The sun borrows its light from Kolob. All that borrowing has created a massive debt. Jesus needs more sunbeams so he can pay the debt.
Now, since mormonism is a progression of gods, Jesus has his own savior, so all he really has to do is believe in his savior and the debt will be paid.
The sunbeams to pay the debt need to come from somewhere because the debt has to be paid. That's why he needs them.
Another reason is that when the sun dies and can't borrow any more light from Kolob, they'll need light on earth after it receives is paradisaical glory......if you can't borrow more light, your gonna have to have your own sunbeams or its gonna be very dark.
I guess I was lucky back in the day when I was in it. We had several really good adult leaders, who had real jobs, like engineers, pilots, Navy captains and such, in our area and we had a lot of fun activities...epic canoe trips, epic hikes...
None of the leaders were incels or showed any inclination toward physical contact with the boys. Brief handshaking was about as intimate as it ever got...
However, at some of the big regional events, where we had contact with many other troops, I did see leaders that seemed to be way too far into the froufrou aspects of it all. Adult leaders wearing the official boy-scout shorts, neatly pressed, neckerchiefs expertly tied, belt-buckles shined to perfection, ankle socks worn in a manner defied any expectation of rugged outdoor skills...and so on. They also seemed to constantly be draping their arms around the shoulder of one boy or another. That's about all that I personally observed, however. Can't say whether it signified anything more.
Wally Prince Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Adult leaders wearing > the official boy-scout shorts, neatly pressed, > neckerchiefs expertly tied, belt-buckles shined to > perfection, ankle socks worn in a manner defied > any expectation of rugged outdoor skills...and so > on. They also seemed to constantly be draping > their arms around the shoulder of one boy or > another.
When the scout master and his assistant were caught and lost their scout mastering a new master was put in place who was definitely more like you mentioned above. Ship shape and always putting his arm around the boys. Nothing more than that that I knew of. The other men who molested boys were lax and never touched boys publicly.
incels are "involuntary celibates", usually socially awkward white guys who think women exist to give them sex and are so incensed that they aren't getting it that they write hateful garbage about killing attractive women and the men they give their attention to. Some of these guys have committed murders recently. They're a frightening subculture that has nothing to do with pedophiles.
They had to go and change the name they had been known by for more than a century and now there is no suitable alternative short name that they can use to identify themselves that doesn't lead to confusion vis-a-vis other organizations of a similar ilk.
Of course constantly referring to it as the "Organization Formerly Known as the Boy Scouts" is tiresome and awkward.
It therefore appears that it's time to once again propose my new prefix "fkn" that can be used by all organizations in similar predicaments, i.e. organizations led by uninspired boneheads who, having nothing of real value to contribute, foolishly rushed into a re-branding/name change without considering the inevitable consequences and confusion that would result.
The "fkn" prefix, signifying a "formerly known name," is the best solution.
With the "fkn" prefix they can simply go back to using the non-confusing name that they had before, while also still claiming that the former name has been changed as a face-saving gesture on behalf of the boneheaded leadership who initiated the insanity-generating name change..
So it's "fkn Boy Scouts of America" and "fkn Mormons".
The prefix duly recognizes their desire to get rid of their former name, while also making necessary concessions to the real world and effective communication.
appears to be very flimsy. They're talking about market share, market confusion and the competition created as a result of the formerly boys only program deciding to open their program to girls.
The "Scouts BSA" name is not responsible for any of that. There is zero cause-and-effect relationship. The Girl Scouts would rather that the Boy Scouts continue to be called the Boy Scouts because then many girls will wrongly assume that the program is not open to girls--hence less competitive pressure on the Girl Scouts.
"Scouts BSA" and "Girl Scouts of the USA" are as different and easily distinguishable as "General Motors" and "Bavarian Motor Works."
To me it looks like a frivolous lawsuit. But we live in frivolous times and all bets are off. I guess it depends on whether they get a "no-nonsense judge" or a "pro-nonsense judge."
I'm no expert, but I don't think the girls scouts have a prayer. Any organization has the right to be called by whatever they want (if it's not been legally registered by someone else).
The same argument could be made about www.ExMormon.org. The Mormon church could claim that because the organization takes away from our market share, or is affecting our public perception they can't use the name Mormon.
So, the boy scouts had to take girls because boys only is sexist. The girl scouts remain girls only and that is not sexist. So the boy scouts change to [all inclusive] scouts and now they're still wrong?
op47 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So, the boy scouts had to take girls because boys > only is sexist. The girl scouts remain girls only > and that is not sexist. So the boy scouts change > to scouts and now they're still wrong?
The scouts didn't have to take girls -- they decided to do so because their numbers were dwindling, and there were girls that wanted to join.