BSA Policy Change and LDS Theology Part II

As promised, a response to comments and questions. 

“I do not believe the Church or other Religious affiliates should fund organizations or entities that condone behavior contrary to the laws of God”

First this comment seems like one of those situations where we probably aren’t really disagreeing, but kind of talking past each other.

But let me start with this: Are you aware that the Church donated to The Utah Pride Center? It is an LGBT community center in Salt Lake City. Which supports LGBT rights and even gay marriage. (see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/02/mormon-church-lgbt-donation_n_7713568.html  and also see https://www.utahpridecenter.org/)

So, our Church funds organizations that condones behavior contrary to the laws of God. Now don’t freak out, there is a perfectly good explanation for this, and it is the one that I have reiterated across several blog posts:

We cannot be buffet Mormons who “pick and choose only the most appealing offerings" (Elder Clayton, April 2013 General Conference).  Which means that while I fully believe that the image of the Most High God is a Male Human Being and a Female Human Being bound together by the New and Everlasting Covenant, I also have to accept the belief that I cannot force others to conform to that view, I have to persuade them (DC 121:37). It also means that I have to allow others worship according to the dictates of their own conscience as long as I am allowed to worship to the dictates of my own.

Next, if you read the BSA statement (yes read the primary source!), that were expressly making it clear that they are not forcing any religious organization to condone behavior that is contrary to their faith tenets. It expressly says that "religious chartered organizations may continue to use religious beliefs as criteria for selecting adult leaders, including matters of sexuality.” So it is doing the opposite. It is giving each troop the liberty to choose leadership that reflects the values of its sponsoring organization.

Finally, does God’s allowance of agency mean that God condones the behavior of those who choose to engage in activities that are contrary to God’s laws?

Obviously not.

All that has happened is that BSA has allowed each chartered troop more freedom to pick leadership that aligns with their values.

Mormon chartered troops can pick leaders that align with their values, and other non-Mormon chartered troops can pick leaders that align with their values—even if those values are different than ours.

Is not that our 11^th article of faith (a fundamental precept of God)? Is not that a fair solution to complex problems like Elder Christofferson requested?

Can you think of a more fair solution than our own faith tenet? Is not it great when society accepts part of our faith without compulsion? So cool!

“By your reasoning that Church should also be ok with things like religious human sacrifice”

Typical logical fallacy here. First, embracing the 11^th article of faith and D&C 121:37 does not mean that I am arguing that the Church should be okay with homosexuality—nor does it mean a slippery slope down to condoning religious human sacrifice.

It does mean that we need to consider our theology holistically as we strive to apply it to everyday life.

Again, the great point here is that the BSA is not asking the Church to be okay with anything. It actually made clear that the Church OUGHT to stand by it long held views when picking scout leaders.  The BSA is merely allowing other non-Mormon chartered troops the freedom to pick leadership that reflects their own values- not just the values of the Mormon faith. Which is ironically more Mormon like anyway given that we seek to allow other groups to have ethical values according to the dictates of our own conscience.

That’s not my reasoning—it’s the reasoning of your religion and my religion. J

“There are some things that as a society we should not allow because they are harmful in some way to others”

Yes and if you go back to read the Church’s January 2015 press statement, it was clear that with regards to issues between Mormons and the Gay community, they were encouraging us to seek solutions that are fair to both Mormons AND the Gay community – You have read my blog so you have seen the quotes from the statement several times.

So clearly this is not one of those things.

So I ask again- Is there anything more fair than our own 11^th article of faith? The apostles want fair solutions, so the Federal Government and the BSA respond by using our own faith tenet as a guideline, and Mormons are mad at this?  Again, it seems odd to me, but I know that I am a little slow.

“The church has made it very clear on what the doctrine of the family is, and so by saying such things as homosexual leaders is not a big deal, devalues the importance of our strong belief about families”

First, let me emphasize again that I do have a deep faith and understanding of the cosmic significance of Eternal Marriage.  I do think that a majority of Latter-day Saints are largely ignorant of its cosmic significance. They don’t like to hear that about Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother having sex. They usually do not understand that we are never closer to God, than in when an endowed male and an endowed female are engaged in sex.

I do hold sex, marriage, and family to be very sacred because I am a witness of how we gain communion with God through those rituals of the patriarchal order of the Priesthood. In those ritual moments, my wife and I are a God—not god and goddess, but a God, because we know that God is an institution constituting a Male human AND a female human bound by certain covenants (“image of God created He them, male and female” “or else God would cease to be God”). I believe that my eternal life began the day I was married. I take my role as a King/Priest seriously, and I understand that those roles are most fully fulfilled in the moment of sexual intercourse with my wife.

I believe that we need to work to invite people to come unto God, and that to be fully at one with God the Creator requires the Eternal Marriage covenant—You cannot be fully unified with God until you are in God’s image: male and female bound by the associated covenants.  God is love because love leads to creation, and creation of life is central to the role God plays in the cosmos.  I personally think the sanctity of it can be comprehended. I think God and atonement can be comprehended—you just need to learn to learn like Joseph Smith did.  I think that most LD-Saints are not taking the time to comprehend these concepts well, nor do they take the time to learn like Joseph Smith did.

