Church re-evaluating Scouting Program

[yjacket]

sudo-parents! That's what I've been doing wrong!

 

 

lol!!! That is awesome, I didn't even realize I made a funny :-)

[NightSG]

 

 

 

sudo -i

 

You're mine until I say otherwise.

[Guest]

See my friend? We agree on something if you like MMA! 

 

 

DILLISHAW!!!

 

Did you see it???

 

I told my husband on the very first minute of the first Dillishaw/Barao championship fight - "Dillishaw is gonna win.  And he's gonna keep that belt for a long time."  My husband says, "You're crazy!".  We were at a sports bar and everybody was rooting for Barao.  I was the only one cheering for Dillishaw.  That was the very first time I've seen him fight and man, he is awesome - I just love his instinctive defense that doesn't step back.  Rather, he makes minute evading movements and punches right back!  That's the Ip Man winchun philosophy!  Sure enough, he won and silenced the sports bar.  My husband said, "that was a fluke".  I told him, whatever... I'll prove it to you on Dillishaw/Barao 2... took us a long wait waiting for Barao to show up... he finally did and after the first round my husband told me, "You're right.  That was not a fluke.  Dillishaw is going to keep that belt for a while"... and then, of course, Barao gets a beat down.

 

Man, I love that guy!!!

 

Okay, that's a threadjack... but I can't help it. 

[char713]

The internet is not giving me a satisfactory answer. Is the word "pseudo" or "sudo" or is the former the antiquated version?

[yjacket]

The internet is not giving me a satisfactory answer. Is the word "pseudo" or "sudo" or is the former the antiquated version?

pseudo is the right word to use in this case. sudo is the Unix operating command for administrator rights. I've been in code land so I typed sudo meaning to type pseudo.

[Guest]

Code monkey humor.

[Vort]

pseudo is the right word to use in this case. sudo is the Unix operating command for administrator rights. I've been in code land so I typed sudo meaning to type pseudo.

 

They are also pronounced slightly differently. The prefix "pseudo-" (meaning "false") is pronounced SUE-doe, while the Unix command sudo (which gives you admin/superuser powers) is pronounced SUE-dew.

 

Actually, I just looked it up on Wikipedia, which claims it's also pronounced SUE-doe. Go figure. Doesn't really make sense, since "sudo" is short for "substitute user do", but whatever. In English, and especially in Geek, nothing is standard.

[yjacket]

the Unix command sudo (which gives you admin/superuser powers) is pronounced SUE-dew.

 

Well now I feel like an idiot, maybe it's b/c I'm from the south but all I can ever remember in school and work is sue-doe . . .but hey I learned something new. cool-thanks!

[Palerider]

The thing about the differences between the YW program and the YM aren't nearly as important as the leaders running the local programs.  The difference is leadership is the most profound.  Yes YM have a greater frame work to work with because of scouts.  But as many on this thread can attest the both programs can soar or they crash depending on the leaders dedication and willingness to work with the youth.

Amen to that !! I will add a AND ..... If leaders can delegate so they don't burn out.

[Vort]

Well now I feel like an idiot, maybe it's b/c I'm from the south but all I can ever remember in school and work is sue-doe . . .but hey I learned something new. cool-thanks!

 

It's pronounced both ways, apparently, so you were not wrong.

[Finrock]

I know we've done hashed this out in this thread, but I have always learned to pronounce sudo (invoking superuser rights, etc.) as SUE-doe. This is what I was taught when I was 14 years old and learning to run Linux for the first time and it is what I was taught in school when I earned my degree in IT security, and it is how I and all my geek friends and buddies have pronounced it around each other.

 

But, yeah, I grew up in Mississippi, and so I have a tendency to say everything all redneck like.

 

Vort's cartoon is funny, though. Also, I am not sure I would know what a SUDO-parent is. Hard to conceptualize such a situation and what it might mean in reality.

 

-Finrock

[Guest]

Sudo is sue-dew in my neck of the woods in the Philippines... in case you're wondering.  I didn't know it's also pronounced sue-doe.  But hey, I'm Filipino, I have an excuse.

