• Beginning January 1, 2018, young men from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will no longer participate in the Varsity and Venturing programs offered by the Boy Scouts of America.
• Instead, Young Men activities will focus on spiritual, social, physical and intellectual goals outlined by the Church. These activities are designed to be fun and meaningful and provide opportunities for personal growth and development.
• For the time being, the Church will still participate is Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts until age 14 (8-13).
100 Years of Scouting
Snubbed by the Liberal Media and President Obama
Why Aren't the Boy Scouts "Morally Straight" Any More?
In 2004, the BSA adopted a new policy statement, including the following as a "Youth Leadership"
"Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in
the Scout Oath and Scout Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed.
The conduct of youth members must be in compliance with the Scout Oath and Law, and membership
in Boy Scouts of America is contingent upon the willingness to accept Scouting's values and
beliefs. Most boys join Scouting when they are 10 or 11 years old. As they continue in the
program, all Scouts are expected to take leadership positions. In the unlikely event that an
older boy were to hold himself out as homosexual, he would not be able to continue in a youth
It was ruled by the court that the Boy Scouts had such a 'right' to limit this membership
according to this belief. But now it is the Obama Administration movements and 11 years later.
And now more to the point, why are amoral liberals getting away with murder and destroying the
foundational values of America. One major reason is Legislation from the Bench by the liberal
legal justices/injustices of America. No more are Americans allowed to vote and set their own
standards of righteousness nor are they allowed to uphold God's standards of righteousness. Soon
being a moral Christian will be outlawed and only being amoral well be legal. What has happend
to the Boy Scouts? Bottom line—Atheism and an Amoral liberal Democrat Administration.
There is no longer God and Country in America. So how can the Boy Scouts uphold their commitment
to build Godly Character and Standards in young boys-men in an America full of Amoral Atheistic
Liberals who must have everything their way or no way at all? They really don't what the Boy
Scouts at the level that the Scouts are/were at. So they will tear that down so that no body can
be a true 'boy scout' but rather to be of a liberal amoral atheist character without any moral
standards. If they didn't like the Boy Scouts why couldn't they just leave them alone? Why are
such amoral liberals out to destory everyone else's standard of living?
I realy don't see how any honest moral true Christian Religion can continue to permit the bending
of the standards and positions of morality? Do you? At some point truth must stand even if it has
to stand alone. Please set the proper example.
NO MORE BOY SCOUTS
Honor & Timeless Values?
LGBT & AMORAL LIBERALS SAY NO!
Walking the 'line' of the 'Slippery Slope'
For now the Church consents, but, 'Where will the line be drawn?'
And are they already on the slide of the 'Slippery Slope?'
The Boy Scout moto is 'Be Prepared'. Who was prepared for this?
Congratulations for two great 100 year milestones
for the Boy Scouts of America. Their 100th anniversary of
scouting in America 1910-2010 and 100 years of the Eagle Scout Award
1912-2012. You haven't been hearing much about those milestones for the Boy
Scouts of America? Well perhaps that is because our national news media is
not an unbiased objective news reporting organization, being too skewed to
the immoral liberal left and so committed to their 'gay rights' agenda that
they lack any commitment to the protection of children being so dangerously
exposed to possible and likely sexual abuse.
And because the Boy Scouts have a policy to exclude openly decared and
practicing 'gays', particularly gay leaders, in 'Boy' Scouting for some quite
obvious, understandable and logical reasons of proper efforts of protecting
young boys, which to any moral and normal thinking mind is a worthy effort,
the 'liberal media' and such liberal organized groups who support 'gays',
even in lew of the protection of minor aged grade school boys and girls in
all walks and ages of life without any such logical respect to protecting
innocent children's tender minds, emotions and bodies and being 'morally
straight', just seem to have withdrawn any 'decent objective news coverage'
of any such 'morally straight' organization such as the Boy Scouts of America.
