Church to go forward with Boy Scouts


pam
 Share

Recommended Posts

Written communication is fraught with such pitfalls. Should we all start skyping? LOL

 

Skype has less emoticons...but they're cooler animations sometimes.

 

We should all just communicate through emoticon only. That would solve all problems.

 

:angry: <<< See...if I post this, you know I'm not joking...er...wait...what about sarcastic emoticon usage....

 

Dang.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I talk to people on the computer so I don't have to paint my face on and talk to people outside. Skype negates that advantage. 

 

Um...I primarilly use skype for IMing, not video calling. Gross. Who wants to see people's faces when the communicate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um...I primarilly use skype for IMing, not video calling. Gross. Who wants to see people's faces when the communicate?

 

 

I once had someone tell me that there is no "tone" in verbal communications. But there is tone in written communication (she opposed to my use of the word "you" as in "You did this action and I disagreed").  

 

REALLY? Does my eye rolling at that verbal statement not carry a tone???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Hidden by Just_A_Guy, August 28, 2015 - No reason given
Hidden by Just_A_Guy, August 28, 2015 - No reason given
Do you think that any response given by the church -- any at all -- would produce anything but negativity from the overindulged twits?

 

Yes.  They could ordain Miley Cyrus an apostle, and make three sexual encounters (one conventional, one with a person of the same gender, and one with an adult) a requirement for the Personal Progress/Duty to God programs.  Sensitivity training, ya know . . .

 

Oh, wait--you meant a response the Church might actually give?  That one's harder . . .

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment

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

The problem here is that you are using the word "gospel" in such a broad sense it has little meaning. Yes the gospel covers all truth and all good things. But I am talking about specific structure and methods to help YM.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem here is that you are using the word "gospel" in such a broad sense it has little meaning. Yes the gospel covers all truth and all good things. But I am talking about specific structure and methods to help YM.

Actually, no. I'm using gospel to mean the necessary path and understanding we need to exaltation. There is a practical side to this, most certainly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by Just_A_Guy, August 28, 2015 - No reason given
Hidden by Just_A_Guy, August 28, 2015 - No reason given

Yes. They could ordain Miley Cyrus an apostle, and make three sexual encounters (one conventional, one with a person of the same gender, and one with an adult) a requirement for the Personal Progress/Duty to God programs. Sensitivity training, ya know . . .

Oh, wait--you meant a response the Church might actually give? That one's harder . . .

Why only 3?

Link to comment
Posted (edited) · Hidden by Just_A_Guy, August 28, 2015 - No reason given
Hidden by Just_A_Guy, August 28, 2015 - No reason given

Gross, guys.

 

Yes, and maybe uncalled for on my part.

 

But, I do believe that as a society we're moving in that direction.  Droit du siegneur, in some form or other, has existed for thousands of years--and given the prevalence of STDs and the generation of emotionally delicate flowers that we seem to be raising now, it's very easy to construct an argument that a teenager's first sexual encounters should be done with an experienced partner under carefully controlled conditions so as to ensure that they don't result in lasting physical or psychological trauma.  The only thing standing in the way is the traditional notion of "consent"--a notion that is being made ridiculous on college campuses across the country as inane checklists and waivers are substituted for a true meeting of minds regarding the parties' respective intentions and desires.

 

I think we will see arguments for the inclusion of a "practical applications" component to high school health/sex ed classes, being made openly and sincerely in mainstream media outlets, within the next two decades.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment

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. 

 

Key word, "US," as there are plenty of YM who are growing, maturing, learning important lessons of life without the Scouting program.  The Church doesn't need the Scouting program.  I wouldn't be surprised if by April GC an announcement is made regarding a global program.

 

How does an organization help our YM that is willing to bend (give in) when it comes to moral principles?  What has Scouting taught my son recently...that when the going gets tough it is easier to give up on being morally straight then to stick to your guns and stay firm...nothing I want my sons to learn, and yet this is what they have now taught; hopefully, we part ways sooner rather than later.