But the point is, you cannot corrupt the means to achieve holy ends—or else you corrupt those ends as well.  Scripture is very clear in that matter. Forcing others, through regulatory coercion, to conform to gospel principles is not the Lords way (DC 121).  When we do that, the Lord is offended, and Amen to our authority.  I refuse to help people come unto Christ by coercion. We have a dual mandate as the Lord’s anointed people, namely, ensuring the agency of Man (worshiping according to the dictates of their conscience) AND helping others come unto Christ through persuasion, long-suffering, and love unfeigned, with the explicit charge to avoid doing so in any degree of compulsion and coercion.

We cannot focus on one at the exclusion of the other.

It has been emphasized to us several times that the gospel is not "to be a buffet from which they can pick and choose only the most appealing offerings" (Clayton, April 2013 Conference). Which means that we need to consider the gospel as a whole. We have to share with others our gospel view AND make sure that people are not coerced into keeping commandments-- that they have full agency to choose their glory in God's kingdom

You’re absolutely right, we need to make sure that a child’s right to be raised in a loving home by their biological parents is fulfilled. I never disagreed with that. I think most Mormons in my camp agree with that. So let’s get preaching!

It is as urgent as ever! I have baptized 6 people since I have been home from my mission (6 years ago- averaging 1 per year)—How many have you baptized since you came home from your mission? I admit that I fall short of my personal goals in that area, but I have activated countless others. That is how Gods do it. Offer and Receive. Not compel and coerce.  You write as if I don’t care about those things but I do care very deeply about them, and I have put a lot of work into educating people about the very things you mentioned. I am a social scientist by profession—specifically an institutional theorist.

But I also understand that you cannot be a buffet Mormon. We are commanded to create that optimal environment for posterity through persuasion, understanding, and long-suffering. Ends do not justify means. You cannot simply ditch the 11^th article of faith in our pursuit of the Ends.  I do everything in my power to persuade people to become like God and build kingdoms patterned after our HF and HM’s (God) kingdom (ie family)—but I also follow AofF 11 and preach my Gospel: “Remember people have agency to choose whether to accept your message. Your responsibility is to teach clearly and powerfully so they can make a correct choice” – it does not say that we ought to enact law through which the State can coercively enforce compliance, or that we compel other civil organizations to force its diverse membership to conform to our views. That is the easy road. We need to take the road less traveled, and rise to the occasion, which is to do it through powerful teaching and mentoring.  God does not want it done in coercive ways.

And if we always pull out of organizations every time there are other groups which do not perfectly fit out value systems then we are just retreating the Church back into obscurity and not giving our members a chance to let their light so shine before men.

Remember that “God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power and of love, and of a sound mind” So come on and find the nerve! Use persuasion not compulsion!

“How is changing in a way that endorses sinful behavior repentance?”

Well, I will try to break it down again for you. In our theology we claim that we have a right to live according to the dictates of our own conscience and we believe in allowing others the same privilege.

More recently the Church has expounded on the 11^th article of faith stating:

"Because we are frequently asked for our position on these matters, the Church asserts the following principles based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, and on fairness for all, including people of faith:

• We claim for everyone the God-given right and Constitutional right to live their faith according to the dictates of their own conscience, without harming the health or safety of others. 
• We acknowledge that the same freedom of conscience must apply to men and women everywhere to follow the religious faith of their choice, or none at all if they choose
• We believe laws ought to be framed to achieve a balance in protecting the freedoms of all people while respecting those with differing values.
• We reject persecution and retaliation of any kind, including persecution based on race, ethnicity, religious belief, economic circumstance or differences in gender or sexual orientation."

Prior to Monday’s policy change, the BSA rules DID NOT allow that freedom of conscience to follow any “religious faith, or none at all if they choose”. Every troop, regardless of their values, had to conform to the standards of the Mormon faith, and that compulsion is very un-Mormon given the statement above, and given our belief that if we preach the gospel by way of compulsion, then we lose our priesthood authority (see DC 121:37).

So in changing its policy to now allow each troop to determine the guidelines be which they can select their leaders (Mormon sponsored troops will still selected leaders according to their standards), the organization better reflects those Mormon ideals outlined above. If you read the actual BSA statement here: (http://scoutingnewsroom.org/boy-scouts-of-america-amends-adult-leadership-policy/) then you will understand that what they were really going for is allowing each chartered troop to pick leadership according to its own values, not so much endorsing any specific behavior. Repentance is changing to better reflect ideals of God, and that is what the BSA did.

 “What do you think about the difference between this and the Church's push for prohibition in the early 1900s. Doesn't the Church have a long history of striving to align the world's policies and regulations with the eternal truths that we know will bring true happiness?”

If I understand the question right, you are asking if there is a difference between the Church pushing to keep a ban on gay boy scout leaders and the Church’s push for prohibition in the early 1900s.

From what I see, there is no difference. In both instances it was an effort to compel rather than persuade others to embrace a certain gospel practice.

