Church re-evaluating Scouting Program


pam
 Share

Recommended Posts

We had a quota last year....we were told in Priesthood mtg our ward was expected to pony up $2200. 

 

Hmmm?  :hmmm:
I'd be very interested in knowing where this quota request originated from?
Do you know for sure?
Did it come from the Stake or higher up?
I discussed this with two individuals from councils other than my own, and they agreed that the quota system had been done away with by mutual agreement between BSA and the Church. So I'm very curious to know who requested a quota in your ward or Stake?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO the problem with eagle projects benefiting the chartering org isn't that the boy's not learning how to lead, plan, supervise and execute; it's that it risks leading the scout to turn inwards and focus on his existing social circle rather than looking outwards and becoming an involved member of the larger community.

 

And this is the problem with a lot of Church activities, and IMO, one of the reasons a lot of folks raised in the Church tend to be awkward in regular society; not because of the beliefs, but because they've been encouraged to only interact with other members so much.  Learning to lead a bunch of Mormons and then going out into the world hoping to use those leadership skills is like being a DI for 20 years, then not understanding why those same methods don't work so well in civilian life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Hmmm?  :hmmm:
I'd be very interested in knowing where this quota request originated from?
Do you know for sure?
Did it come from the Stake or higher up?
I discussed this with two individuals from councils other than my own, and they agreed that the quota system had been done away with by mutual agreement between BSA and the Church. So I'm very curious to know who requested a quota in your ward or Stake?

 

THis was a member of the Bishopric who stated it. As for origination??? Don't know and not worried about it as we have always had a quota.

Do I know what for sure??? That it was said? Yes. My mind sometimes tells me to do crazy things, but whatever I think I hear, is what I hear. At least that is what the voices in my head tell me.

I don't know if it came from stake level or higher up. I never asked because it was of no concern to me. It would not surprise me because our stake is constantly announcing arbitrary goals and quotas from the pulpit (via the Bishopric) re indexing ( I think our goals is in the neighborhood of a million something), every adult ward member WILL go out with the missionaries....don't know how that works with the women, but I am sure that was meant for men only as we are the only ones who are actually commanded to do missionary work. For everyone else it is optional supposedly.

Just because the authorities in your area are doing all the right things policy-wise doesn't mean mine are. We do have two members at the high priest level in the stake who are paid employees of the council so maybe they are lobbying for a raise pending outstanding marketing returns......who knows.

No matter- I'm not giving them anything anyways.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do I know what for sure??? That it was said? Yes. My mind sometimes tells me to do crazy things, but whatever I think I hear, is what I hear. At least that is what the voices in my head tell me.

 

I'm sorry, apparently I phrased the question poorly. I wasn't suggesting that you might be wrong about the request; I was just curious if you knew for sure where the request originated from?
 
From what you say, I'm guessing it came from the Stake and not from an Area Seventy or from your BSA Council.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm sorry, apparently I phrased the question poorly. I wasn't suggesting that you might be wrong about the request; I was just curious if you knew for sure where the request originated from?
 
From what you say, I'm guessing it came from the Stake and not from an Area Seventy or from your BSA Council.

 

No drama....yep prob the stake, but like I said, we have a couple paid district / council execs or something like that in our stake so poss it can come from the district / council...hooo knows

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know how our LDS reps on the BSA executive council voted? in RE to the allowance of openly Gay leaders?

 

I have found an article inferring the LDS members of the BSA Executive Council were not present for the vote:

 

http://www.bgdailynews.com/features/mormons-struggle-with-scout-vote-on-gay-leaders/article_adc52b08-a832-558c-830a-0e079ebe0036.html

 

"Reconciling its relationship with the Boy Scouts as the national youth group become more accepting of gay equality appears to be growing more difficult for the Mormon Church, whose press office put out a statement Monday, saying leaders were “deeply troubled” by the lifting of the ban, as well as by the fact that they had asked for a delay in the vote because the church bureaucracy takes off in July."

 

I'm no genius at reading into things, but it would appear that many of or all of the LDS members of the BSA executive Council didn't even vote on this because they were......on vacation?