Edited July 31, 2015 by anatess

[Capitalist_Oinker]

That is awesome that you have been involved in scouts for so long. Good for you for sticking up; me I would have sat on the BORs and turned the kids down. 

 

Turn them down based upon WHAT?

You say your district was "hard nosed" but the fact of the matter is, if a review board conducts itself according to BSA policy, a conveyor belt system is precisely what you get!

 

Let me remind you what the policy says regarding a BOR.

"...it shall become neither a retest or "examination," nor a challenge of [the boy's] knowledge. In most cases it should, instead, be a celebration of accomplishment. Remember, it is more about the journey. A badge recognizes what a young man has done toward achieving the primary goal of personal growth. It is thus more about the learning experience than it is about the specific skills learned."

 

In light of the above, on what basis do you reject the boy? On what basis do you declare his "journey" and his "personal growth" achievement invalid?

And quite frankly, were you to turn the boys down in this neck of the woods, your term on the BOR would be very short lived. 

 

You are expressing fault with those who have implemented the program, not the program itself. If the fault of implementation of "converyor belt" lies (which it does) with the local scout troops and districts, how is that going to change with a different program?  Because the fault isn't the program, it's the people.

 

Oh contraire! I'm not "expressing fault with the implementation of the program", but rather with the program as it exists and the culture that surrounds and feeds it.

You see, I don't deal with "what-should-be's"; I deal with "what-are's". The LDS culture that surrounds BSA is what it is and neither you nor I nor the prophet himself is going to change it.

You can stand on a soapbox and crow about faulty people, as though the answer is simply to find better ones, but you'd be wise not to crow too loud because if that assignment ever falls in your lap you might just find yourself facing a plate of it.

 

I happen to know what finding better people entails, and it is anything but simple. I have never, not once, zero, zilch, nada, had someone come to me and express a desire to be a scoutmaster, or a cubmaster, or a den leader, or committee member, or even to sit on a BOR. I have to go looking for people, and virtually the only people I have to choose from are other Church members who already have several callings and aren't especially thrilled with the prospect of another one.

When I served as cubmaster I was also serving as the 1^st counselor in a bishopric! We could find no one who would take on the job so I volunteered to do it until we found someone. To give you an idea how well our search went, I ended up serving in the position for five of the six years I was in the bishopric!

 

Oh sure, there are a few people I can call to serve in scouting that will accept, but they are the same people who accept any calling but never actually do anything! The handful that WILL magnify a calling already have more than they deserve.

 

What your comment to me is a bunch of complaining that we never implemented the program properly locally therefore we can implement a replacement program properly.

 

Your argument that we never implemented the program is just rhetoric from someone who has neither been there nor done that. I would dearly love to see you waltz in and show 'em what you got!

 

I say again, the BSA in LDSdom is what it is. Neither you nor anyone else is going to change it. For the past 20 years I have witnessed less and less participation from scouting age boys, and it isn't because the program hasn't been implemented. We have had several superb scoutmasters, but none of them were able to stem the tide. The culture has changed and most boys today just aren't into the uniforms and hokey handshakes (as one boy put it). It's true they enjoy some of the activities, but the vast majority of them aren't interested in advancement and merit badges anymore. We hear it all the time directly from the boys themselves.

Those that haven't earned the rank of Eagle by the time they turn 14 are extremely unlikely to get it or want. And since even Varsity Scouting is still geared toward advancement, awards, and uniforms, we find that most of the boys simply aren't interested in the varsity programs either.

 

People make complaints about the "bureaucracy" of scouts. The bureaucracy of scouts isn't inherently, onerous, it is onerous because local leaders do not implement the program.

 

I almost laughed out loud when I read this. If the program was implemented to satisfy every BSA jot and tittle it would make the bureaucracy MORE onerous, not LESS.

 

When I grew up, my local ward actually implemented the program properly-the leaders they selected for Scoutmaster, etc. where passionate and committed and ended up being in those same callings for over 14 years! the same calling.

