is it time?

[Back Pack]

Doesn't look like policy was followed on the thread below. Nor was anyone's hand slapped. Consistency would be nice.

 

http://scouter.com/index.php/topic/28693-fighting-anti-muslim-bigotry/

[Eagledad]

Doesn't look like policy was followed on the thread below. Nor was anyone's hand slapped. Consistency would be nice.

 

http://scouter.com/index.php/topic/28693-fighting-anti-muslim-bigotry/

The moderators are as human as the rest of us and sometimes let their emotions drive their actions. 

 

Barry

[NJCubScouter]

Doesn't look like policy was followed on the thread below. Nor was anyone's hand slapped. Consistency would be nice.

 

http://scouter.com/index.php/topic/28693-fighting-anti-muslim-bigotry/

 

I don't think any issue was ever raised about that thread and I don't know what the supposed policy problem was.

[The Latin Scot]

Wow. This writer is so monumentally biased that he defeats his own purposed  arguments with his even greater ignorance. But I will only treat this one nugget of ignorance since it seems to encapsulate his entire argument:

 

 

 

"Strict adherence to the Mormon moral code — or as some say, the three G’s: no gays, no girls and no godless — has caused the Boy Scouts to compromise on one of its most important values: that it is wrong to discriminate."

 

So, let's start of with what he calls "the Mormon moral code." I don't know where he got this list, but it certainly wasn't from the "Mormon" Church (which I will refer to the more proper nickname of the LDS Church). All we get is "as some say ..." which leads me to think he feels he's hit on some clever way to demean LDS doctrine with his catchy "three G's" and wants others to use it so that they can be part of the "some" that "say." A common writer's tactic, but I don't think this one will catch on, sir.

 

#1 - No gays. While we do not believe that God permits homosexual relationships between his children, we do not believe that this entitles anybody from treating people with such leanings with any less love or respect than any others of His children. We define people by who they are, not by how they feel, and to say our "code" means no gays reflects a total ignorance of what we believe and where we stand. 

 

#2 - No girls. This one is almost laughable. I can't think of any religion that encourage marriage and babies and families more than our church. Almost the minute young LDS boys get back from their missions, we are pushed to find a girl and settle down. So I assume he means no girls in Scouts, which is correct. We believe that men and women are fundamentally different and that gender is part of our eternal nature, so yes, we have separate programs for boys and girls because we believe they are meant to fill different roles that depend on each other. So let's fix it to say No girls in Scouts. 

 

# 3 - No godless. Well, I think if you were to ask me, I would say there is no such thing as a godless person, but only people who don't know him yet. But we believe that Scouting should stand by its foundation of Duty to God and not allow any young man in its organization to ignore or reject God in his personal life.

 

Which leads to his last, and greatest error - the idea that one of our "most important values" is that "it is wrong to discriminate." Oh, how this idea has warped the morals of so many people these days. It has become the banner under which every fringe, rebellious, or subversive community now marches in order to demand the right to live by what they want and not by what is right. But we must note, as Scouts and Scouters, that the first, the very first line of the Scout Oath, the core of who we are, states "On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God ..." Now, the world wants Scouting to be secularized because they know that millions of boys, the core of the best developing minds in the nation, are being influenced by what they learn in Scouts. And they know that if they can force the Boy Scouts of America to adopt their ideals putting self first, it will affect the boys who will someday grow up to lead and shape the Country. But Scouting was founded on a higher principle, and it is this - that religion is an essential part of a man's character. When asked where religion came into Scouting, Baden-Powell replied that "it does not come in at all. It is already there. It is a fundamental factor underlying Scouting." 

 

So I am not fooled by this writer's appeal to the world's visceral zeal against discrimination, because ironically, it depends on another kind of discrimination - that which condemns people for putting God and his laws first. We promise on our sacred honor to do our best to do our duty to God. That comes first, and the LDS Church does not compromise on that, nor indeed do millions of other faithful Christians and Jews and Muslims from every denomination. Baden-Powell once said No man is much good unless he believes in God and obeys His laws. So every Scout should have a religion ... Religion seems a very simple thing: First, Love and Serve God. Second: Love and serve your neighbour (sic)." 

