- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
DarkJedi wrote:
There are some hardcore Scouters in the church, not everyone called is called just to fill the gap. I have known some bishops and stake presidents who are very pro-Scouting and in some cases very involved (we had a stake president who was on the council executive board for years). Many leaders are Eagle Scouts and many bishops/stake presidents have been young men’s president at some point. So, if we divorce ourselves from BSA do you think there will be any pushback? I realize these guys are for the most part are very orthodox and will do whatever the handbook says, but I can also see some of them thinking this would be a bad move. Thoughts?
Agreed. There is a week long period at THE BSA camp (Philmont) that the LDS take over the training side of the camp and they have tons of LDS leaders are trained (even cub scout sisters).DarkJedi wrote:There are some hardcore Scouters in the church, not everyone called is called just to fill the gap. I have known some bishops and stake presidents who are very pro-Scouting and in some cases very involved (we had a stake president who was on the council executive board for years). Many leaders are Eagle Scouts and many bishops/stake presidents have been young men’s president at some point. So, if we divorce ourselves from BSA do you think there will be any pushback? I realize these guys are for the most part are very orthodox and will do whatever the handbook says, but I can also see some of them thinking this would be a bad move. Thoughts?
You don’t have to be LDS to be a scouter,…nor do you need to preclude anyone from scouting per-se. If boys want to be scouts, there are (as others have pointed out) opportunities.
From the way I’ve seen it work, the scout troop is organized around the quorum. The deacon’s quorum president is the SPL, and he is supposed to lead, except the YMP or counselor is who generally calls the shots. The “Patrol Method”–which means the boys lead the boys–is where a major break-down happens. Because the quorum often has so few boys, there aren’t often that many to lead.
I have almost never seen a troop cross quorum boundaries–you have different groups in different quorums, though that has changed some in recent years. Generally, however, I’ve seen stakes where they leave it to the boys to work it alone in many respects if they haven’t gotten their Eagle by the time they are 14 or 15: scouts just fizzles off and dies.
Anyway, I think there are options, and I also think their will be pushback from those who are more involved. But there doesn’t need to be.
And can I just say,..I REALLY WISH I had seen more success stories in my experience. But, I haven’t. I know of a few, where things were really working,…but most of my experience has been dismal with regards to how BSA works in SLC.
DarkJedi wrote:There are some hardcore Scouters in the church, not everyone called is called just to fill the gap. I have known some bishops and stake presidents who are very pro-Scouting and in some cases very involved (we had a stake president who was on the council executive board for years). Many leaders are Eagle Scouts and many bishops/stake presidents have been young men’s president at some point. So, if we divorce ourselves from BSA do you think there will be any pushback? I realize these guys are for the most part are very orthodox and will do whatever the handbook says, but I can also see some of them thinking this would be a bad move. Thoughts?
I see your point, but I tend to agree with R4H’s perspective. People who are hardcore scouters don’t have to quit scouting just because the church isn’t involved. Personally, I think it’s good for people to find volunteer opportunities outside of the church. The church isn’t the only vehicle for finding volunteer work. The CEO where I work is an LDS guy, and he serves as the District scouting head (not sure the exact title), and it’s not a calling. He just does it because he loves scouting. So, like R4H said, those people who sincerely want to be involved in scouting, still can be, even if the LDS disassociates with it. And, really those are the people who SHOULD be involved in scouting, because they take it seriously and they’re doing it because they love it and not because they feel like they can’t say no to a calling.
silentstruggle wrote:If the church decides to move away from Scouting, and has to re-think the YM program then, I think it’s a perfect juncture to introduce parity in to the Young Women’s program:
1) Financial parity. There should be a lot of money freeing up.
2) Adventure parity (girl’s should have high-adventure and not just low-adventure).
3) Non-gender-biased parity in learning core competencies that some of Scouting provides and that are not provided by public education.
4) Non-gender-biased parity in allowing girls to explore areas of interest for careers and hobbies that the boys were allowed/encouraged to explore via merit badges and activities.
5) Getting rid of or at least paring back the Priesthood baby sitting that is mandatory for Young Women. I’ve known of so many activities that get shut down, because a priesthood leader can’t go along. I think that model is ridiculous in this day and age.
Like!
Rob4Hope wrote:DarkJedi wrote:There are some hardcore Scouters in the church, not everyone called is called just to fill the gap. I have known some bishops and stake presidents who are very pro-Scouting and in some cases very involved (we had a stake president who was on the council executive board for years). Many leaders are Eagle Scouts and many bishops/stake presidents have been young men’s president at some point. So, if we divorce ourselves from BSA do you think there will be any pushback? I realize these guys are for the most part are very orthodox and will do whatever the handbook says, but I can also see some of them thinking this would be a bad move. Thoughts?
