The beginning of the end....


bytor2112
 Share

Recommended Posts

Too bad that 2.3% of the population will likely destroy the BSA as we know it. Hey, they are destroying mariange, why not the BSA.

 

More here.

 

"We have noted the comments by Boy Scouts of America President Robert Gates in relation to possible policy changes in the Boy Scouts of America. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will, of course, examine any such changes very carefully to assess how they might impact our own century-long association with the BSA"

Edited by bytor2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to be candid here (and I say this as a recently-released 11-year-old leader with five years of tenure in two different wards, and now just called to be a cubmaster):

 

This water-gun nonsense just confirms what I've suspected for a long time:  These overpaid bozos at National have no freakin' idea what it's actually like to work with boys.

 

I'm tired.

 

I'm tired of overpriced uniforms.  I'm tired of a program in a constant state of flux, requiring the purchase of a never-ending array of updated "training materials".  I'm tired of roundtable meetings where they spend fifteen minutes berating us because our Friends of Scouting contributions weren't higher--knowing very well that the guy delivering the sermon makes three times my annual salary.  I'm tired of my local Council Office, which has taken three weeks to figure out if the materials for the 2015 Cub Scout program are or aren't actually available for purchase yet.  I'm tired of whatever committee of boneheads decided that the creepy new computer-generated cub scout character that's all over the new books, is something the boys would think is "cool".  I'm tired of sub-par websites and support services, and byzantine advancement tracking/procurement protocols.  I'm tired of staff at National who can barely speak English but are assigned to "customer service".  I'm tired of needing multiple layers of permission and approvals and "tour permits" to drive my boys to a Cabela's five miles away because it's technically out of our district or council or whatever.

 

I do what I do because I respect the Church and want to help it move forward--and frankly, I like the kids I work with, which makes it all easier.  But, as for the BSA? 

 

As far as I'm concerned--the gays can have it.

 

Oh--and there will be water pistols at our next pack meeting; national nincompoops bedarned.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

political correctness 101

 Exactly. It's disgraceful. Yes, I am a firm believer in the second amendment but my parents were very anti gun and even they let me play with water guns. I had a super soaker and it was so much fun! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Exactly. It's disgraceful. Yes, I am a firm believer in the second amendment but my parents were very anti gun and even they let me play with water guns. I had a super soaker and it was so much fun! 

 

lol, who DIDN'T have a squirt pistol or super soaker? I just have to shake my head and wonder, "how did we survive?" :rolleyes: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

lol, who DIDN'T have a squirt pistol or super soaker? I just have to shake my head and wonder, "how did we survive?" :rolleyes:

lol. Dude, I'm not the outdoorsy type in the least but I do have some good memories of water gun fights with my friends on hot summer days. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever one we leave them......choose wisely and take a stand.

 

For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people,  and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good,   therefore they were ripening for destruction,  for the laws had become corrupted.  Yea, and this was not all; they were a stiffnecked people, insomuch that they could not be governed by the law nor justice,  save it were to their destruction. - Helaman 5:2-3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pondering my youthful experiences in the Boy Scouts.  I don't know whether any of my leaders were gay.  But my dad thought some of them were, at least judging by some of his remarks back then.  I got pantsed and thrown in a lake a time or two.  Never bothered to worry whether any other males were looking too closely at my "boyhood".  Although I do recall some of the more prudish (in my opinion back then) church members grumbling about pictures of our antics at the occasional church-sponsored banquets.  

 

Some of the leaders were single all their lives, and others were married, of course.  (On the other hand in retrospect I see that one or two of the leaders were probably too heterosexual judging by events that later lead to their divorces.)  And it has been interesting to "learn" years later that this so-and-so or that so-and-so was gay all along.  Still, I managed to grow up interested in girls and none the worse for wear without any indoctrination or seduction.  Oh well, just one man's experiences.  I'm sure there are counter-experiences out there--there always are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are a few paragraphs from Robert Gates' speech:

