Boy Scouts and LDS to split?

[Joel]

I stopped donating to "Friends of Scouting" in 2013, and refused to re-enroll my Son in Scouts from that point on. I took a lot of heat over my belief, and I'm an Eagle Scout.

I was tempted one year to donate because they were hooking people up with a pretty sweet deal on Krispy Kreme donuts but decided to pass. The girl scouts and their cookies always seem to convince me to their cause is just!

[ajax]

As a scout leader for many years, I never knew the sexual fetishes, fantasies, mores, inclinations, etc of my co-leaders. Nor did I ask. Nor care. Multiple deep leadership was essential to having successful and safe outings.

[Joel]

So if there is a split how will this situation be handled in the future if a family want to keep their sons in scouting because they respect the change?

[EmmaLee]

That question in Joel's meme ^^^ means absolutely nothing anymore (not sure it ever did), is pointless, and desperately needs to be done away with, IMO (along with all the other questions except "Do you keep the covenants you've made in the temple?").

[Desert Roses]

I wonder if there's any response from the Catholics (who also sponsor many BSA troops) or any of the other religions that sponsor so many troops. Many of these churches have already left over the allowing gay youth to be Scouts. It will be interesting to see if BSA can survive as a greatly diminished, under-funded organization.

[Sunain]

So if there is a split how will this situation be handled in the future if a family want to keep their sons in scouting because they respect the change?

That question in Joel's meme ^^^ means absolutely nothing anymore (not sure it ever did), is pointless, and desperately needs to be done away with, IMO (along with all the other questions except "Do you keep the covenants you've made in the temple?").

I completely disagree. That temple recommend question is more relevant now than ever as there are more organizations contrary to church doctrine. The church though does need to clarify exactly though what organizations its means. I assume for legal reasons, they haven't done that in the past but perhaps a list of categories a group maybe in rather than specific organizations. The temple recommend question is actually:

"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? "

My work has a harassment clause that includes protecting gays. The church also made the distinction earlier this year as well that despite their lifestyle choices, they should not be harassed, no one should. There is a line though between harassment of any individual and disagreeing with their choices and lifestyle. Lately though the gay agenda seem to be saying that disagreeing with them is a form of mental abuse because they aren't accepted by some members of society. The next step for them seems to be making outward expressions of homophobia a hate crime and therefore that temple question would be considered a hate crime if it included disagreeing with gays.

Support, affiliate, or agree with basically covers any basis. In my opinion, people that are retweeting or Facebook Liking Gay propaganda are agreeing with doctrine contrary to the church despite what Elder Christofferson has said. I'm not sure what to say about showing support for scouting now. As a whole, the organization is good but local troop leaders are vitally important to how it operates. Allowing gay leaders means that scouting agrees that their lifestyle is an appropriate way of life. Boys learn from their leaders and if that leader is gay, they still get the idea that being gay is also okay which I think is the core of why the church if opposed to this. Even if local religious troops don't have gay leaders, any jamborees that scouts would go to would most likely have gay leaders.

If/when the church does pull its support from Scouting, I do not see the church saying to members to stay away from scouting. I'm sure many that are in the program would like to finish getting their Eagle Scout.

[Desert Roses]

I wonder if there's any response from the Catholics (who also sponsor many BSA troops) or any of the other religions that sponsor so many troops. Many of these churches have already left over the allowing gay youth to be Scouts. It will be interesting to see if BSA can survive as a greatly diminished, under-funded organization.

Googled it...here's the answer:

http://catholicherald.com/stories/React ... sion,22922

Looks like the BSA has kinda under-estimated the potential losses.

[Benjamin_LK]

I wonder if there's any response from the Catholics (who also sponsor many BSA troops) or any of the other religions that sponsor so many troops. Many of these churches have already left over the allowing gay youth to be Scouts. It will be interesting to see if BSA can survive as a greatly diminished, under-funded organization.

It's more than that, the biggest bite out of the BSA membership has been young men committing to other activities, especially sports. Boy Scouts takes commitment, and numbers have been dropping for years as a result. The BSA is currently acting in hopes of getting some recruits, but whether or not PC will compensate remains to be seen.

