Crew in LDS Scouting?

[Delanie]

My husband is currently at odds with a bunch of the Scouting leaders in our ward. He and a select few others don't see a reason to charter a Venturing Crew if no one is actually going to run the program. They figure they could just as easily sort the boys into patrols by age/priesthood. The rest of the ward says a Venturing Crew is required for boys 16+ in LDS Scouting and it's not necessary to actually run a Venturing program.

So... what's the truth? Does the Church require a Crew to be chartered in name but does not allow the actual program?

[Backroads]

Your husband is correct. Venturing Crews are not necessary in LDS Scouting.

According to the 2011 edition of the LDS Scouting handbook...

"Each ward registers its own Cub pack, eleven-year-old Scout patrol, Boy Scout troop, Varsity team, and, when sponsored, Venturing Crew."

This implies that no, a Venturing Crew is not necessary.

According to the 2008 edition...

A Cub Scout pack, a Boy Scout troop, and a Varsity team should be chartered by every ward and branch that has two or more boys of the particular age served by the program. While Venturing crews are optional, Venturing is recommended as the activity arm of the priests quorum.

Once again, optional... with the notion that when used it should be for activities--probably referring to high adventure-type stuff for which Venturing Crews are known.

Now, in my humble opinion, I have to agree with your husband on the futility of a Venturing program if the ward is not actually going to run the Venturing program. Venturing has nothing to do with earning merit badges, making Eagle, etc. It has its own program with its own awards and advancements and it seems the average LDS ward never bothers with that sort of stuff and merely uses this as an age grouping.

Varsity Scouting, which the Church encourages, is plenty useful high-adventure activities as well. But sometimes that gets dropped to merely an age grouping.

So, if you plan on running the program, run it. But if it's there just as another place to stick boys without rhyme or reason just because you're 16, what's the point? Both the troop and the team will allow you to keep the boys in there until they're 18, which is usually when wards boot them out. (You can stay in the crew until you're 21).

By the way, chances are, the other guys in the ward have a district executive telling them they need a Venturing program so he/she can benefit.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Backroads

[Guest gopecon]

I don't know about the requirements, but it would seem silly to charter a program that will not be run. We have a small scouting program in our unit, we don't staff for every possible level, and I don't think we charter varsity or venturing programs. It seems like it would be a waste of money.

[rameumptom]

What lies behind this is it is easier to charter the boys in their age-appropriate program. If the unit only runs a Boy Scout program that is fine, because Venturing and Varsity can run in conjunction with those programs. IOW, a Venture scout can earn Eagle in a regular program.

However, once a program is officially ended, it takes a lot of going through hoops to get it restarted on the Scout District/Council level. It is just easier to charter the boys into their age range, and allow a unit to work as it needs to.

[Backroads]

What lies behind this is it is easier to charter the boys in their age-appropriate program. If the unit only runs a Boy Scout program that is fine, because Venturing and Varsity can run in conjunction with those programs. IOW, a Venture scout can earn Eagle in a regular program.

However, once a program is officially ended, it takes a lot of going through hoops to get it restarted on the Scout District/Council level. It is just easier to charter the boys into their age range, and allow a unit to work as it needs to.

Easier to charter? All I can think of this panic explosion when some 16-year-old isn't put in the Crew, like it will affect his advancements. Age range doesn't make sense in Scouting terms. Troop ages are 11-18, Varsity is 14-18, and Venturing is 14-21. There's no specified age range in the Church for these. Like Delanie said, wouldn't it be easier to just stick them all in the troop and have seperate patrols or Varsity if you have no intention to ever run a Venturing program?

Edited September 1, 2011 by Backroads

[Delanie]

IOW, a Venture scout can earn Eagle in a regular program.

But if he's in a Boy Scout program, is he a Venture Scout or just a 16-year-old kid?

[Backroads]

But if he's in a Boy Scout program, is he a Venture Scout or just a 16-year-old kid?

Just a 16-year-old kid. His age does not automatically make him a Venturer if he's only registered as a Boy Scout.

[dash77]

I have always been conflicted about Scouting in the Church. It has its place and can teach young men about camping and building a testimony (if the scout leader takes the time to build a spiritual dimension, which many do not).

Historically, Scouting developed as a program to help young men with absent fathers and the main premise was to design activities that created initial steps of simply having a father and son physically together – but with little emotional connection. Sadly, I see much of this still today in ward scouting activities – fathers that are more or less like robots, focused on accomplishing the goal at task, with little emotional connection focused on their sons. Although my sons have been active in scouting and I have two sons with eagle scouts, I have found that I have much greater involvement with them away from scouting activities, such as simply spending time with them getting an ice cream and talking. I almost think Scouting can be a crutch for fathers who do not know how to talk with their sons – so they, like in the 1800s, spend a physical space together with little emotional connection and then pat themselves on the back thinking that such was a good experience.

The other problem – implicit in this post – is that in most wards I have attend, there can be pretty selfish men who seem stuck in a pubescent stage of human development who glorify scouting – almost in a way to prove their own masculinity and they can really cause emotional and physical harm to other boys. I am shocked more physical harm does not occur with young men in church scouting because you can get dominant men who lack important outdoor education and they can attempt to do activities beyond skill levels.

I think the key is a balanced approach of having Scouting, but not having it become a dominant force. It sure would be better if scouting was more focused on boys and fathers learning to communicate better, rather than a physical space to accomplish a task.

[Backroads]

Historically, Scouting developed as a program to help young men with absent fathers and the main premise was to design activities that created initial steps of simply having a father and son physically together – but with little emotional connection.