 

Lucky you!

Our best scoutmaster was here for a year and a half before having to move because of his work.

The other great scoutmaster was called to be a bishop just 9 months after he accepted the scoutmaster calling.

And your solution for this would be what?

 

The problem of BSA and LDS isn't that BSA doesn't work for the Church-it does I've seen it. It's that the members of the church and parents who refuse to understand the program. Parents of boys in the church treat BSA like a drop-off program. I (as a parent) don't have to do anything, so I'll just drop my kids off on Wed. or when they go to camp-outs and that is it-that's all I have to do. We "call" parents to be on the Executive Committee or to be the Secretary or whatever part. Members have grown so accustomed to being "called" that they don't step up where needed (well the Bishop or Scoutmaster, etc. will just "call" someone).  

 

Wait! What was that you said earlier about my comments to you being a bunch of complaining? Sounds to me like you've just had your own b**ch fest.

Not that I'm going to disagree, mind you. What you just described is the BSA/LDS culture, which I've already addressed, and which I deal with on a daily basis. 

If you have a solution instead of a complaint, let's hear it.

 

Community scouts . . .oh my goodness, the parents knock the socks of LDS scouts. Parents are actually involved, they step up and volunteer for positions that the troop says are open-so you get people who actually want to do the job vs. being "called".

 

And pointing this out addresses the situation how?

Once again, I deal with what I have rather than what I wish I had. I belong to a Council that, according to the statistics I've seen, is 99% LDS. Telling me how great non-LDS scouts and their parents are is like telling me that Baden Powell would make a good Scoutmaster .

Doesn't help.

 

It's not that the church or bsa don't fit, it's that members simply do not step up to the plate

 

You're exceptional at pointing out the obvious.

How about offering a workable solution?

 

and people are put into the program that are a bad fit.  Shoot, I've been called as Executive Committee Chair when I had 2 children under the age of 5 . . .yeap that's a real good fit.  I did it because I was called it was my duty, did I do it with passion-no. Now call me to that position when my son is 11 and it's a different story.

 

And when your son is 11 you might be called to be the Bishop instead. Then you'll discover, after filling all of the necessary Church positions, that the only thing you have left for the Executive Committee Chair is a scrape at the bottom of the barrel.

 

And for a "new" YM program that culture isn't going to change

 

You seem to be missing the point. There isn't any need for the culture to change, because the old BSA culture is mostly absent.

As for the LDS culture, all the program requires is a decent bishopric and a good YM presidency, and those aren't that difficult to find.

 

You say you have a great YM program right now and you don't need BSA, absolutely-but if you look hard and compare what you have to BSA (what it actually looks like when it is run well-which other churches actually do you will find the two are like comparing apples and oranges. 

 

And so what?

I'm not the least bit concerned with a lack of comparison and neither it seems are the boys. I've yet to hear even one of them suggest that what we're doing needs a little BSA added to make it worthwhile.

 

I can't stress this enough---the boys don't care! They aren't pining away for BSA (hey, there's a catchy slogan).

They simply aren't interested in Boy Scouts any longer.

But they do love what we're doing right now, and they tell us that regularly.

Remember, we haven't eliminated BSA. The younger boys still attend scout camps, still earn merit badges and advancements, and still wear the uniform. The program still exists.

All we've done is offer something else for those boys who are no longer interested in being a boy scout.

 

Look, all I care about is the best way to make responsible men out of boys. I want to see them remain active in the Church, go on missions, be successful in the workplace and successful as husbands and fathers. If I thought the best way to do that was to foist BSA upon them I wouldn’t hesitate to foist.

But we didn't see it working under the REAL LIFE conditions we have here. Too many of the boys weren't showing up to Mutual and some weren't even coming to Church. We were flat out losing them.

Since we have expanded and bolstered our YM program we've enjoyed a great deal of success. We haven't lost a boy to inactivity for quite some time, and a few boys who WERE inactive have returned.

