Church to go forward with Boy Scouts

[paracaidista508]

... But it's absolutely untrue--and smacks of outright demagoguery--

 

I assume by demagoguery you mean I am playing on the unreasonable fears of some gay guy getting to know a boy a bit better than what is appropriate??? Just because he is gay?  

Please correct me if I am wrong.

[paracaidista508]

But BSA does have rules to separate Males from Females... BECAUSE of sexuality... something that is not implemented for Homosexuals.

 

You would be correct and that is precisely why this is dangerous.

We have a trend in my local area where it is very cool to be gay / lesbian and our LDS youth have not been immune to it. 

[Just_A_Guy]

I didnt mean literally one adult gay male with a scout and pair them up, I meant it in the context of putting gay adult males with the kids.

 

The clarification is appreciated.

 

 

I assume by demagoguery you mean I am playing on the unreasonable fears of some gay guy getting to know a boy a bit better than what is appropriate??? Just because he is gay?  

Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

What I meant was, with the "pairing up" terminology--people who assumed you meant what you said were going to get a very inaccurate picture of reality, which inaccurate picture happened to further your own argument.

 

But, if you truly didn't intend to suggest that gay men and youth would be pairing up, two by two--well, then, there's no need to belabor the point.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

The clarification is appreciated.

 

 

What I meant was, with the "pairing up" terminology--people who assumed you meant what you said were going to get a very inaccurate picture of reality, which inaccurate picture happened to further your own argument.

 

But, if you truly didn't intend to suggest that gay men and youth would be pairing up, two by two--well, then, there's no need to belabor the point.

 

On the count of "pairing up", I tend to agree with paracaidista508. The fact that it may not be the proclaimed intention, or even hidden agenda of the BSA itself, doesn't necessarily mean that they are not culpable for just such.

[Palerider]

This should make for a interesting discussion at my next Eagle Board of Review meeting.

[Anddenex]

 

If an organization does not meet all our values in every respect should we be out? As I said above, this issue about gay scout leaders has very little impact on the YM themselves. But the negative attitude towards the program effects many YM and robs them of opportunities to grow and mature. Further, it robs priesthood leaders of the impact they could have on YM and the boys themselves, of dedicating their full effort. Since the church is in, what else will your posturing accomplish? 

 

Since the first day of the fall how many of God's sons have been in Scouts?  Young Men do not need the Scouting program to learn how to swim, shoot, camping, learning proper use of knives, etc...  YM would be able to learn all that is necessary to learn and grow without the Scouting program.  

 

I would still be able to have the same impact, nothing robbed, upon our young men without the Scouting program.  The Scouting program is not the reason why I have a great relationship with the young men in our ward.   

[james12]

Since the first day of the fall how many of God's sons have been in Scouts?  Young Men do not need the Scouting program to learn how to swim, shoot, camping, learning proper use of knives, etc...  YM would be able to learn all that is necessary to learn and grow without the Scouting program.  

 

I would still be able to have the same impact, nothing robbed, upon our young men without the Scouting program.  The Scouting program is not the reason why I have a great relationship with the young men in our ward.   

I agree with you that they do not need the Scouting program per se. What they need is a program that their parents will support and that they will be invested in. A program that will take them out of the classroom and allow them to interact with good leaders in a more informal setting, a program that will help to create unity in their quorum, a program that will challenge them to make and keep commitments, and a program to teach them leadership skills by doing. In the US as it stands today the general leadership of the church has determined that program is Scouting.  

 

Perhaps someday there will be another program backed by the church that does all of the above and more. When such a day comes I will support that program. But at this stage, to not support Scouting is to not support the leaders, not to support the church, and to hurt the YM themselves.

 

Lukewarm "support" and a negative attitude by adults cause young men to be disengaged. It causes them to skip activities and be contrary when they do attend. With such an attitude they bring down their quorum, they do not learn from priesthood leaders, they refuse to lead. This is the state many scout units find themselves today, and it is not primarily because training is not offered, it is not because the program is terrible, and it is not because the award is meaningless.