[creator]

Googled it...here's the answer:
http://catholicherald.com/stories/React ... sion,22922
Looks like the BSA has kinda under-estimated the potential losses.

That article is over 2 years old.

[Joel]

Catholic Panel Urges Churches to Continue Sponsoring Scout Troops

By ERIK ECKHOLM JULY 28, 2015

A Roman Catholic committee that acts as a liaison with the Boy Scouts of America has urged Catholic churches to continue sponsoring Scout troops despite the Scouts’ decision Monday to permit openly gay leaders.

While the group, the National Catholic Committee on Scouting, does not speak officially for the church, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops “defers to them” on issues concerning the Boy Scouts, said Don Clemmer, a spokesman for the influential bishops conference.

The committee’s stance, in a statement issued late Monday, suggests that wholesale defections from the Boy Scouts by religious sponsors are not likely any time soon, despite the markedly more negative response from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which said it would consider severing ties.

The Catholic Committee, which maintains an office inside the Boy Scout headquarters in Irving, Tex., expressed deep concern about any possible endorsement of sexual behavior outside of traditional marriage. But it praised the assurances of Scout leaders that despite the new policy on openly gay leaders, local church-based units will remain free to select volunteer leaders who share their religious principles.

“We recognize the increasing need for the Catholic Church to offer scouting as a program of youth ministry,” said the statement, signed by Edward P. Martin, the group’s national chairman, and Father Michael P. Hanifin, its national chaplain. Under the new policy, it said, “units will ensure that youth within their faith communities are led by faith-filled role models.”

Under mounting social and legal pressure to end discrimination against gay people, the Boy Scout leaders “have been walking on eggshells,” as one scouting board member put it, trying to bring the organization in line with a changing society without driving out conservative religious groups that sponsor a large fraction of packs and troops.

The Mormon Church is the largest single sponsor of Scout units, accounting for 17 percent of all participating youths in 2013. Roman Catholic churches sponsored 10 percent of participants.

The Boy Scouts’ voluntary president, Robert M. Gates, the former defense secretary, said in a highly publicized speech in May that the policy of excluding gay adults “cannot be sustained” and called for quick action, leading to the decision Monday by the national executive board.

Mr. Gates went out of his way to try to ease the qualms of religious conservatives, saying that in the name of religious freedom they must be allowed to pick their own volunteers. The Scouts also said they would provide legal aid to any church-based group that came under attack for declining to appoint gay adult leaders.

“I support a policy that accepts and respects our different perspectives and beliefs,” Mr. Gates said at the Scouts’ annual meeting in May, adding, “I truly fear that any other alternative will be the end of us as a national movement.”

But a fracturing of the Boy Scouts still seems possible. The response of the Mormon Church to Monday’s decision had a strident tone that took many Scout leaders by surprise.

Calling the new leadership standard “inconsistent with the doctrines of the church,” the statement made no reference to the exception carved out for religious groups.

In an unusual public display of irritation over internal Scout proceedings, the Mormon Church also said that “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 statement said, “the century-long association with scouting will need to be examined.”

[djinwa]

Why do we need so many programs anyway? What is wrong with young men and women just going camping? Why does everything have to be so regimented? How about youngsters working like we used to hoeing fields on welfare farms doing something useful. I know a lot of scouts who checked all the squares but never worked a useful job, and don't know how to dig with a shovel and other basic skills.

Kind of like sports. Neighbor kids used to get together for pick-up games. No more. Must be part of a league with uniforms and travelling hours, taking up days per week. Have to have tournaments and declare a champion.

Guess nothing counts if it isn't part of an official program or something, with awards, badges, rank, etc. Doing everything for show, just as Christ preached against.

[Benjamin_LK]

Tolerance is a one way street. Evil always demands it but never returns it.

The days of being a fence sitter are over. Neither side is going to accept A member of the LDS church who doesn't see homosexuality as immorality. The world will soon cast the church in the same light as the KKK. They won't accept a mormon who claims to support homosexualtiy any more then they would accept a member of the KKK who claims that they aren't racist. Many members who are more concerned with being accepted by the world then being obedient to the father will fall once the persecution starts.

