Church to go forward with Boy Scouts

[paracaidista508]

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.

If there is no problem with this, then why not make young single RMs (males) Laurel advisors? Just sayin

[Guest]

The Laurels would not complain about that.

[Guest]

First of all, there was no contradiction or changing of minds on the part of the Church.

 

     1) The Brethren knew the issue was being discussed.  We declared that we need to determine questions like this for ourselves (local unit autonomy).

     2) The BSA made an announcement to allow gay leaders.  BUT at the same time, they made statements that they could assure local unit autonomy.

     3) The Church did not threaten to leave.  They said they’d take a closer look at the situation and what the new policy meant.  It was other media that turned that statement into a “threat”.

     4) The BSA gave multiple assurances that local autonomy would still be preserved.

     5) The Church tentatively agreed to continue to see how things would actually play out.

 

That is where we are.

 

In the meantime, the Brethren are putting together a contingency plan if it becomes too intrusive or if autonomy is NOT, in fact, preserved.   Time will tell.

 

If a hijacker takes over a plane, we don’t just jump out without a parachute.  We take time to come up with a plan to recover control of the plane and redirect to get back on course.   As a contingency, we start distributing parachutes.  Or else we’re looking at a Flight 93 scenario.

 

As far as where our money goes, all of our money goes partially to fund things we don’t believe in.  Mutual funds almost always include something that owns something else that has invested money into something that runs a… that is not in line with Church values.  Even our bank accounts do the same thing.

[Just_A_Guy]

     3) The Church did not threaten to leave.  They said they’d take a closer look at the situation and what the new policy meant.  It was other media that turned that statement into a “threat”.

 

What the Church said (in a 7/27/15 press release) was as follows (with certain parts bolded/underlined by me for emphasis):

 

 

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is deeply troubled by today’s vote by the Boy Scouts of America National Executive Board. In spite of a request to delay the vote, it was scheduled at a time in July when members of the Church’s governing councils are out of their offices and do not meet. When the leadership of the Church resumes its regular schedule of meetings in August, the century-long association with Scouting will need to be examined. The Church has always welcomed all boys to its Scouting units regardless of sexual orientation. However, the admission of openly gay leaders is inconsistent with the doctrines of the Church and what have traditionally been the values of the Boy Scouts of America.

 

As a global organization with members in 170 countries, the Church has long been evaluating the limitations that fully one-half of its youth face where Scouting is not available. Those worldwide needs combined with this vote by the BSA National Executive Board will be carefully reviewed by the leaders of the Church in the weeks ahead.”

 

I have as much disdain for the press as anyone; but the Church's release was pretty obviously worded to suggest that the Church's relationship with the BSA might well be on the chopping block; and certain stakes (including mine) considered the relationship to be in sufficient danger that they actually suspended their Friends of Scouting campaigns.  This perception was not manufactured by the press.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

"examined"

"reviewed"

 

To me "we will be reviewing this" means "we will be reviewing this".  This is not a threat.  It is saying we'll take a look at it more closely for evaluation.  You can read into it whatever you want.  But it is what it is.

 

To me, they raised their eyebrows at the change.  They had to think about it for a while.  They had some back and forth.  They thought about it some more.  And now they are proceeding with a well thought out decision.  Much of that decision is not yet public.

 

It may be that they just didn't want an abrupt end to a long standing program without a replacement in place.  Maybe they're agreeing to continue participation until they can get such a program in place.

[The Folk Prophet]

And now they are proceeding with a well thought out decision.  

 

This may not be true. In fact, I tend to consider the latest direction of status quo to be a fairly obvious sign that they are not yet done well thinking out said potential future decision. :)

 

Edit: You alluded to the same in your final paragraph.

Edited October 21, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest]

I more than alluded to it.  I flat out said it in the previous post on page 5 of this thread.

 

   5) The Church tentatively agreed to continue to see how things would actually play out.

...

In the meantime, the Brethren are putting together a contingency plan if it becomes too intrusive or if autonomy is NOT, in fact, preserved.   Time will tell.

 

The plan was to proceed while keeping an eye out to see if they need to change course.  That's what you do when in treacherous waters.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Guest

[Crypto]

I would hope they are continuously keeping an eye out and preparing for forces that may ultimately be destructive towards the church.

Trying to second guess that we will be leaving the BSA seems pointless until it happens...if it ever happens.

[AnnieCarvalho]

I'm happy.

