Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Scouter99

Mormons Will Re-Evaluate Relationship With Bsa

Recommended Posts

I did not know they beat BSA to the punch with accepting gay Adult Leaders.. WOW...   In light of that, yeah I would say it had to be religious purity and LDS just doesn't make the grade in their eyes..

 

The article that Rick linked to does not accurately describe Trail Life's membership policy, which states

 

 

In terms of sexual identification and behavior, we affirm that any sexual activity outside the context of the covenant of marriage between one man and one woman is sinful before God and therefore inconsistent with the values and principles of the program. Within these limits, we grant membership to adults and youth who do not engage in or promote sexual immorality of any kind, or engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the program.    http://www.traillifeusa.com/whoweare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Trail Life's statements (and media reporting and mis-reporting thereof) about gay members have created a lot of confusion, but their position is pretty clear to me. If you read that NBC link and then read what robert12 linked-to above from their own web site, and assume they mean all of what they say, this is what I get:

 

Trail life will not kick anyone out for being gay unless they "flaunt it." I believe (based on their own web site) that they would define "flaunting" as making a self-identification as being gay. In other words, while saying "I am gay" by itself will no longer result in expulsion from the BSA (but may result in expulsion of adults from religious-organization/CO's that choose to do), I believe that statement would result in expulsion from Trail Life. So it's ok to be gay in Trail Life as long as nobody knows about it.

 

That is not the same as the BSA's current policy regarding youth (since 1/1/14) or adults (since yesterday.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, regardless of TLUSA, and more back on topic, here's a report from the Desert News, http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865633343/LDS-Church-relationship-with-Boy-Scouts-in-doubt-may-create-new-international-program.html?pg=all.  One interesting quote:

 

"Hawkins told the Deseret News on Monday that church leaders Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, of the church's Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, General Young Men's President Stephen Owen and General Primary President Rosemary Wixom, all of whom belong to the BSA National Board, voted against the new policy."

 

As I understand the structure the Young Men's President is responsible for the BSA programs for 11YO and up.  The Primary President for the Cub level programs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IF you truly value the basic tenets of Scouting and want to make it available, then you stay and work it and simply do your best to keep the stupidity and yellow press out of it if possible.

If you truly value your blood pressure then go spend some time with your scouts. It put me in a much better mood.

 

Edit: reiterate: nobody here is bothering me, I just see so much potential for scouting and the idea of siloning scouts into LDS scouts, Catholic scouts, TL, ad nauseam is just defeating some of the great aspects of scouts.

Edited by MattR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, regardless of TLUSA, and more back on topic, here's a report from the Desert News, http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865633343/LDS-Church-relationship-with-Boy-Scouts-in-doubt-may-create-new-international-program.html?pg=all.  One interesting quote:

 

"Hawkins told the Deseret News on Monday that church leaders Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, of the church's Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, General Young Men's President Stephen Owen and General Primary President Rosemary Wixom, all of whom belong to the BSA National Board, voted against the new policy."

 

As I understand the structure the Young Men's President is responsible for the BSA programs for 11YO and up.  The Primary President for the Cub level programs.

Just out of curiosity, I wonder how others on the board voted. Does anyone know if that data is available? How each member voted? Just curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As I understand the structure the Young Men's President is responsible for the BSA programs for 11YO and up.  The Primary President for the Cub level programs.

 

I think there's some overlap in there.  Kids are in primary until their 12th birthday, which is why 11 year old lds scouts are kept separate from the 12+

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Trail Life's statements (and media reporting and mis-reporting thereof) about gay members have created a lot of confusion, but their position is pretty clear to me. If you read that NBC link and then read what robert12 linked-to above from their own web site, and assume they mean all of what they say, this is what I get:

 

Trail life will not kick anyone out for being gay unless they "flaunt it." I believe (based on their own web site) that they would define "flaunting" as making a self-identification as being gay. In other words, while saying "I am gay" by itself will no longer result in expulsion from the BSA (but may result in expulsion of adults from religious-organization/CO's that choose to do), I believe that statement would result in expulsion from Trail Life. So it's ok to be gay in Trail Life as long as nobody knows about it.

 

That is not the same as the BSA's current policy regarding youth (since 1/1/14) or adults (since yesterday.)

 

This is the sticking point for many.  As long as one keeps it to themselves and doesn't try to justify their sexual preferences in front of the boys or explains to the boys that this is an acceptable lifestyle and "flaunts" it into the program, most people don't care.  

