The Boy Scouts of America recently announced that it will no longer bar homosexuals from leadership roles in scouting, although it will also allow local troops to select leaders on their own criteria, effectively allowing religious troops to ban homosexuals as they choose.
In response, the church announced yesterday:
“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.”
This news was interesting for several reasons. First, I was not aware that the church gets an entire month long vacation every July. What is this? Europe?? Several gay church members noted that the statement that gay scouts have always been welcomed is somewhere between wishful thinking and a bald-faced lie.
June 25, 1991: “[A]n official of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [Elder Jack H. Goaslind, of the First Quorum of Seventy, president of the church’s Young Men program and a member of the Boy Scouts’ National Executive Board] said Tuesday he would recommend that the church withdraw from the Boy Scouts of America if the church is forced to **register homosexual Scouts** or to register those who will not adhere to “Duty to God” provisions of the Scout Oath and Law.”
Mormon Newsroom, July 27, 2015: “The Church has always welcomed all boys to its Scouting units regardless of sexual orientation.”
Lastly, it seems to be a shift in the church’s decision-making. The church got what it wanted, and is now putting out a statement that sounds like they didn’t get what they wanted. Huh.
Hey, Teacher, Leave Those Kids Alone
Setting all that aside, from all I’ve seen, the responses of church members follows mostly political lines since this is another example of culture wars, not even bothering to mingle with scripture. Conservative friends seem prone to confuse gay men with pedophiles, ignoring the fact that most pedophiles are straight men, often married to women as was Jerry Sandusky in the recent Penn State scandal. Even without this conflation, many church members are still under the impression that being gay is contagious and if the youth are around gay people they will suddenly decide they also want to be gay. Being gay is like parachute pants or bolo ties or mononucleosis, which sounds like a recipe for either the worst church dance ever or the best one. I’m not sure.
One irony is that the church has never had a prohibition on gay leaders before now, provided they are otherwise worthy to hold a calling. And in further irony, it is generally agreed upon that the founder of Boy Scouts, Baden-Powell, was a repressed homosexual.
Enemies of Scouting
Others have been longing for the day the church would split with the BSA for a variety of reasons. It’s expensive, and the incessant fund drives, including at church, have been an irritant for detractors. Some feel that the church should do its own less expensive, more religiously focused version. Those living abroad have sometimes disliked the BSA as a baffling Ameri-centric requirement shoehorned into their local culture while being entirely incongruous.
Let’s see what you think.
[poll id=”505″]
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
“Lastly, it seems to be a shift in the church’s decision-making. The church got what it wanted, and is now putting out a statement that sounds like they didn’t get what they wanted. Huh.”
That just seems weird to me. I thought the issue was they wanted to be allowed to call temple-worthy, gay, members… And now they can, if they want to, but no-one’s going to force them to…
I’d have said pull out of scouting anyway, but not for this reason… We don’t have it here, though it was trialed for a while in the 80s, and failed.
I love Boy Scouts. My husband loved his time in Boy Scouts and loves being an adult Sout leader. I hope my son loves Boy Scouts. I am thrilled that the BSA has shifted their policies to be more inclusive. And I hope the Church completely ends all ties with Scouting. The fact is, Church troops are, with rare exception, bad. When you force a whole bunch of people (leaders and boys) to participate a program as time intensive as Scouting it is inevitable that things will be a mess. Having been involved in Scouting in 6 different wards now, I have never seen a Church troop run as effectively as community troops. Add in the incredible expense as well as the disparity between the YM and YW programs and there is simply no good reason for the Church to continue its affiliation and a whole lot of really great reasons to cut ties and move on. I hope we do.
I have long hoped the church will sever ties with BSA. However, I didn’t vote for that here since the poll states “in light of the recent BSA announcement.” Based on the announcement itself I dont think the church needs to change anything.
The church’s response doesn’t make much sense to me. LDS troops clearly have a built-in exception in the new policy.
I have no problem with the BSA allowing openly gay leaders. Generally speaking, those who enjoy scouting and participate by choice make great scout leaders. I would worry about my kids going on a camping trip with people who are hiding something like pedophilia, which is an entirely different discussion/topic.
So, yeah, we should jettison BSA but not because of this.