 

Has anyone heard this? Perhaps it is just me, but if our church feels so strongly about not allowing openly Gay leaders you would think they all would have jumped on a plane to go vote on this.

If this is the case, why did they not show up?

If they didn't vote because they were on vacation then I am very disappointed.

I hope I am wrong.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Save your disappointment for the BSA, who pushed this vote through immediately, despite pleas from the LDS Church (their single largest sponsoring organization) to postpone the vote -- and likely BECAUSE the LDS Church had not yet met and would not be ready. The policy change would have been implemented anyway, but the Church's opposition would have been uncomfortable for the BSA. At least, that's my read.

 

To be "disappointed" in the Church because they didn't participate in the July vote is like being "disappointed" in your son for getting beat up at school because he was wearing a hoodie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Reconciling its relationship with the Boy Scouts as the national youth group become more accepting of gay equality appears to be growing more difficult for the Mormon Church, whose press office put out a statement Monday, saying leaders were “deeply troubled” by the lifting of the ban, as well as by the fact that they had asked for a delay in the vote because the church bureaucracy takes off in July."

 

I'm no genius at reading into things, but it would appear that many of or all of the LDS members of the BSA executive Council didn't even vote on this because they were......on vacation?

 

Has anyone heard this? Perhaps it is just me, but if our church feels so strongly about not allowing openly Gay leaders you would think they all would have jumped on a plane to go vote on this.

If this is the case, why did they not show up?

If they didn't vote because they were on vacation then I am very disappointed.

I hope I am wrong.

 

It's true that the vote was held during their "vacation" period (can't remember what the actual dates are). I'm inclined to give a little more leniency considering a few things.

 

First, I don't think it's a secret that those general authorities dedicate far more of their time and energy to church matters than an average person at a full-time job. Schedules can be rather demanding, especially with travel. Is it fair that more than average should be expected of them? I'd say so. That doesn't mean that there's no value in dedicating some time to take a break. They're human and have their own limitations and things like families that I certainly hope they're not expected to completely neglect.

 

So then if it's not a secret that they typically have a block of time off, why would the BSA schedule a vote during that period regarding an issue that's huge for the group who wouldn't be there, especially considering that they represent a large portion of the BSA's membership? It seems a little underhanded, and I don't think the request to delay the vote is unreasonable at all. So the BSA denies the request -- do we go to the meeting anyway or stay home? Should there be a pattern of bending over backwards for non-church organizations?

 

The suggestion that they weren't present simply because they were on vacation doesn't give consideration to factors other than being on vacation, and there are plenty of those. I just don't see them deciding not to go simply because they're kicking back in the Bahamas. If that's all it were I imagine they could handle a couple days back for a major issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The suggestion that they weren't present simply because they were on vacation doesn't give consideration to factors other than being on vacation, and there are plenty of those. I just don't see them deciding not to go simply because they're kicking back in the Bahamas. If that's all it were I imagine they could handle a couple days back for a major issue.

 

The big question to me is how many people would actually have been present/voting at the meeting?  Everything else could be done with conference calls, and I just don't see it as that huge of an issue, considering the Church's general handling of emergency logistics, to get even a fairly large number of people to one place for a day, then back to where they were ASAP afterward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be "disappointed" in the Church because they didn't participate in the July vote is like being "disappointed" in your son for getting beat up at school because he was wearing a hoodie.

Wearing a hoodie??? So the church's stance on Gay adult leaders is the equivalent of wearing a hoodie to school?

 

I'm disappointed because apparently this wasn't important enough to make sure other scheduled events (vacation it seems) wasn't postponed or whatever needed to get our vote in there.

Then again maybe it really isn't all that important. If it isn't, someone should just stand up and say so instead of acting like we have been victimized because of a last minute vote. We get lectured all the time about standing up for what we believe, be brave, etc.... and we cant even take a couple days off vacation or Skype our vote?

