Friends of Scouting


paracaidista508
 Share

Recommended Posts

Well after the recent drive that was termed "successful" they are still asking for money. In fact the Bishopric has stated they wont stop asking until every member of the ward has been given the opportunity in person to donate.

I am in AZ and these guys wont leave us alone. My sense it that the haul wasnt quite as successful as they anticipated.

Does anyone have any first-hand knowledge of how the FOS drive is going?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The friends of scouting is specific to each ward and the council they reside in.

So I don't know if anyone here could really say. I can say that every dollar counts considering that scouting is generally tight on funds. Like many nonprofits and charitable organizations every dollar counts.

Edited by Crypto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some years ago, the Church started to discourage fund raising (i.e. selling Ecoupons in front of grocery stores, etc). They've relented a little and allow one fund raiser a year.  If you live in a ward that has some boys unable to pay for High Adventure, or other major activities, they may be trying to raise money through FOS, although I'm not sure that is allowed, as FOS should go to the Council and not the ward. You can't take me for gospel on this, as I only view Scouts marginally, as a former ward finance clerk. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some years ago, the Church started to discourage fund raising (i.e. selling Ecoupons in front of grocery stores, etc). They've relented a little and allow one fund raiser a year.  If you live in a ward that has some boys unable to pay for High Adventure, or other major activities, they may be trying to raise money through FOS, although I'm not sure that is allowed, as FOS should go to the Council and not the ward. You can't take me for gospel on this, as I only view Scouts marginally, as a former ward finance clerk. 

 

Local units should not be receiving any money directly through Friends of Scouting.  FOS funds primarily council administrative costs.  National is funded primarily through corporate donations and the popcorn sales.  Local units are funded by popcorn sales and whatever other fundraisers they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Local units should not be receiving any money directly through Friends of Scouting.  FOS funds primarily council administrative costs.  National is funded primarily through corporate donations and the popcorn sales.  Local units are funded by popcorn sales and whatever other fundraisers they do.

We had popcorn sales when I lived in Ohio, but I thought that was just an Ohio thing as they raised popcorn there.

 

I guess your answer is telling the OP that they are right and it sounds like the ward didn't make the goal and or the council didn't make their goal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Does anyone have any first-hand knowledge of how the FOS drive is going?

 

This post is long and probably boring but I think it answers your question.
 
I've served as the COR in my ward, and have led the FOS drive every year for a very long time, so I know a little about the program. In answer to the question, let me give you a little background info first.
 
When I first became involved in the FOS program there was a quota assigned to each ward. There was a great deal of pressure to meet the quota, even going so far as the Stake Presidency asking bishopric members to up their donations to cover any shortfall. 
In our ward I would simply print off a ward roster, scratch off the names of those who I knew were in no financial condition to donate, and then divvy the names out to bishopric members (excluding the bishop), the YM presidency, Primary presidency, Scout committee members---essentially anyone who had anything to do with scouting. Each individual would end up with a dozen names or so.
They would be responsible to contact the individuals on their list and to collect the money. This system worked quite well and we normally made our quota and then some.
 
For whatever reason the quota system was done away with. I heard a number of different explanations but ultimately it seemed the Brethren in Salt Lake decided it wasn’t a good idea. We were simply told to collect what we could and leave it at that. 
 
The first year after the quota system had been done away with our donations dropped by more than half. It seems that not having a goal to meet provided the incentive to blow the program off. 
 
Things didn't get any better when articles regarding BSA executive salaries started hitting newsstands. People who had previously donated each year were torked off to say the least. Donations in my Stake took a huge hit that year.
The First Presidency sent out a letter reaffirming the Church’s support of the scouting program and encouraging members of the church to support it. The next year donations went up but they still weren't where they had been before the controversy.
 
Eventually people seemed to forget about the executive salaries and over the next number of years donations returned somewhat to normal. 
 
Then a couple of years ago the controversy over scouting/gays reared its ugly head. 
The BSA sent a very large and thorough questionnaire to CORs and other scouting officials around the country seeking input regarding the possibility of allowing openly homosexual scouts to participate in the program. I received one of those and I made it clear in my responses to the questions that there would be financial hell to pay if they made the decision in the affirmative. Not only was I personally against it but I had talked to numerous individuals in my ward and stake who told me in no uncertain terms that if the decision was made they would never donate another cent to the BSA.
As all of you know, the decision WAS made in the affirmative with what I would call (based on some inside information) "tepid" support from the Brethren.
 
