- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
No worries, Gerald. You actually illustrated a point – Scouting isn’t for everybody. If it was, wouldn’t more boys be involved? My point was exactly what you said – if boys are into Scouting there are always ways to do it without having it be a required program. That is interesting about the “plan b.” It certainly is possible – but still can’t be implemented overnight. It is too bad if plan b is Duty to God because frankly that’s not for every boy, either. (I’m pretty sure I could get away with saying that in a meting but not in Sunday meetings.)
And I agree with you – the biggest problem with Scouting in the church is how it’s done. Most outside troops do a much better job at doing actual Scouting. Those two things are directly related because outside the church the Scout leaders are generally doing it because they want to not because they are called. There are exceptions on both sides. There are also church leaders who recognize that Scouting isn’t for everyone and try to accommodate those individuals in the prescribed program, which also leads to alteration in Scouting.
Just read through this whole thread. Have a few comments: The scouring programs I am familiar with do not work…and I live in heartland SLC,…right in the middle. The “Patrol Method” is not functional, and emphasis is almost universally placed on DtoG at the exclusion of most everything else. It generally goes like this: 1st week–basketball. 2nd week–joint activities with the YW. 3rd week–DtoG. 4th week–scout activity (notice,…not scout work…but “activity”)
When Sunday rolls around, missionary prep and DtoG…EXCLUSIVELY.
The scouting program is dominated by the YM leadership, usually depending completely on what the PEC meeting decides and the YM president. I am not aware of a single meeting I have ever seen happening between the Scout Master and the Senior Patrol Leader to decide on troop activities and how the SPL and the PL will implement those via “Patrol Method”…and hence, it fails.
Can I say, without being too offensive, that most Eagles I’ve seen were the result of a mother’s influence, and often they were gotten for her sake, not because the boy or the church necessarily wanted it?
For a long time, IMHO, at least from what I have seen, the Scouting program has been broken. The church sais it backs it, but frankly, at the local level I don’t see it. The commitment isn’t there, and it really makes me feel sad.
LookingHard wrote:It would seem odd that the BSA would have done this on purpose without the LDS leadership being there, but where was the LDS leadership?
Probably got there late, as per Holy Tradition, and completely missed that part of the meeting.
The Doctrine that is spoken about is basically the Law of Chastity. The BSA obviously supports the policy that it is OK to have sex with anyone that you choose. The church can not support a group or organization that openly supports the contrary.
1. Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?Just saying
Rob4Hope wrote:Can I say, without being too offensive, that most Eagles I’ve seen were the result of a mother’s influence, and often they were gotten for her sake, not because the boy or the church necessarily wanted it?
I would be one of those who received the Eagle because of my mother’s pushing (and am not offended at all by your observation). Personally, I think it would be a good thing for the church to get it’s hands out of the scouting program. I’ve taken my son out of our LDS cub scout pack, and signed him up for one of the local non-LDS packs. I’ve found that they run scouting much better outside of the church. I’m not trying to tear down the church or the leaders in any way, but I think it’s just a natural cause of having volunteers called to run scouting. The scouting program outside of the church is run by people who WANT to be there. They take it seriously, and they focus on leadership development, and the things that scouting was really meant to be. I don’t like the way the church calls people to be in scouting, because you get a lot of people who are in scouting simply because they were ‘called’ to be there. My son’s LDS den just played basketball or kickball every week. They did absolutely nothing related to the scouting program. And I can’t put all the blame on the leader, because he still got the boys together every week, but it was obvious that he had no interest in scouting, and was only doing it because it was his calling. My son has gotten a lot more out of scouting since I put him in an outside pack. I think the church has good intentions with the scouting program, but it’s turned into a bit of a farce. We have merit badge pow-wows where boys are practically handed merit badges just for showing up for a few weeks.
Just my opinion, but I think it would be good for the BSA, for the church, and for the boys if the church got it’s hands out of scouting. And I say that as somebody with a son in scouting, and as a person who believes that scouting can be a very positive experience for a boy, with the right leaders.
I think we can’t overlook the fact that BYU considers the Eagle as part of its entrance evaluations. If you are a male and don’t have one, it can hurt your chances just like seminary graduation can. Barnstromer wrote:The Doctrine that is spoken about is basically the Law of Chastity.
The BSA obviously supports the policy that it is OK to have sex with anyone that you choose. The church can not support a group or organization that openly supports the contrary.
1. Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?Just saying
But what about a gay man that never does anything with another man and he marries a woman and is faithful to her? He has done nothing about breaking the law of chastity, but up until a few days ago he was not legally allowed (in or out of the church) to be a BSA leader. Now he is not barred.For that matter, consider a woman that is a lesbian, but also keeps the law of chastity and marries a man. She was not technically allowed to be a cub scout leader until a few days ago.
Holy Cow wrote:The scouting program outside of the church is run by people who WANT to be there. They take it seriously, and they focus on leadership development, and the things that scouting was really meant to be.
This. My former (non-LDS) scoutmaster is still very heavily involved in Scouting 25 years after his youngest son made Eagle, biding his time in a District spot until his great grandson is ready for Cub Scouts. Two of the three assistant scoutmasters also stayed well after their sons had moved on. The local Church troop changes leadership every time the scoutmaster’s son ages out, so the experience level is limited, and the leadership’s interest level in the other Scouts’ advancement is often not what it should be.
There’s a lot not to like about the Church’s response to this BSA decision. I do think it would be unfortunate if this is the REASON that the Church leaves the BSA, because I think it would fuel the us-vs-them-ness of the Church and would strengthen the anti-gay-ness of the Church. But it is absolutely time for the Church and the BSA to agree to part ways.
It’s possible that the Church has a financial commitment/agreement with the BSA, but would like to get out of it, and this action/reaction may be a convenient excuse to terminate such an agreement. I’m an Eagle Scout. I think the program has a lot of good to offer, but the Church’s implementation of it leaves it incapacitated. Too often, the devotion to scouting is an after thought. LDS troops have a reputation among the scouting world as being lackluster and casual. The Church’s press release shows a picture of a scout troop. I immediately assume that this is no LDS troop. All in uniforms that are tucked nicely into matching pants. That is the antithesis of LDS scouting. Holy Cow, you mentioned “merit badge pow-wows, where boys are practically handed merit badges just for showing up for a few weeks.” Yeah, similar here, except for the “few weeks” part. We have “merit badge clinics”, where scouts show up on a Saturday morning for a few hours and walk away with a couple of merit badges. I once observed boys “earning” the Leather Working Merit Badge in a single one-hour session. They each “made” a single leather key fob. Merit badges are supposed to represent the gaining of some knowledge or skill in a particular area, but are usually given out for completing a checklist that a leader has on a clipboard. I remember giving a scout a merit badge at a court of honor once, and I asked, in front of everyone, for him to tell something that he learned or had done in achieving the award. Whoops. He couldn’t come up with a single thing to say. I fully believe he didn’t know he had earned that merit badge until he was called up to have the award presented.
From the Church’s perspective, Scouting (BSA) provides support for its activation efforts. The concepts of adventures, learning, achievement, dedication, effort, advancement can be very compelling for young people. Great. So, it’s a good idea. But the Church gives away a lot of self-direction. I think the Church could easily come up with an open-source version of scouting with merit badges, awards, ranks, responsibilities and adventures entirely on its own. Further, since the boys are already doing so much that is scout-related, there would be a better opportunity for cohesion between D2G and Scouting. But I also think just dropping scouting all together would be acceptable. I have never liked how scouting is near-compulsory in the Church.
If the Church did end its scouting program, I think there would be a lot of meloncholy in the High Priest Group, but I can’t think of a single person in the EQ who would protest.
Gerald – I think the church has been doing the dance of leave scouting since 1990’s. I was a Stake YW President then and during Regional Training the Area Rep basically said the church was creating plan B. It was around Duty to God and similar to the present Young Women’s Program. I remember the information was not well received by the local leaders. Men love scouting because it’s planned out. The book is written, they get to camp and play with toys, etc. (No blame to anyone) When you compare the fun of scouting to the long lonely nights of girls learning to highlight scriptures about the Atonement – Scouting looks more fun. Plan B is already available and now the church can use the BSA as their excuse to roll it out. On Own – I am with you on the
Quote:I do think it would be unfortunate if this is the REASON that the Church leaves the BSA, because I think it would fuel the us-vs-them-ness of the Church and would strengthen the anti-gay-ness of the Church.
It will take us even longer to get past the vision of a homophobic religion if we choose to part ways now. That 2500.00 donation to Pride suddenly seems meaningless
Doctrine? Still not buying it. There are no guarantee’s anywhere that pedophilia will take place and I second Hawkgrrl – Jerry Sandusky anyone?
I just pray for the flunkie that wrote this. May he remain nameless because otherwise he would really take a hit.
