BSA's proposed gay policy change

For Duty to God to replace BSA as the youth program of the Young Men, it needs more focus than the Church and spirituality. It needs something to balance it - whether that is something similar to Scouting, but boys aren't going to be interested in coming to mutual every Wednesday night if all they do is read scriptures and talk about Priesthood duties.

SpiffCoug wrote:
For Duty to God to replace BSA as the youth program of the Young Men, it needs more focus than the Church and spirituality. It needs something to balance it - whether that is something similar to Scouting, but boys aren't going to be interested in coming to mutual every Wednesday night if all they do is read scriptures and talk about Priesthood duties.

Yeah, how about some Orin Porter Rockwell outdoor adventure scouting? I could support that!

tww wrote:



Yeah, how about some Orin Porter Rockwell outdoor adventure scouting? I could support that!

hmm...what would the missouri merit badge requirements be?



What about dress and grooming standards for participants?

SpiffCoug wrote:
For Duty to God to replace BSA as the youth program of the Young Men, it needs more focus than the Church and spirituality. It needs something to balance it - whether that is something similar to Scouting, but boys aren't going to be interested in coming to mutual every Wednesday night if all they do is read scriptures and talk about Priesthood duties.

I agree. Other countries that don't have scouting use it, so it shouldn't be too difficult to follow the same pattern here. I must admit that I am ignorant concerning how different the program is in countries that don't have Boy Scouts. Part of me thinks that Boys Souts has run its course anyway with the modern teenager. It just isn't "cool" anymore once you hit 14, and I have seen very few well run Varsity/Venture crew troops for the older boys. Like I posted earlier, the program should be based on the spirtual, but also teach other important skills to prepare the YM for adulthood--career exploration, trades, service projects, mechanics, leadership--really the sky is the limit, and frankly, most teenagers aren't that motivated by merit badges or scouting awards anymore (other than when parents say no eagle, no driver's license). They are motivated by fulfilling activities, not so much merit badges or Eagle awards.

BoiseBYU wrote:

BoiseBYU wrote:

nuk13 wrote:
Today the radio claimed they'll wait until may to make the announcement. I assume that they're getting flack over this. I was unable to contact ups for confirmation, but my friend tells me they are one of the companies to threaten withdrawal of funds if the BSA wouldn't accept gays. I have asked those who ship to me to not use ups at least until I confirm this. Boycotts can go both ways. I don't hate gays but I think companies should stay out of these things and just do their business.

Bravo! 2 parties can play these ridiculous games.



I don't know how a gay scouting leader can recite



"On my honor I will do my best

To do my duty to God and my country

and to obey the Scout Law;

To help other people at all times;

To keep myself physically strong,

mentally awake, and morally straight."



With a straight face. (no pun intended)

I hesitate to ask, because i fear to kick up a firestorm, but if a gay person can go to the temple, and it happens, why do you believe that a gay person could not recite and adhere to the scout oath? I am not suggesting that BSA should do or not do something, but seriously just because someone is gay does NOT mean they are unable to do the things in the scout oath.

I was unaware that someone who was actively participating in a homosexual lifestyle could attend the temple.

In my book, being gay and living in a homosexual lifestyle are two very different things and a distinction at least I understand the Church teaches its leaders to understand. Being gay is no more a sin if you will than being heterosexual is. What is crucial is your adherence to the commandments. I at least know faithful members of the church who are gay. It hurts them when statements like that above are expressed--that just being gay means for example you can't live or abide by the scout oath. Perhaps Broncobot was referring more specificaly to the persons mentioned by ABYUFAN or the type of gay person you are referring to and if so, then I do not have disagreement, but I wish we would try harder at making that distinction and keeping it in mind.

I don't think that same sex attraction is a major and defining characteristic of a person unless they choose to act upon it. I, therefore, don't consider someone "gay" unless they are choosing to live the lifestyle, much like I don't consider someone a hothead simply because they have feelings of anger on the inside as long as they don't act upon those irrational feelings. I realize that this is an issue mostly of semantics, but there should be clear terms to be used, especially within the church, of those who choose to live a homosexual lifestyle and those who simply carry the burden of that attraction.