They would rather expose children before their proper maturity to such adult
decisions, and even to endanger them to such sexual exposure at such young
ages before they are intellectually, emotionally or even fully sexually
developed and capable of making true intelligent, emotional and adult life
forming decisions so prematurely, that it is way too early in their childhood
life than is good for them to do so. And why is child molestation growing through
the roofs of our public organizations and institutions? I'd like to sue every
grade school district who has allowed such early exposure and decision making
at a minor's age level which so results is 'sexual abuse' to be so carried on
of an 'of age' student upon a minor aged student to so participate in and join
themselves to a 'gay club'. It's a total irresponsibility of society's leading
official to have allowed this and left the innocent so unprotected and liable
to any such 'sexual activity' before the legal ages of consent. Much of this
certainly has led to the proliferation of immorality because of such liberalized
pressures that our/the liberal media brings to bear upon such public institutions
of forced acceptance of sexual behaviors long before children are properly
prepared to even begin to maturely consider such. Underaged minors, that is School
aged boys and girls who are victims of 'rape' by a male/female counterparts and
even openly allowed to be 'recruited', which is accepted by the an immoral
liberal society by their defense and even promotion of 'gay rights'. Shouldn't
sexual assault and 'rape' be the same for girl upon girl/boy upon boy as it is boy
upon girl? Or is boy upon boy acceptable and girl upon girl acceptable merely
because of 'gay rights' when in any moral society any such immoral sexual abuse
is prohibited and protected by law between opposite sexes. Why are 'gays' the exception?
Boy scouts are boys. Let them be boys and protect them from the seedier
elements of society, at least while they are still children. Such 'too early',
that is premature, exposure to such 'gay' relationships does no society any
good at all. Let children be children and protect them in their 'association',
particularly those such as Boys and Girls Scouting programs. 'Sexual preference'
and/or exposure to such early premature behaviors has no place when so 'forced'
Boy Scouts are not at the age where they may even vote in America. Yet as
civic exposure it is good for the Scouts to meet and become aquaited with
political leaders of both major parties. The President of the United State is
the honorary president of the Boy Scouts of America. He signs each Eagle Scout
award and Safety award given to the scouts and meets with them upon various
occasions. If one such of one party has such personal access to those boys
why does the liberal national media claim it a foul if the other party's
presidential candidates avail themselves of such meeting with America's Boy
Scouts? Certainly no Scout in the line is holding a poster stating 'Vote for
Mitt Romney' though they just might be thinking that they do need a new
honorary president. Only the liberal national media might see Mitt Romney
honoring of the Boy Scouts and congratulating them in person as the Scouts
promoting him for President, especially since Obama had not stood up to his
own role of being the Scouts' honorary president the way he ought to have
President Obama has been quite lax [MIA] in his activities with respect to
the Scouting program and his honorary position. He has been openly out spoken against the Boy
Scouts of America's policy of excluding 'gays' from its organization. Likely
due to this position which the President has chosen to make public, and due to
the long delyed authorization of the President's traditional signiture upon
Eagle Scout awards (none signed until June of 2010) whether accompanied by
'political pressures or not'; and also due to the President's lax committment
to such 'expected' traditional envolvements, such as attendance at the
100th Anniversary Gala in Washington, D.C. in February of 2010,
which without the Scouting 'president' in attendance the national media
basically convienently thumped any coverage of the 100 years milestone of
Scouting. Do you remember hearing about it in the news? Instead Barach Obama
appeared on an episode of the very liberal minded based agenda day time
television show, 'The View' (the show that gives thumbs up to removing the
Bible from hotel rooms to be replaced with '50 Shades of Grey'). And again
Obama politically side-stepped speaking to the national Scouting convention
in celebration of the 100 year Eagle Scout commemoration. His excuse: he had
a political Democrate fund raising event to attend instead.
Such behaviors upon the part of President Obama toward the Boy Scouts of
America and his being its 'honorary president' has led to many rumors such as:
- President Obama refused to sign Eagle Scout Awards.
- Though every President since 1912 has been the honorary President of the
Boy Scouts of America, President Obama refused that honor.
- President Obama snubbed the Boy Scouts 100th Anniversary and
he also insulted America's finest citizens, our Eagle Scouts.
- Further President Obama is against the Boy Scouts of America because it
does not allow gays.
With such divisions between the Scouts and the President of the United States,
some have stated that the President should cut his ties from the Boy Scout
organization. Other point out that resigning his honorary post would (1) cost
him votes, (2) it would become a distraction for his upcoming campaign, and
(3) it would remove him from having a 'peer pressure' role of accomplishing
the liberal design of changing the Scouting program. Further since this
honorary role dates from President William Howard Taft in America and King
George V in England, Obama would not want to lose the prestiege or to be said
that he withdrew himself from it though he has seemed to take it lightly and
shirked many of the position's standing duties. Besides having someone such
as the President in that position is designed to encourage others to come
forward to oppose the Boy Scouts of America as well.
New Scout Oath:
On my forced commitment to Liberalism,
I will consider to do my inhibited best,
To do my duty to Allah and Atheism
and To obey the Law of Liberalism,
To help other G & L people at all times,
To keep myself physically turned on,
Mentally high, and Immorally affiliated.