I'm pretty sure the church has the resources to get those folks there IF THEY WANTED THEM THERE. We do amazing things and I'm pretty sure it would not be too hard to shift things around on a calendar for things that supposedly are important. Granted they may have had other things scheduled, but is a Stake conference, meeting with a patriarch or whatever more important than the future of a key part of our priesthood youth program?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's true that the vote was held during their "vacation" period (can't remember what the actual dates are). I'm inclined to give a little more leniency considering a few things.

 

First, I don't think it's a secret that those general authorities dedicate far more of their time and energy to church matters than an average person at a full-time job. Schedules can be rather demanding, especially with travel. Is it fair that more than average should be expected of them? I'd say so. That doesn't mean that there's no value in dedicating some time to take a break. They're human and have their own limitations and things like families that I certainly hope they're not expected to completely neglect.

 

So then if it's not a secret that they typically have a block of time off, why would the BSA schedule a vote during that period regarding an issue that's huge for the group who wouldn't be there, especially considering that they represent a large portion of the BSA's membership? It seems a little underhanded, and I don't think the request to delay the vote is unreasonable at all. So the BSA denies the request -- do we go to the meeting anyway or stay home? Should there be a pattern of bending over backwards for non-church organizations?

 

The suggestion that they weren't present simply because they were on vacation doesn't give consideration to factors other than being on vacation, and there are plenty of those. I just don't see them deciding not to go simply because they're kicking back in the Bahamas. If that's all it were I imagine they could handle a couple days back for a major issue.

Exactly---it isn't a major issue apparently or they would have been there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our church was there and did vote

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865633343/LDS-Church-relationship-with-Boy-Scouts-in-doubt-may-create-new-international-program.html?pg=all

They likely requested a delay in the vote in order for them to bring the decision before the lord on how they should react. So you are being a bit hasty in wanting to be critical.

Also 'break' isn't the same as 'vacation', Be careful of your sources, I highly doubt a break from a council means that they won't be visiting wards, give talks, blessings, dedications etc..

Edited by Crypto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly---it isn't a major issue apparently or they would have been there.

 

I can see I wasn't clear. What I meant to convey is that the circumstance seems more complex than a straightforward presence or absence. The timing of the vote itself and the BSA's reaction says that the BSA seems to have had intentions beyond simply holding a vote on a high-profile policy matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Be careful of your sources, I highly doubt a break from a council means that they won't be visiting wards, give talks, blessings, dedications etc..

 

 I'm about as careful as you are. The quote I posted essentially said the same as the link you posted in response:

 

"Hawkins of the LDS Church criticized the timing of the BSA's decision as inconsiderate and hasty.

"In spite of a request to delay the vote, it was scheduled at a time in July when members of the church’s governing councils are out of their offices and do not meet," Hawkins said. "When the leadership of the church resumes its regular schedule of meetings in August, the century-long association with Scouting will need to be examined."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I'm about as careful as you are. The quote I posted essentially said the same as the link you posted in response:

 

"Hawkins of the LDS Church criticized the timing of the BSA's decision as inconsiderate and hasty.

"In spite of a request to delay the vote, it was scheduled at a time in July when members of the church’s governing councils are out of their offices and do not meet," Hawkins said. "When the leadership of the church resumes its regular schedule of meetings in August, the century-long association with Scouting will need to be examined."

This is the part of the article that states the leaders voted. Which is different than the above.

 

 

Hawkins told the Deseret News on Monday that church leaders Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, of the church's Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, General Young Men's President Stephen Owen and General Primary President Rosemary Wixom, all of whom belong to the BSA National Board, voted against the new policy.

 

The reason I said you have to be careful about sources is not because of the information, but because after reading through numerous articles, I noticed the one you cited was near the same as some others but changed a few key words which reports on nearly the same thing, while giving the viewer a different impression of what is going on.

Thus 'break' becomes 'vacation' (based on discussion here) , or stating "church bureaucracy" rather than 'church'. Which is a different take than some of the other articles.

Edited by Crypto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair re sources...the churches own press release was just as vague. They didnt even bother to mention we actually had a couple members there for what amounted to a symbolic vote.

The church is the most reliable source and we still dont really know much. 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-re-evaluating-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