I think it was the right decision. :)

[AnnieCarvalho]

Homosexuality does not equal pedophilia.

   

 

A homosexual is no more interested in a child sexually than any other adult would be.

 

And... the majority of child sexual abuse cases are carried out by a family member.

So maybe we shouldn't let Fathers or Uncles or Mothers or Big Brothers be Boy Scout Leaders...

[Vort]

Homosexuality does not equal pedophilia.

No. Homosexuality = sexual perversion. Pedophilia = sexual perversion. Are they the same sexual perversion? No, but that does not change the fact that both are perversions. To be acceptable to God, the homosexual must reign in his desire for perversion, just as the pedophile must. (And the adulterer, and the porn user, and the fornicator of any kind.)

 

A homosexual is no more interested in a child sexually than any other adult would be.

 

And you know this -- how? Because a bunch of people with an agenda keep claiming it's so? Because the media keep proclaiming it?

 

If a homosexual has no more sexual interest in a boy than I do and should therefore be allowed to take boys on campouts and such, why does anyone mind if I, an adult man, take a bunch of 13-to-17-year-old girls camping for a few days? What's the big deal?

 

And... the majority of child sexual abuse cases are carried out by a family member.

So maybe we shouldn't let Fathers or Uncles or Mothers or Big Brothers be Boy Scout Leaders...

 

I realize you are trying to make an argumentum ad absurdum. But in this case, it really doesn't work.

[AnnieCarvalho]

 

No. Homosexuality = sexual perversion. Pedophilia = sexual perversion. Are they the same sexual perversion? No, but that does not change the fact that both are perversions. To be acceptable to God, the homosexual must reign in his desire for perversion, just as the pedophile must. (And the adulterer, and the porn user, and the fornicator of any kind.)

 

 

And you know this -- how? Because a bunch of people with an agenda keep claiming it's so? Because the media keep proclaiming it?

 

If a homosexual has no more sexual interest in a boy than I do and should therefore be allowed to take boys on campouts and such, why does anyone mind if I, an adult man, take a bunch of 13-to-17-year-old girls camping for a few days? What's the big deal?

 

 

I realize you are trying to make an argumentum ad absurdum. But in this case, it really doesn't work.

 

 

I didn't say homosexuality was not a perversion.

I said it was not the same as pedophilia.

There are MANY perversions. 

Any sin is a perversion.

 

I know about pedophilia because my biological father sexually abused me my entire life.

I've done a LOT of personal research on the topic.

 

I know about homosexuality because I reared three sons, and the youngest is homosexual.

This was not a choice.

He was born this way.

He has left the church because people were so rude to him, it was shameful.

Rather than embrace him and try to help him, they pushed him out.

It's a very huge issue the Church is finally trying to resolve.

But in the meantime, many families have been torn apart by ignorance such as this.

We know of more than one young man who has killed himself, seeing no other way.

To brand a homosexual as a pedophile is as bad as branding a Mormon as an anti-Christ.

It's ignorant and I can't use the word "ignorant" enough on this topic!

 

My son is just as disgusted with the idea of pedophilia as any other ethical person.

 

I realize it isn't done in scouts, but personally, I don't care if a grown man takes 13-17 year old girls to a campout. :::shrug:::

I'd probably feel more comfortable with a man around, these days.

 

A PERSON is either a PEDOPHILE or not, regardless of their gender.

They either like CHILDREN or not, regardless of their gender.

 

That's all I'm saying.

 

And apparently the Church leaders came to the same conclusion, based on their decision.

Edited November 2, 2015 by AnnieCarvalho

[erog84]

I didn't say homosexuality was not a perversion.

I said it was not the same as pedophilia.  I agree

There are MANY perversions. 

Any sin is a perversion.

 

I know about pedophilia because my biological father sexually abused me my entire life.  I am sorry to hear that, it is sad that anyone has to go through something like that.

I've done a LOT of personal research on the topic.

 

I know about homosexuality because I reared three sons, and the youngest is homosexual.  As in, he is attracted to men, or he acts on those attractions?  I want to clarify since it always seems like people are talking about 2 different things.

This was not a choice.  I am not 100% convinced someone is born gay.  But let us agree for this discussion that he truly was.  It is still his choices that define who he is, not who he is attracted to.

He was born this way.

He has left the church because people were so rude to him, it was shameful.  The church has imperfect members, and yes it is sad that sometimes members of the church aren't as Christ like as we would hope.  But again, choices, his own, decide whether he stays or goes, no one makes that decision for him.