 

YM become disengaged by more than "Lukewarm" support of Scouts.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Key word, "US," as there are plenty of YM who are growing, maturing, learning important lessons of life without the Scouting program.  The Church doesn't need the Scouting program.  I wouldn't be surprised if by April GC an announcement is made regarding a global program.

 

How does an organization help our YM that is willing to bend (give in) when it comes to moral principles?  What has Scouting taught my son recently...that when the going gets tough it is easier to give up on being morally straight then to stick to your guns and stay firm...nothing I want my sons to learn, and yet this is what they have now taught; hopefully, we part ways sooner rather than later.

 

YM become disengaged by more than "Lukewarm" support of Scouts.

Sounds like you don't support the program. Perhaps the below quote by Thoreau describe your feelings:

All machines have their friction; and possibly this does enough good to counterbalance the evil. At any rate, it is a great evil to make a stir about it. But when the friction comes to have its machine, and oppression and robbery are organized, I say, let us not have such a machine any longer. (Civil Disobedience)

So has the friction overcome the machine of scouting? If so, what are you going to do about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like you don't support the program. Perhaps the below quote by Thoreau describe your feelings:

So has the friction overcome the machine of scouting? If so, what are you going to do about it?

 

When an organization abandons its own Oath, then it is apparent the friction has overcome the machine.  

 

What do I do?  I move forward with the Brethren; however, this doesn't mean I loose perspective and rejoice.  If a YM asks me how I feel -- I will be honest.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When an organization abandons its own Oath, then it is apparent the friction has overcome the machine.  

 

What do I do?  I move forward with the Brethren; however, this doesn't mean I loose perspective and rejoice.  If a YM asks me how I feel -- I will be honest.

Do you see any problem with your position?

 

- You verbally abuse scouting, but with your consent, your son is a a member of the very same organization.

- You will "move forward" with the Brethren but do not agree with the way they have decided to proceed. 

 

In this thread I have discussed what we must do. And your stance is part of the problem I see over and over again. Do you not see that if friction has overcome the machine then the only moral thing to do is dump the machine? Not in word but actual deed? Make a stance and leave the program. 

 

Further, if you feel friction has overcome the machine then you must next ask yourself if friction has overcome the church, which supports the machine. After all part of your tithing contributes to that machine.

 

Now, if friction has not overcome the church then perhaps just leaving the program is sufficient. But make a choice, and if you are in the program then be in it, for "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon" (Matt 6:24).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you see any problem with your position?

 

- You verbally abuse scouting, but with your consent, your son is a a member of the very same organization.

- You will "move forward" with the Brethren but do not agree with the way they have decided to proceed. 

 

In this thread I have discussed what we must do. And your stance is part of the problem I see over and over again. Do you not see that if friction has overcome the machine then the only moral thing to do is dump the machine? Not in word but actual deed? Make a stance and leave the program. 

 

Further, if you feel friction has overcome the machine then you must next ask yourself if friction has overcome the church, which supports the machine. After all part of your tithing contributes to that machine.

 

Now, if friction has not overcome the church then perhaps just leaving the program is sufficient. But make a choice, and if you are in the program then be in it, for "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon" (Matt 6:24).

 

 

Nothing wrong with my position, whether you agree or disagree is moot.  I verbally specify exactly what the Scouting organization has done -- this isn't abuse.  Have they stood by their own Oath -- yes or no.  If no, and then specifying or pointing it out isn't abuse.  That is a mind trying to use buzz words to draw a conclusion much like the term Racism is used today.  Any form of disagreement, or specifying a truth is now abuse -- nice.

 

Yes, one doesn't need to agree with everything to not move forward that is simple logic.  I may not agree with my Bishop on everything he does, but I move forward -- you have issues with this?  You mean to say you agree with everything your leaders do, say, local and Salt Lake?  I highly doubt it.

 

You have discussed how you feel, and what you feel YOU must do.  If so, that is fine.  Make your choice and then stand by it.