I’d also like to point out that Scouting is available in 216 countries and territories (and that’s only associations linked to the World Organisation of Scouting Movements, so ignores those groups affiliated with the World Organization of Independent Scouts, the Baden-Powell Scouts, Scouts Alone or the various traditionalist associations.) Its a bit of a slap in the face to tell everyone outside of America they don’t have Scouting
I am fine with the church cutting ties with the BSA.
The boys interested in scouting deserve better than the church program.
What the boys do deserve is the same exact program that is fine for the girls.
Personal Progress for ALL!
I didn’t vote on budget equalization because in my area, budgets for the youth have always been on a per capita basis, so there has been no funding disparity. Scouting program not very strong here, and while boys and their families or fund raising is done to produce the $275 cost of a summer camp, the girls only pay about $75 each because the stake kicks in a decent amount of money. I think we can re-work DTG and give the YM a much better experience at a fraction of the cost and headache it’s been dealing with BSA. The bigger issue to me is having YM leaders who will actually plan activities beyond bouncing the basketball around on Mutual night.
Sounds like a prophecy from President Newsroom in the absence of real church leadership. At any rate, the Church has shown its hand; it appears that a BSA exit strategy and contingency plan have been in the works for some time. And like many of you, I also welcome the prospect of severing ties with BSA.
But now I’m just trying to picture what apostles on vacation look like–perhaps most of the Q12 are sitting poolside in dark suits and ties, while Elder Oaks gives monotone, bulleted sermons to hotel clerks and cab drivers.
I thought one of the more peculiar statements in the press release was that it is now “inconsistent with the doctrine” of the LDS church for gay men to serve as scout leaders. No qualifier, such as “sexually active gay men,” or “men not following our standards of sexual purity.” Just a blanket statement that LDS doctrine forbids the appointment of gay men as scouting leaders. This seems to fly in the face of public relations motivated statements in recent years, which have emphasized that gay LDS members can participate fully and hold callings, provided they are celibate.
I really think that ever since the death of Gordon B. Hinckley, the LDS church has released increasingly bizarre statements via the Public Affairs Department. They seem to just keep shooting themselves in the foot, and then they wonder why they’re having trouble retaining young adults, etc.
Nick brings up a good point. I’m unaware of any scouting doctrine. Was that in the 116 lost pages?
i can’t conceive of a reason to have any formal relation with Scouting and the LDS Church. I say that as a former Scout, youth leader and BSA local council leader. Except that dropping out now makes the LDS hierarchy look like a bunch of soreheads over policy that they appeared to earlier accept, if not endorse. And then there is the umbrage over interfering with vacation schedules. Oh… The humanity of it all!!!
“I thought one of the more peculiar statements in the press release was that it is now “inconsistent with the doctrine” of the LDS church for gay men to serve as scout leaders. No qualifier, such as “sexually active gay men,” or “men not following our standards of sexual purity.”
This was the first thing that caught my eye because, what Nick says has always been the standard supposedly. I guess the two deep adult supervision was on vacation that week.
My first thought is that this is a clear signal that the Church intends to pull out of Scouting all together. Which if the LDS and other Churches do, Scouting is pretty much doomed.
I don’t see how the “troop preference” thing works outside of a religious context. To me, it creates a lot of problems.
The budget thing is tiresome because it just isn’t my experience that they are different. How the money gets spent is another thing.
That is usually different. The men don’t buy flowers and tablecloths. But we just purchased 6 tents for the YW to use at camps. It was about time they had their own.
Nick, I tend to agree. The newsroom statement was surprisingly amateur.
To clarify my earlier comment. Scouting is of course alive and well in Britain. It was the experimental lds troops in the 80s that failed, and were discontinued.
Jeff, I’ll take a white water rafting trip over a lace doily any day of the week.
Love the title!
One interesting thing is that while BSA is not open to women, Scouting in other parts of the world is. When we were in Indonesia, we saw a co-ed Scout troop camping in an L-shape with girls’ tents on one arm and boys on the other. And since it is a Muslim country, there were modifications to the girl’s uniform: some wore short sleeves and short skirts, but others wore the Muslim version of long sleeves, ankle-length skirt, and a brown scarf under the hat.
But the church does not use Scouting in that country–of course the cost would be a huge barrier.
“troop preference” has long been cited as a reason why the church does not participate in girl scouting, whose system requires that leaders be selected and approved at the district level rather than troop sponsorship.
And while LDS troops control their own leaders, they do not control the camp or district staff. Since those are paid employees of BSA, gays would be included.