They love the program and they are better boys than they were before it.

 

If the Church ultimately chooses to maintain its alliance with BSA, so be it. We'll continue to participate (with the younger boys) as best we can.

But if the brethren decide to leave BSA behind, I won't be shedding any tears, and I believe our boys will be just fine.

Edited July 31, 2015 by Capitalist_Oinker

[yjacket]

CO,

 

I don't have time to respond to all your junk-b/c that's what most of it is junk.  No wonder the rest of Scoutdom laughs at LDS troops. Your response is a big reason why I have a huge beef with most LDS run troops.  

 

I've been in one that ran the way it was supposed to be run and I guarantee you, no one that ran it had the same crappy, whiney, moaning "ah it can't work" attitude that you have. Attitude determines altitude- leadership that has the attitude you present is not leadership.

 

And a conveyor belt is not what you get if you implement BSA properly.  Are you saying non-LDS scout troops operate on a conveyor belt?  Because that certainly isn't what I see as I'm involved in both community and LDS scouts.

 

".it shall become neither a retest or "examination," nor a challenge of [the boy's] knowledge. In most cases it should, instead, be a celebration of accomplishment". 

 

If I'm on a BOR (and I have been), I'm going to ask him what he accomplished. How can I celebrate his accomplishment without asking what he accomplished, I might ask a few questions to assure myself that he actually accomplished something, not a retest or an examination but a check to assure me that he actually did accomplish what he was supposed to. Unless he is tenderfoot, my only question isn't "how do you like scouts".  My Eagle BOR, I was asked to tie a bowline or what have you.  I spent 30 min. prior reviewing my knots b/c I knew I was going to be asked a knot question. I wasn't tested or examined, but the BOR wanted to assure themselves that I accomplished what I said I accomplished. It's called a Board of Review not a Board of Celebration for a reason.

 

You complaint about conveyor belt, lies at the feet of a) The Scoutmaster and Merit Badge Counselors who simply pass them off. b) The Executive Committee Chairman for not ensuring that the Scoutmaster and other were focused on making the boys meet the criteris and lastly as a BOR member. If I'm a BOR member and I'm not confident that the boy has actually accomplished what he was supposed to accomplish-you darn right I won't pass him off.

 

The problem is that LDS members by and large are not hard-nosed when it comes to actual programs and implementations and achievements-they let the little things slide-"well that's okay-you're a member of the church, it's alright, I'll pass you off on this thing even though you really should have done xyz" everyone likes to be "nice" and that doesn't happen in community scouts nor in the real world.

 

I thank my lucky stars, I had an LDS scout troop and leaders who understood this concept.

Edited July 31, 2015 by yjacket

[yjacket]

 

But they do love what we're doing right now, and they tell us that regularly.

If that's the case and you aren't using BSA, then you don't understand BSA- b/c BSA is a boy-run program. It's the boys who are supposed to be taking charge and leading the troop; but alas I fail at communicating with Utahans . . .

[NightSG]

If I'm on a BOR (and I have been), I'm going to ask him what he accomplished.

 

IMO, we just need consistency; run the TR interview like a BOR.

 

"Well, tithing, the Law of Chastity and the Word of Wisdom are really inconvenient for me, so rather than do them, I just had someone who had done each of them tell me what it's like and wrote a half page paper on it."

Edited July 31, 2015 by NightSG

[Vort]

If that's the case and you aren't using BSA, then you don't understand BSA- b/c BSA is a boy-run program. It's the boys who are supposed to be taking charge and leading the troop; but alas I fail at communicating with Utahans . . .

 

They "boy-led" idea works great when you have several 14- to 16-year-old boys to provide experience and leadership and a troop big enough to have at least two separate patrols. When your SPL is 13 and leads a troop consisting of a single four-man patrol, all of whom are younger than the SPL himself, the whole "boy-led" idea goes out the window, or at least becomes much more challenging.

[Vort]

IMO, we just need consistency; run the TR interview like a BOR.