The result was just as I had predicted. Donations in 2013 were so dismal that our Council began discussing and planning for major cuts to the program. To give you an idea, in 2012 our ward donated just shy of $2500. In 2013 we collected $300!! 
I had ward members and officers tell me that not only wouldn't they donate, but that they wouldn't ask anyone else to donate either!
Because my pool of willing individuals had dried up, I ended up with 40+ names on my list to contact for donations. Of that 40 about two thirds said "no" and 12 of those voluntarily offered the reason as being BSA's decision to allow homosexuals in the program. 
Stake wide donations were down an astounding 80%
 
I think many of us correctly predicted that the decision would make NO ONE happy. Those who wanted gays to be able to serve as adult leaders would not be satisfied, and those who wanted NO gays wouldn't be either.
 
So did the Council end up cutting programs?
Nope.
And I have no idea why except they somehow came up with the money despite the dismal FOS drive. We heard rumors to the effect that someone (the Church?) had come through and made up the difference. 
 
The following year the Brethren made a pointed effort to get individual members of the Church back on board the BSA train. They made several subsequent statements regarding the Church’s continued support, and sent a letter to all wards to be read in Sacrament meeting affirming the same.
In addition I attended a multiple-Stake meeting presided over by an Area Authority Seventy wherein it was made overtly clear that the Brethren still supported BSA and we as members of the Church should also---with our labor and money (this was shortly before the 2014 FOS drive). We were informed that there would be a new comprehensive online system (which we used for the first time in 2015) that would track donations and allow us to see in real time who had donated and who hadn't. [More about that in a minute].
 
I was personally given the task of speaking to the Priesthood in a stake meeting regarding the upcoming FOS drive.
I basically said this: Brethren, you all know my feelings regarding the decision to allow openly homosexual boys in the scouting program. I was against it then; I'm against it now. But my opinion and your opinion, whatever it may be, isn't the issue. The issue is that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are in unanimous agreement that the Church will still support the BSA program. 
Therefore I believe the Lord has spoken. I didn't contribute to FOS last year, but I will be contributing this year, and each year from here on out until the Lord decides otherwise. 
You may of course do what you want.
 
Last year when we began using the new online system we were encouraged (some would even say "badgered") to contact EVERY SINGLE individual in our ward boundaries IN PERSON and offer them the opportunity to contribute. Their names were to be entered into the database noting whether they had donated, to what amount, and if not, why? 
(Yes we were supposed to ask them why they declined to donate, but I'll be honest and say I didn't ask anyone that question and I'm confident no one else participating in the drive did either).
 
From your description of what your Bishopric said it sounds like they got the same marching orders that we got. 
 
As for how the FOS drive is going I can tell you that in 2014 donations went up substantially (at least in our Stake) over the previous year, and in 2015 they went up significantly again. 
Whether those donations have made up the difference from the loss of so many corporate donors I can't say?
All I know is that our Council (Utah National Parks) seems to be doing just fine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow.  Utah really is a different world.  

 

Here in Ohio, corporate donations are up after the membership policy change.  There was never a dip in FOS donations, but those are usually gathered at courts of honor, so its really no surprise that those who are interested enough to attend a court of honor are willing to pay some extra money.

 

I find it sad that the Utah councils have to work so hard to get their FOS donations.  And I hope it continues to get easier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This post is long and probably boring but I think it answers your question.

 

 

Yeap . . . BSA Corporate really screwed the pooch on the homosexual issue.  I've written this before, but when I was a local troop executive chairman, the district sent out a letter explaining the BSA's decision.  Basically it came down to money; corporate sponsors were not donating (i.e. the Home Depot's, UPS's of the world) b/c they were being labeled as contributing to a "homophobic" organization.  The funding was drying up at the corporate level (which is how the district chairmen get paid), so they caved to get the corporate money back.

 

Unfortunately, it was LDS members who backed this change too!  This policy change wasn't the from the National BSA Board.  It was voted on and approved at the BSA National Convention meeting where all the district chairman in the US voted on this approval.  It could not have passed had LDS district chairmen from Utah and other heavily LDS states voted it down- but they didn't.

 

Well, they made their bed . . . I will not donate to FoS or anything corporate BSA. I earned my Eagle, palms, OA, National & World Jamboree and my kid is in cub scouts. . . but fat chance of corporate ever seeing a dime that I will give them through FoS or any other fundraising drive.  I'll give to the local unit and that is it. They should have thought about the funding from Joe Schmo before they set funding from their corporate sponsors above Joe Schmo.

 

'cuz I can almost guarantee in 5-10 years the BSA will be revisiting this issue when homosexual boys that get their Eagle, go to National and World Jamboree, etc, now want to be leaders and are told NO.

 

How in the world can homosexuality be compatible with "morally straight"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'cuz I can almost guarantee in 5-10 years the BSA will be revisiting this issue when homosexual boys that get their Eagle, go to National and World Jamboree, etc, now want to be leaders and are told NO.