I accepted BSA as a homophobic organization believing that there are people who don’t like gays and they can have their own organizations. I felt that would be their scarlet letter and eventually they would dry up and blow away. It is ironic that it is their acceptance of gays (solely driven by money and a survival instinct) that will cause their demise.
The church still believes in the Joseph Smith method of teaching, ie, my followers will believe anything I say (Zelph, the angel with a flaming sword etc) which is demonstrated in the statement that they “ALWAYS welcomed ALL boys…” The church uses same statement when it comes to housing, medical care, etc for gays. I wish their was a Liars Court the church could be called into and convicted.
The Church is frustrated that it now must stand alone in its anti-gay position. Under this policy, it will still have the freedom to do what it has always done; but it no longer will have political cover.
I think the Church’s virulent opposition to gay marriage had more to do with fear of normalizing LGBT individuals and relationship.
1960-1977 were uncomfortable years for Church leaders, and for the members themselves who didn’t want to be (or be regarded as) bigots. They’re trying to forestall another wave of that.
I’ll be the first one to offer a word in favor of the BSA-LDS relationship. I think it has been good for both parties. I especially think it has been good for the Church. It is the only thing we have had on a structured and ongoing basis that allows Latter-day Saints to work side-by-side with nonmembers in our communities — the only thing that keeps us from being wholly clannish and insular. It is good for our young men to go to district camporees, and for our Scoutmasters to go to district roundtables. And it provides structure for an ongoing program. I have seen the monotony and mediocrity of basketball and attempts to turn DTG into a program — Lord, please save our young men from that. I understand the idea of parity with the YW, but that’s a poor excuse to formalize mediocrity for our YM.
I also regret an appearance of turning on a friend in its time of trouble. The BSA has been a friend. The BSA is in an unenviable position of being hated by outsiders and also being abandoned by its friends — over a very difficult matter. Others here will cheer the demise of the BSA, or at least the BSA-LDS relationship, but it saddens me. When we’re standing by ourselves in the near future, having abandoned our friend, and we’re being attacked by the wolves trying to force openly and actively gay Scoutmasters in our LDS troops, we will be all alone.
I don’t know all the reasons for Mr. Gates’s position, and I wish he would explain it so I could understand, but I do not envy his position — I wish him well.
It was my understanding that the reason why the church does not support Girl Scouts is because the GSA supported women’s rights, especially the ERA amendment in the 1970s, which the church strongly opposed. At least a prominent member told me that when I was on my mission in South Carolina. This same member said that they were instructed that church facilities were not to be used for Girl Scout meetings, but since he had 4 girls and no boys, he ok’d the use of the church for the Girl Scouts anyway.
While I’m certainly no fan of Boy Scouts (my son loves it though, go figure), my daughter wanted to join Girl Scouts. I was happy to encourage her. But without church sponsorship, the Girl Scout troop, done entirely by volunteers, fizzled in about 6 months. Say what you will about “bouncing basketballs”, (and I agree–that’s why I hated scouts as a kid), the church’s sponsorship may be ineffective in some areas, but at least it doesn’t dissolve like my daughter’s girl scout troop did.
I say that if the church wants to create its own scouting organization, they should do one that allows girls to do things like making campfires, tying knots, etc too. Some girls will like it, and appreciate the efforts. Some girls hate camping, just like some boys hate camping, but that has never stopped the church from sponsoring boy scouts, so it shouldn’t stop them from girl scouts either.
ji, I think you’re right about scouting offering the possibility of community interaction but this statement, “It is good for our young men to go to district camporees, and for our Scoutmasters to go to district roundtables” I think shows why it is only a possibility and not a reality. LDS scout troops aren’t real scout troops anymore. My ward’s scouts haven’t gone to a district camporee in the 21 years I’ve lived in the ward, I would know if they had, I’ve been a leader and had two boys pass through the program in those years. Our scout leaders don’t go to the district roundtables, and this is a ward of type A people through and through so it isn’t for lack of determination or follow through.
The consolidation of Aaronic Priesthood and scouting that happened in the 80s was the death of real scouting in the church, it turned a church sponsored community organization into an insular church program. It has become just a Tuesday night class with a few campouts thrown in, but we do churn out the eagles (type A parents and leaders) and the other local troops despise us for doing that and for not being real scouts. I don’t agree with the despising but I do agree with the assessment.