 

That is why I keep saying, "get with the program". Is it perfect, 'no'. In fact, no program ever will be. But it is what we have today and we need to support it. It can help make our boys into men, which is desperately needed today. 

[The Folk Prophet]

What they need is a program that their parents will support and that they will be invested in. 

 

Yep. It's called The Gospel.

[The Folk Prophet]

Young Men do not need the Scouting program to learn how to swim, shoot, camping, learning proper use of knives, etc...  

 

Young Men do not need to learn how to swim, shoot, camp, or use knives at all.

[Guest]

Yep. It's called The Gospel.

 

Yes.  That's the spiritual side.  The practical side goes with the "govern yourselves" part of the gospel though.

[The Folk Prophet]

Yes.  That's the spiritual side.  The practical side goes with the "govern yourselves" part of the gospel though.

 

By implication, you believe that the gospel has no practical side?

[Guest]

Young Men do not need to learn how to swim, shoot, camp, or use knives at all.

 

I don't understand what you're trying to imply.  With my two boys, I firmly believe that yes they do... if they are to have the utmost chance of success of presiding over their families.  I grew up in the Philippines.  The world is not always gonna be as "easy" as today's America.

Edited August 28, 2015 by anatess

[Guest]

By implication, you believe that the gospel has no practical side?

 

No.  I believe that the practical application of the gospel is for us to work on ourselves, hence the need for Modern Prophets, who for now believe that all YM need the learning they get out of a scouting program.

[The Folk Prophet]

No.  I believe that the practical application of the gospel is for us to work on ourselves, hence the need for Modern Prophets, who for now believe that all YM need the learning they get out of a scouting program.

 

Agreed, except the word "need". Important? Sure. Helpful? Absolutely? Requisite? Hardly.

[Just_A_Guy]

Young Men do not need to learn how to swim, shoot, camp, or use knives at all.

 

I disagree with this. Most strenuously.  :)

 

 

[Guest MormonGator]

Young Men do not need to learn how to swim, shoot, camp, or use knives at all.

 I'm the farthest thing from "masculine" (I call my little sister for car advice, I can't change a tire or lift a hammer) but even I know how to shoot, use a knife and I'm not a bad swimmer. Camping I have no use for at all. 

[The Folk Prophet]

I disagree with this. Most strenuously.  :)

 

 

 

even I know how to shoot, use a knife 

 

What's there to learn? Get a glock and it's pretty much point and pull the trigger. You learn that from TV and Movies. Same with knives. Pointy end goes away from you.

 

Moreover.... What's your point?

[Guest]

I appreciate that the Church didn't make an impulsive decision here. Like in all things, I'm sure there was a lot of weighing and praying. I have no doubt that there are good reasons for staying with the BSA at this time, and I support their decision.

[Just_A_Guy]

I appreciate that the Church didn't make an impulsive decision here. Like in all things, I'm sure there was a lot of weighing and praying. I have no doubt that there are good reasons for staying with the BSA at this time, and I support their decision.

 

I agree, though I wonder what the story was with that July 27 press release condemning the BSA's new policy.  The timing here is just bizarre:

 

1.  LDS Newsroom, when asked for comment on the new policy, says only that the Church wants local troops' autonomy preserved.

2.  BSA passes a policy that preserves local troops' autonomy.

3.  LDS Newsroom issues a press release condemning the new policy and threatening to withdraw from the BSA.

4.  In the wake of public questioning about discrepancies between 1) and 3), Michael Otterson addresses a FAIR conference and assures the audience that the LDS newsroom never "goes rogue" and that everything they do is sanctioned by the 1st Pres/Q12.

5.  LDS Newsroom reverts back to 1) and affirms that it will stick with the BSA in spite of the new policy.

 

From a secular standpoint, this whole sequence makes the Church look indecisive and--in the absence of any new concessions from the BSA--weak. 