I REMIND YOU OF THE RECENT DEBATES WE HAVE SEEN IN PLACES LIKE INDIANA AND ARKANSAS OVER DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION, NOT TO MENTION THE IMPENDING U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION THIS SUMMER ON GAY MARRIAGE. I AM NOT ASKING THE NATIONAL BOARD FOR ANY ACTION TO CHANGE OUR CURRENT POLICY AT THIS MEETING. BUT I MUST SPEAK AS PLAINLY AND BLUNTLY TO YOU AS I SPOKE TO PRESIDENTS WHEN I WAS DIRECTOR OF CIA AND SECRETARY OF DEFENSE. WE MUST DEAL WITH THE WORLD AS IT IS, NOT AS WE MIGHT WISH IT TO BE. THE 14 STATUS QUO IN OUR MOVEMENT’S MEMBERSHIP STANDARDS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED.
 
...ALTERNATIVELY, WE CAN MOVE AT SOME FUTURE DATE – BUT SOONER RATHER THAN LATER – TO SEIZE CONTROL OF OUR OWN FUTURE, SET OUR OWN COURSE AND CHANGE OUR POLICY IN ORDER TO ALLOW CHARTER PARTNERS – UNIT SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS – TO DETERMINE THE STANDARDS FOR THEIR SCOUT LEADERS. SUCH AN APPROACH WOULD ALLOW ALL CHURCHES, WHICH SPONSOR SOME 70% OF OUR SCOUT UNITS, TO ESTABLISH LEADERSHIP STANDARDS CONSISTENT WITH THEIR FAITH. WE MUST, AT ALL COSTS, PRESERVE THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OF OUR CHURCH PARTNERS TO DO THIS.
 
...FOR ME, I SUPPORT A POLICY THAT ACCEPTS AND RESPECTS OUR DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES AND BELIEFS, ALLOWS RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS – BASED ON FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM – TO ESTABLISH THEIR OWN STANDARDS FOR ADULT LEADERS, AND PRESERVES THE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA NOW AND FOREVER. I TRULY FEAR THAT ANY OTHER ALTERNATIVE WILL BE THE END OF US AS A NATIONAL MOVEMENT. (Robert M. Gates, National Annual Business Meeting Remarks, May 21, 2015)

This of course is just another step in the saga of LGBT and the BSA. Perhaps Dr. Gates is right and the BSA must act now to allow each of the units to make their own choice whether to allow LGBT leaders in their troops. Perhaps, as he suggests, if they do not make this step it will be dictated to them by the courts.

I have been in a scout capacity for the last five years and am currently serving as a Varsity Coach. My concern is for the youth of the church. Yes the program is hard to navigate, yes they make it hard to go on campouts and trips, but these things can be done. We have been going on almost monthly campouts and to many places around the valley for our activities.

 

My larger concern is still with parents and leaders who are unsupportive. News like the above address, flashes around the internet and even members do not want to support the program. Usually what this amounts to is leaders who have no enthusiasm, parents who think sports and work are better substitutes, and a community who will not contribute at any level. Where does this leave the young men? Unsurprisingly many have a negative attitude, just like everyone else. 

 

Some might say, leave the BSA. But the real problem is that there is nothing to take the place of Scouting. If someone believes there is, please show me that program. It is not the YW program. Almost everyone acknowledges that the YM's program has more structure and more support behind it than the YW program. If the church were to separate itself from the BSA what would we have? The Duty to God program? Clearly without Scouting the Duty to God program is woefully incomplete. See until we are fully out, we must be fully in. 

 

What we really need are leaders who recognize what the BSA offers and are excited about what it can do for young men. We need leaders who support the district and council to help make better decisions. We need parents who recognize that well functioning scout, varisty, and venture programs are more valuable to the development of their young men then work and sports will ever be.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too bad that 2.3% of the population will likely destroy the BSA as we know it. Hey, they are destroying mariange, why not the BSA.

 

I predicted this in another thread. 
It's only a matter of time before the Church leaves the BSA. The left-wing zealots will ultimately take over the organization just as they did the Girl Scouts, and the BSA will end up just as morally irrelevant as they are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make some great points, James.  But, as Julius told Gary in Remember the Titans,

 

"Attitude reflects leadership . . . Captain."