Again, you cannot corrupt the means to achieve holy ends—or else you corrupt those ends as well.  Scripture is very clear in that matter. Forcing others, through regulatory coercion, to conform to gospel principles is not the Lords way (DC 121).  When we do that, the Lord is offended, and Amen to our authority.  I refuse to help people come unto Christ by coercion. We have a dual mandate as the Lord’s anointed people, namely, ensuring the agency of Man (worshiping according to the dictates of their conscience) AND helping others come unto Christ through persuasion, long-suffering, and love unfeigned, with the explicit charge to avoid doing so in any degree of compulsion and coercion.

We cannot focus on one at the exclusion of the other.

It has been emphasized to us several times that the gospel is not "to be a buffet from which they can pick and choose only the most appealing offerings" (Clayton, April 2013 Conference). Which means that we need to consider the gospel as a whole. We have to share with others our gospel view AND make sure that people are not coerced into keeping commandments-- that they have full agency to choose their glory in God's kingdom.

Our roles is not to save the world, our role is to call people from the world to come and pass through the portal, which we create through our ordinances, so that they can be brought into the Kingdom of God on earth and in heaven.

God has made clear that we are not to compel people to come and accept the gospel.

As long as the world does not impinge on our right to live our faith and preach it, then our interest with the state (or the world) ends there—we need to remember that we are inherently a tribal organization. An honest reading of Jesus’ purpose for his kingdom will show you that. (I would also recommend you read James C. Scott’s ‘The Art of Not Being Governed’ in order to better understand how tribes work in relation to the state—ie get some understanding!).  

If you look at our history, we don’t really have a “long history” of preaching through compulsion and coercion—they are very few instances, and the church is quick to acknowledge that they very rarely engage politically like they did for prohibition and prop 8 in CA.

We ought not recoil from the BSA because it would rid us the opportunity to interact with others and show them the light of our gospel as we interact with others during scouting events. It would be a mistake to leave the BSA and create a Young Men’s program that is insular from others not of our faith—what a loss of opportunity to share the gospel with other people. Why would we want to turn away the opportunity to do that missionary work?

“It did not seem to me like the BSA was ever limiting people from ‘worshipping as they please’ any more than we do by limiting who can enter the temple”

First – Yikes! We have to totally re-translate the lenses through which you are seeing this. First the BSA was clearly limiting certain troops from living according to their own values. Every troop, regardless of its affiliations (many troops have no religious affiliation), had to conform to the Mormon standard or else be dismissed from the organization. The BSA is not a Mormon organization, it is an American organization. America has a multi-cultural landscape (which is a good thing!). The change in BSA policy now allows each troop to pick leadership according to their own values—Mormons pick leadership according to their values, Protestants according to theirs, and non-religious troops according to theirs.

I imagine there are non-Mormon gay married men, who have adopted sons who want to participate in non-Mormon Boy Scout troops, and those fathers want to work with their sons in those Boy Scout troops as dedicated loving parents.

Do we really exclude them and compel their troop to conform to our standards in a civil American association when no one is compelling us to conform to theirs? We know God has said that when we do that, then we lose our priesthood authority (DC 121:37).

Understanding the line between allow others to follow their faith and facilitating sin is not too difficult is it?

First, look to the latest press releases from the Church on issues regarding the LGBT community:

"We claim for everyone the God-given and Constitutional right to live their faith according to the dictates of their own conscience, without harming the health or safety of others. We acknowledge that the same freedom of conscience must apply to men and women everywhere to follow the religious faith of their choice, or none at all if they so choose. We believe laws ought to be framed to achieve a balance in protecting the freedoms of all people while respecting those with differing values." - Elder Oaks ( January 27, 2015 news release)

"we are suggesting a way forward in which those with different views on these complex issues can together seek solutions that will be fair to everyone"  (January 27, 2015 news release- referring to complex issues surrounding our faith and the gay community)

So it is clear that when it comes to issues surrounding our faith and the gay community we need to find solutions that are fair to both the gay community and to us.

In this particular instance of the BSA’s leadership policy, we have the case where not all troops are Mormon, and not all troops are religiously affiliated. There are non-religiously affiliated troops that have different values than Mormon values, and they do not want to continue to be compelled to pick leaders according to Mormon values, rather according to the values of their own conscience (they want to be able to pick gay leaders).

So is there a better solution, which is “fair to everyone” than the 11^th article of faith?  If there is then tell me.  (I have asked this question across several blog post, and NO MORMON has every offered a better solution than the 11^th article of faith— so I am still bewildered as to why we get angry when non-religious organizations adopt the 11^th article of faith as their solution. I am surprised that they adopt tenets of our faith even when get angry at them for doing so.)

Allowing each troop to pick leaders according to their values is not facilitating sin. It is not endorsing a behavior. It is amoral, and it leaves the decision of morality to each chartered troop. Which is a great opportunity for us to interact with all of these different groups, and share our gospel with understanding and persuasion.

“It is a matter of values and whether or not the individual’s values align with those of the institution right?”

I don’t quite get the point here but sure that seems to be what the BSA was going for—Allowing each troops to select leaders according to the values of their sponsoring organizations. Which reflects a principle of the gospel aimed at promoting our happiness and harmony (freedom of conscience and agency)—So cool!