 

So . . . here are the options I'm seeing: 

 

a)  The Church did get some as-yet-undisclosed concession from the BSA;

b)  There were communications/leadership failures somewhere in the relationship between the Q12 and LDS Newsroom; LDS Newsroom set the Q12 up to take the fall for it, and the Q12 (deservedly or not) is taking it;

c)  The 7/27 press release was a "trial balloon" by the Church, intended to give the membership a relatively safe opportunity to express their true opinion of the LDS/BSA relationship; or

d)  The 7/27 press release was intended to erode individual Church members' devotion to the BSA and lay the groundwork for an eventual exit from Scouting, by reminding members that such an exit is hypothetically possible and suggesting that the BSA actually has some measure of contempt for LDS units.

 

Edited August 28, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

I've thought (b) was the most probable, myself.

[The Folk Prophet]

From a secular standpoint, this whole sequence makes the Church look indecisive and--in the absence of any new concessions from the BSA--weak. 

 

It gets translated that way, sure. But it actually doesn't do anything of the sort. The message is pretty straightforward to me. The not-like-the-others press release was, I believe, related more to the BSA's refusal to wait as the church had requested due to their time off. In the grand scheme of things, the church isn't happy about gay leaders, but accepts that sticking the course is right for now. That's not indecisive.

[Just_A_Guy]

It gets translated that way, sure. But it actually doesn't do anything of the sort. The message is pretty straightforward to me. The not-like-the-others press release was, I believe, related more to the BSA's refusal to wait as the church had requested due to their time off. In the grand scheme of things, the church isn't happy about gay leaders, but accepts that sticking the course is right for now. That's not indecisive.

 

I dunno that what it is translated as doing, is really distinguishable from what it actually does.

 

Right now, you've got a bunch of overpaid, overindulged twits in Irving (and their new-found fanboys in the press and in the gay rights mafia) who are patting themselves on the back thinking that those Mormons are a bunch of incompetent ninny pseudo-scouters who just couldn't raise a boy into a decent man--let alone run a halfway decent youth program--without the BSA's holding their hands.

 

Is it true?  No; but it's humiliating nonetheless.  We come back into the Scouting fold as very much the junior partner, now more than ever before.  I hope the long-term benefits to this decision outweigh the short-term humiliation.

Edited August 28, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

I dunno that what it is translated as doing, is really distinguishable from what it actually does.

 

Fair 'nough.

 

And point JaG. 

 

My point, I hope, is that I think the church's intentions were there if one cares to look. Perfectly handled? Maybe not. But I don't buy that it was just some PR person jumping the gun. The church says what it says. Sometimes they put their foot in it. In this case, probably not so much. Maybe a bit confusing, but not really a foot in it, per se.

 

 

Right now, you've got a bunch of overpaid, overindulged twits in Irving (and their new-found fanboys in the press and in the gay rights mafia) who are patting themselves on the back thinking that those Mormons are a bunch of incompetent ninny pseudo-scouters who just couldn't raise a boy into a decent man--let alone run a halfway decent youth program--without the BSA's holding their hands.

 

Do you think that any response given by the church -- any at all -- would produce anything but negativity from the overindulged twits?

[The Folk Prophet]

No; but it's humiliating nonetheless.

 

I cannot disagree with this enough. Or, perhaps, more accurately, I cannot state strongly enough how little I think this matters.

 

Honor is honor. If others think bad of you, that's their issue. We speak without guile. If we change our mind, we change our mind. If we aren't sure, we aren't sure. If others want to cry foul and consider us weak and humiliated by this, so be it.

[Guest MormonGator]

What's there to learn? Get a glock and it's pretty much point and pull the trigger. You learn that from TV and Movies. Same with knives. Pointy end goes away from you.

 

Moreover.... What's your point?

 Nothing-I was agreeing with you. 

 

Dude, even when we agree you gotta make it difficult!   

(kidding, kidding!) 

Edited August 28, 2015 by MormonGator