I was in the room when my husband was calles as Assistant Cubmaster. The bishopric member who extended the call mentioned that my husband would have to complete the BSA’s Youth Protection Training. The bishopric member (I should probably resist the temptation to shorten that to BM) stressed that the training was very easy, and should take less than thirty minutes of my husband’s time!
Frankly, it left a bad taste in my mouth. As if protecting our youth (well, our male youth, anyway) from sexual predation was an inconvenience to be minimized.
Leaving aside all other issues such as the Church’s endorsement of Boy Scouts but not Girl Scouts… I trust the BSA a lot more than the LDS when it comes to the issue of protecting my children. The BSA has a “two deep” policy which prevents an adult male from being alone with a child. The LDS Church not only allows, it REQUIRES an adult male to be alone with a youth or child (both male and female) in order to progress in the Church. This is a terrible policy that has cost the Church money and will continue to do so in the future.
However, the Newsroom statement never even hints at the idea that disallowing gay leaders is a matter of protecting young boys from predation. For one thing, the Newsroom probably knows it would be political suicide to equate gay males with pedophiles. For another thing, it’s clear that the Church isn’t overly interested in protecting youth and children. (It was only this year – 2015! – that my ward building got windows with doors for all the Primary classrooms. And in all my years of working with children, I’ve never once had a background check.)
I was one of the girls who was disappointed that the church didn’t support GSA or Campfire girls. I loved our Girls Camp, but the main reason it was so great, in retrospect, is because we were able to use an official BSA camp (Camp Bayshore in cental PA) which had all the amenities associated: platform tents, cabins for leaders, bathrooms, a big lake with a pier and canoes, crafts lodges with all sorts of things to do, a full on kitchen and mess hall, and various hiking trails. We even had access to do a winter camp there in the cabins. I have yet to see another ward in any of the places we’ve lived where the girls have access to anything on par with that.
I do think scouting fills a role that a religious-based program will not. I love the idea that we teach our kids the lessons associated with physical activity, nature and the great outdoors, and the camaraderie that we enjoyed at camp.
The church’s stance sounds like the primary objection is as it has ever been: who gets to be a “leader.” Unfortunately, our stance has been that you can be a scout leader even if you hate scouting or aren’t physically fit, so long as you are a “worthy” priesthood holder. This is why blacks were able to participate but not lead. We’ve now moved gay people into the second class role of blacks (participants but not leaders), and women as always aren’t even considered. Women can “lead” cubs, because it’s essentially babysitting.
I actually don’t have a lot of problems with BSA I’ve seen it be very good for boys. I do have issues with the was the LDS Church runs the BSA programs. I hear most everywhere else girls are allowed into packs/troops, the church dictates how ward troops are run and changes a lot of the BSA protocol.
In all of my experience in Primary Presidencies over Cub Scouts – the non-LDS packs blew us out of the water and it was a disservice to our boys.
JI – just imagine the interaction with community members if the church decides to sponsor membership in local non-LDS Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts (financially) and encourages parents to volunteer by not giving them a calling while they are helping with scouts. Mixed faith groups give much more interaction than showing up with your mormon group at a place another faith group also exists.
BSA has internal organizational mandatory reporting of sexual abuse and mandatory training on sexual abuse reporting. When we leave the BSA scouts get treated like the girls with no mandatory reporting by bishops and no organizationally mandated training of local leaders. We should be grateful for their higher standards.
Just a note, a lot of the blogs have been ridiculing the statement for leaving out girls. The line “the Church has long been evaluating the limitations that fully one-half of its youth face where Scouting is not available” can actually be taken two ways.
Bloggernacle: “the Church has long been evaluating the limitations that fully one-half of its… [boys]… face where Scouting is not available.”
When I first read the statement: “the Church has long been evaluating the limitations that… [boys]… face where Scouting is not available. ”
Both are valid interpretations.
I hate serving in scouts. That being said, some men swear by it. My preference would be to see the church sever its ties and flesh out the Duty to God and Personal Progress programs (not to mention Faith in God programs) to better meet the spiritual needs of youth. I also agree that the Youth Protection Training is a net positive, and the idea of being trained on appropriate/inappropriate interaction is a good idea for any calling that involves children or youth.