You don’t have to be LDS to be a scouter,…nor do you need to preclude anyone from scouting per-se. If boys want to be scouts, there are (as others have pointed out) opportunities.
From the way I’ve seen it work, the scout troop is organized around the quorum. The deacon’s quorum president is the SPL, and he is supposed to lead, except the YMP or counselor is who generally calls the shots. The “Patrol Method”–which means the boys lead the boys–is where a major break-down happens. Because the quorum often has so few boys, there aren’t often that many to lead.
I have almost never seen a troop cross quorum boundaries–you have different groups in different quorums, though that has changed some in recent years. Generally, however, I’ve seen stakes where they leave it to the boys to work it alone in many respects if they haven’t gotten their Eagle by the time they are 14 or 15: scouts just fizzles off and dies.
Anyway, I think there are options, and I also think their will be pushback from those who are more involved. But there doesn’t need to be.
And can I just say,..I REALLY WISH I had seen more success stories in my experience. But, I haven’t. I know of a few, where things were really working,…but most of my experience has been dismal with regards to how BSA works in SLC.
My experience has been outside the Corridor. Never in my experience has the quorum president also by default been the patrol leader. I realize the handbook is written that way (and also includes other options). I think it’s one of those things that is probably almost always different outside the Corridor.
Holy Cow wrote:DarkJedi wrote:There are some hardcore Scouters in the church, not everyone called is called just to fill the gap. I have known some bishops and stake presidents who are very pro-Scouting and in some cases very involved (we had a stake president who was on the council executive board for years). Many leaders are Eagle Scouts and many bishops/stake presidents have been young men’s president at some point. So, if we divorce ourselves from BSA do you think there will be any pushback? I realize these guys are for the most part are very orthodox and will do whatever the handbook says, but I can also see some of them thinking this would be a bad move. Thoughts?
I see your point, but I tend to agree with R4H’s perspective. People who are hardcore scouters don’t have to quit scouting just because the church isn’t involved. Personally, I think it’s good for people to find volunteer opportunities outside of the church. The church isn’t the only vehicle for finding volunteer work. The CEO where I work is an LDS guy, and he serves as the District scouting head (not sure the exact title), and it’s not a calling. He just does it because he loves scouting. So, like R4H said, those people who sincerely want to be involved in scouting, still can be, even if the LDS disassociates with it. And, really those are the people who SHOULD be involved in scouting, because they take it seriously and they’re doing it because they love it and not because they feel like they can’t say no to a calling.
I don’t disagree with this at all, and I think some will likely go to outside troops (like our own troop’s Scoutmaster). I was referencing those individuals who have current callings in Scouts and probably have for several years, but I was also referencing those who are in other leadership positions who really, really believe in Scouting – like stake presidencies, bishoprics, even area and general authorities. The vast majority of those guys, even here in the east, grew up in the church and many are eagle Scouts. These guys have wholly bought into this (from the church Scouting Handbook):
Quote:1.1 Purpose of Scouting in the Aaronic Priesthood and Primary
Scouting can help young men and boys enhance close relationships with their families and the Church while developing strong and desirable traits of character, citizenship, and physical and mental fitness. Under priesthood leadership, Scouting should complement the efforts of Aaronic Priesthood quorums and Primary classes in building testimonies in young men and boys. Scouting under Church sponsorship should become an extension of the home, Primary classes, and Aaronic Priesthood quorums. Scouting functions as part of the Church’s activity program for boys and young men. Scouting activities should be planned to fulfill gospel-centered purposes.
This teaching has been around for decades and I have heard men and women bear testimony of it. Likewise, I have heard testimony of how inspired Scouting is. I count my current SP and at least one counselor, our current ward YMP and both counselors, and a few former bishops as part of the group that has and would bear such testimony. While I agree that Scouting would still be available to any member who wants to be part of a local troop, I’m not sure I see how these guys can suddenly switch gears and believe it is not what they have taught it was. I don’t think it’s actually a crisis situation, and I do recognize that they can simply decide it is not what it once was – but I would disagree that simply allowing an openly gay leader has changed Scouting. And from another point of view, a member boy going to a troop sponsored by another church or organization may actually expose him to that which the church is trying to prevent – exposure to openly gay leaders.