 

I'm a pedophile (I have worked extensively with minor youths for 40+ years now), homicidal maniac (behind the wheel, some of the people I see in traffic, I could easily participate in the Darwin Principle) , with paranoid tendencies (just because you believe there are those out there that seek to do you harm, doesn't mean it's not true.).  As long as I don't flaunt it, as long as I don't try and convince everyone it's okay and as long as I don't act on the impulses, I can be and have been in scouting as a leader for 30+ years.

 

I guess I'm just not a fan of "in-your-face" politics on any subject. 

 

I signed off on a gay Eagle Scout long before it was officially acceptable to do so.  He was pictured on the front page of the local newspaper dressed in drag having won "fairest of the ball" at a local dance 2 months before his picture showed up in the paper as receiving his Eagle rank.)  So does that make me a fan of the new policy?

 

I have also simply walked away from toxic BSA troops, crews, and programs when the politics became more important than the boys.  That's another tendency I have and I HAVE acted on those in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article that Rick linked to does not accurately describe Trail Life's membership policy, which states

 

 

In terms of sexual identification and behavior, we affirm that any sexual activity outside the context of the covenant of marriage between one man and one woman is sinful before God and therefore inconsistent with the values and principles of the program. Within these limits, we grant membership to adults and youth who do not engage in or promote sexual immorality of any kind, or engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the program.    http://www.traillifeusa.com/whoweare

 

It looks like Trail Life is taking a page out of the BSA handbook and being deliberately vague. It also looks like their policy might have evolved.

 

For example, and older version of the FAQ on their website used to read (have to love the wayback machine):

What are your views on homosexuality?

  • We at Trail Life USA believe that homosexuality, or any sexuality outside of the Sanctity of Marriage under God between a Man and a Woman is sin.
  • We do not allow a boy that is part of or advocating for the Gay Movement to participate.
  • We do not exclude a boy who confides to a leader that he has experienced some same-sex attraction and wonders what that means. Same-sex attraction is not in itself a sin, as it is rather a temptation. It is what you do with that temptation in thought and in action that is sin. We would counsel a boy that he should not allow this feeling to turn into lustful thoughts or consideration of a gay lifestyle. We would also counsel a boy that we cannot always control our thoughts on our own, but that by the power of Jesus Christ that we have the power to overcome sin in our lives. We would graciously work with such a boy to have him put these thoughts in a Biblical perspective and to seek God’s purpose in his life. We would pray with and for the boy. We believe that with our Biblical understanding we are most strongly equipped to make a difference in a young man’s life that might find himself experiencing same sex attraction, as some psychological studies report a significant percentage of boys do at some point in their teenage life. We do not believe that the BSA with its current non-discriminatory membership standards is properly positioned to make a real difference to assist such a youth in a truly positive way.

If now reads:

What is the position of Trail Life USA regarding homosexuality?

 

We believe that homosexuality is sinful and immoral, as is any sexual activity outside of the sanctity of marriage between a Man and a Woman. Consistent with this belief, we have specific policies that address membership and sin in both youth and adult members.

The first version clearly doesn't allow youth that are "part of or advocating for the Gay Movement to participate" (I guess that means no rainbow flags), but a youth that has "experienced some same-sex attraction" is OK as long as he doesn't act on it.

The second version just mentions that there are "specific policies" without going into what they are.

 

As for the original story being incorrect, here is one from earlier today. This is an interview with John Stemberger, Chairman of Trail Life USA.

 

In the interview he says:

Prior to this compromise on the Boy Scouts of America’s part, there were people, both adults and young people, with the same-sex attraction in scouting. Everybody knew who they were, but they were appropriate, they were discreet, they didn’t act out, they didn’t make a big deal about it. Under the new policy, they can be now openly gay, and in America that means flaunting, that means sexual innuendo – completely inappropriate behavior in a youth program… You look at anything that has the title gay on it, and it’s usually inappropriate, has innuendo in it, and inserts sex. It makes it the big deal of the day. And so it’s just inappropriate. Kids should not be around a campfire learning about what homosexuality is.

...

In our program, we will allow any boy of any faith. We will allow a boy that has same-sex attraction or even has gender issues. We will even allow an atheist boy, for the reason that we want to influence that young man and show him that the beauty of the creation screams that God exists and try to help him to think clearly about that issue.