Rather than embrace him and try to help him, they pushed him out.

It's a very huge issue the Church is finally trying to resolve.

But in the meantime, many families have been torn apart by ignorance such as this.

We know of more than one young man who has killed himself, seeing no other way. Choices, there is always another way.  While some may feel that they have it harder than others, it is our own choices that make us who we are, not what others say about us.

To brand a homosexual as a pedophile is as bad as branding a Mormon as an anti-Christ. 

It's ignorant and I can't use the word "ignorant" enough on this topic!  I agree.  I feel like it is "ignorant" to think that 2 perversions is the same thing as a mormon and an anti-christ.  I don't mean this to offend you in any way, but I don't feel like we are on the same page when it comes to homosexuality.  While we should show love and compassion with those who partake of it, there should be no faultering when it comes to standing for what is right, and it is most definitely wrong.

 

My son is just as disgusted with the idea of pedophilia as any other ethical person.  I am glad to hear that, truly I am.  Sometimes we generalize for a reason though, so we can't use your homosexual son as an example of all homosexuals, just like we shouldn't claim since one homosexual was a pedophile, that all are.

 

I realize it isn't done in scouts, but personally, I don't care if a grown man takes 13-17 year old girls to a campout. :::shrug:::

I'd probably feel more comfortable with a man around, these days.

 

A PERSON is either a PEDOPHILE or not, regardless of their gender.  Well a person can become a pedophile, would you not agree?  And placing someone in a position that is more likely to temp them can be risky business.  I believe it is more likely for someone to make the jump to pedophilia for a gender he is already attracted to, than the opposite gender. 

They either like CHILDREN or not, regardless of their gender.

 

That's all I'm saying.

 

And apparently the Church leaders came to the same conclusion, based on their decision.  Not at all.  We aren't privy to exactly what the church leaders decided and for what reason.  I could be wrong on this, but I believe a homosexual that is in a relationship or acting on those feelings can't be a scout leader in an LDS sponsored scout troop?  If that is true, that it would seem the OPPOSITE of what you just said. (but then again, I could be wrong)

 

[yjacket]

I didn't say homosexuality was not a perversion.

I said it was not the same as pedophilia.

There are MANY perversions. 

Any sin is a perversion.

 

This is the type of rhetoric that raises my hackles-so full of half-truths and emotional overweight baggage designed to evoke the most heart-wrenching emotions for individuals who are committed to a lifestyle of heinous sin.

 

1st off-no not every sin is a perversion. Perversion is when a truth is misapplied or diverted and then that misapplication is presented as truth. Very few individuals would claim that murder of someone is morally acceptable. The act of murder is a sin, claiming murder as an acceptable truth is a perversion. The behavioral act of homosexuality is a sin, the claim that homosexuality is morally okay is a perversion. In today's society, homosexuality is seen not as sin but as something that is morally acceptable-that is a perversion.  The very nature of living a homosexual lifestyle is a perversion because it claims to present as truth something that is not true-i.e. that two people no matter the gender can "love" each other no matter what.

I know about pedophilia because my biological father sexually abused me my entire life.

I'm picking on words here, but seriously he abused you your entire life? You must be 35+ and you are telling me that he has abused you sexually until 35+? And that isn't pedophilia that is incest-which is a whole other ball of wax.

 

I know about homosexuality because I reared three sons, and the youngest is homosexual.

This was not a choice.

He was born this way.

You knew the moment he was born that he was homosexual? Or was it at 2 years old, or 3, or 5, or 10, or 15? Did you have him genetically tested-oh that's right there is no such thing as a "gay" gene.  I know it's nice to say "born this way" because it make it easier to swallow. It abrogates the parent and the individual of any responsibility . . . hey there was nothing I could do, it was just meant to be that way. Which of course, completely denies the ability of the Atonement in individuals lives and the actual ability to change. Instead of being sentient beings who have the ability to change ourselves, our habits, our very essence-we are just "born that way" and that makes it all better.

 

 I can guarantee you that as someone who married someone who was abused, abuse doesn't just end with one person the effects of it are propagated down through generations as unless those who are abused make a conscience decision to find peace and change through the Atonement they will repeat similar mistakes with their children. 

 

Who a person is-is determined by genetics, spirit, and environment and I guarantee the environment that counts the most is how they were raised between the ages of 2-13. Is it your fault that your son is homosexual? no-it is his and his responsibility alone.