 

"Well, tithing, the Law of Chastity and the Word of Wisdom are really inconvenient for me, so rather than do them, I just had someone who had done each of them tell me what it's like and wrote a half page paper on it."

 

There is something intrinsically absurd about someone ignoring the letter of the law while claiming to follow its spirit. This often leads to humorous effect.

[NightSG]

They "boy-led" idea works great when you have several 14- to 16-year-old boys to provide experience and leadership and a troop big enough to have at least two separate patrols. When your SPL is 13 and leads a troop consisting of a single four-man patrol, all of whom are younger than the SPL himself, the whole "boy-led" idea goes out the window, or at least becomes much more challenging.

 

Well, this is a problem all the fertile couples in your ward should be tasked with solving.

[Capitalist_Oinker]

CO,

 

I don't have time to respond to all your junk-b/c that's what most of it is junk.  No wonder the rest of Scoutdom laughs at LDS troops. Your response is a big reason why I have a huge beef with most LDS run troops.  

 

I've been in one that ran the way it was supposed to be run and I guarantee you, no one that ran it had the same crappy, whiney, moaning "ah it can't work" attitude that you have. Attitude determines altitude- leadership that has the attitude you present is not leadership.

 

I asked you several times what your suggestions or solutions are to the

very problems you yourself complained about, and all I get in return is

name-calling and character assassination.

Thank you for that. You've been most helpful.

 

You may very well be a much better scouter and leader than I am or

ever will be, YJ, and I'd be thrilled to have you as a scoutmaster.

 

But I don't have you.

 

I have what I have---a guy with a full time job and three children under

the age of seven, who said he would serve only until we could find

someone else.

But we haven't been able to find anyone else.

We've prayed about it for quite some time without any answers. Perhaps

none of us are worth an answer, or perhaps the Lord is working on

sending us someone and we just have to wait? He hasn't told us.

 

Whatever the answer, all I know is that in the meantime I have to work

with what I have, and I'm doing the best I know how.

 

If there's one thing I've learned over the years it's that God is much

more concerned with people and principles than He is with policies and programs.

I try my best to follow the guidance of the Spirit in helping the boys

in my ward. I believe we are doing a good work. Certainly not perfect,

but the best we know how under the circumstances.

[Anddenex]

They "boy-led" idea works great when you have several 14- to 16-year-old boys to provide experience and leadership and a troop big enough to have at least two separate patrols. When your SPL is 13 and leads a troop consisting of a single four-man patrol, all of whom are younger than the SPL himself, the whole "boy-led" idea goes out the window, or at least becomes much more challenging.

 

I, personally, have found the last concept to be false.  Under the right leadership (adult leadership), and young men who have been taught "boy-led" leadership worked wonders.  The young men were more excited to go on campouts, more excited to plan events because their ideas (within correct limits) were accepted and what they did. The SPL was 12, and the four other boys were 12 with one 13 year old.  

 

However, if adult leadership isn't willing to let them lead, and the young men aren't willing to lead, then I would agree 12-13 year old leaders are tough for "boy-led" type leadership.  

 

Edit: My experience, if we have adult leadership who are willing to take the time to let those who preside, actually preside, it is amazing the change in the young men (young women also).  Otherwise, we get to see what we see a lot of times in General Priesthood, "Young men what are you doing this week?"  "I don't know, Brother So-and-So what are we doing."  The other time mentioned the young men stood up and when asked what they were doing they said, "We are doing this....  This will fill this purpose of the Aaronic priesthood." It was awesome to witness.

Edited August 1, 2015 by Anddenex

[Anddenex]

There is something intrinsically absurd about someone ignoring the letter of the law while claiming to follow its spirit. This often leads to humorous effect.

 

A-men to this statement.  Elder Richard G. Scott defined living the spirit of law as this, "Living the spirit of the law is living the letter of the law in the right spirit."  One can't live the spirit of the law of they aren't adequately living the letter of the law.

