The Fall of Scouting Within the Church
One of the signs I think will come to pass before the big destructions happen is the Church will withdraw from the Boy Scouts of America. Not because the program of Scouting has failed or diminished, but because those who lead the organization have lost their way, and the organization will no longer fulfill the Church's purpose as the activity arm of the Aaronic Priesthood.
A couple years ago one blow happened to start to severe the ties. That was when the Boy Scouts changed its policy to allow gay leaders. They did still allow chartered organizations the freedom to determine if they would allow gay leaders within their own units, and the Boy Scouts would support them and (supposedly) defend them in court if needed.
Yesterday the Boy Scouts of America has changed its membership policy. In 2014 the Scouts had changed its policy to allow openly gay youth. Now the policy has changed to allow all transgender youth, any who "identify" as being a boy.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/us/boy-scouts-transgender-membership/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/boy-scouts-reversing-century-old-stance-will-allow-transgender-boys.html?_r=0
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/34579943cdda48febc99c64e61e33cdb/boy-scouts-will-allow-transgender-children-programs
How will this announcement affect the Church?
My guess is most of the Church leadership did not expect this, at least not this soon.
The Church agreed with the policy change in 2014, allowing openly gay youth to be scouts. My guess is this is because those youth were still born as male and the Scouting program is used for the young men in the Church.
In a simple context, the Church allows openly gay members to honorably serve in callings, as long as they are not involved in homosexual relations. Those who are involved in homosexual (same-sex) relations are disciplined and may receive probation or excommunication. There is much more to this, and I am in no way representing the Church.
With this new change in membership policy for Scouting it will begin to put a lot of pressure on the Church. There will be members who have girls who "identify" as boys who will want to be Scouts. According to the new policy, they will be allowed. But, the Boy Scouts, at least in the news releases, has not identified whether chartered units will have the option to disallow youth who were born female from joining. It appears that the policy change is across the board, and chartered organizations will need to allow transgender youth.
How will the Church continue to maintain its affiliation with Scouting, and use it as the activity arm of the Aaronic Priesthood, for the young men, when there will be those who were born as female wanting to join?
It will be difficult to maintain Scouting as the activity arm of the priesthood when ordination to Aaronic priesthood offices is only to young men, but a transgender "boy" (born as a girl, now wanting to be identified as male) is not eligible for priesthood ordination.
I agree with Todd Starnes, who wrote "The Boy Scouts of America sacrificed its last vestige of integrity on the altar of political correctness."
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/01/31/its-time-for-churches-to-sever-ties-with-boy-scouts.html
Starnes also questioned, "how can the Boy Scouts of America teach ethics and morals when its adult leaders can’t muster the courage to stand morally straight in the face of militant gender revolutionaries?"
It is true that on the national level the BSA has lost its moral compass. It is no longer morally straight, but is tossed about by the immoral waves of political activists and so-called social justice warriors.
What Starnes and others fail to mention is the fact that money is involved. Yes, political correctness is pushing morality, and the LGBT agenda is actively pushing for complete tolerance, acceptance, and adoption of its moral perversions. But, it costs a lot of money in litigation to legally defend its previous stance. It costs business support, which equates to money through donations or chartering units. Under the previous policy many pro-LGBT businesses were pulling their support and the Scouts were losing money. Bad press as a result was costing the BSA membership (which means no membership fees), as well as the loss of financial donations from community groups and businesses.
The claim is the BSA is adopting gender policies being recognized and accepted in schools across the country. But my guess is money is the main motivator. The executive leaders of the BSA no doubt saw this membership policy change as doing two things. First it would be good press, which improves public relations and increases community and business support for Scouting.
The second is a direct result of this good press and PR. Increased membership and sponsorship equates to more money for the national organization, as well as for the local councils.
Having worked as a professional Scouter for a year, I know the professionals have a big portion of their annual evaluations focused on increasing the number of charted units, membership, and money. Additionally professional Scouters are to work to increase and maintain the volunteers. During training the three big focuses were pushed on the new professionals as money, manpower, and membership.
Professionals who do not meet their goals in those three areas are less likely to receive much increase in their pay, and they're less likely to be considered for promotions.
I'm not saying all councils are like this. But, my limited experience showed that in the council, at the time I served, the push was towards those three "M's." I was given my goals, with little say in how practical or achievable they were. I also had very little support from upper levels. I know this isn't the case everywhere, but it was in the council I was in and under the Scout Executive (the top paid professional in the council) we had. The Scouting program was a low priority for the professional, with much less importance than money, membership and manpower. I understand why the focus was on those three key areas. But, my opinion is if Scouting provided a great program then the rest would follow, and I saw the council as trying to do the reverse.