Really? That doesn't mesh with my understanding of Scouting's origins. May I see your research?

[dash77]

Backroads:

The boys scouts program developed from the recreation movement – which was organized because (1) there were so many immigrants in American and because there were no labor laws, ruthless business leaders had immigrant parents working 14-16 hours a day –every day – that there were absent fathers and mothers at home. Also, there were many men that left American and Europe to fight the first World War. The recreation/play movement started because there were so many absent fathers.

Below is a decent website written by a history professor.

Organized Recreation and Youth Groups - From Free Play to Organized Recreation, Government Plays a Role - Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood in History and Society

The story you hear in wards about the history of WScouting are more legend that historically correct. Wikipedia has a decent history of scouting that outlines a more historically accurate account.

See: History of the Boy Scouts of America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Backroads]

Upon reading... I know pretty much most of this. I'm just not seeing where Scouting, not other youth programs, developed in so many words as a program for boys with absent fathers. That's what surprised me. But I can see the connection now.

[MarginOfError]

I have always been conflicted about Scouting in the Church. It has its place and can teach young men about camping and building a testimony (if the scout leader takes the time to build a spiritual dimension, which many do not).

I'll agree that if a scouting program is teaching boys how to camp, it is a failing program. Scouting should be focused on teaching boys process and independent thought. It should also encourage critical thinking and improvisation.

Camping--or rather, the Outdoor Program--is important to scouting only because it puts the boys in a foreign environment where there are many things they can learn. The Outdoor Program should be the classroom, not the focus. It merely puts them out of their comfort zone doing something new.

You'll notice that most of the tasks associated with Tenderfoot, Second Class, and First Class ranks are pretty simple tasks. Tie a few knots; learn some first aid; plan a menu, etc. The idea isn't to get them to learn how to camp, but to learn how to learn and apply. With the six knots those ranks require, a person can solve a lot of problems. Scouting is about using a few simple tools and some common sense to solve problems.

But if we lose focus of why we have an outdoor program, then there's really no point to the outdoor program.

Historically, Scouting developed as a program to help young men with absent fathers and the main premise was to design activities that created initial steps of simply having a father and son physically together – but with little emotional connection. Sadly, I see much of this still today in ward scouting activities – fathers that are more or less like robots, focused on accomplishing the goal at task, with little emotional connection focused on their sons.

I would agree again. If fathers are merely focused on getting their son to earn the Eagle Scout award, then they've failed to catch the vision of scouting. If they understand that it is about raising an independent, competent, and confident member of society, the program will do a lot to bring them closer to their sons.

Although my sons have been active in scouting and I have two sons with eagle scouts, I have found that I have much greater involvement with them away from scouting activities, such as simply spending time with them getting an ice cream and talking.

While I understand the message you are trying to convey, shared activities in a well run scouting program can be powerful moments to bring fathers and sons together. Experiencing things together is as important a component of a relationship as talking with each other. But you're right--if the experiences are used to avoid the talking, then it isn't going to work.

The boys in my program that I see having the best experiences with their fathers are the ones where the boy is encouraged to succeed in the program, the father comes on several of the trips (keeping his distance from the boy), but still occasionally taking the boy out for one-on-one time. It has to be a multi-pronged approach.

I almost think Scouting can be a crutch for fathers who do not know how to talk with their sons – so they, like in the 1800s, spend a physical space together with little emotional connection and then pat themselves on the back thinking that such was a good experience.

See my previous comment.

The other problem – implicit in this post – is that in most wards I have attend, there can be pretty selfish men who seem stuck in a pubescent stage of human development who glorify scouting – almost in a way to prove their own masculinity and they can really cause emotional and physical harm to other boys. I am shocked more physical harm does not occur with young men in church scouting because you can get dominant men who lack important outdoor education and they can attempt to do activities beyond skill levels.

This is a huge problem I have with scouting in the church as well. It seems rare that you find a properly trained adult leader with sufficient tenure to be effective. The two most important aspects of an activity, the BSA will tell you time and again, are Qualified Supervision and Discipline. If the leaders aren't being trained and aren't sticking to the guidelines, it damages the program incalculably.

I think the key is a balanced approach of having Scouting, but not having it become a dominant force. It sure would be better if scouting was more focused on boys and fathers learning to communicate better, rather than a physical space to accomplish a task.

I don't know that scouting can provide both in the way you are hoping for. Certainly, scouting will help boys learn to communicate more effectively (or at least it will if it is a boy-led program). But I don't think it is the place of scouting to put boys and fathers together and tell them to talk. I think Scouting does very well at creating opportunities for shared experiences. The shortcoming I see is when the fathers don't engage in the program with their sons. If the parents are dropping the kids off to have a night of babysitting, or to get a quiet weekend, that will show in the relationship eventually. The program works best when both the parents and the boys are engaged and involved in a boy-led program.

[Backroads]

Another question I have on this topic of crews...

If an LDS ward were to sponser a Crew and run the Venturing program with its awards... would the ward pay for those awards like they do with the Boy Scout stuff?

[MarginOfError]

Another question I have on this topic of crews...

If an LDS ward were to sponser a Crew and run the Venturing program with its awards... would the ward pay for those awards like they do with the Boy Scout stuff?

Yup.

[Delanie]

Well... after a frank talk with all parties and everyone's Scouting intentions...

We are dropping to only a pack and a troop for this next year.

All boys (and girls) who want to participate in Venturing can join a local crew.