Some other BSA questions...

[carlimac]

I want this to be a separate thread so it doesn't get all tangled up with the gay BSA threads and tangents.

Is there anywhere in the scout handbook that clearly defines what "morally straight" means? Is it defined in terms of the 10 commandments which are generally accepted (although not always practiced) by most Christians, Jews and even nonextremist Muslims.

How much attention is even given sexual morality in the BSA? I would think that outside of the LDS church where identification of a young man's sexual cleanliness is taken care of by bishop's interviews, the BSA should put it's money where it's mouth is and conduct something akin to a bishop's interview. It should be yearly and the leaders should be determining if a young man is living up to the BSA standards. If not they should be given a "warning" akin to being disfellowshipped in the church or having reduced privileges- put on probation of sorts. Strike two or three and they're booted out.

Does this happen in reality? If not, this whole focus on changing it's policy on gays is bogus. Because no matter what sexual orientation a young man has, he should not be engaging in sex outside of marriage ( if that's the BSA definition). It shouldn't be the focus in scouting at all. It shouldn't be talked about or even referred to during scouting activities. Gay and straight boys should be able to tent together because according to the scout oath, they believe in being morally straight and not engaging in anything that even hints at sexual innuendo outside of marriage- again if that's how "morally straight is defined."

If the BSA isn't going to pursue or interview or question a young man's adherance to "policy" and the scout oath, then why even have it or any reference to in in the oath at all?

Again this is pointing to a certain amount of hypocrisy in the leadership of the BSA if they aren't enforcing their policy.

Edited May 24, 2013 by carlimac

[MarginOfError]

I want this to be a separate thread so it doesn't get all tangled up with the gay BSA threads and tangents.

Is there anywhere in the scout handbook that clearly defines what "morally straight" means? Is it defined in terms of the 10 commandments which are generally accepted (although not always practiced) by most Christians, Jews and even nonextremist Muslims.

One article on a blog at Scouting magazine makes the following statement:

Scouting believes same-sex attraction should be introduced and discussed outside of its program with parents, caregivers, or spiritual advisers, at the appropriate time and in the right setting. The vast majority of parents we serve value this right and do not sign their children up for Scouting for it to introduce or discuss, in any way, these topics. (Boy Scouts of America clarifies its membership policy « Bryan on Scouting)

How much attention is even given sexual morality in the BSA?

Very little attention is given to the definition of morality within the scouting program. What constitutes moral and immoral is something that parents, caregivers, and spiritual advisers should be discussing with the boys. While spiritual advisers and scout leaders are often the same people in LDS scouting, it is not so in much of the rest of the scouting world.

If a chartering organization feels that a member of its scouting units is not adhering to the scout oath, then they have the right of revoking his membership. That is true in all scouting units.

I would think that outside of the LDS church where identification of a young man's sexual cleanliness is taken care of by bishop's interviews, the BSA should put it's money where it's mouth is and conduct something akin to a bishop's interview. It should be yearly and the leaders should be determining if a young man is living up to the BSA standards. If not they should be given a "warning" akin to being disfellowshipped in the church or having reduced privileges- put on probation of sorts. Strike two or three and they're booted out.

No. As stated by the BSA, these are issues to be addressed with parents, caregivers, and spiritual advisers. So long as the immoral activity is not happening during the scouting activities, the scout leaders should stay out of it (unless otherwise invited).

Furthermore, for many units, it would be impossible for a single scouting leader to conduct such interviews. In my troop alone, we have Lutheran, Episcopal, Catholic, Methodist, and Jewish members. Why would you expect the Methodist scoutmaster to understand the moral code for each of those religions. But they're so similar, you say? Well, keep in mind that the BSA also recognizes Buddhism, Hinduism, and even Wicca in its religious emblems program. What exactly do you propose the scoutmaster ask the Wiccan boy about living a morally straight life?

Does this happen in reality? If not, this whole focus on changing it's policy on gays is bogus. Because no matter what sexual orientation a young man has, he should not be engaging in sex outside of marriage ( if that's the BSA definition). It shouldn't be the focus in scouting at all. It shouldn't be talked about or even referred to during scouting activities. Gay and straight boys should be able to tent together because according to the scout oath, they believe in being morally straight and not engaging in anything that even hints at sexual innuendo outside of marriage- again if that's how "morally straight is defined."