He has left the church because people were so rude to him, it was shameful.

Rather than embrace him and try to help him, they pushed him out.

Seriously?? What's there to help? Do you want people to go up to him pat him on the back and say-it's okay that you're homosexual? Would I go up to an alcoholic pat them on the back and say-it's okay that you're an alcoholic? Just as if an alcoholic (or porn addict, or whatever other sin you put in there) has embraced that lifestyle-there isn't much to say. The only thing to say is, your life choices will bring you much sorrow and pain, it is wrong and you will have to repent for them one day-regardless God will always love you and when you decide you want to change your life welcome back.

 

At one point homosexuality was considered a mental illness, when it was removed from being a mental illness it was done so simply by a vote of psychologists. There were no studies that suggested it wasn't a mental illness-some people just got together and simply voted that it was no longer a mental illness. So if by help you mean that kind of help of actually seeing a mental health professional that I'm sure could be arraigned-but I'm quite sure that isn't the help you are looking for.

 

The "help" he is looking for is to be "accepted" as he is-but that isn't what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is about.  The Gospel is about change!

 

Another historical fact-in the 50s a psychologist (before the IRB) did a study where he had a complete homosexual man who he indoctrinated with viewing heterosexual pornography then he hired a woman of the night shall we say and as the doc. said "he performed admirably".

 

Unfortunately, today the only accepted research in this area is to come with the forgone conclusion that homosexuality is something you are "born with".

 

More to the point, I don't go around church saying he everyone I'm a porn addict, or hey I'm an alcoholic.  Now, I might in the course of discussion relate how my personal struggles help bring me closer to Christ, but in no way do I brag about it and ask for acceptance from others of my sins.  I imagine that if he said "I have homosexual tendencies and through the Gospel I am learning how to become better and change to be a better person" no one would have a problem with that.

A PERSON is either a PEDOPHILE or not, regardless of their gender.

They either like CHILDREN or not, regardless of their gender.

??What in the world. So let me get this straight a heter. man at 18 gets a girl at 17 pregnant and he is a pedophile? Give me a break.  There is a huge difference between someone who is a true pedophile with pre-pubescent children and one who is not. What about 18 vs. 16 is that a pedophile? 18 vs. 15?

 

No one is saying that because one is homosexual they have a greater proclivity to like pre-pubescent children!! Simply that if a 18 year old man likes men, a 18 year old man vs a 17 year old "boy" is not a big deal. Which could easily happen on a scout campout!

 

18 and 17 is not pedophilia, no matter how you slice it-in the eyes of the "law".  

 

This is one of those things that the homosexual agenda loves to throw out there to make it seem as if they are morally right-by pushing the agenda in their favor.

 

No one is claiming that being homosexual makes it more likely that an adult will have sex with a pre-pubescent child.

I realize it isn't done in scouts, but personally, I don't care if a grown man takes 13-17 year old girls to a campout. :::shrug:::

Again, what in the world? You were sexually abused by your father and you wouldn't care if a grown man is on overnight camp-out with 17 year old girls?? Do you even know how the male brain works? There are some very, very mature looking 17 year old and unless a man has control of his faculties it doesn't just "turn off" magically. 

 

No way I'd like my 17 year-old daughter go on an overnight campout with grown men.

 

And apparently the Church leaders came to the same conclusion, based on their decision.

 

No they didn't come to the same conclusion-you are reading into it what you want to.

Did the church announce that homosexuals will be allowed as adult leaders? No.

Specifically that the Church will continue its relationship with BSA as long as it can maintain its standards-which include no homosexual leaders.

 

I might be seen as "homosexual" bashing; but I have been on this board one of the most ardent defenders of homosexuals being able to live their lifestyle without oppression from the government.

But I will also be one of the most ardent defenders in that homosexuality is a great sin and should not be tolerated by individuals and no amount of modern-day culture can change that fact.

[Guest]

Yjacket, 

 

I may not agree with Annie's position, but some of the things you're saying here are downright hateful!  And you owe her an apology.

[Guest]

The basic position of the Church that "homosexual" is an adjective and not a noun.  IOW, a person is not a homosexual.  A person HAS homosexual tendencies.  Still, the word "homosexual" is used as a shorthand.

We all have tendencies of one form or another.  But if we do not act upon them, we are not to be judged for them.

---Pres. Hinckley 

Unfortunately, this quote was ad-lib.  So I can't do a search for when it was given.

