice involved?

In an eternal sense, the answer is clearly the latter.

In your scoutmaster/adulterer formulation above, the answer is that this individual is LESS of a man than he might have been had he kept his covenants and lived honorably.

It turns out selfless and self-indulgent aren't as mutually exclusive as we think they are.

What do you mean "we"? This absolutism is your contribution to the conversation, not mine or Anddenex's.

Nor, for the record, have either Anddenex or I posited that one's status "as a man" is static or unchanging.

That change is possible- that we can become more than we are- is precisely the reason the Atonement exists.

Edited May 24, 2013 by selek

[MarginOfError]

I'm glad to see you finally articulate some nuance, selek.

Now, do you think it is fair to hold all chartering organizations in the BSA to your reading of eternal law? For instance, the Episcopal church that charters my scout troop does not believe that homosexual sex with a committed partner is any more wrong than heterosexual sex with a committed partner. Should the homosexual males of that Episcopal church be barred membership in its scout troop?

[Anddenex]

Let's posit a hypothetical for a moment. Take a scoutmaster of 15 years. He's spent countless hours, weeks, weekends, working with youth on service projects, campouts, merit badge classes, etc. He's helped boys find self esteem, confidence, courage, and self-awareness. Can we agree that he is selfless and noble?

Now take a man who has an affair and sleeps with a woman, not his wife, and causes immense damage to his family relationships. Can we agree that he is self-indulgent, lacks self-sacrifice, and is selfish?

Now, what if I told you that these two examples are the same person?

It turns out selfless and self-indulgent aren't as mutually exclusive as we think they are.

I don't believe I mentioned a person who commits adultery is unable to choose good in other aspects of his life.

I would not however agree that this man is "noble or selfless", because other actions in his life prove he is selfish, self-indulgent, and not self-sacrificing.

I would agree, that this person at times chooses to be selfless and self-sacrificing, but in and of himself he is neither noble or selfless.

But then again, I hold a different view regarding this, because I do not consider myself selfless, noble, charitable, etc... Until I reach the point that no sin is within me, and I like Christ can say, "I am good," then and only then will I consider myself noble, charitable, selfless.

[MarginOfError]

I don't believe I mentioned a person who commits adultery is unable to choose good in other aspects of his life.

I would not however agree that this man is "noble or selfless", because other actions in his life prove he is selfish, self-indulgent, and not self-sacrificing.

I would agree, that this person at times chooses to be selfless and self-sacrificing, but in and of himself he is neither noble or selfless.

But then again, I hold a different view regarding this, because I do not consider myself selfless, noble, charitable, etc... Until I reach the point that no sin is within me, and I like Christ can say, "I am good," then and only then will I consider myself noble, charitable, selfless.

If you won't consider yourself noble, charitable, or selfless, then I must agree with you that you are not charitable and call you to repentance.

[selek]

I'm glad to see you finally articulate some nuance, selek.

Horse pockey.

The absolutism and cartoon-caricatures in this thread have resided wholly and entirely with the homophile side of the aisle (and then, largely for rhetorical and demogogic advantage).

Now, do you think it is fair to hold all chartering organizations in the BSA to your reading of eternal law?

My, what a lovely strawman. I'm particularly impressed by the floppy hat and button eyes.

As you well, know, the standards to which BSA charters are held is for the BSA to decide. Thus far, their reading of eternal law conforms awfully darn closely to my own (perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the BSA- and men of integrity- had a great effect on me during my formative years).

If, or when, the BSA changes those standards, each of those contributing to that erosion will be called to account to a far higher tribunal than I can convene (and which, in fact, I will be answerable to for my own conduct).

For instance, the Episcopal church that charters my scout troop does not believe that homosexual sex with a committed partner is any more wrong than heterosexual sex with a committed partner. Should the homosexual males of that Episcopal church be barred membership in its scout troop?

If they are not living their lives in conformity with the Scout precepts and guidelines, then they absolutely should be barred from membership.

That's what "Freedom of Association" means, in addition to all those inconvenient clauses in the First and Fourth Admendments to the United States Constitution.

The fact that your preferred deviancy is fashionable or faddish does not obviate my Constitutional right to tell you to bugger off.

[MarginOfError]

Well, so much for nuance.