 

As pertaining to the friction you speak of your explanation doesn't provide any credence.  The Church simply could be merely seeking to part peacefully rather than abruptly.  This is what it appears to me.  What the Church does with my tithing isn't important to me and is a moot argument -- and I can add -- "not for long," or as the scriptures specify, "not many years."   :rolleyes:

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing wrong with my position, whether you agree or disagree is moot.  I verbally specify exactly what the Scouting organization has done -- this isn't abuse.  Have they stood by their own Oath -- yes or no.  If no, and then specifying or pointing it out isn't abuse.  That is a mind trying to use buzz words to draw a conclusion much like the term Racism is used today.  Any form of disagreement, or specifying a truth is now abuse -- nice.

 

Yes, one doesn't need to agree with everything to not move forward that is simple logic.  I may not agree with my Bishop on everything he does, but I move forward -- you have issues with this?  You mean to say you agree with everything your leaders do, say, local and Salt Lake?  I highly doubt it.

 

You have discussed how you feel, and what you feel YOU must do.  If so, that is fine.  Make your choice and then stand by it.

 

As pertaining to the friction you speak of your explanation doesn't provide any credence.  The Church simply could be merely seeking to part peacefully rather than abruptly.  This is what it appears to me.  What the Church does with my tithing isn't important to me and is a moot argument -- and I can add -- "not for long," or as the scriptures specify, "not many years."   :rolleyes:

You have not simply pointed out problems with scouting, you have argued that the church should part ways with scouting. You have argued that the YM would be better off without scouting.

 

The church has determined that for the time being such is not the case. Therefore, morally, your stance forces you to make a choice. If you continue to participate in a program you believe we should not be a part of, then you are a cog helping the corrupt machine roll along. Helping manufacturer boys who in your words believe that, "when the going gets tough it is easier to give up on being morally straight then to stick to your guns and stay firm." If you believe this is an acceptable position so be it. But stop complaining about the machine, because you are a part of it. 

 

I wonder how many hide behind the "church's" decision to stay in scouting but secretly want to leave. A recent poll found the following: 

...pollster Dan Jones & Associates finds that 63 percent of those who termed themselves “very active” in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- both men and women -- say church leaders “definitely” or “probably” should drop the long-standing relationship with the Boy Scouts of America and start their own program for boys.

Jones finds that only 23 percent of “very active” Utah Mormons want their church to stay in the Boy Scout program, while 13 percent don’t know. (http://utahpolicy.com/index.php/features/today-at-utah-policy/6694-poll-majority-of-utah-mormons-want-lds-church-to-leave-the-boy-scouts)

I hope the majority of these people have made up their minds that even though there are problems they will still work hard within scouting to help our young men succeed. I hope they realize that for now scouting is the program we have in the church and that their negativity at this point will do nothing but tear down the good it does do.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have not simply pointed out problems with scouting, you have argued that the church should part ways with scouting. You have argued that the YM would be better off without scouting.

 

Let's review what I actually specified.  My first statement, I am disappointed as Scouting is no longer morally straight.  This is true.  I specified they have abandoned their own Oath -- this is true.  Nothing abusive as you would like to call it.

 

I have pointed out that since the dawn of the Fall of Adam and Eve there has been roughly 100 years of the Gospel of Jesus Christ with Scouts; as such, it is clear the Church -- The Gospel of Jesus Christ (includes our YM) would be fine without the Scouting program.  Evidence, how many of our young men who don't participate in Scouts are still growing up to be fine young men?  

 

I have pointed out, if the Church were to move away from Scouts it wouldn't be a great loss, as the Gospel already has a program by which they only need to expand it.  What I specified is that our YM do not NEED Scouts to grow and mature into fine young men.  This is also true -- as we have young men who are doing such without a Scouting program.

 

 

 

The church has determined that for the time being such is not the case. Therefore, morally, your stance forces you to make a choice. If you continue to participate in a program you believe we should not be a part of, then you are a cog helping the corrupt machine roll along. Helping manufacturer boys who in your words believe that, "when the going gets tough it is easier to give up on being morally straight then to stick to your guns and stay firm." If you believe this is an acceptable position so be it. But stop complaining about the machine, because you are a part of it. 