BroncoBot wrote:
By "gay", I did mean practicing homosexuality when reciting the scout oath. I do feel that homosexuals have a hard lot, and many of them have chosen to simply ignore those tendencies and live a Christ centered life. To those persons, I wholeheartedly support. AT THE SAME TIME, I don't want homosexual males going on campouts with my boys anymore than I want a heterosexual male going on campouts with my girls.

Isn't a Priesthood holder required to be at girls camp at all times?

Schmoe wrote:



I don't think that same sex attraction is a major and defining characteristic of a person unless they choose to act upon it. I, therefore, don't consider someone "gay" unless they are choosing to live the lifestyle,.

What if they just hold hands, or kiss a little?

cornhole153 wrote:

I don't think that same sex attraction is a major and defining characteristic of a person unless they choose to act upon it. I, therefore, don't consider someone "gay" unless they are choosing to live the lifestyle,.

What if they just hold hands, or kiss a little?

Sounds like acting upon it to me.

cornhole153 wrote:

By "gay", I did mean practicing homosexuality when reciting the scout oath. I do feel that homosexuals have a hard lot, and many of them have chosen to simply ignore those tendencies and live a Christ centered life. To those persons, I wholeheartedly support. AT THE SAME TIME, I don't want homosexual males going on campouts with my boys anymore than I want a heterosexual male going on campouts with my girls.

Isn't a Priesthood holder required to be at girls camp at all times?

Multiple priesthood holders, but they are not running the camp nor directly supervising the girls at the camp.

The troll continues to troll. Anything to be contrarian. Get a life.

Schmoe wrote:

Schmoe wrote:

BroncoBot wrote:

Today the radio claimed they'll wait until may to make the announcement. I assume that they're getting flack over this. I was unable to contact ups for confirmation, but my friend tells me they are one of the companies to threaten withdrawal of funds if the BSA wouldn't accept gays. I have asked those who ship to me to not use ups at least until I confirm this. Boycotts can go both ways. I don't hate gays but I think companies should stay out of these things and just do their business.

Bravo! 2 parties can play these ridiculous games.



I don't know how a gay scouting leader can recite



"On my honor I will do my best

To do my duty to God and my country

and to obey the Scout Law;

To help other people at all times;

To keep myself physically strong,

mentally awake, and morally straight."



With a straight face. (no pun intended)

I hesitate to ask, because i fear to kick up a firestorm, but if a gay person can go to the temple, and it happens, why do you believe that a gay person could not recite and adhere to the scout oath? I am not suggesting that BSA should do or not do something, but seriously just because someone is gay does NOT mean they are unable to do the things in the scout oath.

I was unaware that someone who was actively participating in a homosexual lifestyle could attend the temple.

In my book, being gay and living in a homosexual lifestyle are two very different things and a distinction at least I understand the Church teaches its leaders to understand. Being gay is no more a sin if you will than being heterosexual is. What is crucial is your adherence to the commandments. I at least know faithful members of the church who are gay. It hurts them when statements like that above are expressed--that just being gay means for example you can't live or abide by the scout oath. Perhaps Broncobot was referring more specificaly to the persons mentioned by ABYUFAN or the type of gay person you are referring to and if so, then I do not have disagreement, but I wish we would try harder at making that distinction and keeping it in mind.

I don't think that same sex attraction is a major and defining characteristic of a person unless they choose to act upon it. I, therefore, don't consider someone "gay" unless they are choosing to live the lifestyle, much like I don't consider someone a hothead simply because they have feelings of anger on the inside as long as they don't act upon those irrational feelings. I realize that this is an issue mostly of semantics, but there should be clear terms to be used, especially within the church, of those who choose to live a homosexual lifestyle and those who simply carry the burden of that attraction.

That makes sense to me. I'm not sure that terminology is in place amongst many of the members, but perhaps the view and the tide is changing.

I have been trying to think of what it would be like if I were defined by myself or others by my temptations rather than by my actions. It would be a strange world to me in that it would be a constant stirring up of pollution, like bumping dirt in my house rather than taking it out.