 

Also see:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1999/09/when-a-loved-one-struggles-with-same-sex-attraction?lang=eng

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction

Edited November 3, 2015 by Guest

[AnnieCarvalho]

Wow...

 

Ok... let me try to respond...

What a nice person you are   :)

 

This is the type of rhetoric that raises my hackles-so full of half-truths and emotional overweight baggage designed to evoke the most heart-wrenching emotions for individuals who are committed to a lifestyle of heinous sin.

 

1st off-no not every sin is a perversion. Perversion is when a truth is misapplied or diverted and then that misapplication is presented as truth. Very few individuals would claim that murder of someone is morally acceptable. The act of murder is a sin, claiming murder as an acceptable truth is a perversion. The behavioral act of homosexuality is a sin, the claim that homosexuality is morally okay is a perversion. In today's society, homosexuality is seen not as sin but as something that is morally acceptable-that is a perversion.  The very nature of living a homosexual lifestyle is a perversion because it claims to present as truth something that is not true-i.e. that two people no matter the gender can "love" each other no matter what.

 

SIN = Missing the Mark which is a PERVERSION of a straight shot.

per·ver·sion

pərˈvərZHən/

noun

 

1. 1.

   the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended.
2.  

    

    

I'm picking on words here, but seriously he abused you your entire life? You must be 35+ and you are telling me that he has abused you sexually until 35+? And that isn't pedophilia that is incest-which is a whole other ball of wax.

 

I am 63 years old. My father sexually abused me all of my childhood, until I was of an age to make him stop. Your comment is insulting, rude, and out of line. And if you ask a lot of sexually abused people, the rest of their life is defined by the years of abuse. So yes, he continues to abuse me in ways I cannot control. For instance the PTST that is the result.

 

 

 

You knew the moment he was born that he was homosexual? Or was it at 2 years old, or 3, or 5, or 10, or 15?

 

I knew from the time it mattered. I didn't say from the time he was born. Did you know you were heterosexual the moment you were born? You are again being rude and obnoxious.

 

Did you have him genetically tested-oh that's right there is no such thing as a "gay" gene.  I know it's nice to say "born this way" because it make it easier to swallow. It abrogates the parent and the individual of any responsibility . . . hey there was nothing I could do, it was just meant to be that way. Which of course, completely denies the ability of the Atonement in individuals lives and the actual ability to change. Instead of being sentient beings who have the ability to change ourselves, our habits, our very essence-we are just "born that way" and that makes it all better.

 

So are you saying parents are at fault for having gay children?

 

 I can guarantee you that as someone who married someone who was abused, abuse doesn't just end with one person the effects of it are propagated down through generations as unless those who are abused make a conscience decision to find peace and change through the Atonement they will repeat similar mistakes with their children. 

 

Yes? I've said that? And your point is?

 

Who a person is-is determined by genetics, spirit, and environment and I guarantee the environment that counts the most is how they were raised between the ages of 2-13. Is it your fault that your son is homosexual? no-it is his and his responsibility alone.

Seriously?? What's there to help? Do you want people to go up to him pat him on the back and say-it's okay that you're homosexual? Would I go up to an alcoholic pat them on the back and say-it's okay that you're an alcoholic? Just as if an alcoholic (or porn addict, or whatever other sin you put in there) has embraced that lifestyle-there isn't much to say. The only thing to say is, your life choices will bring you much sorrow and pain, it is wrong and you will have to repent for them one day-regardless God will always love you and when you decide you want to change your life welcome back.

 

I thank God the leaders of the Church are more compassionate than you...

 

 

 

At one point homosexuality was considered a mental illness, when it was removed from being a mental illness it was done so simply by a vote of psychologists. There were no studies that suggested it wasn't a mental illness-some people just got together and simply voted that it was no longer a mental illness. So if by help you mean that kind of help of actually seeing a mental health professional that I'm sure could be arraigned-but I'm quite sure that isn't the help you are looking for.

 

Menopause was also considered a mental illness.

I think your type of anger might also be considered a mental and spiritual illness, frankly.

 

The "help" he is looking for is to be "accepted" as he is-but that isn't what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is about.  The Gospel is about change!

 

My son no longer needs acceptance.

He has left the church.

He is a very good, kind person with a good heart and he helps others.

I'm very proud of him.

He is not cruel, as you are.

He believes in God; but he's chosen not to be a member of the Church.

That's his decision.

He's in his 30's... no longer a child.