 

Gates is showing himself to be out-of-touch with the rank and file.  For me, it's not about religious groups being able to feel better about themselves by excluding a particular group of theologically-defined outcastes.  It's about giving my boys a group experience free of the sexual tension that inevitably comes from the presence of those who may find them sexually attractive.  That's why we call it the Boy Scouts of America, and why we don't typically do much with the Girl Scouts.  

 

Now, I'm not saying that gays are inherently pedophiles or anything like that.  But--gay or straight--humans are generally hard-wired to find youths in their late teens, sexually attractive to some degree.  I wouldn't send my boys to a scout camp where they'd be sharing restroom and bathing facilities with adult women who might conceivably be attracted to them, and I certainly won't do it if they may be sharing such facilities with adult men who might conceivably be attracted to them. 

 

So what Gates is basically telling me is, "Go ahead, JAG--enroll your kids, pay your dues, do your little campouts (as long as we give you the proper permits!), buy our overpriced schlock, raise obscene amounts of money through the Friends of Scouting drive, and use your professional connections to get us a juicy corporate sponsorship--but we're still going to enact a policy that, given your concerns and priorities, essentially renders our scout camps, jamobrees, Philmont . . . pretty much every activity and facility above the troop level, utterly unusable to you."  Under those circumstances, what does it really mean to be "fully in" with the BSA?

 

I don't need the BSA to take my kids camping, or to teach them to tie knots or proper flag etiquitte; and it is not a sine qua non for raising virtuous young men.  Nine million Mormons who live outside of the US, presumably agree.  And while LDS scouting certainly has its training issues, there are also thousands of American scout leaders who actually do a pretty decent job--and certainly millions of Mormons sending their money back to Irving as part of these Friends of Scouting drives.  It appears that Gates has decided the BSA doesn't need them.  They are inching towards a wholesale abandonment of their core values and the markets they currently serve, in favor of some will-o'-the-wisp "growth sector" they think they can tap into if they just tweak their product a bit.  Gates could take a lesson from the RLDS/Communities of Christ, which went down the same road in the early 1980s.

 

Gates, and BSA National, are of course free to treat us with the disregard or contempt they think we deserve; and we in turn are free to point out the truth of just how utterly irrelevant (and occasionally counterproductive) they are to our day-to-day Scouting experiences.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make some great points, James.  But, as Julius told Gary in Remember the Titans,

 

"Attitude reflects leadership . . . Captain."

 

Gates is showing himself to be out-of-touch with the rank and file.  For me, it's not about religious groups being able to feel better about themselves by excluding a particular group of theologically-defined outcastes.  It's about giving my boys a group experience free of the sexual tension that inevitably comes from the presence of those who may find them sexually attractive.  That's why we call it the Boy Scouts of America, and why we don't typically do much with the Girl Scouts.  

 

Now, I'm not saying that gays are inherently pedophiles or anything like that.  But--gay or straight--humans are generally hard-wired to find youths in their late teens, sexually attractive to some degree.  I wouldn't send my boys to a scout camp where they'd be sharing restroom and bathing facilities with adult women who might conceivably be attracted to them, and I certainly won't do it if they may be sharing such facilities with adult men who might conceivably be attracted to them.

I'm not defending Robert Gates, he may be out of touch.  However, it is possible that he sees threats at a national level that we do not. I tend to agree with him that sooner or later this will come down to a court battle and one judge or another will determine that LGBT leaders must be allowed. The option to act will be taken away from the BSA. This is more your area of expertise so perhaps you could comment. 

 

I also agree there should be separation between boys and leaders. This is already a rule of the BSA. For example, rules are in place which tell leaders and boys to shower separately. So I think your example of gay people lusting after boys in showers or bathrooms is a bit far fetched, but I do understand the concern. There may be further options here. Might a district decide if they will allow LGBT leaders? Perhaps a council can decide? 