So it looks like Trail Life will allow gay youth as long as they are appropriate and discrete. He appears to reserve the word "gay" for "out and loud" people, and uses "people with same-sex attraction" to refer to the rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think all this discussion on Trail Life is pointless.  I'm fairly certain the LDS church is not going to want to be associated with another church's program for boys, especially one that requires a statement of faith.  As an LDS, I never can join the groups with those faith statements because my faith does not line up with theirs.  The LDS church does already have a program for boys under age 12, who do not have the option to join a cub scout program.  It's the same as their program for Girls: Activity Days.  The older boys already have an organization.  They attend mutual weekly.  Boy scouts is just two weeks of the month of their mutual activities.  They could easily drop the scout part.  They would then have more time to work on their Duty to God award.  (I know it is neglected at my church.  I've not known any boy to receive it, yet there are three different awards for the different aged boys.)  As an LDS member, I, personally, would rather have the church focus on the Spiritual stuff and then my son can be a boy scout in a non-denominational community troop.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think its a stretch to believe that 100% of current LDS members/units will cease to exist if the LDS pulls out. A sizable portion will convert to standard Packs/Troops with a different chartering organization.

Mormon boys are in Scouting because they're told to be.  If LDS is no longer BSA, they'll be told to be in whatever LDS coems up with to replace it.  The amount who stick with Scouting will be miniscule and virtually non-existent.

 

My guess is that LDS is no longer thinking "national." They're thinking "international." The USA isn't the only country to change traditional Scouting principles.

 

I think LDS may be thinking of petitioning for its own Boy Scout organization within the Scouting Movement.

 

The Catholic Church would actually be in a better position to do this than LDS. The Vatican City is already recognized as a state.

Having a state isn't an issue, nor is qualifying for WOSM membership. 

 

There are state-less exile groups in many countries. For example, there are the Plast Ukrainians, Ukrainian refugee/expatriates with units in 15 countries.  There are similar Hungarian organizations. 

 

There are also several international scouting organizations besides WOSM that a scouting group could affiliate with instead of WOSM; there's the World Federation of Independent Scouts, Confédération Européenne de Scoutisme, Order of World Scouts, or Pathfinders International

BSA may be cornered into relinquishing its exclusive right to the terms "Scout" etc. in the US and have to accept a federation, or co-existence, with other groups also called "scouts"; for example, in France there are many Scouting Organizations, but the largest one is the Fédération du scoutisme Français which is a federation of 5 Scouting organizations along religious lines (Catholic, Jewish, Protestant, interreligious, and Muslim). It is the WOSM member for France, but there are also two more national organizations that are not members of WOSM, including the Conférence Française de Scoutisme made up of 3 organizations.

 

With 437,000 youth in the US plus its international numbers, LDS doesn't even need to join an international org like WOSM, it has the numbers and money to simply make it's own Latter Day Scouting program.

 

One interesting outcome of the decision.  Today my work opened up $1 for $1 matching for BSA and they will donate money for every hour of volunteer work that I put in.  Assuming this is the same for other tech companies, suddenly the financial loss of losing LDS could be eased.

 

I believe that after the dust settles the issue will go away.  All leaders need to be approved by the LDS church, since the church is so against homosexuality, clearly they would never appoint(approve) a leader who is gay,  How can they be a member of the church if that is the issue.  If they are gay and part of the church then scouting isn't the issue they are dealing with.  Just my opinion that isn't work 2 cents.

 

As of 2013, LDS accounts for 437,160 youth; that's $10,491,840 in membership dues alone, plus all the money they wouldn't be spending on books, uniforms, patches, camps, adventure bases.  Now add large Baptist losses, sizeable Methodist issues.  The looming debt of The Summit. 

The activists and inclusion crowd have broken something with no intention or plan to fix it.  Breaking it was the point for large segments.

Edited by Scouter99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is that the words are BDPT00's and he just messed up the quote function. I never got the impression that they were Packsaddle's because it doesn't strike me as the sort of thing he cares about.

 

Perhaps I'm wrong, but it strikes me that a courteous way of resolving it would be through private messages.

Edited by Peregrinator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....but it's so much easier to go off half cocked and threaten someone when you're in power.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think this is a threat?

 

When he offers a complete explanation, I'll apologize.

Edited by packsaddle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is that the words are BDPT00's and he just messed up the quote function. I never got the impression that they were Packsaddle's because it doesn't strike me as the sort of thing he cares about.

 

Perhaps I'm wrong, but it strikes me that a courteous way of resolving it would be through private messages.

When I moderated forums, 100% of the issues were dealt with through PM.  Most of the time the members never knew who the moderators were until they got out of line and one popped up in their PM window and told them to cut it out.   A ton of communication was also held among the moderators and a consensus was come to before anyone got banned.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think this is a threat? "I'll ask Terry to ban you"?

 

When he offers a complete explanation, I'll apologize.

Looked like a threat. Could have handled in private. Could be user error. But it's more fun to publicly flog someone, ain't it? Edited by Bad Wolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×