I realize that this way of thinking has helped alcoholics to some extent but only in that they use it as a confession of an addiction to create a barrier against the recurrence of past behavior. This, their confession of a recognized weakness, helps to prevent them from acting on temptation and thus truly being being defined by it.

SpiffCoug wrote:

Schmoe wrote:



I don't think that same sex attraction is a major and defining characteristic of a person unless they choose to act upon it. I, therefore, don't consider someone "gay" unless they are choosing to live the lifestyle,.

What if they just hold hands, or kiss a little?

Sounds like acting upon it to me.

Is it immoral?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

cornhole153 wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:

I don't think that same sex attraction is a major and defining characteristic of a person unless they choose to act upon it. I, therefore, don't consider someone "gay" unless they are choosing to live the lifestyle,.

What if they just hold hands, or kiss a little?

Sounds like acting upon it to me.

Is it immoral?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Yes, acting on homosexual feelings is immoral.

Schmoe wrote:

SpiffCoug wrote:

Schmoe wrote:



I don't think that same sex attraction is a major and defining characteristic of a person unless they choose to act upon it. I, therefore, don't consider someone "gay" unless they are choosing to live the lifestyle,.

What if they just hold hands, or kiss a little?

Sounds like acting upon it to me.

Is it immoral?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Yes, acting on homosexual feelings is immoral.

So it's not at all like heterosexuals just waiting until marriage. Just seems so far beyond any other trial that it doesn't make much sense. Tough issue.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

cornhole153 wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:

I don't think that same sex attraction is a major and defining characteristic of a person unless they choose to act upon it. I, therefore, don't consider someone "gay" unless they are choosing to live the lifestyle,.

What if they just hold hands, or kiss a little?

Sounds like acting upon it to me.

Is it immoral?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Yes, acting on homosexual feelings is immoral.

So it's not at all like heterosexuals just waiting until marriage. Just seems so far beyond any other trial that it doesn't make much sense. Tough issue.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Correct, it is not at all like heterosexuals. It must be an extremely difficult trial that we really don't understand.



It is actually a very simple issue. Acting on homosexual feelings is wrong and immoral and sinful.



But, it must be a very tough issue to deal with on a very individual and personal business.

cornhole153 wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:

I don't think that same sex attraction is a major and defining characteristic of a person unless they choose to act upon it. I, therefore, don't consider someone "gay" unless they are choosing to live the lifestyle,.

What if they just hold hands, or kiss a little?

Sounds like acting upon it to me.

Is it immoral?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Yes, acting on homosexual feelings is immoral.

So it's not at all like heterosexuals just waiting until marriage. Just seems so far beyond any other trial that it doesn't make much sense. Tough issue.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I agree. It must be a terribly difficult burden to bear, as would a sexual attraction to children, and I don't know why that specific burden is given to specific people. I do know, however, that we are not tempted beyond that which we are able to overcome, but that we are also all imperfect beings. I feel for those who have to deal with it and am glad that my shortcomings aren't used to define who or what I am.

Am I wrong in thinking this scripture can apply to many of our trials? It seems the world today is all about acceptance, moral relativity, do what you need to do to feel good about yourself. Maybe we need something different? Or am I just way off base here?



http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/95?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



D&C 95:1

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you whom I love, and whom I love I also chasten that their sins may be forgiven, for with the chastisement I prepare a way for their deliverance in all things out of temptation, and I have loved you—

SpiffCoug wrote:
Am I wrong in thinking this scripture can apply to many of our trials? It seems the world today is all about acceptance, moral relativity, do what you need to do to feel good about yourself. Maybe we need something different? Or am I just way off base here?



http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/95?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



D&C 95:1

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you whom I love, and whom I alove I also chasten that their sins may be bforgiven, for with the cchastisement I prepare a way for their ddeliverance in all things out of etemptation, and I have loved you—

I love that scripture. I'm not sure God causes some of our brothers and sisters to be gay as a "chastisement" but I am certain that He loves them as He loves me and He can prepare a way of deliverance for us all.

I didn't mean to imply being gay was a chastisement. I meant that maybe preaching all this acceptance is removing chastisement from the equation of being delivered from temptation?