No it doesn't happen, nor should it. That isn't the place of the scout leaders per BSA instructions.

And given the assumptions you're taking--that gay and straight boys should be able to tent together because if they are morally straight they should not be engaging in anything that even hints at the sexual--then changing the policy wasn't bogus. Rather the existence of the policy at all was bogus.

If the BSA isn't going to pursue or interview or question a young man's adherance to "policy" and the scout oath, then why even have it or any reference to in in the oath at all?

The BSA asserts that all young men and young women should adhere to a moral code that is consistent with their ideal and religion. The Scout Oath is perfectly written to allow that definition to be defined by each individual's religion.

Again this is pointing to a certain amount of hypocrisy in the leadership of the BSA if they aren't enforcing their policy.

Actually, it's pointing to a wisely designed system of chartering organizations given the flexibility to determine the moral conduct that they feel is appropriate for membership in their unit. Flexibility, in this context, is a virtue, not a vice.

[skippy740]

Boy Scout Oath

Excerpted from page 45-46, Boy Scout Handbook, 11th ed,

(#33105), copyright 1998 by BSA, ISBN 0-8395-3105-2

and from page 420-421, Webelos Scout Book, 1998 edition,

(#33108), copyright 1998 by BSA, ISBN 0-8395-3108-7

. . and morally straight.

To be a person of strong character, your relationships with others should be honest and open. You should respect and defend the rights of all people. Be clean in your speech and actions, and remain faithful in your religious beliefs. The values you practice as a Scout will help you shape a life of virtue and self-reliance.

[skippy740]

If the BSA isn't going to pursue or interview or question a young man's adherance to "policy" and the scout oath, then why even have it or any reference to in in the oath at all?

It's not about 'inspecting what you expect'. It's a personal oath... or if you like, a code of ethics.

Ethics are personal commitments in integrity, the highest standard.

Laws are general for everyone, the lowest standard.

The goal is to make this personal to each scout to commit to the highest standards of conduct and personal morality.

[carlimac]

Well that's pretty vague if you ask me.

[MarginOfError]

Well that's pretty vague if you ask me.

That was, in fact, the point.

[selek]

Well that's pretty vague if you ask me.

To quote the most mediocre captain of the Enterprise, "When has justice ever been as simple as a rulebook?"

Virtue- true virtue- is not simply following all the rules for fear or punishment or even because it's "what's expected of us".

As came up in the Female Chastity thread of a few weeks back, true virtue and integrity are the adherence to what is right because it is right, rather than because we are told.

Or to put it another way, my going on a diet means nothing if I'm doing it just to keep my doctor from nagging me. I will surely cheat as soon as he's out of earshot.

It is far more "virtuous", "honorable", and "praiseworthy" for me to go on a diet because I am committed to losing weight and becoming healthier than I am.

Michelle Obama's "Healthy Schools" program hasn't done anything to improve kid's nutrition because the kids won't eat the slop she insists on serving them.

In both school lunches and the BSA, the kids have to be "onboard" with the program or the adults are just going through the motions.

[Wingnut]

And given the assumptions you're taking--that gay and straight boys should be able to tent together because if they are morally straight they should not be engaging in anything that even hints at the sexual--then changing the policy wasn't bogus. Rather the existence of the policy at all was bogus.

I have never thought of that before. It makes a lot of sense, though. To me, anyway.

[RipplecutBuddha]

If the true understanding of morality as a way of living were taught at home, in all homes, none of this would have to happen. As it stands, morality is becoming 'old fashioned' in society today, and because it is slowly being put aside, these kinds of clarifications, statements, and standards have to be put in place; to shore up what society as a whole ought to be maintaining on its own.

No, the BSA shouldn't have to say this, but fewer and fewer families are teaching this at home, so they're placed into the unwanted position of highlighting what should be common sense.

Welcome to the world...

[Backroads]

My local paper had a letter to the editor the other day arguing how important a fluid morality is. Made me sick.