 

Indeed.  So, I specified I move forward, and how nicely you avoided my other paragraph regarding the ability to move forward even if one disagrees with their leaders.  I have seen wonderful men who disagree and are able to serve without issues.  They serve faithfully, work hard, and move forward despite their disagreement.

 

So we move forward until the time the Church fully initiates a global program.  As I specified, I wouldn't be surprised if in April GC this is announced and the Church is amicably able to part ways with the Scouting program.  Until then, we move forward.

 

It is unarguable that a lesson now taught by the Scouts, that when the going gets tough it is better to give in rather than stick to your morals.  Not a lesson that will teach young men to become mature, honorable, men.

 

As pertaining to a "cog helping a corrupt machine roll along." Indeed, until the Church evaluates and puts forth its global program which will be better run.  I look forward to that time, until then, again, we move forward.

 

 

 

I wonder how many hide behind the "church's" decision to stay in scouting but secretly want to leave. A recent poll found the following: 

 

Hide? You mean, those who are able to disagree and yet still move forward -- an element of being a mature adult.  Although I disagree.  Secretly?  Most of the individuals who I speak with are not "hiding", nor are they "secretly" desiring.  They are open, and yet they move forward as well.  

 

 

I hope the majority of these people have made up their minds that even though there are problems they will still work hard within scouting to help our young men succeed. I hope they realize that for now scouting is the program we have in the church and that their negativity at this point will do nothing but tear down the good it does do.  

 

The assumption here is unfounded.  People who disagree, will some how stop working hard to help the young men succeed. You mean like me waking up at 4am to go to the temple with 5 young men (which I do twice a month)?  You mean like having all the young men over to my house to help complete the Duty to God, twice a month, to help them succeed (which I do)?

 

As I specified I don't have a great relationship with the young men because of Scouts.  I have a great relationship because I serve them, care about them, and do what I can to help them -- even help them earn merit badges (imagine that).  Great assumption -- falls to the wayside.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's review what I actually specified.  My first statement, I am disappointed as Scouting is no longer morally straight.  This is true.  I specified they have abandoned their own Oath -- this is true.  Nothing abusive as you would like to call it.

 

I have pointed out that since the dawn of the Fall of Adam and Eve there has been roughly 100 years of the Gospel of Jesus Christ with Scouts; as such, it is clear the Church -- The Gospel of Jesus Christ (includes our YM) would be fine without the Scouting program.  Evidence, how many of our young men who don't participate in Scouts are still growing up to be fine young men?  

 

I have pointed out, if the Church were to move away from Scouts it wouldn't be a great loss, as the Gospel already has a program by which they only need to expand it.  What I specified is that our YM do not NEED Scouts to grow and mature into fine young men.  This is also true -- as we have young men who are doing such without a Scouting program.

 

 

Indeed.  So, I specified I move forward, and how nicely you avoided my other paragraph regarding the ability to move forward even if one disagrees with their leaders.  I have seen wonderful men who disagree and are able to serve without issues.  They serve faithfully, work hard, and move forward despite their disagreement.

 

So we move forward until the time the Church fully initiates a global program.  As I specified, I wouldn't be surprised if in April GC this is announced and the Church is amicably able to part ways with the Scouting program.  Until then, we move forward.

 

It is unarguable that a lesson now taught by the Scouts, that when the going gets tough it is better to give in rather than stick to your morals.  Not a lesson that will teach young men to become mature, honorable, men.

 

As pertaining to a "cog helping a corrupt machine roll along." Indeed, until the Church evaluates and puts forth its global program which will be better run.  I look forward to that time, until then, again, we move forward.

 

 

Hide? You mean, those who are able to disagree and yet still move forward -- an element of being a mature adult.  Although I disagree.  Secretly?  Most of the individuals who I speak with are not "hiding", nor are they "secretly" desiring.  They are open, and yet they move forward as well.  