 

So what Gates is basically telling me is, "Go ahead, JAG--enroll your kids, pay your dues, do your little campouts (as long as we give you the proper permits!), buy our overpriced schlock, raise obscene amounts of money through the Friends of Scouting drive, and use your professional connections to get us a juicy corporate sponsorship--but we're still going to enact a policy that, given your concerns and priorities, essentially renders our scout camps, jamobrees, Philmont . . . pretty much every activity and facility above the troop level, utterly unusable to you."  Under those circumstances, what does it really mean to be "fully in" with the BSA?

 

I don't need the BSA to take my kids camping, or to teach them to tie knots or proper flag etiquitte; and it is not a sine qua non for raising virtuous young men.  Nine million Mormons who live outside of the US, presumably agree.  And while LDS scouting certainly has its training issues, there are also thousands of American scout leaders who actually do a pretty decent job--and certainly millions of Mormons sending their money back to Irving as part of these Friends of Scouting drives.  It appears that Gates has decided the BSA doesn't need them.  They are inching towards a wholesale abandonment of their core values and the markets they currently serve, in favor of some will-o'-the-wisp "growth sector" they think they can tap into if they just tweak their product a bit.  Gates could take a lesson from the RLDS/Communities of Christ, which went down the same road in the early 1980s.

 

Gates, and BSA National, are of course free to treat us with the disregard or contempt they think we deserve; and we in turn are free to point out the truth of just how utterly irrelevant (and occasionally counterproductive) they are to our day-to-day Scouting experiences.

JAG, because nine million Mormon's outside the US are not in scouting does not mean they agree with you. Most have simply not had the opportunity. 

 

I understand you are frustrated with the scout red tape and spending practices, among others but are you suggesting that it is easier for parents to do it alone? Again, my initial question creeps up, what is the substitute? Do you really think scouts is just about tying knots and flag etiquette? Or is it about giving responsibility to young men, expecting a great deal from them, and helping them accomplish hard things? Further, when combined with the church, can't outdoor experiences help put the young men in a different environment where they can more easily feel the spirit and strengthen each other?  It is easy to attack existing structures and organizations. I see it all the time. But what we need is something better and if you cannot suggest something better than it just amounts to tearing something good down. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, it is possible that he sees threats at a national level that we do not. I tend to agree with him that sooner or later this will come down to a court battle and one judge or another will determine that LGBT leaders must be allowed. 

 

Perhaps Gates needs to bone up on current events.
The question has already been decided in the courts, James. 
A scoutmaster by the name of James Dale went public with his homosexuality and was subsequently expelled from the BSA.
His case made its way to the Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled (June, 2000) that BSA is a private organization and has a constitutional right to exclude homosexuals. The court ruled that opposition to homosexuality is part of BSA's "expressive message" and that allowing homosexuals as adult leaders would interfere with that message. 
 
If Gates wants to allow openly homosexual adults to serve as scout leaders now, because eventually the courts will rule that BSA has to allow them; he is either dishonest or an ignoramus.  
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps Gates needs to bone up on current events.

The question has already been decided in the courts, James. 
A scoutmaster by the name of James Dale went public with his homosexuality and was subsequently expelled from the BSA.
His case made its way to the Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled (June, 2000) that BSA is a private organization and has a constitutional right to exclude homosexuals. The court ruled that opposition to homosexuality is part of BSA's "expressive message" and that allowing homosexuals as adult leaders would interfere with that message. 
 
If Gates wants to allow openly homosexual adults to serve as scout leaders now, because eventually the courts will rule that BSA has to allow them; he is either dishonest or an ignoramus.  

 

Calling Robert Gates uniformed is completely off base. In fact he even mentions the James Dale case and his speech. He further states his belief that the BSA defenses have weakened since that point. He says:

 

MOREOVER, DOZENS OF STATES – FROM NEW YORK TO UTAH – ARE PASSING LAWS THAT PROTECT EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ON THE BASIS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION. THUS, BETWEEN INTERNAL CHALLENGES AND POTENTIAL LEGAL CONFLICTS, THE BSA FINDS ITSELF IN AN UNSUSTAINABLE POSITION. A POSITION THAT MAKES US VULNERABLE TO THE POSSIBILITY THE COURTS SIMPLY WILL ORDER US AT SOME POINT TO CHANGE OUR MEMBERSHIP POLICY. WE 15 MUST ALL UNDERSTAND THAT THIS PROBABLY WILL HAPPEN SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.