KLC (no. 20),
After the divorce, the same YM leaders in your ward who never attended roundtable and never went to a camcorder will be the same adults who will be in charge of the new replacement program. Please don’t think that the BSA-LDS divorce will change mediocrity to excellence. I wish for excellence in our youth programs, however.
Mary Ann – that would be lovely if that were true, but it’s of course not. The church threatened to sever ties with the BSA when it admitted girls in other countries. They have a long standing tradition of pitching a fit whenever the BSA doesn’t roll over and do what they want. They probably have the leverage to make it matter, too. Unfortunately, severing ties for this reason seems like maybe doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.
In response to my “Other” vote above: The Church should do nothing new in response to this decision. It should then wait a few years and then it should phase out Scouting citing any reason other than this decision.
If the church does truly re-evaluate BSA and choose to implement their own, then I hope they start a girl scout organization too. That would be a net positive to dumping BSA. If this is the spur, then so be it. (But I’m also not holding my breath–the church is patriarchal, after all, and I doubt they’ll add girl scouts as part of this re-evaluation.)
I echo ji and KLC on the realities of how scouts is handled, at least outside the intermountain west. I’ve seen about 50 brothers shuffle through the YM presidency/scouting positions, and only about 5 have had the gumption to actually get BSA trained. Scouting really needs volunteers who treat BSA like a second religion, and we can’t supply that. For all the talk about blaming “the church” for the perceived disparity between YM/YW programs, it’s the local leaders and parents that really make the difference. In and of themselves, Personal Progress and Scouting/DTG mean nothing. Youth involvement and magnifying a calling make all the difference.
#31 – I would hope so as well. If the Church must shed the BSA and do something equivalent for the YM, there’s no reason that the YW can’t be included, at least to the extent any Stake/Ward would do a ‘combined’ activity now. I’m happy to report no outbreak of fornicating in cars in the Church parking lot in the wake of combined activities, so I’m sure the morals of the youth will continue to be strengthened.
As for mine own daughters, though they are definitely ‘women’ in the since their Heavenly Parents and their Elder Brother, the Savior, would approve, they’re no strangers to such ‘arts of manliness’ such as handling of firearms, rudimentary self-defense, dealing with a roadside emergency, and so on. Their father on this rock would have it no other way.
I can just see the “parallel” organizations that current LDS leaders would create for LDS youth:
(1) “Sons of Helaman” making use of the unconsciously(?) homoerotic art of Arnold Frieberg, complete with barechested buff boys holding weapons in formation.
(2) “Suzie Homemakers” knitting potholders and scripture totes.
Hawk,
“Jeff, I’ll take a white water rafting trip over a lace doily any day of the week.”
An yet, look what business you’re in….
‘plain that, Lucy 🙂 (cultural appropriation intended)
ji, I think you’re wrong. As I said, these people aren’t slackers, they’re overachievers if anything. But there is no perceived value in the outside scouting community in modern LDS scouting. Camporees and leader roundtables are seen as external to their callings, and that calling very specifically outlined in the CHI, is to be an Aaronic Priesthood leader tasked with scouting. I have no doubt that if a new, church sponsored program for our YM is created these leaders will do everything asked of them and do it well.
My opinion? Have the Personal Progress program adopted by all LDS youth, regardless of location or gender.
I’d love to see my son standing up every week and reciting that “he is a son of God, who loves us and we love Him.” I’d love to see my son promising to “strengthen home and family.” I’d be happy to help him come up with value projects to learn about Divine Nature or Integrity.
(of course, that would never happen… we are happy to shoehown females into male doctrines and practices and quotes, but doing it the other way around would just be weird.)
I’m not in the lace doily business!
Kristine A (no. 23),
I agree that there are ways we can make the relationship better, and in some places in the U.S., participation in community troops might be a good idea. I understand and support the reasoning for what I call the Utah model of a Boy Scout troop for a deacons quorum, a Varsity Scout team for a teachers quorum, and a Venturing crew for a priests quorum — but I’ve never seen it work in real life (I haven’t lived in Utah).