Now it seems that the national organization of the BSA has decided the Scouting program is to take back seat. It is more important for the BSA to adapt and accept the changing morality in society than it is to stand firm on its values. Some would argue the program isn't changing, but it is.
Scouting was a program created for boys, those who were born male and who are growing up to become men. It was not a half-program for all youth. It recognized that a specific program was needed for boys to help them become men who can contribute to society. While much of what is taught in scouting is of value to all youth, the program will become a shadow of itself when it tries to accommodate the needs of boys, girls who want to be boys, and all others who will want the program to adjust to fit their needs.
Anyway, in my opinion, it's only a matter of time before the Church discontinues its affiliation with Scouting. It probably won't happen while President Monson is alive. He is a big advocate and supporter of Scouting. And, in case it wasn't clear, I am a big supporter of the Scouting program--but not the bureaucracy that is behind it. The Church could pull out this year, but it probably won't happen, yet.
I think its more probable that 2018 will see the Church discontinue Scouting as its program for the young men. But if it doesn't happen in 2018, at the present rate of change, I cannot see how the Church could continue past 2020 with Scouting.
While the new membership policy will have an effect on the Church's eventual withdrawal, I think the real impetus will be when the BSA will no longer support/defend chartered organizations who do not allow gay leaders. When chartered units are basically required to allow gay leaders (probably under the guise of promoting diversity and inclusion, and reducing bias, bigotry, and hate) the Church will discontinue with Scouting.
Update 31 January 2017 - evening
The Church did put out a statement this afternoon. The article I read was from http://www.ksl.com/?sid=43044029&nid=148
"The LDS Church said in the statement that it is “studying the announcement,” but that Boy Scouts of America has informed all religious organizations that they “will be able to organize their troops in a way fully consistent with their religious beliefs.”
Here's the link to the Church's statement: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-response-bsa-policy-announcement
"The Church is studying the announcement made yesterday by Boy Scouts of America. Boy Scouts has assured its religious chartering organizations that, as in the past, they will be able to organize their troops in a way fully consistent with their religious beliefs. In recent years the Church has made several changes to its programs for youth and continues to look for ways to better serve its families and young people worldwide."
Apparently, the BSA is allowing religious organizations the option to limit membership. We will see how well this works out. I think this change by the BSA will end up causing more persecution for the Church and Church members who support the Church's stance.
It is also apparent that the Church has alternative plans they could implement.
A couple years ago one blow happened to start to severe the ties. That was when the Boy Scouts changed its policy to allow gay leaders. They did still allow chartered organizations the freedom to determine if they would allow gay leaders within their own units, and the Boy Scouts would support them and (supposedly) defend them in court if needed.
Yesterday the Boy Scouts of America has changed its membership policy. In 2014 the Scouts had changed its policy to allow openly gay youth. Now the policy has changed to allow all transgender youth, any who "identify" as being a boy.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/us/boy-scouts-transgender-membership/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/boy-scouts-reversing-century-old-stance-will-allow-transgender-boys.html?_r=0
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/34579943cdda48febc99c64e61e33cdb/boy-scouts-will-allow-transgender-children-programs
How will this announcement affect the Church?
My guess is most of the Church leadership did not expect this, at least not this soon.
The Church agreed with the policy change in 2014, allowing openly gay youth to be scouts. My guess is this is because those youth were still born as male and the Scouting program is used for the young men in the Church.
In a simple context, the Church allows openly gay members to honorably serve in callings, as long as they are not involved in homosexual relations. Those who are involved in homosexual (same-sex) relations are disciplined and may receive probation or excommunication. There is much more to this, and I am in no way representing the Church.
With this new change in membership policy for Scouting it will begin to put a lot of pressure on the Church. There will be members who have girls who "identify" as boys who will want to be Scouts. According to the new policy, they will be allowed. But, the Boy Scouts, at least in the news releases, has not identified whether chartered units will have the option to disallow youth who were born female from joining. It appears that the policy change is across the board, and chartered organizations will need to allow transgender youth.
How will the Church continue to maintain its affiliation with Scouting, and use it as the activity arm of the Aaronic Priesthood, for the young men, when there will be those who were born as female wanting to join?
It will be difficult to maintain Scouting as the activity arm of the priesthood when ordination to Aaronic priesthood offices is only to young men, but a transgender "boy" (born as a girl, now wanting to be identified as male) is not eligible for priesthood ordination.
I agree with Todd Starnes, who wrote "The Boy Scouts of America sacrificed its last vestige of integrity on the altar of political correctness."