DarkJedi wrote:This teaching has been around for decades and I have heard men and women bear testimony of it. Likewise, I have heard testimony of how inspired Scouting is. I count my current SP and at least one counselor, our current ward YMP and both counselors, and a few former bishops as part of the group that has and would bear such testimony.
People had and equal or even stronger affinity for polygamy but we moved away from that practice. Times change. If the policy were to change you’d probably see people bearing testimony about how the break was inspired, etc. Recent decisions by the governing body of the boy scouts can even be used as justification. I.e. we parted ways because we aren’t following the world down the slippery slope.
I know many leaders that think parting ways with the scouts is long overdue. There are people in both camps.
There are several people in the church that are gung ho about scouts. One solution would be to have one or two troops per stake instead of one troop per ward. You could probably find several people in the stake that would be enthusiastic about being scout masters and they could implement scouts the way it was intended to be implemented. They could even make scouting a voluntary thing.
😯 Of course that wouldn’t work for rural units but there’s always troops sponsored by others.If the church drops scouting some people will want their children to continue on with scouting and look elsewhere. Those children will also be expected to continue to participate in mutual night. What if the activities are on the same night? What if parents only have the energy to support their child in one program? Are YM/YW leaders going to come pester people for not showing up to mutual? What if 80% of the YM decide to join some other troop, leaving 20% behind for the YM activities in the church? Lot’s of what ifs.
nibbler wrote:What if 80% of the YM decide to join some other troop, leaving 20% behind for the YM activities in the church? Lot’s of what ifs.
Well, one could hope that would be a wake up call to fix some issues, but I doubt it.
DarkJedi wrote:…And from another point of view, a member boy going to a troop sponsored by another church or organization may actually expose him to that which the church is trying to prevent – exposure to openly gay leaders.
The LDS church has jitters about ANYTHING sexual, like orientation. For years, I believed that intimate relations in marriage was a tolerated evil–because no one was “openly [anything]”. Now we have the church jittering over “openly gay” leaders. Well, what if those leaders were gay and not open about it?….like all the rest of the LDS people were regardless of orientation when I grew up–not open about anything? What if there was a leader who was “openly heterosexual”…(OH MY!…the scandal).
Sorry,…i’m chuckling in a sarcastic way for a moment.
This whole thing is about unwritten rules that don’t die easily it seems. If someone is gay but doesn’t act on it, they (according to the current LDS position), are in compliance with the LoC. The moment they openly say,…well, I am living worthily, and even have a temple recommend, but I am Gay…the moment they say that, they are on the outside of the LDS position regarding scouts? Slightly inconsistent, wouldn’t you say?
These kinds of discussions (and who knows if the church will pull the plug) foster shame and drive such people who have such feelings underground. What happens next? Can a gay man or lesbian woman who obey the LoC ever be called as a primary teacher, a nursery leader where they might actually be required to hold a child? WOW. There is a distinction between being gay and living a stellar life, and being a heterosexual or gay person and being an active pedophile. Why that distinction is not clearly being looked at is what I think the heart of the matter is.
I’m going to introduce a controversial component here. There is a part of me that believes the heart of the matter is this: the LDS church believes that being gay is inherently flawed and wrong, AND that such people who accept that aspect of their life are at least missionaries for the cause they themselves espouse in themselves, and at worst, are naturally inclined to pedophilia. The church can’t tolerate either, and so they must ban gay leaders. I am not entirely convinced this is not what is really going on.
These kinds of discussions (and who knows if the church will pull the plug) foster shame and drive such people who have such feelings underground. What happens next? Can a gay man or lesbian woman who obey the LoC ever be called as a primary teacher, a nursery leader where they might actually be required to hold a child? WOW. There is a distinction between being gay and living a stellar life, and being a heterosexual or gay person and being an active pedophile. Why that distinction is not clearly being looked at is what I think the heart of the matter is. I’m going to introduce a controversial component here. There is a part of me that believes the heart of the matter is this: the LDS church believes that being gay is inherently flawed and wrong, AND that such people who accept that aspect of their life are at least missionaries for the cause they themselves espouse in themselves, and at worst, are naturally inclined to pedophilia. The church can’t tolerate either, and so they must ban gay leaders. I am not entirely convinced this is not what is really going on.[/quote]
I think the LGBT community thinks exactly the same way, Rob. There is no question the church sends mixed messages and there is a change in culture regarding homosexuality that has not yet reached the ends of the rows. Leadership roulette also plays a role.
nibbler wrote:What if 80% of the YM decide to join some other troop, leaving 20% behind for the YM activities in the church?