 

IN 2010, A FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGE IN CALIFORNIA OVERTURNED THE MILITARY’S DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL LAW AND THE REVERSAL WAS APPLIED NATIONWIDE IMMEDIATELY. ONLY A STAY GRANTED BY THE APPEALS COURT – GRANTED, I BELIEVE, MAINLY BECAUSE WE WERE IN THE PROCESS OF CHANGING THE LAW – PREVENTED DRAMATIC DISRUPTION IN THE ARMED FORCES.

 

WE CANNOT PREDICT IF OR WHEN THIS MIGHT HAPPEN TO US, BUT I PERSONALLY BELIEVE OUR LEGAL DEFENSES HAVE WEAKENED SINCE THE DALE CASE. AND IF WE WAIT FOR THE COURTS TO ACT, WE COULD END UP WITH A BROAD RULING THAT COULD FORBID ANY KIND OF MEMBERSHIP STANDARD, INCLUDING OUR FOUNDATIONAL BELIEF IN OUR DUTY TO GOD AND OUR FOCUS ON SERVING 16 THE SPECIFIC NEEDS OF BOYS. WAITING FOR THE COURTS IS A GAMBLE WITH HUGE STAKES.

Sorry CO but I don't think you are better informed than he is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not defending Robert Gates, he may be out of touch.  However, it is possible that he sees threats at a national level that we do not. I tend to agree with him that sooner or later this will come down to a court battle and one judge or another will determine that LGBT leaders must be allowed. The option to act will be taken away from the BSA. This is more your area of expertise so perhaps you could comment. 

 

From a legal standpoint:  As a general matter, I do think--and have expressed on these forums previously--that if existing nondiscrimination legislation (Civil Rights Act of 1964, especially) is amended to include protections based on sexual orientation, then you're going to have MAJOR problems with any entity (commercial, nonprofit, religious, or whatever) maintaining the sort of policies the BSA has. 

 

The BSA is additionally uniquely vulnerable, I think (and I'm actually surprised this hasn't come up in preceding litigation) because, as I understand it, it is incorporated under a specific Congressional charter and enjoys some specific protections that other incorporated youth groups are not eligible for.  To me the prospect of BSA losing its congressional charter is actually the more interesting (and, in the short term, likely) scenario--can it simply reincorporate and continue on?  What happens to properties titled in the name of BSA--do they pass to the successor, non-federally-chartered entity, or do they escheat to the federal government?  But from what I gather, that's not the question Gates is asking.  From the extracts you cite--and in conjunction with BSA's numerous initiatives to increase its own membership numbers---it frankly sounds like National is generally more interested in growing the organization and keeping it "national", than it is committed to its current stated purposes and the people who accept those purposes as they stand.

 

Does the BSA believe in its own principles, or does it not?  If it's willing to sell out its vision of "morally straight" in order to stay "national" and "relevant", what does that say for its ideals of "honor" and "duty" and "bravery" and "God"?  Quite bluntly:  It says that they're negotiable, too; and that BSA adopts them only insofar as they serve to attract dues-paying members, chartering organizations, and corporate donors.

 

I also agree there should be separation between boys and leaders. This is already a rule of the BSA. For example, rules are in place which tell leaders and boys to shower separately. So I think your example of gay people lusting after boys in showers or bathrooms is a bit far fetched, but I do understand the concern. There may be further options here. Might a district decide if they will allow LGBT leaders? Perhaps a council can decide? 

 

The reason Gates (and many others) think it would be legally viable to simply let each troop make its own policy, is that troops technically are subsidiaries of the chartering organization, not the BSA itself.  BSA thinks it can argue that the troops are legally independent bodies and that BSA itself won't be held liable for any discriminatory policies that the troops adopt.  (I think that argument might buy the BSA an extra five years; but I think it's going to prove an untenable distinction in the long term.  BSA spent a century requiring "independent" troops to discriminate; its protestations that it now can't prohibit "independent" troops from discriminating will ring pretty hollow.)  At any rate--districts and councils, being wholly-owned subsidiaries of the BSA, are going to be a different story--if they buck National policy, National will be liable; so National will keep them on a pretty tight leash.