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/01/31/its-time-for-churches-to-sever-ties-with-boy-scouts.html
Starnes also questioned, "how can the Boy Scouts of America teach ethics and morals when its adult leaders can’t muster the courage to stand morally straight in the face of militant gender revolutionaries?"
It is true that on the national level the BSA has lost its moral compass. It is no longer morally straight, but is tossed about by the immoral waves of political activists and so-called social justice warriors.
What Starnes and others fail to mention is the fact that money is involved. Yes, political correctness is pushing morality, and the LGBT agenda is actively pushing for complete tolerance, acceptance, and adoption of its moral perversions. But, it costs a lot of money in litigation to legally defend its previous stance. It costs business support, which equates to money through donations or chartering units. Under the previous policy many pro-LGBT businesses were pulling their support and the Scouts were losing money. Bad press as a result was costing the BSA membership (which means no membership fees), as well as the loss of financial donations from community groups and businesses.
The claim is the BSA is adopting gender policies being recognized and accepted in schools across the country. But my guess is money is the main motivator. The executive leaders of the BSA no doubt saw this membership policy change as doing two things. First it would be good press, which improves public relations and increases community and business support for Scouting.
The second is a direct result of this good press and PR. Increased membership and sponsorship equates to more money for the national organization, as well as for the local councils.
Having worked as a professional Scouter for a year, I know the professionals have a big portion of their annual evaluations focused on increasing the number of charted units, membership, and money. Additionally professional Scouters are to work to increase and maintain the volunteers. During training the three big focuses were pushed on the new professionals as money, manpower, and membership.
Professionals who do not meet their goals in those three areas are less likely to receive much increase in their pay, and they're less likely to be considered for promotions.
I'm not saying all councils are like this. But, my limited experience showed that in the council, at the time I served, the push was towards those three "M's." I was given my goals, with little say in how practical or achievable they were. I also had very little support from upper levels. I know this isn't the case everywhere, but it was in the council I was in and under the Scout Executive (the top paid professional in the council) we had. The Scouting program was a low priority for the professional, with much less importance than money, membership and manpower. I understand why the focus was on those three key areas. But, my opinion is if Scouting provided a great program then the rest would follow, and I saw the council as trying to do the reverse.
Now it seems that the national organization of the BSA has decided the Scouting program is to take back seat. It is more important for the BSA to adapt and accept the changing morality in society than it is to stand firm on its values. Some would argue the program isn't changing, but it is.
Scouting was a program created for boys, those who were born male and who are growing up to become men. It was not a half-program for all youth. It recognized that a specific program was needed for boys to help them become men who can contribute to society. While much of what is taught in scouting is of value to all youth, the program will become a shadow of itself when it tries to accommodate the needs of boys, girls who want to be boys, and all others who will want the program to adjust to fit their needs.
Anyway, in my opinion, it's only a matter of time before the Church discontinues its affiliation with Scouting. It probably won't happen while President Monson is alive. He is a big advocate and supporter of Scouting. And, in case it wasn't clear, I am a big supporter of the Scouting program--but not the bureaucracy that is behind it. The Church could pull out this year, but it probably won't happen, yet.
I think its more probable that 2018 will see the Church discontinue Scouting as its program for the young men. But if it doesn't happen in 2018, at the present rate of change, I cannot see how the Church could continue past 2020 with Scouting.
While the new membership policy will have an effect on the Church's eventual withdrawal, I think the real impetus will be when the BSA will no longer support/defend chartered organizations who do not allow gay leaders. When chartered units are basically required to allow gay leaders (probably under the guise of promoting diversity and inclusion, and reducing bias, bigotry, and hate) the Church will discontinue with Scouting.
Update 31 January 2017 - evening
The Church did put out a statement this afternoon. The article I read was from http://www.ksl.com/?sid=43044029&nid=148
"The LDS Church said in the statement that it is “studying the announcement,” but that Boy Scouts of America has informed all religious organizations that they “will be able to organize their troops in a way fully consistent with their religious beliefs.”
Here's the link to the Church's statement: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-response-bsa-policy-announcement
"The Church is studying the announcement made yesterday by Boy Scouts of America. Boy Scouts has assured its religious chartering organizations that, as in the past, they will be able to organize their troops in a way fully consistent with their religious beliefs. In recent years the Church has made several changes to its programs for youth and continues to look for ways to better serve its families and young people worldwide."
Apparently, the BSA is allowing religious organizations the option to limit membership. We will see how well this works out. I think this change by the BSA will end up causing more persecution for the Church and Church members who support the Church's stance.
It is also apparent that the Church has alternative plans they could implement.
Comments
Post a Comment