Church to go forward with Boy Scouts

[The Folk Prophet]

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. 

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

 

Your first paragraph and your second are directly at odds with each other. If my country is at war and I believe it is better that the country is not at war but I go and fight anyway because I believe in duty to county (as dictated by my duty to God and the principles of my church) is it not the same? If the cause be wrong, be it on the head of Obama? And all that?

 

It feels like you're trying to make an argument where there just isn't one.

[paracaidista508]

#7 Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

 

How are we now going to answer this question if we participate in Scouts and/or donate money to FOS?

Uh...how bout. "I dont agree with them, but my kid is in their program and I send them money." ?

 

or... "No, I do not affiliate with the BSA or support them on the basis they practice allowing openly gay leaders to associate with and lead the youth which is contrary to the beliefs of our church. Although our church does not allow it within the scope of it's control, I still do not send them money as that only furthers their agenda which, again, is against the values of our church......or at least it used to be."
 

 

 

and this is an honest question...I'm not being a bomb thrower like usual.

Edited August 30, 2015 by paracaidista508

[The Folk Prophet]

#7 Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

 

How are we now going to answer this question if we participate in Scouts and/or donate money to FOS?

 

This actually made me laugh.

 

 

Uh...how bout. "I dont agree with them, but my kid is in their program and I send them money." ?

 

or... "No, I do not affiliate with the BSA or support them on the basis they practice allowing openly gay leaders to associate with and lead the youth which is contrary to the beliefs of our church. Although our church does not allow it within the scope of it's control, I still do not send them money as that only furthers their agenda which, again, is against the values of our church......or at least it used to be."

 

and this is an honest question...I'm not being a bomb thrower like usual.

 

I think, just for fun, at my temple recommend interview coming up...I think next month here...when asked this question, I will simply say, "Yes. I support the BSA even though their teachings and practices are contrary to those accepted by the Church."

 

And my bishop and I will chuckle and move on.

 

(I don't really plan on doing this. But if I did. We'd both chuckle and move on.)

[Anddenex]

#7 Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

 

How are we now going to answer this question if we participate in Scouts and/or donate money to FOS?

 

Same way a member who affiliates with Democrats (particularly those who voted for Obama) answers this question -- *cough* -- Anddenex ducks and covers. 

 

As to my understanding of this question, it is much deeper than just an affiliation.  Those who participate and donate will be fine.  

 

Technically, one could say attending Notre Dame would fall under the same category, as the Catholic church teaches things which oppose those accepted by the Church.  

 

Out of all the temple questions, this one puzzles me the most.  How specific does one want to apply to this question.  All church members who attend Berkley will have a hard time answering that question also, because, for sure, Berkley teaches things which are contrary to and oppose the Church.  

 

I wouldn't worry to much about it.  Plus, you don't have to worry, as I understand your posts -- you don't donate or participate so you are good either way. 

[james12]

Your first paragraph and your second are directly at odds with each other.

It is not about the two being at odds. Rather together they make an important point. One can be a supporter in spirit, and work as an ally within an organization to make changes, or they can work as a conscript, who wants to leave, fights against the structure, but for secondary purposes remains a member. The two are worlds apart.

If my country is at war and I believe it is better that the country is not at war but I go and fight anyway because I believe in duty to county (as dictated by my duty to God and the principles of my church) is it not the same?

Perhaps to the state. But to the Lord, and to your eternal destiny, the reason why you fight is critical. In other words, even if actions are the same, if you fight for the right reason you will save your soul but if you fight against your conscience you will bring anguish and heartache.

If the cause be wrong, be it on the head of Obama? And all that?

I'm not sure what your point is here.

[The Folk Prophet]

they can work as a conscript, who wants to leave, fights against the structure, but for secondary purposes remains a member.

I sure don't see anyone expressing this sentiment. Surely not anddenex.

[james12]

I sure don't see anyone expressing this sentiment. Surely not anddenex.

You may be right. I guess Anddenex can comment on how he resolves the matter in his own mind. However, for me this would be a concern.

Edited August 30, 2015 by james12

[paracaidista508]

Same way a member who affiliates with Democrats (particularly those who voted for Obama) answers this question -- *cough* -- Anddenex duck

Very interesting you use this as an example. Many times I reference the OFFICIAL Democratic Party Platform to LDS democrats  (specifically the abortion part) to see if they really truly want their vote to go to a Democrat who no matter what will always vote in favor of abortion rights....here is what the platform says:

"Protecting A Woman's Right to Choose. The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman's decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs."

 

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform

 

Anyway, I'm sure you already know (if you didnt, well here it is) that the demo party is completely and totally on-board with abortion. That being said, any contribution made to them goes either directly or indirectly to defending the right for a woman to kill her baby.

 

Sending money to the BSA directly / indirectly facilitates the placement of openly gay adult males in positions of direct and prolonged influence over young males. Many defend it by saying, "oh well the church can control it here so no worries. It is those other people doing that." Well hello!, FOS money goes to fund the entire program....whether the youth being influenced by it are LDS or not is immaterial. It is still immoral.