 

And BSA youth protection policies are only as good as the individuals they bind (as lawsuit after lawsuit reminds us).  Would you send your kid to a youth camp with mixed leadership, all using unisex facilities?  I wouldn't.  The Church, so far as I know, doesn't.

 

 

JAG, because nine million Mormon's outside the US are not in scouting does not mean they agree with you. Most have simply not had the opportunity. 

 

I understand you are frustrated with the scout red tape and spending practices, among others but are you suggesting that it is easier for parents to do it alone? Again, my initial question creeps up, what is the substitute? Do you really think scouts is just about tying knots and flag etiquette? Or is it about giving responsibility to young men, expecting a great deal from them, and helping them accomplish hard things? Further, when combined with the church, can't outdoor experiences help put the young men in a different environment where they can more easily feel the spirit and strengthen each other?  It is easy to attack existing structures and organizations. I see it all the time. But what we need is something better and if you cannot suggest something better than it just amounts to tearing something good down.

 

I think this is kind of an inaccurate comparison here, James.  Surely you don't mean to imply that the BSA is the only institution that gives responsibility to young men, expects a great deal from them, and helps them accomplish hard things?  Surely you would agree that the BSA does not hold a monopoly on outdoor experiences?  Surely you don't mean to suggest that foreign LDS Church members are inferior priesthood holders, or inferior men, because they had no access to BSA?

 

At a fundamental level--and this is something BSA National and many of its apologists don't seem to understand--Scouting is not the program.  Scouting is the ideals and the people.  In LDS Scouting, the people come from the Church and the ideals come from a mixture of modern revelation and the writings of Lord Baden-Powell.  Where does the corporate BSA come into that?  Mostly in 1) scout camps, 2) program updates, and 3) uniforms and insignia.  Items 2) and 3) are relatively easily substituted, and BSA seems to now be seriously considering a policy that will effectually deny us the use of 1).  Why, then, do we stay?  At this point, one reason and one reason only--the Lord has not yet asked asked the Church to leave. 

 

I'm not going so far as to affirmatively advocate the LDS Church's abandonment of the BSA--that's not my call.  I am, however, asking the BSA to quit doing stupid crap; and I have no problem with telling them that if they don't quit doing stupid crap I am ready, willing, and able to carry on without them as soon as Thomas Monson snaps his fingers.  That's not tearing them down.  It's an (admittedly, impolitic) way of trying to get them to build the program up by reminding them of what their priorities are supposed to be.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calling Robert Gates uniformed is completely off base...

Sorry CO but I don't think you are better informed than he is.

 

Sorry, James, but being "informed" isn't the issue.

 

What little respect I have for Gates and his ilk would be difficult to measure, which is why I didn't bother to read his speech. I was primarily responding to your statement--- "I tend to agree with him that sooner or later this will come down to a court battle and one judge or another will determine that LGBT leaders must be allowed."
Exactly who would these "one judge or another" be? Will some federal district judge rise up and with a wave of his magic gavel overturn the SCOTUS ruling??
 
Gates' putative worry about the courts is pure B.S. in my opinion. Gates is an ideologue who, during his time as Defense Secretary, turned the military into a petri dish for various leftist sociopolitical crusades. It was Gates who enthusiastically dismantled the military's “Don't ask, Don't tell" policy, and rather than "one judge or another" it will be Gates and his toadies who dismantle the BSA policy.
 
Gates is happily pounding nails in the BSA coffin while the body inside is still still breathing. When it exhales for the final time he'll simply move on to the next campaign. 
Edited by Capitalist_Oinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate your take on the situation from a legal stand point and I do agree with you that Gates does appear to be a bit too concerned with building membership numbers at too high a cost. 

 

 

 

At a fundamental level--and this is something BSA National and many of its apologists don't seem to understand--Scouting is not the program.  Scouting is the ideals and the people.

