Boy scout executive committee approves gay scout leaders

[The Folk Prophet]

...to the fullest extent allowed by law...

 

Is it just me, or does this strike anyone else as a loop hole clause to not defend or indemnify anyone after all?

[Still_Small_Voice]

It will be a surprise to me if the church will stay in the Scouting program for another ten years.  Boy Scouts has chosen the politically correct path which leads to strange roads (see I Nephi 8:32).

 

I am wondering what organization the church will choose to replace the Boy Scouts?

[Capitalist_Oinker]

I am wondering what organization the church will choose to replace the Boy Scouts?

 

They call it the Aaronic Priesthood, and it's been around a lot longer than BSA.

 

The Church and its youth will be fine.

[Guest MormonGator]

 

 

The Church and its youth will be fine.

 Amen to that! 

[skippy740]

I don't get it:

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-re-evaluating-scouting-program

 

Just two weeks ago, they put THIS one out:

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-comments-on-boy-scouts-of-america-resolution-on-adult-leader-standards

 

 

The way I understood everything was that as long as the chartering organizations can choose to appoint whom they wish, consistent with their values, there would be no conflict.

 

Whatever.  I'm fine with whatever decision, but I wish they would be clear in what they intend.  To me, this new release sounds childish because they didn't hold the vote for a convenient time for LDS leaders... yet it didn't seem that there would be a conflict based on the standards being left with chartering organizations.

 

I just find this odd.

[yjacket]

They call it the Aaronic Priesthood, and it's been around a lot longer than BSA.

 

The Church and its youth will be fine.

The Aaronic Priesthood is an office, not a program; BSA and the church has a very long history and it is a very sad day that has occurred.  One of the greatest organizations in American history that stood for moral principles is being destroyed.

I used to have a very high opinion of BSA, an Eagle scout, I've attended National Jamborees and World Jamborees, etc; done just about all that scouting has to offer. I spit upon them now-what a bunch of spineless corrupt money grubbers.

[yjacket]

And this decision will affect every level of scouting. While individual units won't be affected (for now) on how they want to run their individual meetings, this will affect them when they go camping. A unit can enforce proper scouting morals a.k.a "morally straight", but when they go to a BSA scout camp such as Philmont, National Jamboree, or any other number of local BSA run camps they will have no control nor option but to be at the behest of the this new despicable policy.

 

When they allowed openly homosexual boys into BSA, I said give it max 5 years and leaders would be allowed too; it happened quicker than that.

 

BSA is killing itself; 7% drop in membership since the decision 2 years ago; and many back-bone leaders that I know will have nothing to do with scouts anymore.  If it weren't for my calling and my son; I'd let them rot.

 

The root of BSA changes:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/19/lockheed-martin-boy-scouts-gay-_n_4473849.html

 

It is the love of money, nothing more, nothing less. The BSA fat cat corporate get their salaries from donors and when big companies like Lockheed, UPS, etc. pull funds the BSA acts.

Edited July 28, 2015 by yjacket

[Just_A_Guy]

I agree with DHK, the new press release is very problematic. The first release makes sense if the Church didn't want to be seen as influencing the vote--but this new release makes it look like the Church *did* want to influence the vote but was unable, in this modern age of instantaneous global communications, to call an emergency teleconference of its key policy makers in order to come up with a grand strategy. It's the PR equivalent of "my dog ate my homework".

And that line about "The Church has always welcomed all boys to its Scouting units regardless of sexual orientation" is just plain hooey. The Church couldn't have welcomed gay boys into its Scouting units before last year, because BSA policy didn't allow it to.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[skippy740]

And on the Mormon Newsroom facebook page, the fact that I keep pointing this out... well, let's just say that my comment keeps getting deleted.  It's kinda funny, in a problematic way.

[estradling75]

It seems to me that the Church was ok with it going for a vote...  I would presume that before a vote a discussion would be held were the Church leaders on the council could have a chance to make the case that it shouldn't be allowed

 

Now if the Scouting leaders took action to minimize the possibility for contrary opinions, and excluded them, then I could see that as a big slap in the face.  It would be a big indicator that smaller groups aren't going to be listened to or be allowed to go their own way.    We see that coming anyways this just might mean its coming even faster then expected.  

[skippy740]

I suppose I just wish they would've made this decision before the new cub scout program went into effect this past June.  Would've saved a lot of time, effort, and money.  (I'm the Asst. Webelos DL, Cub Master, and Den Chief District Trainer.)

[Capitalist_Oinker]

I just find this odd.

 

You and me both! 

It's as though the Church has two different committees issuing statements and neither is talking to the other. And I've already received info from other channels that makes things even more curious. 

 

Right now I’m about as confused as I ever hope to be. 