 

Whether the world likes it or not, Scouting is at its core a religious organization. And it has every right to be. But the fear for those who oppose that idea is that the Boy Scouts of America will continue to demand of all its members a recognition of God's being and His right to rule, which will thus continue raising skilled and trained leaders who will put God first and not their own agendas. It is this simple over-arching idea, that God should be first in our minds and hearts, which led to the LDS Church's historic partnership with the BSA starting back in 1913. At the time morals were different; people across the nation shared similar religious values to the extent that before the Great War, America actually had a reputation in the international community for being a rather dour, puritan nation where everybody went to church and never had any fun. Not only that, but if you can believe it, the LDS Church was for almost 100 years considered to be wildly liberal and extreme by rigid standards of mainline protestant America. Oh how things change! Now the nations's morals have swung the pendulum so far the other way that it could snap at any time, while the Church's doctrines have and will stay the same (which is only natural for any religion that believes God himself is unchanging and eternal). So now the conflict has arisen - the world wants people to change their standards to suit what people want for themselves, while the LDS Church and many other religions besides want people to keep God's standards. And the BSA must decide not just where it stands, but indeed who it will become. The world wants it to become a secular entity that will use its influence to encourage its subtle idea that "it's wrong to discriminate" which then gives people licence to live their lives with no accountability or morality. But many religions, not just the LDS Church, want the BSA to stay true to its foundation of putting God and his laws, first, even if we feel that means excluding certain people from membership. I know that for the LDS Church, this is a no-compromise situation - we believe that God's laws ALWAYS come first, even if it means breaking old and beloved ties. (I will add here a reminder for those who are not clear on the issue, that the recent decision of the Church to end its involvement in the Varsity and Venturing programs was based on internal issues with implementing the programs, and NOT as is commonly rumored on any of the latest policy changes made by the BSA).

 

So this idea of the author's, that the "Mormon code" has forced it to "compromise on one of its more important values," fundamentally and manipulatively ignores Scouting's GREATEST value - that of every boy's duty to God. That duty includes keeping God's laws, no matter how unpopular they may be in a world that so desperately wants to live by what is pleasing and not by what is right. The question is - will the Boy Scouts of America truly "be brave" and continue to uphold their principles by basing its policies on basic religious principles, or will it cave to the loud and angry cries of worldly and adopt a secular approach which would eventually negate almost all the ideals of honor and morality inherent to the Scouting program?

 

It would be so easy for these opposing groups to simply go off and create their own organizations, but that's not what they want. They want a huge and venerable organization like the BSA to change and do their work for them. They want its prestige and its influence and its unending crop of future leaders to show the world that morals really can change and that what was right is now wrong, and what was wrong is now right. It started with homosexual policies. Now it has moved to even more fundamental gender identity issues. It will culminate in an attempt to wrest the very core of religion from the heart of Scouting; it's already beginning with questions being raised about policies toward Scouts who declare atheism, but it grow far beyond that. Yet there are other groups, with the LDS Church as the most obvious as it produces the vast majority of Boy Scouts, who want the BSA to stay true to its core values and to cling to the morals and principles which it has helped promote for generations now. 

 

Back to the core point of the article and this thread, right now the BSA has relaxed its policies regarding practicing homosexuals. As the LDS Church plays a large role in the world community towards reaching out to that community, we have so far been able to work around these changes. But we believe strongly in the divine and eternal nature of gender, and the BSA has so far fit beliefs by keeping its program strictly male in membership (even when we did have Venturing units, they were never allowed to be co-ed). Naturally we expect it to promote religion and a belief in God as well. Should even these change, frankly, the BSA would become a fundamentally different program that the one founded in 1910, and if the resulting organization is not the one the LDS Church joined with back in 1913, there's no reason to stay involved with it. We can create our own programs if we have to, and we don't have to cannibalize some other poor organization to do it either.

 

So - is it time? In my view, and I think in the views of many, I pray such a time never comes. I feel that such an organization would be the BSA in name only, but it would not be the same program  at its core. They would wear the uniforms and use the lingo and have all the stuff, but it would not teach the same core values, and it would not raise the same kind of men that it used to. To open the doors to girls and atheism and the loosened views of gender identity and the host of other ideologies, in my mind, would essentially end what the the Boy Scouts of America was created to be. Others will certainly disagree, and that's their right. But I would hate to see the BSA turned into a secular pawn of popular ideals. I know that I wouldn't have a reason to stay involved if I didn't feel it was effectively preserving those traditional values. I suspect many others may think so as well, but the vocal minority who oppose the old ways can be a daunting crowd to stand against. But for my part, I think it's worth the flak. I hope the BSA continues to feel thusly as well.

Edited May 24, 2017 by The Latin Scot

[SpEdScouter]

What I dont get is if the writer of the artcile has such a problem with the Boy Scouts, why doenst he work to start an organization he would like?

 

There is a group called Spiral Scouts which has the values he likes. Why not push them instead of fighting the Boy Scouts?

[MrBob]

What I dont get is if the writer of the artcile has such a problem with the Boy Scouts, why doenst he work to start an organization he would like?

 

There is a group called Spiral Scouts which has the values he likes. Why not push them instead of fighting the Boy Scouts?

 

Spock: I was not attempting to evaluate its moral implications, Doctor. As a matter of cosmic history, it has always been easier to destroy than to create.