I'm surprised those groups that hate the church haven't latched onto the Book of Mormon's recurring theme of evil people being given a dark skin, and righteous people being made white, yet. They must be saving that one, so when they pull it out and play it, there will be "outrage" from almost every corner. I mean, this race thing is water under the bridge, right? And "gay" equality is the new battlefront. What will happen when we Luddites are exposed for not only being behind the times on the "gay" issue, but found to have "Neanderthal" race beliefs. Oh, the "outrage"!

I am not sure what your sources are, but it's a commonly repeated canard that Mormons believe black people inferior based on The Book of Mormon, however, like most attacks, it pretty much relies on just reading clippings rather tha. The whole book. It was pretty evident to me that Samuel in his preaching wasn't inferior in the slightest, nor were the Ammonite descendants who served in Helaman's unit, nor were the Lamanites who combined armies with the Nephites in the Gadianton war. It's been done many times. There's nothing new under the sun with the anti church groups. You probably also missed the American Atheist billboards.

[Serragon]

Why do we need so many programs anyway? What is wrong with young men and women just going camping? Why does everything have to be so regimented? How about youngsters working like we used to hoeing fields on welfare farms doing something useful. I know a lot of scouts who checked all the squares but never worked a useful job, and don't know how to dig with a shovel and other basic skills.

Kind of like sports. Neighbor kids used to get together for pick-up games. No more. Must be part of a league with uniforms and travelling hours, taking up days per week. Have to have tournaments and declare a champion.

Guess nothing counts if it isn't part of an official program or something, with awards, badges, rank, etc. Doing everything for show, just as Christ preached against.

Let each ward decide how to handle their youth programs. I have been a Young Men's president twice, and this is what we ended up doing anyway since none of the boys were interested in scouting. (We had less than 5 boys total from 12-17 in both groups)

[Obrien]

Maybe the church will buy some of those soon to be vacant scout camps throughout Utah and Idaho. In Utah, it's typically the LDS scouters who also staff them.

I bet the LDS Scouters will be looking for work tomorrow. Will the church buy all the scout camps?

Just in time for the September Call-Out. And I heard Lizzy60 is in our group!

Late to the thread, but my guess is sure, why not buy them? Maybe we can build a hunting preserve, or done high $$ mountain condos there...

[mattctr]

I know an Eagle Scout who said he is sending his award back to the BSA and asking them to remove him from their records.

[davedan]

New Name for LDS Scouting:


Son's of Helaman
Stripling Warriors

[Sirocco]

Well you're gonna find extreme's in every movement, I've not heard of any of those people or things, kind of messed up if you ask me.

What I listed above are not the "extreme's" though - that IS the gay agenda, written and promoted by those who DO speak for the "movement", whether they speak for random, individual gay people or not, or whether you or anybody else here has heard of them or not. Kirk and Madsen are the godfather's of the modern-day gay movement/agenda and have been the voice of it for decades - they wrote the manuscript, if you will, and it is most definitely being followed quite literally and legislatively (or should I say judicially...). People who don't think all this will affect them or their school or their church or their finances are seriously kidding themselves. But we don't want to believe in real evil, or that people really are out to change (eliminate) God, etc. They like to be lulled into a false sense of security - some people say they don't - they say they want the cold, hard truth (like when it comes to the Church and all its warts, for example), but not if it disturbs their politically correct-type sensibilities. Anyway, it is very messed up, but it is also reality.

No one has ever told me about an agenda... @-)
it's not like an organization or a business or a church that has set laws and rules here... Why is it that I get told so often the "realities" of being GLBT is, when I am part of it and... it's nothing like that...
Am I doing something wrong here? lol

[EmmaLee]

So if there is a split how will this situation be handled in the future if a family want to keep their sons in scouting because they respect the change?

That question in Joel's meme ^^^ means absolutely nothing anymore (not sure it ever did), is pointless, and desperately needs to be done away with, IMO (along with all the other questions except "Do you keep the covenants you've made in the temple?").