[Capitalist_Oinker]

The Aaronic Priesthood is an office, not a program;

 

For many years the Church has stated that BSA is the activity arm of the Aaronic Priesthood. They obviously used the term to denote an organization rather than an office. 

That is the way I used it.

 

I believe our YM organization is fully capable of transitioning from BSA, and in fact (under current circumstances) I believe we will be better for it.

 

"One of the greatest organizations in American history that stood for moral principles is being destroyed."

 

We agree.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Capitalist_Oinker

[kapikui]

I don't get it:

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-re-evaluating-scouting-program

 

Just two weeks ago, they put THIS one out:

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-comments-on-boy-scouts-of-america-resolution-on-adult-leader-standards

 

 

The way I understood everything was that as long as the chartering organizations can choose to appoint whom they wish, consistent with their values, there would be no conflict.

 

Whatever.  I'm fine with whatever decision, but I wish they would be clear in what they intend.  To me, this new release sounds childish because they didn't hold the vote for a convenient time for LDS leaders... yet it didn't seem that there would be a conflict based on the standards being left with chartering organizations.

 

I just find this odd.

This depends on how the final resolution was set up.  Since I presume none of us has read the details, it could easily be that there is some disastrous provision.  It could also have been some overzealous person issuing a press release.

 

I agree with DHK, the new press release is very problematic. The first release makes sense if the Church didn't want to be seen as influencing the vote--but this new release makes it look like the Church *did* want to influence the vote but was unable, in this modern age of instantaneous global communications, to call an emergency teleconference of its key policy makers in order to come up with a grand strategy. It's the PR equivalent of "my dog ate my homework".

And that line about "The Church has always welcomed all boys to its Scouting units regardless of sexual orientation" is just plain hooey. The Church couldn't have welcomed gay boys into its Scouting units before last year, because BSA policy didn't allow it to.

I'm not sure how the first release makes it sound like The Church doesn't want to influence the vote. It was a short declarative statement that any  limitation on how Chartered organizations chose leaders, or forcing organizations to chose homosexual leaders against their religious conviction would be an instant deal breaker.  It did not say that everything would be AOK if we continued to have that right. 

 

While you're right that there may have been some provision for an emergency meeting, it depends on where the key individuals were at the time of the vote.  We send the Brethren out to some pretty technologically devoid areas (at least by modern standards).  They key needs of The Church must take precedence. 

 

What the second press release does do is makes it sound as if there were some attempt by the BSA to limit the voicing of opposing opinions at their vote.  If that is the case, the BSA is no longer the organization I loved, and I owe it no more loyalty.

 

As far as "The church has always welcomed..." I agree that it was poorly worded.  When the new resolution came out on homosexual scouts, the Church's position was that young boys don't yet have a sexual orientation, and withing LDS units, there would be no practicing homosexual boys, or for that matter heterosexual boys as such activity would limit church activity anyway.

 

 

You and me both! 

It's as though the Church has two different committees issuing statements and neither is talking to the other. And I've already received info from other channels that makes things even more curious. 

 

Right now I’m about as confused as I ever hope to be. 

 

I would be interested in hearing about this other info.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

The question on my mind is:

 

BSA has a decades long history of sexual abuse...we just tried to make new rules and institute policies....but homosexuality enters the picture, and that is possibly a deal breaker?  I don't get it.

 

The scoutmaster, Vance Hein, had been forced in resign from scouting in the early 1990s after reports surfaced that he failed to report a fellow scoutmaster who was engaged in homosexual activities. That scoutmaster ended up going to prison for sexual assaults on minors.

Hein's name was added to the Boy Scouts of America's ineligible volunteer files, which are widely known as the "perversion files." The documents, which were made public in 2012, are lists of scout leaders suspected of sexual abuse or homosexual activity.

However, three years after being kicked out of scouting, Hein was allowed to rejoin the scouts after getting letters of recommendation attesting to his character. One of those letters was from Hein's influential Mormon Bishop Jack Moyer, who wrote that Hein was "highly respected and liked."

Moyer, who is now retired, declined to speak to CNN. But in a deposition taken as part of the lawsuit last year, he acknowledged that he would not have written the letter knowing what he later found out about Hein.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/23/us/lds-church-boy-scouts/

 

 

 

Scout's Honor details decades of sexual abuse in the Boy Scouts, one of the country's most respected youth organizations. Drawing on interviews with victims, lawyers, prosecutors, and even convicted molesters, Patrick Boyle paints a distressing but accurate picture of betrayal in a place we all thought was safe

 

http://www.amazon.com/Scouts-Honor-Americas-Trusted-Institution/dp/0761500243

 

 

 

I have also often wondered...some church leaders have suggested that we not allow our children to have "sleep overs".  A policy I agree with.  And yet what is a campout but a huge sleep over???  