 

[omegaseamaster75]

Very interesting you use this as an example. Many times I reference the OFFICIAL Democratic Party Platform to LDS democrats  (specifically the abortion part) to see if they really truly want their vote to go to a Democrat who no matter what will always vote in favor of abortion rights....here is what the platform says:

"Protecting A Woman's Right to Choose. The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman's decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs."

 

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform

 

Anyway, I'm sure you already know (if you didnt, well here it is) that the demo party is completely and totally on-board with abortion. That being said, any contribution made to them goes either directly or indirectly to defending the right for a woman to kill her baby.

 

Sending money to the BSA directly / indirectly facilitates the placement of openly gay adult males in positions of direct and prolonged influence over young males. Many defend it by saying, "oh well the church can control it here so no worries. It is those other people doing that." Well hello!, FOS money goes to fund the entire program....whether the youth being influenced by it are LDS or not is immaterial. It is still immoral.

 

2 problems

 

1. The church is not anti Democrat that's baloney

 

2. The church is not anti gay that's baloney as well.

[Guest]

2 problems

 

1. The church is not anti Democrat that's baloney

 

2. The church is not anti gay that's baloney as well.

 

Plus, the Church is okay with abortion in certain cases... which could definitely fall under the Right to Choose - making abortion something that is to be discussed by the woman and her bishop and not her government. 

[paracaidista508]

2 problems

 

1. The church is not anti Democrat that's baloney

 

2. The church is not anti gay that's baloney as well.

 

1- where exactly did I say the church was anti-democrat??? Im looking everywhere and dont see it.

 

2- the LDS church supports homosexuality? Since when did that become an approved lifestyle for members of the LDS church?

[paracaidista508]

Plus, the Church is okay with abortion in certain cases... which could definitely fall under the Right to Choose - making abortion something that is to be discussed by the woman and her bishop and not her government. 

 

I agree on that issue, but the issue has never been about that,it has been about using it as a form of birth control... 

The platform does not even mention that part of it. Is says in part

 

"...We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions."

 

There it is...unintended pregnancies = need for abortions. If they gave the rationale you provided well then that is different. The only qualification the platform gives for the need for an abortion is an unintended pregnancy, not some risk of life to the mother or other contingency. While those are legitimate concerns, the primary concern is that abortion is not restricted as a birth control option.

Anyway- wasnt wanting to hijack away from the scouting issue, just highlighting how even indirect support for a cause has a realized benefit to a cause we do not support. The problem with that IMHO is that if we KNOW what the money will eventually be used for then we are merely authorizing a proxy to commit the sin on our behalf.

 

Maybe thats just me on drugs, but certainly seems to be the way things really are no matter how much we want to justify it.

 

[omegaseamaster75]

1- where exactly did I say the church was anti-democrat??? Im looking everywhere and dont see it.

 

2- the LDS church supports homosexuality? Since when did that become an approved lifestyle for members of the LDS church?

1- Not said but implied

 

2. I also looked back I never said the church supports homosexuality, nor did I say they approved of the lifestyle. I said they are not anti-gay.

[paracaidista508]

1- Not said but implied

 

2. I also looked back I never said the church supports homosexuality, nor did I say they approved of the lifestyle. I said they are not anti-gay.

 

Ok- re #1....I didnt imply anything esp reference the church. In fact in my entire response neither the church nor the word "church" was even written, much less anything reference anything anti...whatever. I wrote what I tell people who are LDS and Democrat. 

2.  I still didnt say anything nor even imply the church was anti gay. 

 

Feel free to pick apart what I said and respond, but dont make up anything about what I wrote. You are entitled to your own opinion,  but not your own facts about what I did write / say.

below is posted the response you are writing about. If you still insist I said or implied the church was anti-gay or the church was anti-democrat, please copy/past the text where I wrote that or even implied it and point it out to me.

 

 

Very interesting you use this as an example. Many times I reference the OFFICIAL Democratic Party Platform to LDS democrats  (specifically the abortion part) to see if they really truly want their vote to go to a Democrat who no matter what will always vote in favor of abortion rights....here is what the platform says:

"Protecting A Woman's Right to Choose. The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman's decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs."

 

https://www.democrat.../party-platform

 

Anyway, I'm sure you already know (if you didnt, well here it is) that the demo party is completely and totally on-board with abortion. That being said, any contribution made to them goes either directly or indirectly to defending the right for a woman to kill her baby.

 

Sending money to the BSA directly / indirectly facilitates the placement of openly gay adult males in positions of direct and prolonged influence over young males. Many defend it by saying, "oh well the church can control it here so no worries. It is those other people doing that." Well hello!, FOS money goes to fund the entire program....whether the youth being influenced by it are LDS or not is immaterial. It is still immoral.