 

 

I believe they WILL revisit the issue and I believe they will eventually agree to accept openly homosexual adult leaders.  :weep:
 
I've never been much of a fan of 3rd party information, but I'll tell you what my Stake President (who always takes copious notes) told me after attending a meeting with Elder Jeffrey R. Holland last year. The meeting wasn't in regards to scouting, but after the business at hand had been dealt with Elder Holland opened the meeting up to questions. 
He told me that the very first question was in regards to the scouting/gays controversy. He said that Elder Holland slumped his shoulders, looked at the floor, and in mock vexation replied, "I was afraid that was coming."
He said that Elder Holland then spoke in a serious tone and replied, "brethren, we see the writing on the wall, and the Church will be prepared should we find it necessary to separate ourselves from the scouting program."
 
I thought the phrase "we see the writing on the wall" was telling. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always support the youth fundraisers in our ward.  The Young Men and Young Women each have one.  But I will not donate to the FOS.

 

Somehow BSA thought it would be a good idea to let openly gay scouts in the program but not adults.  When you send your scouts off to summer camp, guess who they go to for merit badges, it's not the adults.  What could possibly go wrong with that??

 

When they put a question about donating to FOS on the temple recommend interview, I'll do it.  But I don't see that happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the phrase "we see the writing on the wall" was telling. 

 

My thoughts on why the decision to allow openly gay kids in scouts was so the church wont appear to be the bad guy in all of this. Eventually, the support will fall out from the bottom of this and the BSA (church involvement) will disintegrate and there will be no support.

 

I found it odd when the church decided to take this position, they didnot provide any guidance on how to handle a gay kid in the troop-

Caveat: If they did, it never got to my level and I was currently serving as a scoutmaster.

Anyhow: I never heard what we are supposed to do when we are pairing up kids to sleep in their tents and no one will stay with the gay kid. I suppose we are supposed to just force a straight kid to sleep overnight with the gay one or pack up the whole group and take them home because they are a bunch of bigots. Cant win in either scenario.

 

I can only imagine the other boys will make fun of the straight kid who "slept with" the gay kid and what negative impact that would have on the straight kid- or both of them for that matter.

 

People may say that the kids have no sexual identity yet. People who say that are stoned out of their minds. Our high schools and jr highs here have tons of open lesbian kids and now the open gay boy thing is growing exponentially. Every school event I go to I see kids engaging in same sex PDA...boys and girls.

Couple this with the fact that the church focus lately has almost completely shifted to missionary work (evidence by the fact my kid rarely has scout activities, but they do church stuff on tuesdays instead) I can see the BSA going away for the LDS church probably in the next five years or less.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found it odd when the church decided to take this position, they didnot provide any guidance on how to handle a gay kid in the troop

 

 

There has been an ongoing discussion in our stake ever since the decision was made. Many of us in the scouting program didn't understand it then and still don't. 
 
The rationale seems to be this: the Church allows openly homosexual individuals to be members in good standing, partake of the Sacrament, hold callings, and even hold temple recommends as long as they adhere to the law of chastity. Their same sex attraction is inconsequential as long as they remain "morally straight". 
This being the case, why not show the same deference to homosexual boys when it comes to scouting? As long as they remain "morally straight" their same sex attraction should be inconsequential.
 
I get it, but I believe there are two major problems with this argument. 
 
First, the exact same justification could be made in regards to openly homosexual adult scout leaders. As long as they promise to be "morally straight" why should they not be allowed to participate? Why should an adult’s promise to observe the scout law be any more suspect than a young boy's promise to do so? If an openly homosexual boy should be given the benefit of the doubt; why not an openly homosexual adult?
 
Second, there is a big difference between allowing those who admit a same sex attraction to be fully engaged in the programs of the Church vs. allowing boys with same sex attraction to participate in the scouting program. At least in my ward the members aren't showering and sleeping together!!
 
The question I've asked those in favor of homosexual boys participating in the program is this: "would you be comfortable if your 12 year old son or grandson spent the night in a tent with a boy who had declared openly that he was sexually attracted to other boys?"
I have yet to receive an unequivocal "yes" answer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly, two of the boys I knew from when I was in YM/Scouting, wound up being gay.  And throughout the various campouts I did as a kid, I had at various times shared a tent with each of them.  Nothing. happened. 

 

So while I'm not *thrilled* about the idea of a gay kid sharing a tent on a campout with one of my kids; I recognize that the majority of gay kids aren't about to "put the moves" on a straight acquaintance; and in theory I can at least tolerate the risk so long as a) my kids feel empowered to reject any inappropriate advances; and b ) the gay kids in question are still fundamentally good kids.

 

But, it's one thing for a fifteen-year-old to reject the advances of another fifteen-year-old.  It's quite another to reject the advances of a grown man.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My observations will be quite different as I don't participate in LDS scouting, nor do I live in a dense LDS population.

 

The youth in my troop and in my area greeted the news of the policy change with a shrug (why is this an issue?) and a question (why aren't homosexual adults allowed?).  In the discussions I've had with the parents of our scouts, the boys just don't see it as an issue.  