I completely disagree. That temple recommend question is more relevant now than ever as there are more organizations contrary to church doctrine. The church though does need to clarify exactly though what organizations its means. I assume for legal reasons, they haven't done that in the past but perhaps a list of categories a group maybe in rather than specific organizations. The temple recommend question is actually:

"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? "

My work has a harassment clause that includes protecting gays. The church also made the distinction earlier this year as well that despite their lifestyle choices, they should not be harassed, no one should. There is a line though between harassment of any individual and disagreeing with their choices and lifestyle. Lately though the gay agenda seem to be saying that disagreeing with them is a form of mental abuse because they aren't accepted by some members of society. The next step for them seems to be making outward expressions of homophobia a hate crime and therefore that temple question would be considered a hate crime if it included disagreeing with gays.

Support, affiliate, or agree with basically covers any basis. In my opinion, people that are retweeting or Facebook Liking Gay propaganda are agreeing with doctrine contrary to the church despite what Elder Christofferson has said. I'm not sure what to say about showing support for scouting now. As a whole, the organization is good but local troop leaders are vitally important to how it operates. Allowing gay leaders means that scouting agrees that their lifestyle is an appropriate way of life. Boys learn from their leaders and if that leader is gay, they still get the idea that being gay is also okay which I think is the core of why the church if opposed to this. Even if local religious troops don't have gay leaders, any jamborees that scouts would go to would most likely have gay leaders.

If/when the church does pull its support from Scouting, I do not see the church saying to members to stay away from scouting. I'm sure many that are in the program would like to finish getting their Eagle Scout.

I understand what you're saying, Sunain; and I agree with most of it. The fact is though, the Church itself can't even honestly answer "No" to that question as it is currently written, so it's kinda strange that we members are expected to. There are a couple of threads specifically focused on this recommend question that you may want to read - the search feature should find them for you. In the thread I started on the subject, I mentioned that in my recommend interview last fall, I asked my Bishop and my stake president what/who the question was referring to, and neither of them had any idea - said they'd never even thought about it before - so at least my local leaders merely ask it by rote, not even knowing who/what it is they should be watching out for.

I especially agree that members who are 'liking' and promoting same-sex marriage on social media due to what E. Christofferson said (with E. Perry right there beside him, and with no correction/clarity by the FP, etc.) cannot honestly answer "No" to that question. I also believe people, including me and you, who participate on LDSFF cannot honestly answer "No" to that question - at least not as it is currently written. So yeah, needs to be reworded drastically or eliminated altogether, IMO.

[rewcox]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8656 ... uture.html

If the church pulls out of Boy Scouts, it will be catastrophic for the Utah BSA councils.

While BSA says they will support the churches on lawsuits, the LGBT orgs just waiting to do the lawsuits, probably the day after the church announces what it will do if it stays with Boy Scouts.

I just don't see spending million of dollars in suits when the BSA org has caved in itself.

Drop the BSA. Then the persecution will continue never the less, since we don't approve of gay sex or marriage.

[iWriteStuff]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8656 ... uture.html

If the church pulls out of Boy Scouts, it will be catastrophic for the Utah BSA councils.

Seems to me the BSA is less intent on preserving scouting in Utah and more intent on committing organizational suicide.

And, honestly, that's fine by me. They were good in their day, but if their desire is to change with the times/fad/PC culture, then it's no longer a good fit for members of the church or our youth.

[rewcox]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8656 ... uture.html

If the church pulls out of Boy Scouts, it will be catastrophic for the Utah BSA councils.

Seems to me the BSA is less intent on preserving scouting in Utah and more intent on committing organizational suicide.

And, honestly, that's fine by me. They were good in their day, but if their desire is to change with the times/fad/PC culture, then it's no longer a good fit for members of the church or our youth.

Certainly it would be suicide in Utah, and I'm sure the professional scouters in Utah understand. They probably thought with the 100 year relationship, the church would go along with it.

I don't see how the church can, I suspect 90% of active members would have a serious problem continuing support of BSA.

[Sirocco]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8656 ... uture.html

If the church pulls out of Boy Scouts, it will be catastrophic for the Utah BSA councils.

While BSA says they will support the churches on lawsuits, the LGBT orgs just waiting to do the lawsuits, probably the day after the church announces what it will do if it stays with Boy Scouts.