KLC (no. 33),
We’ll have to disagree. I wish those men would magnify their callings and put their heart into Scouting for the sake of the boys, but as you wrote, they won’t. In our LDS culture, Scouting with our neighbors is not valued — that’s too bad — and that’s part of the reason for the mediocrity we see in so many YM programs. While many will applaud a BSA-LDS divorce, in my opinion those who applaud loudest will continue to deliver mediocrity in whatever is chosen as a replacement program. We might finally have parity between YM and YW, but I would rather achieve parity with excellence and meaningless for both.
meaningfulness…
[ I HATE autocorrect — can I turn it off on a Kindle Fire? ]
ji, the thing is, I know these men believe they are magnifying their callings. 30 years ago that calling was being the best scout leader possible with all of the training and involvement in the wider scouting community that goes with that calling. But when the church correlated scouting into a wider Aaronic Priesthood program and specifically made scout leaders into AP leaders that allegiance to the bigger scouting program was severed. AP leaders in wards today, in my experience, see scouting as ancillary to their real callings as an AP leader, which means that the parts of the greater scouting picture like camporees and roundtables become dispensable because they aren’t connected to the church and the priesthood.
I’m not saying this is the correct approach but it seems to be the default approach and it is definitely one that the church created when we correlated scouting.
Well, for whatever reason (the men or the correlation), the result is mediocrity for the most part. But nothing is stopping those men from embracing Scouting — I wish they would for the sake of the boys. But you’re right in that they honestly think they are magnifying their callings.
Oh, and since you mentioned 30 years, it was 30 years ago when I first became an adult Scouter — never was a Scout as a kid — I was a still new convert and was invited to serve in a community unit. Maybe I’m thinking of a mindset of 30 years ago. Certainly, my son’s Scoutmaster thinks he is magnifying his calling, but our troop’s last campout was September 2013 (yes, almost two years ago). And like I said, our Scoutmaster honestly thinks he is magnifying his calling.
I have had a reawakening of my interest in scouting over the past year, which started from working with a non-LDS community pack for my son who wanted to do Tiger Scouts (which the LDS program doesn’t do). I’ve been impressed that the scout section of this troop has 4-5 leaders that have probably 20 years of leadership experience between them. So much deeper leadership than LDS led troops with leaders called there who are not necessarily interested and rotated in for only 1-2 years.
I am honestly surprised by the strength of the LDS response to this. I agree with Nick…for a program that already requires two-deep leadership for all of its activities, I don’t see why one of the leaders could not be an openly gay priesthood holder in good standing. As someone mentioned in comments on another news blog, it is the closeted outwardly-heterosexual Jerry Sandusky types that are the real menace to the safety of the youth.
I guess this shows that that SLC is not really ‘down’ with Mitch Mayne’s Bishop’s style of inclusion. I do really shudder to think about what program would be created to potentially be the activity arm for young men in the LDS church.
Nick literski feels free to ridicule the church because others on this blog are ridiculing the church
It’s a public temper tantrum. They lost on Prop 8 and, ultimately, they lost on all the little state skirmishes on the question of marriage equality. Now they’re losing again on the larger question of gay civil rights.
Unquestionably, they issued all the same arguments and attempts at intimidation in the BSA Board Rooms. (…the dubious claims of being unavailable due to vacations notwithstanding.) Nevertheless, the BSA saw the writing on the wall about the issue of civil rights and basic justice and made its decision accordingly.
So what is this very public snit fit about? It won’t sway the BSA at this point. And it can’t change the tide of public opinion on the issue of tolerance toward our gay fellow citizens. It may take a toll on the BSA. I don’t doubt it will hurt them financially and in their organizational resources. But I think it does far more to show the declining potency of the church in civic matters and even greater PR damage in creating the image of mean spirited, geriatric, White babies demonstrating a lack of restraint and basic decorum, on the one hand, and self-destructive rigidity, on the other.
I know many here will disagree but I doubt most of the American public would. How much harder do they want to make it for the missionaries? How many of Westboro Baptist-type are they interested in recruiting? And, in the end, how much more intolerable will that make things for even the philosophically moderate who are left?
Nick literski feels free to ridicule the church because others on this blog are ridiculing the church.
Not really, winifred. It was more intended as good-natured ribbing, albeit with a point. The “Sons of Helaman” have often been held up as paragons of youthful male purity, haven’t they? Also, isn’t it fair to say that Arnold Friberg’s BofM paintings almost all seem to be built like Arnold Schwarzenegger, rather than just the regular muscle tone that comes from hard work?