[carlimac]

So theoretically, young men could be sexually active with other boys or girls- different ones every week and just because it fits in with their personal definition of "morally clean" (or because no one is going to put them in jail for it) because their own definiton has no boundaries, they can still be part of the BSA. That is frightening. I thought the BSA had slightly higher standards than that.

[skippy740]

Who are they going to confess to?

Why would someone 'tattle' on them to the BSA?

Morality is, has and always will be a personal code of conduct of principles. BSA is a great companion organization with other organizations that have such principles. Take that away, and then morality becomes much more 'subjective'.

I've always thought of the BSA to be a good, wholesome 'club'. Not a substitution for Church.

[carlimac]

Who are they going to confess to?

Why would someone 'tattle' on them to the BSA?

Morality is, has and always will be a personal code of conduct of principles. BSA is a great companion organization with other organizations that have such principles. Take that away, and then morality becomes much more 'subjective'.

I've always thought of the BSA to be a good, wholesome 'club'. Not a substitution for Church.

This is truly a revelation to me that doesn't help my view of BSA. I always thought "morally clean" meant the same thing in boy scouts that it means to church members.

I would argue that morality isn't only a personal code of conduct ( personally designed and drafted anyway) within the church. Morality is and always has had much to do with keeping your hands and other body parts where they belong before marriage. I do understand that there is more to morality than just a reference to sex, but I have grown up hearing that word referring to sexual purity more often than not.

Hate to say it, but this is disheartening. I always thought the BSA encouraged abstinence.

This sheds a whole new light on the debate about whether its appropriate to have gays in the organization. If there is no red light on whether they are sexually active or not, then it's a much more serious proposition. I'm whole heartedly against it, as I am wholeheartedly againstsexually active hetero boys being in Boy Scouts. There is something just not right about this whole thing.

Edited May 24, 2013 by carlimac

[Dravin]

I've always thought of the BSA to be a good, wholesome 'club'. Not a substitution for Church.

I think a lot of head exploding goes on when members, speaking of LDS, fail to separate scouting from it's use by the Church as an activity arm for Young Men. They see scouting intertwined with the Church and assume that's what scouting is, rather than seeing that's what scouting can be used for.

[carlimac]

I think a lot of head exploding goes on when members, speaking of LDS, fail to separate scouting from it's use by the Church as an activity arm for Young Men. They see scouting intertwined with the Church and assume that's what scouting is, rather than seeing that's what scouting can be used for.

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.

[annewandering]

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.

[selek]

This is truly a revelation to me that doesn't help my view of BSA. I always thought "morally clean" meant the same thing in boy scouts that it means to church members.

In nearly all respects, C, it does.

Where you're having a problem, I think, is that the BSA does not see itself as an enforcement mechanism for that standard.

To quote a beloved apostle who is all too often sneered at by the usual suspects, "We teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves."

Hate to say it, but this is disheartening. I always thought the BSA encouraged abstinence.

They DO encourage it- they simply don't enforce it unless it's thrust in their faces; sort of a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

[selek]

The BSA did not say that they approved, or even tolerated, sexual activity in scouting.

In point of fact, they (and the Church) have said precisely the opposite. Those who abide by the Scout code and by-laws are welcome, regardless of the particular flavor of their personal predilections.

Sexual immorality, when it comes to light, will not be tolerated.

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 agree.

You, and others, seem to be overreacting. I think that there is a mountain being made of a molehill.

I do not agree with this, however.

Given the practical and moral repurcussions and the impact on our sons and brothers, clarity and understanding of both the policy and its possible repercussions is of the highest priority.

[annewandering]

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.

[bytor2112]

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

Psshh....you think the IRS scandal is a molehill as well....go figure.

[annewandering]

Psshh....you think the IRS scandal is a molehill as well....go figure.

Maybe I think that things not related to our salvation are not that important? hmmm

[selek]

Maybe I think that things not related to our salvation are not that important? hmmm

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.

[annewandering]

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.

[bytor2112]

Maybe I think that things not related to our salvation are not that important? hmmm

As if homosexuality doesn't affect salvation or corrupt IRS cronies are somehow charting a course straight to the Celestial kingdom. Willful blindness I think it is called.....

[selek]

I do not believe that the BSA practices immoral and repugnant behavior.

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

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.

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.