I know that God knows his heart, 

so it's not important to me anymore that a person like YOU understands.

Seems you need to be dealing with your own issues.

 

Another historical fact-in the 50s a psychologist (before the IRB) did a study where he had a complete homosexual man who he indoctrinated with viewing heterosexual pornography then he hired a woman of the night shall we say and as the doc. said "he performed admirably".

 

What a rude and disgusting thing to say.

 

Unfortunately, today the only accepted research in this area is to come with the forgone conclusion that homosexuality is something you are "born with".

 

More to the point, I don't go around church saying he everyone I'm a porn addict, or hey I'm an alcoholic.  Now, I might in the course of discussion relate how my personal struggles help bring me closer to Christ, but in no way do I brag about it and ask for acceptance from others of my sins.  I imagine that if he said "I have homosexual tendencies and through the Gospel I am learning how to become better and change to be a better person" no one would have a problem with that.

 

Sir, you are bragging now?

 

??What in the world. So let me get this straight a heter. man at 18 gets a girl at 17 pregnant and he is a pedophile? Give me a break.  There is a huge difference between someone who is a true pedophile with pre-pubescent children and one who is not. What about 18 vs. 16 is that a pedophile? 18 vs. 15?

 

I'm not sure where that came from - I never said an 18 year old getting a 17 year old is a pedophile...

 

No one is saying that because one is homosexual they have a greater proclivity to like pre-pubescent children!! Simply that if a 18 year old man likes men, a 18 year old man vs a 17 year old "boy" is not a big deal. Which could easily happen on a scout campout!

 

And a 35 year old pedophile vs. a 17 year old boy could just as easily, and HAS happened, on Boy Scout campouts.

 

18 and 17 is not pedophilia, no matter how you slice it-in the eyes of the "law".  

 

This is one of those things that the homosexual agenda loves to throw out there to make it seem as if they are morally right-by pushing the agenda in their favor.

??? I have no "agenda" when it comes to the Church except to do my best to follow the Commandments.

 

 

No one is claiming that being homosexual makes it more likely that an adult will have sex with a pre-pubescent child.

Again, what in the world? You were sexually abused by your father and you wouldn't care if a grown man is on overnight camp-out with 17 year old girls?? Do you even know how the male brain works? There are some very, very mature looking 17 year old and unless a man has control of his faculties it doesn't just "turn off" magically. 

At 63 I'm pretty sure I understand how the male brain works. And a grown man who is spiritually right won't look at a 17 year old girl with lust. It DOES turn off magically if he has the Holy Ghost.

 

No way I'd like my 17 year-old daughter go on an overnight campout with grown men.

Soooo... you're more afraid of your 17 year old son getting hit on by a gay man than you are your 17 year old daughter getting hit on by a lesbian???  I'm sorry. That does not make sense.

 

 

No they didn't come to the same conclusion-you are reading into it what you want to.

Did the church announce that homosexuals will be allowed as adult leaders? No.

Specifically that the Church will continue its relationship with BSA as long as it can maintain its standards-which include no homosexual leaders.

 

I might be seen as "homosexual" bashing; but I have been on this board one of the most ardent defenders of homosexuals being able to live their lifestyle without oppression from the government.

 

You don't "seem" to be homosexual bashing. 

You ARE homosexual bashing.

And you are bashing ME too.

     

 

But I will also be one of the most ardent defenders in that homosexuality is a great sin and should not be tolerated by individuals and no amount of modern-day culture can change that fact.

 

ALL sin is great sin.

Being homosexual is not a sin, by the way.

ACTING on it is.

 

So is hate...

 

I feel sorry for you, really.

Because you'll never know a person as good and kind as my son.

You'll never open your hardened heart.

Your loss ...

Edited November 3, 2015 by AnnieCarvalho

[Just_A_Guy]

And... the majority of child sexual abuse cases are carried out by a family member.

So maybe we shouldn't let Fathers or Uncles or Mothers or Big Brothers be Boy Scout Leaders...

Your own experiences notwithstanding, statistically speaking I believe the majority of cases (at least against girls) are perpetrated by their single mothers' new romantic partners (or their sons who are blended into the household)--not their biological fathers/brothers.

Even if it's done tongue-in-cheek, I have a real problem with blaming traditional nuclear family structures for what is primarily (though certainly not exclusively) fallout from the sexual revolution.