As for the part about knitting potholders and scripture totes, that admittedly comes from my own past experience as the father of five lovely daughters. In my last LDS ward, we had a bishop with a very peculiar idea of what was “appropriate” for YM activities. For example, he vetoed teaching the girls how to change a car tire. On another occasion, the young women had been invited to visit a local observatory, complete with their leadership, etc. The bishop vetoed that as “inappropriate” for young ladies. They literally ended up crocheting scripture totes instead, per his directions. I’m sure that there are many LDS, including many LDS leaders, who would find this bishop’s actions laudable and wise. I’m also sure that there are many LDS, including myself at that time, who would find this bishop’s actions entirely cringe-worthy. He certainly sent a strong message to the young women in the ward, regarding their individual worth and potentials.
I hope that this explanation helps you see where I was coming from. I apologize that you were offended.
Thanks, Alice! (#44)I could not have said it any better than you did! A “snit fit” is exactly what it is.
It does not make much sense to me really, because the church got what it wanted,it can appoint whomever it wants to in leadership, and now seems to just be acting like a little child that has been screaming for candy, got it, and then started screaming again because it was the wrong flavor!
And, Hawkgrrrl, you are correct, the statement that they have “always” welcomed gay boys in church troupes is a bald faced lie.
I always thought the phrase was ‘bold faced lie’. Thanks for setting me straight!
#45 – I’m looking out my window for airborne swine, b/c I gave one of Nick’s posts the ‘thumbs up’ with ENTHUSIAM. Oh well, even a broken clock tells correct time twice daily.
A bishop thought that showing YW how to change a tire was ‘inappropriate’? Sheesh. I can think of quite a few bishops that I’ve known in 36 years of Church membership that would feel quite the opposite. Regardless of whatever the ward had for YW activities over the years, I’ve made sure my own girls wouldn’t be the proverbial “damsels in distress”. Likewise, I’ve made my sons aware just what my own father, retired Air Force and veterans of FOUR, count ’em, FOUR tours in ‘Nam taught me…that it is certainly NOT ‘unmanly’ to cook dinner, clean the house, do laundry, or other “wimming’s work” (pronounced like Popeye), indeed, if the dear woman is great with child, or recovering from child birth, or ill or just plain tuckered out from chasing the little monsters all day, to perform such ‘servile’ tasks is the epitome of manliness. Likewise, a woman being able to solve mechanical tasks is no compromise to her femininity. Just ask Queen Elizabeth II, who drove trucks and was qualified as a mechanic during “Dubya-Dubya Two, Da Big One”.
Definitely cringing at the no tyre/wheel changing thing! I’ve attended both YW and RS activities on changing a wheel and checking oil etc. It’s one of our daughters responsibilities to check the car tyre pressure every week, and inflate to the correct pressure when necessary.
We don’t have YM scouting, but we do have a great YM president who regularly takes the YM *and* YW kayaking – he got his certificate and insurance so that he could do so. And they love it! They were out kayaking youth night this week.
Rigel (#47) I think it could be both!! haha or it could just be a mistake.
I love the skill set the Boy Scouts teaches our youth. The whole idea of adults camping with young boys has always had a Michael Jackson appeal to it in my view.
This is a no brainier; kill the ties with the boy scouts that now allow gay leaders and create church sponsored programs that teach life skills.
Count me as one of the YW who learned how to change a tire and check my oil in YW. Life skills FTW.
It’s irksome to discover that the church balked at letting girls be in the scouting program and threatened to sever ties over that change. Indonesia makes it work, and that’s a Muslim country. They simply have separate troops for boys and girls. Not one case of cooties yet.
Likewise disappointed that the church fought girls in scouting programs, even if they weren’t church-sponsored.
As far as leaders discouraging girls from learning traditionally masculine skills, I’ve encountered resistance from both female and male leaders. It has much more to do with personal beliefs about gender roles and personal prejudices. Not saying that some of the higher ups are all free from these ideas, but there’s nothing mandated in church policy.
I’m curious if scouting essentially served a role that fraternal organizations served before – semi-religious community groups that served as a rite of passage to teach boys how to be appropriate, upstanding men in the community. Without scouts, there isn’t that outside community set of requirements to reinforce church teachings of morality. It seems to be tradition more than anything tying the BSA and the church so closely together.
The only outside motivation the YW have upon finishing projects in the Personal Progress program are ribbons and a necklace at the very end. Is it really gonna kill the boys to lose the merit badges and uniform paraphernalia? Maybe you could give the boys painted popsicle sticks or something… and then they could receive a nice tie tack when they finish the equivalent of an eagle project. 🙂