LDS Church Changes Stance on Gays

[skeptic 997]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/06/mormon-church-calls-for-more-compassion-towards-gays-homosexuality-not-a-choice_n_2252874.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmaing5%7Cdl1%7Csec3_lnk1%26pLid%3D242336

 

Now this may be the final key to BSA making a more even handed, rational approach on the issue. Will be interesting to see what happens.

[Sentinel947 1205]

Excellent! This should be a huge head turner at National. However, they still aren't accepting homosexuality. The doctrine is called "hate the sin, not the sinner." The Catholic church has a similiar position.

[Eagle732 27]

Well the website linked in the article was down when I tried it. I wouldn't put much stock in anything the Fuff Post reports.

[Brewmeister 132]

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/us/article/Mormon-church-wants-more-compassion-for-gays-4096810.php

 

[eisely 13]

It is worth noting that the single best known Mormon nationally, Mitt Romney, was asked about the gay issue in regards to boy scouts during the recent election campaign. He answered that he thought the BSA ought to change its policy.

[Eagle732 27]

Well ol' Mitt lost so that isn't saying much.

[howarthe 42]

This really isn't a new stance. Love the sinner, hate the sin has always been the directive; although, the message hasn't always gotten through. Many of the Mormons that I know are very prejudiced against homosexuals. The new web site http://www.mormonsandgays.org addresses this directly, and I, for one, am very, very excited about it. I really do hope it leads to an end to the BSAs ridiculous policy banning homosexuals.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

I doubt this will change much. They are still saying that "acting on" a same-gender attraction is a "sin." But if we are talking about the possible impact of this on the BSA policy, I think that really misses the whole point. The real issue is local option. LDS'ers (I'm sure that's the wrong term) have every right to believe that same-gender sexual relationships are sinful -- as do the Catholics, Orthodox Jews (most do believe that, some don't), Methodists (seems to be about half and half now), Presbyterians (ditto), and whoever else. And if they really, truly believe it's a sin, it's difficult to argue that they should be forced to admit an openly gay leader into a unit for which they are the CO. But at the same time, it is NOT reasonable for them to tell people who DON'T believe its a sin that they must still exclude gay leaders. And that's what's still happening in the BSA. If this new stance by the LDS church means that they realize that the enforcement of their own religious principles should be a matter for their own church, and not something to be imposed on others, then a real change may be closer than I thought. But I see no indication that this is the case. Maybe they'll surprise me.

[Peregrinator 85]

But at the same time, it is NOT reasonable for them to tell people who DON'T believe its a sin that they must still exclude gay leaders.

 

It is totally reasonable for the BSA to decide on which terms it will allow organizations to affiliate with it.

[Peregrinator 85]

It is worth noting that the single best known Mormon nationally, Mitt Romney, was asked about the gay issue in regards to boy scouts during the recent election campaign. He answered that he thought the BSA ought to change its policy.

 

Mitt Romney also formerly held a position on abortion that was wildly at variance with what the LDS actually teaches.

[howarthe 42]

This is the sentence on the new LDS site which gives me hope:

 

"There is no change in the Churchs position of what is morally right. But what is changing and what needs to change is to help Church members respond sensitively and thoughtfully when they encounter same-sex attraction in their own families, among other Church members, or elsewhere"

 

If we as Saints are to "respond sensitively and thoughtfully when [we] encounter same-sex attraction" in scouting, then I believe we should discourage policies which result in homosexuals being excluded from other scout troops. The Mormons never needed a corporate policy to exclude homosexuals from their own scout troops. The chartered organization (not the troop) makes all leadership assignments.

 

The fear (as I understand it) was that Mormon scouts might encounter homosexual scoutmasters at campouts with other troops, but if we are supposed to "respond sensitively and thoughtfully when [we] encounter same-sex attraction" in scouting, then I don't think we should be avoiding such situations anymore.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

It is totally reasonable for the BSA to decide on which terms it will allow organizations to affiliate with it.

 

Peregrinator, we all know that the reason the BSA still has this policy is that certain large CO's and their allies in positions of leadership, in sufficient numbers to control the votes, have decided that the BSA will have this policy. In effect, then, these CO's are imposing their religious beliefs on other CO's. The decisions of the BSA, like any corporation or other organization, are the results of decisions made by PEOPLE, within the structures and processes contained in the bylaws. In this case, many of the people are representing other organizations, including religions. So I look at this for what it is: One group of people and organizations imposing their will on another, on a subject that has nothing to do with the core values of Scouting.

[Garrison Cap 10]

" So I look at this for what it is: One group of people and organizations imposing their will on another, on a subject that has nothing to do with the core values of Scouting. "

 

Pot, meet kettle.

 

Bluntly put, I would say that permitting certain adults to volunteer in a nonprofit organization (for youth) that does not need, nor require, nor solicit for their help has nothing to do with scouts or scouting.

 

It's Boy Scouts, emphasis on the boy. Not the adult leadership.(This message has been edited by Garrison Cap)

[Peregrinator 85]

Peregrinator, we all know that the reason the BSA still has this policy is that certain large CO's and their allies in positions of leadership, in sufficient numbers to control the votes, have decided that the BSA will have this policy.

 

I'm not a BSA insider so no, I don't know that. I don't see how there is any way to know that for certain (unless the BSA's leadership has actually said as much). But let's suppose it's true. In what way is it unreasonable for the BSA to continue doing what its affiliated organizations want it to do?

[moosetracker 132]

Garrison -

 

Bluntly put, I would say that permitting certain adults to volunteer in a nonprofit organization (for youth) that does not need, nor require, nor solicit for their help has nothing to do with scouts or scouting.

 

 

Must be nice to have so much volunteer help that you are picking & choosing. Most units I know are desperate for adults to step up to volunteer.. Many of them would find homosexual adults as equally qualified as hetersexual adults, since teaching or discussing sexuality has noting to do with the scout craft or scout values (at least half the scouting community interprets as not everyone sees a moral sin in homosexuality.).