Does that bit about “do not engage in homosexual behavior”
sound discriminatory? Think again.
That bit is in line with church teachings on the law of
chastity, which applies to both gay and straight members of the church. No
fooling around outside of marriage.
Think I’m lying?
Read it for yourself:
“If members feel
same-gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders
should support and encourage them in their resolve to live the law of chastity
and to control unrighteous thoughts. These members may receive church callings.
If they are worthy and qualified in every other way, they may also hold temple
recommends and receive temple ordinances.”
Here’s the source: The
church’s “Handbook 2: Administering the Church,” available publicly online.
Yes, there’s still that
quibble about marriage (which the church does not support) and civil unions
(which the church does support). Because of that quibble, many are going to
gloss this policy change being pondered by the Boy Scouts of America and its
impact on the church as problematic. Not so in officialdom. In practice, now,
you’re going to deal with many, many bulletheads on both sides of the issue, as
with every other divisive issue.
According to the Salt LakeTribune, the church isn’t offering an official statement until after the BSA
announces any policy change, which could happen next week. But the signs are
already on the wall as far as I’m concerned. Any policy change by the BSA will
not impact official church participation in the BSA. Any problems are going to
be on the local level – and will deserve correction from Salt Lake City.
Personally, I had no idea
this church policy existed as written. I have no problem with gay scouts, or
gay scout leaders, and object to those who think they’re somehow going to harm
their fellow scouts or lead them down the path to total gayness. Unfortunately,
I know enough about other addictions and prelidictions that scare me a hell of
a lot more than the thought of my son having a gay scout leader.
Also, sometime in the
past, I may have written a blog post along the lines of supporting the BSA’s
anti-gay stance on the grounds that the national organization insists the
phrase “morally straight” be included in the Scout Oath. Since then, I’ve been
bugged by something: The BSA also insists on Scouts being physically strong –
and I’m lacking in that department (anyone who knows me knows I have the same
overall shape as a Krispy Kreme doughnut). There are many Scouts and Scout
leaders who fit – tightly, with many sucking in of guts – in that same boat.
The BSA has made strides to emphasize physical fitness, including banning some
Scouts and leaders from some activities if they do not meet physical fitness
requirements. Seeing as current LDS Church policy doesn’t forbid fatties as
well as gays from serving and holding temple recommends, I don’t see why I
should support such a stance either.
It’ll be interesting to
see what the BSA announces, if anything, next week, and what the subsequent
response will be from the LDS Church. I am, however, extremely optimistic for
both bits of news.
No comments:
Post a Comment