Yeah, lots to consider. But I don’t think that would happen. My guess is that the number of YM who would go join a non-church troop would be more like 5%. More in some areas, less in others. Even those who might otherwise be inclined to do so would hesitate over the proposition of staying with an organization that the Church abandons over ‘moral’ issues.I know for me, there is no point during my scouting career that I would have wanted to be involved with a non-Church troop. That’s not to say I didn’t respect them, because I did. It was just a different social circle, and seemed a little like an alternate universe (Mr. Spock with a goatee).
I think, in fact, that the Church could face the sort of opposite problem: that there now may be many more families who opt not to enroll their sons in BSA over this recent event. There have always been a few families who didn’t have their sons join Scouting, but rare… I don’t know… 1%? But I can think of several families off the top of my head who would really struggle to join; particularly with the Church stating that it will reevaluate their involvement in scouting. We might see a significant enough number not participating in scouting that it would place a burden on YM leaders to find relevant and universally OK activities for Mutual.
DarkJedi wrote:These kinds of discussions (and who knows if the church will pull the plug) foster shame and drive such people who have such feelings underground. What happens next? Can a gay man or lesbian woman who obey the LoC ever be called as a primary teacher, a nursery leader where they might actually be required to hold a child? WOW. There is a distinction between being gay and living a stellar life, and being a heterosexual or gay person and being an active pedophile. Why that distinction is not clearly being looked at is what I think the heart of the matter is.
I’m going to introduce a controversial component here. There is a part of me that believes the heart of the matter is this: the LDS church believes that being gay is inherently flawed and wrong, AND that such people who accept that aspect of their life are at least missionaries for the cause they themselves espouse in themselves, and at worst, are naturally inclined to pedophilia. The church can’t tolerate either, and so they must ban gay leaders. I am not entirely convinced this is not what is really going on.
I think the LGBT community thinks exactly the same way, Rob. There is no question the church sends mixed messages and there is a change in culture regarding homosexuality that has not yet reached the ends of the rows. Leadership roulette also plays a role.
The only thing I would change is that I would replace “church” with “most upper leaders”, which I agree is only a slight change. But I don’t think the church as a whole (as in almost all membership) feel the same on this issue.LookingHard wrote:DarkJedi wrote:These kinds of discussions (and who knows if the church will pull the plug) foster shame and drive such people who have such feelings underground. What happens next? Can a gay man or lesbian woman who obey the LoC ever be called as a primary teacher, a nursery leader where they might actually be required to hold a child? WOW. There is a distinction between being gay and living a stellar life, and being a heterosexual or gay person and being an active pedophile. Why that distinction is not clearly being looked at is what I think the heart of the matter is.
I’m going to introduce a controversial component here. There is a part of me that believes the heart of the matter is this: the LDS church believes that being gay is inherently flawed and wrong, AND that such people who accept that aspect of their life are at least missionaries for the cause they themselves espouse in themselves, and at worst, are naturally inclined to pedophilia. The church can’t tolerate either, and so they must ban gay leaders. I am not entirely convinced this is not what is really going on.
I think the LGBT community thinks exactly the same way, Rob. There is no question the church sends mixed messages and there is a change in culture regarding homosexuality that has not yet reached the ends of the rows. Leadership roulette also plays a role.
The only thing I would change is that I would replace “church” with “most upper leaders”, which I agree is only a slight change. But I don’t think the church as a whole (as in almost all membership) feel the same on this issue.Totally agree. There is a mix with who believes in what. My use of “church” in the context of what I meant was upper leadership. We are in agreement.
There’s a new article in the Salt Lake Tribune http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2847995-156/most-utah-mormons-want-their-church ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2847995-156/most-utah-mormons-want-their-church Quote:A new UtahPolicy.com survey shows 63 percent of respondents who termed themselves “very active” in the LDS Church — both men and women — said Mormon leaders “definitely” or “probably” should bolt from the BSA and launch their own group for young male Latter-day Saints.
63 percent, or about the same percentage of members that ended up being unexpectedly “blessed” with a calling to be a quorum adviser or a den mother at some point in their church careers.
Quote:The survey found that most Utahns (54 percent) want the LDS Church to leave the Scouts, while nearly a third (32 percent) support keeping those ties.
32 percent, any time there’s a big standoff like this it’s time to get nervous when the guys on your side only make up the third part.
If the church drops the scouting program, does that mean I can skip the Friends of Scouting Drive where I ignore the Word of Wisdom when I go over to the scouting breakfast and eat grease and empty calories from burnt food that makes me sick for the next 2 days? I”M OK WITH THAT!!!!!!! Lets get out!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.