 

 

The assumption here is unfounded.  People who disagree, will some how stop working hard to help the young men succeed. You mean like me waking up at 4am to go to the temple with 5 young men (which I do twice a month)?  You mean like having all the young men over to my house to help complete the Duty to God, twice a month, to help them succeed (which I do)?

 

As I specified I don't have a great relationship with the young men because of Scouts.  I have a great relationship because I serve them, care about them, and do what I can to help them -- even help them earn merit badges (imagine that).  Great assumption -- falls to the wayside.

Let's not get caught in the "you said", "I said" trap. I don't agree with how you have characterized what I have said but let's get past that. It appears the crux of our disagreement lies in how to deal with the scouting program given that there are problems with it and yet the church supports it for the time being.  

 

It appears to me from what you have said that if the church did not support it you would leave the scouting program, and would recommend others do the same, due to problems such as gay leaders being involved. Is this correct?

 

However, since the church supports the program you will soldier on, participating in activities etc. But this is where I believe our differences lie. I am wondering how you can reject a program, to the point of wanting to split from it, and still in good conscience be an active member of it. How do you resolve this in your own mind?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James12, I'm trying to understand what your point of argument is here. It seems to me like you're implying that we can either fully confess that the BSA's allowing gay leaders was awesome, our we can say go jump to the church and there's no rational in-between.

I'm not quite sure what's so confusing. The BSA's decision was lame. But we sustain the church and our leaders' determinations and direction. Doesn't seem that complicated to me.

I'd bet dollars to donuts the entire leadership of the church would agree that the BSA's decision was lame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James12, I'm trying to understand what your point of argument is here. It seems to me like you're implying that we can either fully confess that the BSA's allowing gay leaders was awesome, our we can say go jump to the church and there's no rational in-between.

I'm not quite sure what's so confusing. The BSA's decision was lame. But we sustain the church and our leaders' determinations and direction. Doesn't seem that complicated to me.

I'd bet dollars to donuts the entire leadership of the church would agree that the BSA's decision was lame.

Let me clarify. I disagree with the policy of allowing gay leaders. I have no problem if a person disagrees with the BSA on such a point, or if they disagree on a number of points. This is the nature of belonging to any organization.

 

I see a problem when a person believes that there are so many insurmountable issues that it is better to leave the organization. Perhaps they believe it so strongly that they start telling others they should not be members of it. If they believe it is better to leave then remain a member, should they themselves not leave it? What if the only reason they remain a member is because the church stays with the program? 

 

Elder Christofferson says prophets will not accept the role of puppet-master. In fact, he shares a story that has much application to our discussion. 

William Shakespeare’s play The Life of King Henry V includes a nighttime scene in the camp of English soldiers at Agincourt just before their battle with the French army. In the dim light and partially disguised, King Henry wanders unrecognized among his soldiers. He talks with them, trying to gauge the morale of his badly outnumbered troops, and because they do not realize who he is, they are candid in their comments. In one exchange they philosophize about who bears responsibility for what happens to men in battle—the king or each individual soldier.

At one point King Henry declares, “Methinks I could not die any where so contented as in the king’s company; his cause being just.”

Michael Williams retorts, “That’s more than we know.”

His companion agrees, “Ay, or more than we should seek after; for we know enough, if we know we are the king’s subjects: if his cause be wrong, our obedience to the king wipes the crime of it out of us.”

Williams adds, “If the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make.”

Not surprisingly, King Henry disagrees. “Every subject’s duty is the king’s; but every subject’s soul is his own.” (Free Forever to Act for Themselves, GC Oct 2014)

If the cause be wrong does obedience to the church wipe the crime of it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure Annddenex can speak for himself... I don't see why his position is hard to understand.

 

I do not hold myself accountable to the principles and leadership of the BSA.  I do hold myself accountable to the principles and leadership of Jesus Christ (through his appointed leaders)

 

The thing is, Christ asks us to do some hard things, like love the sinner, while denouncing the sin.  Or be in the world but not of the world.  Now it looks like we are being asked to be 'in' the BSA but not 'of' the BSA.  Not exactly easy... but neither is it out of line with prior directions we have been given

 

 

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share