I just don't see spending million of dollars in suits when the BSA org has caved in itself.

Drop the BSA. Then the persecution will continue never the less, since we don't approve of gay sex or marriage.

Even if you do, people will still complain because once upon a time you didn't.
You can't please everyone and I think some people gay or straight, just pick things to be mad about.
I always wondered why the LDS church got so much harshness for it's history, when, say the Catholic church, from 1830 til now had done far, far worse!
Maybe I am bias because of my great dislike of Catholicism and the Pope, but still, I often wonder where the harshness towards the Mormons come from, and why other, worse churches are exempt.

[EmmaLee]

Well you're gonna find extreme's in every movement, I've not heard of any of those people or things, kind of messed up if you ask me.

What I listed above are not the "extreme's" though - that IS the gay agenda, written and promoted by those who DO speak for the "movement", whether they speak for random, individual gay people or not, or whether you or anybody else here has heard of them or not. Kirk and Madsen are the godfather's of the modern-day gay movement/agenda and have been the voice of it for decades - they wrote the manuscript, if you will, and it is most definitely being followed quite literally and legislatively (or should I say judicially...). People who don't think all this will affect them or their school or their church or their finances are seriously kidding themselves. But we don't want to believe in real evil, or that people really are out to change (eliminate) God, etc. They like to be lulled into a false sense of security - some people say they don't - they say they want the cold, hard truth (like when it comes to the Church and all its warts, for example), but not if it disturbs their politically correct-type sensibilities. Anyway, it is very messed up, but it is also reality.

No one has ever told me about an agenda... @-)
it's not like an organization or a business or a church that has set laws and rules here... Why is it that I get told so often the "realities" of being GLBT is, when I am part of it and... it's nothing like that...
Am I doing something wrong here? lol

I'm assuming you're not a militant gay activist? You're just a guy living his life quietly, you're not out parading around in a wig, dress, and high heels, or marching/blogging trying to force an agenda on the 97% of non-gay people, society, laws, religions, etc., right? They're not talking about homosexuals who are just living their life in their little corner of the world with their small group of friends, like anybody else - in fact, the people such as Kirk, Madsen, et al, view people like you in a much less than complimentary way ("useful idiots" "dupes", etc. their words, not mine; sorry, man). They are delighted that you are not aware of them and what they're up to - and that there are plenty of gay (or bisexual, etc.) people out there who don't know what is being done and said in their name. As an example, I'm a woman, but I am not a feminist in the modern-day version of what that word means today - far from it - yet the feminist agenda (see, they have one, too) presumes to include all women. They do not speak for me, just like the gay militants don't speak for you (apparently). Anyway, you like to read, so may I recommend you read up on what other people are saying in your name - read the papers, etc. I quoted from in my long post above. And there's a LOT more out there than that.

[Sirocco]

I can only imagine the horrors that await my eyes. Ironic the people who "speak for my issues" insult me worse then the people who are "against me"...
Feminism is a bizarre thing, it's very cult like. And if tumblr is any indication, this will suffer the same fate... sad.
And no the fact I can marry a man if I so choose (though with the irony the world has at times, if I ever end up getting married the universe probably would put things in place for me to marry a woman, now that I've said all this-what do you call that, Murphy's law? lol) and won't get killed on the street for holding someone's hand, nor will I be fired from a job or kicked out of my home for it... I'm fine, only thing I'd ever consider blogging about is things I create.
I don't much care for wigs, even at anime conventions, though my hair is long...I'm metal though lol

Problems like that arises when a group isn't really a group, when it's vocal minority of crazies claims to speak for everyone and that's the only side anyone listens to.
I mean it's a real double standard at times though because if I judged all Christians or Muslims by the words of a few radicals (even if they claim to speak for all Christians or Muslims) people would call me bigoted and such, but people seem perfectly fine to do that to GLBT people.
I mean it's messed up if I called all Mormons racist by some stuff Brigham Young said, but innocent people get the shaft because of some nonsense these nuts have said.
Not quite fair.

[EmmaLee]

Yep, tru dat.