 

Edited July 28, 2015 by LiterateParakeet

[The Folk Prophet]

 

You and me both! 

It's as though the Church has two different committees issuing statements and neither is talking to the other. And I've already received info from other channels that makes things even more curious. 

 

Right now I’m about as confused as I ever hope to be. 

 

 

Maybe they just changed their minds.

[The Folk Prophet]

I don't get it.

 

Seems to me that it's probably about taking a stand as much as anything. Working with individuals, understanding imperfections in people, etc., vs. a straight up policy that is directly contrary to...how'd they put it...."inconsistent with the doctrines of the Church".

 

Has not the church, inadvertently, tacitly allowed for a level of 'it's all good' concerning the matter? Could it be that they are beginning to see the harm of that and are rethinking it a bit, perhaps now drawing a bit more clarity on the strictness of the matter, etc, by putting their foot down over a broad policy change? Maybe?

 

I'm not drawing conclusions to this end -- just throwing out thoughts.

[Guest]

The question on my mind is:

 

BSA has a decades long history of sexual abuse...we just tried to make new rules and institute policies....but homosexuality enters the picture, and that is possibly a deal breaker?  I don't get it.

 

 

The difference is very simple, LP.  The BSA history of sexual abuse is not the BSA making a rule saying - "In the BSA, sexual abuse is morally upright and we now allow sexual abusers to be BSA leaders".  The BSA history of sexual abuse is just a manifestation of fallen human conditions.  It is no different than the stories of bad bishops.

 

 

 

I have also often wondered...some church leaders have suggested that we not allow our children to have "sleep overs".  A policy I agree with.  And yet what is a campout but a huge sleep over???  

 

 

Some church leaders is not Church policy.  I personally find a "no sleep overs" policy silly.  My kids spend about 1/4 of their lives in their cousins' and best friends' houses or tents/campers.  I don't take the default position that these people can't be trusted with my children.

Edited July 28, 2015 by anatess

[Just_A_Guy]

This depends on how the final resolution was set up.  Since I presume none of us has read the details, it could easily be that there is some disastrous provision.  It could also have been some overzealous person issuing a press release.

 

As near as I can tell, the BSA hasn't publicly released the full text of the resolution; but a gay-rights-in-scouting-group did release it a couple weeks ago.  You can read it here.

 

 

I'm not sure how the first release makes it sound like The Church doesn't want to influence the vote. It was a short declarative statement that any  limitation on how Chartered organizations chose leaders, or forcing organizations to chose homosexual leaders against their religious conviction would be an instant deal breaker.  It did not say that everything would be AOK if we continued to have that right.

 

Indeed; but given the Church's history and the significance of the vote, many (myself included) took the Church's failure to express public opposition as--well--a signal that the Church did was not institutionally opposed to the vote.

 

 

While you're right that there may have been some provision for an emergency meeting, it depends on where the key individuals were at the time of the vote.  We send the Brethren out to some pretty technologically devoid areas (at least by modern standards).  They key needs of The Church must take precedence.

 

I agree with you in general; but the executive committee made their announcement 7/13 and immediately announced that the executive board would vote on 7/27.  Surely two weeks was enough time for the 1st Presidency to make a decision, call Public Affairs, and say "hey, we're not OK with this and the Church membership and the BSA need to know it.  Put something together, will you?"

 

The question on my mind is:

 

BSA has a decades long history of sexual abuse...we just tried to make new rules and institute policies....but homosexuality enters the picture, and that is possibly a deal breaker?  I don't get it.

 

One difference is that "we" were never comfortable sending adult leaders on overnight activities with kids in their late teens when we knew that there was some potential for sexual attraction between leader and teenager, unless we had some very intensive--even invasive--supervision requirements in place.  Consider the restrictions the Church imposes on bishopric members/priesthood supervisors who attend LDS girls' camps.  Consider the restrictions the Girls Scouts impose on male leaders who go on overnight activities with their female troops. 

 

Would gay men allow the BSA to put them under the same degree of supervision?

 

I doubt it.  But even if they would, the BSA has made that impossible.  Because under the new policy as elucidated by the BSA, neither the kids nor their parents are even allowed to know that any of the leaders are gay.  Any BSA leader who informs Scouts, parents, or other leaders as to another BSA leader's sexual preference, risks his own expulsion from the BSA.

 

What a strange and wonderful world we live in.  Why, I'm old enough to remember back when "don't ask, don't tell" was considered homophobic!

 

 

I have also often wondered...some church leaders have suggested that we not allow our children to have "sleep overs".  A policy I agree with.  And yet what is a campout but a huge sleep over??? 