 

We did have a discussion among ourselves about how to make guard against sexual activity on campouts.  As a general rule, we will always try to have at least three boys in a tent, and if we have to put two boys in a tent, we will always put two boys of similar age.  By the time the boys are 14, they are usually confident enough to stand up for themselves, and so it's the younger boys we try to keep an eye on.  But that doesn't apply to just sexual advances. That applies to all forms of hazing.  We simply try to avoid allowing the opportunity for a power imbalance between the boys sharing a tent.  We've never discussed it with the boys, and so far as we know, they aren't aware that we have any such policies.  In general, they choose to tent with their friends in their patrols who are usually of similar age anyway.

 

Amazingly, the boys in boy-led program seem to have worked it out for themselves without adult intervention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this is off-topic for the thread, but this particular statement strikes me as inaccurate. Incosequential? Hardly.

 

 

Can you explain why it's inaccurate?
 
If an individual with same-sex attraction keeps the law of chastity, is worthy to enter the temple, serves faithfully and diligently in the Church throughout his/her life, what are the consequences?
That individual can marry and be sealed to someone of the opposite sex, raise a righteous family, and do all God requires of them despite their same-sex attraction (as a number of individuals in the news are proving today.)
 
In light of these truths, why is what I wrote inaccurate?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because there are profound, lasting consequences to same-sex attraction, even in a virtuous person. Replace "same-sex attraction" with "attraction to little children", or "desire to murder the neighbors", or even "incurable halitosis", and consider whether those things are inconsequential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because there are profound, lasting consequences to same-sex attraction, even in a virtuous person. Replace "same-sex attraction" with "attraction to little children", or "desire to murder the neighbors", or even "incurable halitosis", and consider whether those things are inconsequential.

 

 

I think you’re reading more into the word "inconsequential" than I implied. I used the term only in regards to an individual's standing in the Church and before God.
The Brethren have clearly stated that same-sex attraction is not a sin as long as that attraction isn't acted upon. And if it isn't EVER acted upon, and the individual remains virtuous throughout his/her life, how then can that same-sex attraction have "profound and lasting consequences" in regards to the Church and God??
 
And substituting an "attraction to little children", or "desire to murder the neighbors" changes nothing. 
 
If a person is sexually attracted to little children but recognizes that it's wrong, never acts upon that attraction, and remains virtuous throughout his/her life, how then can that attraction have profound and lasting consequences in regards to the Church and God?
 
Even the "desire to murder one’s neighbor", if never acted upon would not have "profound and lasting consequences" as long as the offending individual recognized those feelings as being evil and endeavored to rid himself of them. 
 
I myself have more than once had a strong desire to wring the necks of a few particular politicians. However, I have never acted upon that desire, I recognize the fact that those aren't righteous feelings, and I have endeavored to suppress and rid myself of them. 
And I am confident that those occasional desires will not have "profound and lasting consequences" as long as I continue to reject them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think you’re reading more into the word "inconsequential" than I implied. I used the term only in regards to an individual's standing in the Church and before God.

I was actually responding in an attempt to explain TFP's comment. I probably should just have let him speak for himself.

 
While I would not have chosen to use the word "inconsequential", I agree with what you have written. I suspect TFP does, as well. (Though I'm all done trying to speak for him. :))
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

...as long as the offending individual recognized those feelings as being evil and endeavored to rid himself of them. 

 

I was going to debate the issue until I read this, whereupon I agree.

 

However, THIS ^ (meaning the need to do so) is, at the very least, a consequence. And that is my plain meaning.

 

Of course the new trend is that this isn't even necessary...just be whatever you happen to feel and as long as you don't do it you're fine.

 

Regardless. Struggling with ANYTHING is consequential, and to say otherwise is naive. I struggle with many, many things. They are all VERY consequential.

 

So I stand by it. Overcome-able? yes. Inconsequential? Hardly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly, two of the boys I knew from when I was in YM/Scouting, wound up being gay.  And throughout the various campouts I did as a kid, I had at various times shared a tent with each of them.  Nothing. happened. 

 

So while I'm not *thrilled* about the idea of a gay kid sharing a tent on a campout with one of my kids; I recognize that the majority of gay kids aren't about to "put the moves" on a straight acquaintance; and in theory I can at least tolerate the risk so long as a) my kids feel empowered to reject any inappropriate advances; and b ) the gay kids in question are still fundamentally good kids.

 

But, it's one thing for a fifteen-year-old to reject the advances of another fifteen-year-old.  It's quite another to reject the advances of a grown man.

 

JAG, replace gay with girl.  There is NO WAY I am sending my teen-age kid to a campout where he shares a tent with girls.  NO WAY... even if people tell me they've shared a tent with 2 of them and Nothing.  Happened. and even if the girls are fundamentally good kids.  Same thing with gays.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share