[AnnieCarvalho]

Your own experiences notwithstanding, statistically speaking I believe the majority of cases (at least against girls) are perpetrated by their single mothers' new romantic partners (or their sons who are blended into the household)--not their biological fathers/brothers.

Even if it's done tongue-in-cheek, I have a real problem with blaming traditional nuclear family structures for what is primarily (though certainly not exclusively) fallout from the sexual revolution.

 

Yes, I agree, a family member or someone close to the family.

 

i disagree that childhood sexual abuse is fallout from the sexual revolution.

It's been pretty well documented since long before that.

When are you saying the "sexual revolution" began?

We had a girl in our church in 1955 who was pregant by her father and was sent away.

I think if you research you'll find it's been around for a long, long time.

Edited November 3, 2015 by AnnieCarvalho

[AnnieCarvalho]

So I've learned a really good lesson here in this forum.

 

Opening up and giving total strangers intimate details about my life can 

make me a target for troll-like behavior and it riles me     which is not a good thing.

I should have known better, it's true.

Doh! ::smacks herself on the forehead:::

 

I guess I felt safe because this was an LDS forum.

It has been a good reminder to be more careful.

[AnnieCarvalho]

 

Also see:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1999/09/when-a-loved-one-struggles-with-same-sex-attraction?lang=eng

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction

 

Yes, I like this part:

 

In a conference address, President Hinckley provided further counsel on what our attitude should be toward those who experience homosexual attraction:

“We love them as sons and daughters of God. …

“We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families.”

This is the type of "help" I was referring to in my post when I said I expected better of Church members. Nobody is saying we have to agree with any person's lifestyle if they choose to live contrary to the Church's teachings, but we must still love and support them, as we would anybody struggling with any other problem. 

[AnnieCarvalho]

 

I didn't say homosexuality was not a perversion.

I said it was not the same as pedophilia.  I agree

There are MANY perversions. 

Any sin is a perversion.

 

I know about pedophilia because my biological father sexually abused me my entire life.  I am sorry to hear that, it is sad that anyone has to go through something like that. Thank you.

I've done a LOT of personal research on the topic.

 

I know about homosexuality because I reared three sons, and the youngest is homosexual.  As in, he is attracted to men, or he acts on those attractions?  I want to clarify since it always seems like people are talking about 2 different things.

He is attracted to men. And now, he lives with a partner. However, he is a grown man now and it's no longer up to me. It's between him and his Heavenly Father.

 

This was not a choice.  I am not 100% convinced someone is born gay.  But let us agree for this discussion that he truly was.  It is still his choices that define who he is, not who he is attracted to. I agree, I think.  I'm saying he does not  have a choice that he is attracted to men, but he DOES have a choice whether or not he acts on it. Just as any single person has a choice whether or not they act on their desires.

 

He was born this way.

He has left the church because people were so rude to him, it was shameful.  The church has imperfect members, and yes it is sad that sometimes members of the church aren't as Christ like as we would hope.  But again, choices, his own, decide whether he stays or goes, no one makes that decision for him.

Yes, I agree. And if he had been a grown man, perhaps he would have had the strength then to take the high road,with love and support from his church family and biological family.  However, as a teen, who was torn and tormented anyway because of his feelings, the shunning just pushed him away. You can call it a choice, and maybe it is, but at some point, when people are pointing their fingers and making snotty remarks and not including you, the pain can be overwhelming. 

 

Rather than embrace him and try to help him, they pushed him out.

It's a very huge issue the Church is finally trying to resolve.

But in the meantime, many families have been torn apart by ignorance such as this.

We know of more than one young man who has killed himself, seeing no other way. Choices, there is always another way.  While some may feel that they have it harder than others, it is our own choices that make us who we are, not what others say about us.

See above. I agree it was a choice. In his case, perhaps survival. Some of his friends did not survive. They chose suicide. I'd rather have him not be a member.

 

To brand a homosexual as a pedophile is as bad as branding a Mormon as an anti-Christ. 

It's ignorant and I can't use the word "ignorant" enough on this topic!  I agree.  I feel like it is "ignorant" to think that 2 perversions is the same thing as a mormon and an anti-christ. I'm not really sure what you're saying here, but I stick by the definition.

 

Sin is perversion, pure and simple, of God's commandments.

 

I don't mean this to offend you in any way, but I don't feel like we are on the same page when it comes to homosexuality.  While we should show love and compassion with those who partake of it, there should be no faultering when it comes to standing for what is right, and it is most definitely wrong. Actually I think we ARE on the same page as I agree with what you just said. There should be no faultering in MY behavior.