 

1.  Two-deep leadership at all times.

2.  Again--at campouts, no adult is going to be sexually attracted to any of the teenagers present; whereas if my teenaged kid goes to his/her best friend's house, there's at least the potential for attraction between my kid and the friend's heterosexual parent of the opposite gender.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[mirkwood]

I will be surprised if we are still a part of BSA by year's end.

[Capitalist_Oinker]

I would be interested in hearing about this other info.

 

I don’t feel at liberty to say right now, and if the Church leaves BSA behind it won’t matter anyway.

 

I'll be honest and say that I am personally excited about the possibility of the Church leaving BSA behind. Not that I think BSA hasn't been worthwhile in the past (tremendously worthwhile), and not that I think it will all be sunshine and roses if we do walk away; but I am personally tired of the BSA bureaucracy. The current rules and regulations have been a thorn in my side for some time. 

 

Do any of you know how difficult it is to fill positions in a ward now when they have any connection with scouting?

Every individual has to undergo a background check before they are allowed to serve. The check can take anywhere from two weeks to a month. 

So someone moves, someone dies, or someone just decides he/she wants to be released.

As a result we need a new YM counselor or a new Den leader or a new counselor in the Primary presidency, etc. 

We go through the process of finding someone to fill the calling, we issue the call and the individual accepts.

The individual then fills out an adult application and we wait for BSA to run the background check. Like I said, this can take anywhere from two weeks to a month. The position remains unfilled while we wait. 

The Webelos  have no leader.

The Deacons are without an advisor.

The Primary president is short a counselor.

According to Church policy we cannot sustain or set apart the individual we have called until we receive word from BSA that the background check is complete.

Several weeks later we receive word and the process is completed by a sustaining and setting apart. 

The individual is then required to complete YPT, which is supposedly available on line, 24/7.

Unfortunately IT HARDLY EVER WORKS! 

 

Ahem, sorry for yelling.

 

One person's computer has a JAVA problem, another has a problem with their FLASH player, and another has a problem with their browser.

Anyway, about the time we finally get the person legally good to go, the Stake shows up and yanks them away to fill some stake calling and we're obliged to start the whole process over again. 

 

It really is amazing how much of an impediment the BSA bureaucracy can be when it comes to running Church programs in a ward. 

For that reason alone I won't shed any tears if the Church decides to cut the ties. 

Edited July 29, 2015 by Capitalist_Oinker

[yjacket]

It really is amazing how much of an impediment the BSA bureaucracy can be when it comes to running Church programs in a ward. 

For that reason alone I won't shed any tears if the Church decides to cut the ties. 

 

 

Part of the problem is that the Church doesn't run the BSA program how it should be run; two major problems.

1) No longevity of leaders.

2) Leaders who actually feel it is a passion.

 

This isn't to say there aren't places this doesn't happen.  Where I grew up, the Scoutmaster and Executive Chairman were called and stayed in those positions for gosh 10 years and they both had a passion for it. You get that longevity and passion in community scouts-but it is extremely hard to get in Church scouts. Where Scouts really grows and flourishes is with leaders who have experience. Which is something the Church doesn't do real well-we like to give people callings to give them experience not because they have experience in xyz. Because of the particular skills that BSA is teaching one can't take normal ward member and call them to be a scoutmaster and expect things to run smoothly-b/c more often than not the leader doesn't have the skills BSA is teaching-so the leader instead of being a leader ends up learning with the boys and in if that is the case you aren't a leader.

 

Your problem with paperwork for community scouts is no problem at all b/c they generally don't have leadership changing every 6 months.

Edited July 29, 2015 by yjacket

[skippy740]

I think a background check should be a requirement for working with primary and youth... regardless of scouting-related or not.

[Backroads]

Capitalist and yjacket are both right. I worked for the BSA and with few exceptions the BSA policies and even unit culture were at odds with church ward culture. It's one thing to fill out an application when you plan on doing the same thing for the next five years and quite another when you will be in and out of positions.

My family was discussing this last night and my mom's biggest worry was the people in our local council who would surely lose their jobs if the Church left the BSA. I believe we had about a dozen non-LDS units in a sea of LDS units when I left that job

[NightSG]

While you're right that there may have been some provision for an emergency meeting, it depends on where the key individuals were at the time of the vote.  We send the Brethren out to some pretty technologically devoid areas (at least by modern standards).

 

 

I've participated in a teleconference using a rotary dial phone before.  (Granted, I missed all the useful features like being able to mute myself that required touch tone, but I could speak and listen.)  

 

Unless they're off to check out temple sites on Venus, satellite phones are an option too; they're not cheap by personal use standards, but $600 up front and $40/mo (plus actual usage at $0.75-1.25/minute) isn't that much to maintain availability of key people.