[Backroads]

So I hob-nobbed with my council buddies today (there was a get-together) and the average opinion seems to be neutral. The powers that be had unofficially observed most of the LDS super-Scouters would still be involved in Scouting and they all seem to understand why the Church would leave. I think for many of the professionals there the church and Scouting are already separate in their minds as they have a broader view, so if the church pulled out it's not exactly a broken covenant in their minds.

[yjacket]

I asked you several times what your suggestions or solutions are to the

very problems you yourself complained about, and all I get in return is

name-calling and character assassination.

Thank you for that. You've been most helpful.

 

You may very well be a much better scouter and leader than I am or

ever will be, YJ, and I'd be thrilled to have you as a scoutmaster.

 

But I don't have you.

 

I have what I have---a guy with a full time job and three children under

the age of seven, who said he would serve only until we could find

someone else.

But we haven't been able to find anyone else.

We've prayed about it for quite some time without any answers. Perhaps

none of us are worth an answer, or perhaps the Lord is working on

sending us someone and we just have to wait? He hasn't told us.

 

Whatever the answer, all I know is that in the meantime I have to work

with what I have, and I'm doing the best I know how.

 

If there's one thing I've learned over the years it's that God is much

more concerned with people and principles than He is with policies and programs.

I try my best to follow the guidance of the Spirit in helping the boys

in my ward. I believe we are doing a good work. Certainly not perfect,

but the best we know how under the circumstances.

 

CO,

 

I apologize-internet can not communicate sincerity very well, but please accept my apology; I was harsh and critical.

 

I see you are in a very difficult situation like many wards are in with regards to scouting. Yes calling the right person to scouting is extremely difficult; we have discussed those difficulties.

 

To be honest at my stage of the game right now; I am not the best scout-leader-I do what I can and I need to do better-but like your scoutmaster, I have 3 kids under the age of 7 with a full-time job (that requires occasional travel) and working on a PhD, my son is in community scouts that I participate in. But I'm not going to complain about the predicament I'm in. My comments earlier about how scouts is treated in the Church is not me complaining-it is stating how things are. 

 

It is tiring, exhausting-I don't have a vested interest in the program (b/c my son's not in it)-but I do it b/c I'm called and I make the best of it. I personally don't think I'm the best fit or necessarily the person who should be doing it-but I trust God and that God through the Bishop called me.

 

If I were ever chosen to be Bishop (ugh shudders), if the Church still has BSA this is what I would do; I would find some adult who has a boy (preferably more than one) in the BSA program and I would call him to be in leadership in BSA-I don't care what leadership role he currently has (except for Bishop or Stake President)-that is my selection pool (and only my selection pool). And if that adult was in a Stake calling-I would fight the Stake President tooth and nail to get him released and called. And if I can't find one adult male who has a boy to be a leader, I would look at combining ward scout troops. If I couldn't combine ward scout troops, I would look for a military person, and if I couldn't find a military person I would look for someone with previous scouting experience. If I had exhausted all of that and I had a list of individuals who would be good for the job but no one wanted to serve; then I would start hammering on faith, service, duty to church etc. If I didn't have a list-then I'd think my YM program was probably pretty small at that point.

 

One thing I have learned in life, is that as a leader (or manager) you are only as good as the people you lead-if they don't want to be lead or want to do a good job nothing will work. IMO-the Bishops primary duty is that he is the leader of the Aaronic Priesthood. The EQ pres. can take care of the Elders, the HP can take care of the high priest, and all the other leaders can take care of themselves. As such, the Bishops #1 priority should be in ensuring that the YM are being lead and taught properly for the things of this world-therefore I personally would make the scoutmaster & YM pres. my first choices-I'm going find the absolutely best person for those positions above all other positions. Because teaching and raising the next generation is the #1 goal.

 

But that's my 2 cents . . .

 

Good luck CO-may God bless you in your search for someone who can fulfill the role that needs done.

[cdowis]

The "best person" may actually be someone not actively attending church.  That may be an inactive member that you could activate, or a nonmember.  Go the the Lord and the missionaries and them what you need.  

 

"Elders, go find us a scout leader."