 

My son is just as disgusted with the idea of pedophilia as any other ethical person.  I am glad to hear that, truly I am.  Sometimes we generalize for a reason though, so we can't use your homosexual son as an example of all homosexuals, just like we shouldn't claim since one homosexual was a pedophile, that all are. No more than we should claim that because my father was a pedophile, all fathers are pedophiles.

 

I realize it isn't done in scouts, but personally, I don't care if a grown man takes 13-17 year old girls to a campout. :::shrug:::

I'd probably feel more comfortable with a man around, these days.

 

A PERSON is either a PEDOPHILE or not, regardless of their gender.  Well a person can become a pedophile, would you not agree?  And placing someone in a position that is more likely to temp them can be risky business.  I believe it is more likely for someone to make the jump to pedophilia for a gender he is already attracted to, than the opposite gender.  I'm not sure. I have my own personal feelings about how people "become" pedophiles. I also believe pedophiles don't ever change. They will always want to have sex with children. You cannot cure them. And wherein homosexual behavior is between two consenting homosexual adults, pedophilia is predatory (in my opinion). A homosexual isn't any more likely to rape another adult than a heterosexual predator is likely to rape. In fact, there are probably many  more heterosexual rapes, statistically. A homosexual isn't going to convince you to "become" homosexual either. You either are or you are not, in my opinion. A pedophile FORCES the child. 

 

They either like CHILDREN or not, regardless of their gender.

 

That's all I'm saying.

 

And apparently the Church leaders came to the same conclusion, based on their decision.  Not at all.  We aren't privy to exactly what the church leaders decided and for what reason.  I could be wrong on this, but I believe a homosexual that is in a relationship or acting on those feelings can't be a scout leader in an LDS sponsored scout troop?  If that is true, that it would seem the OPPOSITE of what you just said. (but then again, I could be wrong)  I would agree with you that any unmarried person acting on sexual feelings should not be a Scout Leader. Or any married person having sexual relations with anyone besides their wife should not be a scout leader. So I think we are agreeing. 

 

Maybe.

 

Because I feel that any adult male who is in good standing and is not committing sexual sin SHOULD be allowed to be a Scout Leader. 

[estradling75]

So I've learned a really good lesson here in this forum.

 

Opening up and giving total strangers intimate details about my life can 

make me a target for troll-like behavior and it riles me     which is not a good thing.

I should have known better, it's true.

Doh! ::smacks herself on the forehead:::

 

I guess I felt safe because this was an LDS forum.

It has been a good reminder to be more careful.

 

 

I would submit to you that that would be the wrong lesson to learn.

 

I would submit to you that a more correct lesson to learn would be the dangers of trying to use intensely personal experiences to appear as an authoritative source on a controversial subject.

 

Had you presented your experience in asking for help and comfort you would have gotten it.  However using your experiences to show how others are wrong will leave others feeling the need to defend themselves (And the best defense is a good offense

[AnnieCarvalho]

I would submit to you that that would be the wrong lesson to learn.

 

I would submit to you that a more correct lesson to learn would be the dangers of trying to use intensely personal experiences to appear as an authoritative source on a controversial subject.

 

Had you presented your experience in asking for help and comfort you would have gotten it.  However using your experiences to show how others are wrong will leave others feeling the need to defend themselves (And the best defense is a good offense

 

I didn't ask for help and comfort.

Vort asked how I knew a thing to be true - I answered by giving personal experience.

 

You may the best defense is a good offense.

 

I prefer John 13:34 - A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

 

Or if you prefer, as the children sing in Primary:

 

As I have loved you,

Love one another.

This new commandment:

Love one another.

By this shall men know

Ye are my disciples,

If ye have love

One to another.

 

"If we would keep the commandment to love one another, we must treat each other with kindness and respect." President Thomas Monson

Edited November 3, 2015 by AnnieCarvalho

[estradling75]

 

I didn't ask for help and comfort.

Vort asked how I knew a thing to be true - I answered by giving personal experience.

 

 

Indeed you gave a personal experience as evidence or in support of your opinion.  If your personal experience had not been so personally horrible you would have had no problem with your personal experience shot down by those that oppose you.  (Just like you had no problem shutting down JAG's personal experience as a Family Lawyer who deals with 100's of cases of family disintegration in favor of your personal experiences).  Just because a person's personal experience is horrible does not change how discussions go when we are trying to discuss issues.