Of course, but structure is what aids good people to act on ideals. Without the program there is no cohesion and joint effort. The structure includes things like merit badges, leader training, camps, and clear expectation of what a youth needs to accomplish. From an activity standpoint this is exactly what the church does not have. I don't see how President Monson can snap his fingers and have a structure of equal value. If the church were serious about leaving the BSA I would expect them to start developing a program that can replace the above structure. But as of this moment I do not see it. 

 

Instead what I do see is Bishops, Stake Presidents, Area Authorities, YM leaders, and parents, bemoaning the fact that we are losing young men while at the same time not supporting a program to keep them engaged. As former YM President Charles W. Dahlquist once said, "With few exceptions, where leaders are well trained and Scouting is strong, so is the Aaronic Priesthood and Duty to God" (2007 Aaronic Priesthood Scouting Broadcast). I have yet to see his statement proven wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, but structure is what aids good people to act on ideals. Without the program there is no cohesion and joint effort. The structure includes things like merit badges, leader training, camps, and clear expectation of what a youth needs to accomplish. From an activity standpoint this is exactly what the church does not have. I don't see how President Monson can snap his fingers and have a structure of equal value. If the church were serious about leaving the BSA I would expect them to start developing a program that can replace the above structure. But as of this moment I do not see it. 

 

I think you short-sell the existing Church structure in general, and the YM/AP quorum structure in particular.  That provides a very similar structure to the BSA, right down to the boy-led units.  Most of the other so-called "building blocks of Scouting" have analogues within the existing LDS Church organizational structure and/or theology; the glaring exception being the advancement structure.  Even then, I wouldn't be too sure that the Church has no parallel advancement program in reserve, or even in active operation in countries where the Church doesn't affiliate with Scouting. 

 

And, even if we don't have anything ready and some sort of borrowing from the BSA's rank/merit badge curriculum proves unworkable, the Church's building its own program is certainly doable.  We've done it in the past for other auxiliaries (check out the 1915 Beehive manual, on the Internet archive).  We can do it again.  The BSA had about $248 million in annual revenue for 2013; the LDS Church had estimated revenue of $6-$7 billion for the same period--about twenty-four times that of the BSA.  Meanwhile, the folks over at Trail Life USA have done exactly what we're talking about doing, in the past couple of years, on a shoestring budget and with a membership of barely 20,000.  By my count the Church could draw on a global pool of boys eight times that number, immediately.*  So, no; as a church we are not inept without BSA hand-holding; and we are not incapable of building a quality program for boys on our own.

 

The only area where I think an LDS-sponsored program would really be inferior to the BSA, would be that outside of the Mormon Corridor you don't have the available pool of resources with the wide knowledge base that it would take to put together a viable system of merit badge counselors. 

 

*The LDS Church has 122,000 new children of record annually--over seventeen years, that's two million kids.  Assume half are boys--that's one million.  Assume half of those are 8 or older--that's 500,000.  Assume 35% of those are active--that's 175,000 boys. 

 

 

Instead what I do see is Bishops, Stake Presidents, Area Authorities, YM leaders, and parents, bemoaning the fact that we are losing young men while at the same time not supporting a program to keep them engaged. As former YM President Charles W. Dahlquist once said, "With few exceptions, where leaders are well trained and Scouting is strong, so is the Aaronic Priesthood and Duty to God" (2007 Aaronic Priesthood Scouting Broadcast). I have yet to see his statement proven wrong.

 

I agree that LDS scout leaders who won't do their job are a pain in the neck (I've been fortunate to never have to deal with unsupportive bishoprics).  On the other hand, I think there are light years of difference between being a good scout leader, versus drinking the BSA Kool-Aid.  As a people, we will be perfectly able to raise up decent boys into good men, even if (when?) BSA forces us to part ways due to its haring off full-tilt after Babylon.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how President Monson can snap his fingers and have a structure of equal value. If the church were serious about leaving the BSA I would expect them to start developing a program that can replace the above structure. But as of this moment I do not see it. 

 

In the FOS thread awhile back I wrote about something Elder Holland said regarding the BSA, which was this: "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."

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