[Just_A_Guy]

During World War 1, a strange scene unfolded again and again on the streets of England:  A young woman would approach a young man in civilian clothing, hand him a white feather, and walk silently away. 

 

England saw its participation in World War 1 as a moral obligation to assist the innocent Belgians, whose nation had been invaded without provocation for strategic reasons as part of Germany’s war mobilization against France.  A young man’s failure to enlist in the military and join in this heroic effort to liberate Belgium was seen as an abandonment of the highest ideals of English manhood—trust, valor, loyalty, and morality itself.  The white feather became known as a symbol of cowardice.

 

In July of 2015, the Boy Scouts of America announced—and then voted to ratify—a significant policy shift, allowing openly gay adults to serve as leaders at all levels.  BSA National President Robert Gates made no attempt to justify this change on moral grounds.  Instead, he said the change was necessary for the BSA to remain “relevant” in a broader society whose moral values no longer matched those traditionally held by the BSA.

 

This open abandonment of a perceived moral virtue for the sake of social, political, and financial convenience is without precedent in the history of Scouting.  While many noncombatant young Englishmen in World War 1 had legitimate reasons to stay home, there is no excusing the BSA’s open abandonment of principle in the name of expediency.

 

Not every Scout or Scouter who is disgusted with the BSA leadership is leaving the fold.  A number of us stay on as leaders, parents, or youth.  We do this for a variety of reasons; but several beliefs unite us:

• That Scouting is now important in spite of, not because of, the moral example of our leadership;
• That the BSA leadership's quest for popularity and financial resources is likely to lead it to abandon other traditional Scouting values in the days ahead;
• That we must be prepared, and will prepare, for the day when we may find it necessary to walk away from the BSA permanently.

In the meantime, no stranger needs to shame the BSA or its members with a white feather; for those who truly subscribe to the Scout Law are ashamed already.  In recognition of the BSA’s cowardice we voluntarily wear on our uniforms a white feather of our own, centered above the right breast pocket and immediately below the words “Boy Scouts of America”.  These feathers can be obtained from any council office, where they are sold as “Silver Eagle Palms”. But when worn as described above, they become “The Robert M. Gates White Feather”. 

 

Edited September 9, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

JAG, that's brilliant. Is that yours? I don't see anything on Google about "The Robert M. Gates white feather".

[Just_A_Guy]

I wrote this up, though it's a summation of conversations I've had with numerous individuals.  That said--I did go down to my scout office yesterday, picked the pin up, and put it on my uniform.  Visually it's very small and understated (I don't want to be in-your-face about it, at least not in real life), but it's there.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Crypto]

If this catches on, BSA will have a problem with improperly worn uniforms.

I like the post though.

[NeuroTypical]

So, this sounds like a call for JAG's post to go viral.  Any objections, JAG, to me cutting and pasting this thing across the interwebs?

Edited September 9, 2015 by NeuroTypical

[Just_A_Guy]

It's more of a rant/manifesto, I guess; but I have no problem if it gets shared.  Not all-fired concerned with whether it gets attribution or not, either.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[pam]

[cdowis]

Here is a recent Boy Scout story.

 

Our ward is collecting canned food for the different pantries in the area for the poor.  They went to the local grocery store, in their scout uniforms, and collected food donations.  They received TEN cartloads.

 

I believe that their Scout uniforms, and what they represent, made a difference.

[brothermason]

Why in the world would you send money to an organization that openly is against our values and pairs up gay adult males with young boys?

 

I don't think it's fair to say that there's something inherently problematic about same sex attracted males being given charge over boys. After all, I'm sure there are plenty of righteous LDS same sex attracted men who teach and care for younger males. Homosexuality and pedophilia aren't the same thing.

[Guest]

I don't think it's fair to say that there's something inherently problematic about same sex attracted males being given charge over boys. After all, I'm sure there are plenty of righteous LDS same sex attracted men who teach and care for younger males. Homosexuality and pedophilia aren't the same thing.

 

Completely agree.

 

But... there is a rule that the Sisters in the Church only teach Cub Scouts, not Eleven-year-old Scouts nor Boy Scouts.  There is also a rule that Cub Scouts can't go camping unless it is a Family camp.  And when Sisters go to Boy Scouts Camp, they are put in a different area of the camp separate from the boys.  They have separate restrooms too.  They don't do it because they think Sisters are pedophiles.  This same contingency applies to homosexuals.

Edited October 9, 2015 by anatess

[Vort]

I don't think it's fair to say that there's something inherently problematic about same sex attracted males being given charge over boys. After all, I'm sure there are plenty of righteous LDS same sex attracted men who teach and care for younger males. Homosexuality and pedophilia aren't the same thing.

 

Is there something inherently problematic with having a heterosexual man being given charge over teenage girls (that he's not related to)? Maybe taking them out camping for a couple of days? After all, heterosexuality and pedophilia aren't the same thing.