In the LDS culture, there is this unwritten idea that UNLESS you are exceptional, the “Eagle Scout, a stellar PH Holder, a rock Missionary,…etc” you are somehow less–and there is a push for everyone to be a leader. I have often marveled that if everyone was a leader (which we as a culture virtually worship),..then who are the followers? We are taught to be like Nephi…right?…but not like Sam. When I taught public school 20 years ago, I discovered that very often, the bar was lowered so that everyone could succeed, but by taking away the opportunity for failure, we also really took away the opportunity for success! Make sense?
With regards to the “pow-wows” and so forth, I was offended when, as a leader, I saw rubber stamping of merit-badge cards, given to boys who did nothing more than fall asleep in a hour long class, and then disrespectfully laughed and destroyed property as they mocked the program through their unruly behavior. And yet,…they “earned” the merit-badge. Hunh?
The bar was lowered. The program was watered down. The standards had fallen. And, I originally felt very angry over that,…but now I just feel sad. How can there be so many “A” grades, when we have taken away the liberty and opportunity for failure — by, among other things, lowering the bar and sinking the standards?
I say the LDS faith should cut its ties with the BSA. Not because the BSA has done anything wrong or made any mistakes, but because the LDS faith, with its charter programs, has NOT lived up to the original high standards and ideals. Not every charter group in the church is an “A” organization, but we treat them as such,….and perhaps if the BSA were to refuse charters to some organizations, it would have prevented some of this drift. I don’t know. All I do know is that that many troops are lauded, when what I have seen is nothing more than an excuse for what the program was intended to produce in the first place.
And, I think the church is using this “doctrinal” idea as an excuse to perhaps cut ties. I also understand the Sandusky example above.
hawkgrrrl wrote:I think we can’t overlook the fact that BYU considers the Eagle as part of its entrance evaluations. If you are a male and don’t have one, it can hurt your chances just like seminary graduation can.
Such policies baffle me, but that is how things are. If you happen to be a good LDS boy (for example), and your ward didn’t have a very good program–you are held accountable for that?
NOT cool….
Rob4Hope wrote:hawkgrrrl wrote:I think we can’t overlook the fact that BYU considers the Eagle as part of its entrance evaluations. If you are a male and don’t have one, it can hurt your chances just like seminary graduation can.
Such policies baffle me, but that is how things are. If you happen to be a good LDS boy (for example), and your ward didn’t have a very good program–you are held accountable for that?
NOT cool….
Actually, I don’t see anything wrong with this. Eagle Scout is something that is considered. So is membership in NHS. So is a record of community service. So is GPA. So is class rank. Just because one person has achieved, doesn’t mean it is unfair for those who haven’t. Or as one person I know wisely said:Rob4Hope wrote:When I taught public school 20 years ago, I discovered that very often, the bar was lowered so that everyone could succeed, but by taking away the opportunity for failure, we also really took away the opportunity for success! Make sense?
On Own Now wrote:I think the program has a lot of good to offer, but the Church’s implementation of it leaves it incapacitated.
IMO, BSA has incapacitated itself over the years since I was a Scout with liability concerns and politically correct garbage.
According to one old timer, it started when they brought in the Wilderness Survival merit badge back in 1973. (Before my time. I got that badge in 1988) As he put it, for a Boy Scout of that era to have a merit badge for wilderness survival would be like having one for tying your shoes; it became an accessory skill rather than a core value the Scouting was teaching.
Lately, it’s the de-emphasis on several useful skills due to overzealous attempts to avoid liability. If we got through summer camp without at least a first degree burn and one cut that put our first aid skills to the test, it was a wasted summer. Now, the ban on homemade stoves means they’re not learning to build small alcohol stoves (I have everything needed rolling around the floorboard of my car, including the bottle of HEET to fuel it) or rocket stoves (pretty sure I have the right cans in the trash at home) that could make a huge difference when there’s a multi-day power outage at their all-electric house and they only know how to dig a firepit in the lawn, or they get to the campsite for a long weekend of primitive skills practice and see a brand new “no ground fires” sign.
FWIW, nice article on the lack of linkage between homosexuality and child molestation (even mentions BSA for relevance): http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html From the conclusion:
Quote:The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above [in the article], many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.
Years ago, I bought into the idea that homosexual men were a danger to boys. It’s easy to think that way, because as a heterosexual male, it is extremely difficult to understand male-to-male attraction at all (it’s hard for me to figure out why any women are attracted to men). Since it’s so hard to relate, it’s a simple matter to substitute one unimaginable trait for another unimaginable trait, and to put the two in the same category. So, because of my background, I’m sympathetic toward those who can’t make this distinction. What I feel I need to do now is to be a rational and calm voice in defense of those who are unfairly categorized as something they are not. Slowly, I feel that this will turn around.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.