Church dropping Scouting program


pam
 Share

Recommended Posts

I got a text from a non-LDS friend that asked:

Quote

Why are the Mormons leaving Scouting?

Apparently it's big news all around.  

A long texting discussion ensued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea what the vote count was way back when the bsa voted on whether to let openly gay kids participate,but I do recall virtually all the lds leadership on the council not showing up as they were on vacation. It wasn't a suprise vote so if the church really wanted to stick with bsa and stand up for our beliefs then they would have shown up to vote. That being said I think the church was just trying not to look bigoted in the eyes of the world so doing the no-show and hastening the inevitable destruction of scouting as we know it was probably the lesser evil.

That being said, scouting was falling apart inside the lds church anyway. When we have so many adult leaders who don't take the kids camping, do backpack trips and show up to church adultctivities in skinny jeans and speaking g with a lilt it is little surprise we have come to this. As for the skinny jeans and lilt...that's in my ward right now.

Many will say that camping, outdoor skills, hunting etc are irrelevant in our society. Sure that is true I  terms of how we exist, but there is nothing better to build confidence than to have to live a little rough to appreciate how easy we have it. Additionally, when a young man makes a big game kill, carries out and butchers his own meat he learns self reliance and the confidence to do hard things. Hunting isn't a part of the bsa, but ties in with the whole outdoor experience and character building thing.

Our church went from rough frontier and self reliant types to having a population of men who have better skin and softer hands than their wives. Funny thing, our stake did a trek a ways back and on the average, the women and girls were much hardier than the average male. The boys and most of the men were shocked their women folks were tougher than them.

Anyway...this was all baked in when we no showed for the vote. It is just as well as we (lds) are not interested in that type of program. It is sad that for all these years church leadership has harped on young men about getting their eagle,but now they have essentially just erased it from the the list of things that make you a better person. I'm thinking they never really believed that in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
13 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:

 

Our church went from rough frontier and self reliant types to having a population of men who have better skin and softer hands than their wives

Guilty as charged. I spend more time at Lush soap stores than Lady Gator does. Good thing the stake president didn't ask "So, Gator, do you like camping, auto repair and other activities like that?" before I joined the church or they clearly wouldn't have let me in the club. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:

I have no idea what the vote count was way back when the bsa voted on whether to let openly gay kids participate,but I do recall virtually all the lds leadership on the council not showing up as they were on vacation. It wasn't a suprise vote so if the church really wanted to stick with bsa and stand up for our beliefs then they would have shown up to vote. That being said I think the church was just trying not to look bigoted in the eyes of the world so doing the no-show and hastening the inevitable destruction of scouting as we know it was probably the lesser evil.

The Church leadership was not a no-show.  The BSA knew they wouldn't be available when they had the meeting.  It was a slap in the face to the Church for them to have it anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, my two cents said:

The Church leadership was not a no-show.  The BSA knew they wouldn't be available when they had the meeting.  It was a slap in the face to the Church for them to have it anyway.

That was the vote on gay leaders, not gay/transgender kids. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, my two cents said:

The Church leadership was not a no-show.  The BSA knew they wouldn't be available when they had the meeting.  It was a slap in the face to the Church for them to have it anyway.

If I recall correct, some of them were on vacation and didnt show up. As I stated earlier, if it was actually important to the church we exclude gays from being leaders for our boys then Pres Monson likely would have made sure they were there to vote. If a vacation is all it takes to excuse someone from doing their job for a high-profile culture changing action such as this then a vacation can be used as an excuse for anything.

http://www.ldsliving.com/Church-Deeply-Troubled-by-BSA-Decision-Re-evaluating-Scouting-Program/s/79566

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Guilty as charged. I spend more time at Lush soap stores than Lady Gator does. Good thing the stake president didn't ask "So, Gator, do you like camping, auto repair and other activities like that?" before I joined the church or they clearly wouldn't have let me in the club. 

Yep becuz times have changed. Like I said, the guys are softer than the girls. Thats ok, someone has to help decorate for the RS banquets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎5‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 9:57 AM, workingonit said:

My understanding is that the Varsity Venture program is "owned" by the church and does not exist outside of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  Do any of you out of the Utah bubble know if this is true?

I have seen a few Venturing teams outside the LDS church.  Many of them seem to be composed of Girls, ironically. 

I think many of the Young Men's programs did not use the Venture or Varsity ideas.  Ironically, the young men's program basically mirrors the Venturing program already, the boys just were not being given any awards for anything they did that might actually earn them something in Venture scouts.  In the LDS church, this doesn't change most Young Men's programs.

I think Venture scouts will continue outside the LDS church...I think this kills and destroys any Varsity teams out there.

I think Monson may be one of the big reasons the LDS church is still in scouting at all at this point.  It could be in 5 years the LDS church exits boy scouts entirely.  That will kill the scouting councils in Utah, Southern Idaho and parts of Arizona.

Personally, I don't know how I feel about the LDS church leaving scouts.  On one hand, with the changes the Scouts have made recently, and the failing moral decay, I would see it as an excellent decision.  It is time to send a CLEAR message on what is right and what is wrong rather than waffling between the lines.

On the otherhand, tradition is a STRONG thing to fight down in my heart.  I love having Boy Scouts as part of the Young Men's program.  As someone mentioned above though, this move guts our Scouting Committees.  It is much harder to have the Varsity and Venture (aka, Young Men's presidency and Teacher's quorum/Priest Quorum advisors) on the Committee if we don't have Varsity teams or Venture Crews as an automatic thing.

It will prove a little easier on the ward budgets though.  Wondering if this means if a young man does not get his Eagle by 14, he is out of luck beginning in 2018.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/12/2017 at 9:59 PM, paracaidista508 said:

If I recall correct, some of them were on vacation and didnt show up. As I stated earlier, if it was actually important to the church we exclude gays from being leaders for our boys then Pres Monson likely would have made sure they were there to vote. If a vacation is all it takes to excuse someone from doing their job for a high-profile culture changing action such as this then a vacation can be used as an excuse for anything.

http://www.ldsliving.com/Church-Deeply-Troubled-by-BSA-Decision-Re-evaluating-Scouting-Program/s/79566

1. That is the regularly scheduled vacation time for GAs.

2. The BSA purposefully & quietly convened the meeting during their vacation time to keep them out of the vote.

3. The GAs found out about it during the middle of the vacation and sent word to have the meeting postponed until they were back in town.

4. The BSA denied the request and proceeded with insufficient time for anyone to get back in time to vote.

Next time you accuse Pres Monson of not doing his job, make sure you get the facts straight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently discovered some additional effect this change is having on my family and I believe there is something parallel with many others as well.

Because of this change, we're really planning hard and putting scouting on a higher priority so my sons can make it to eagle by the time they are 14.  No more lolly-gagging around.  My 14 year old is trying to get everything done by the end of the year.  My 12 y.o. and 11 y.o. are both trying to plan out exactly when they can go camping in the time allotted to get the camping merit badge for their eagle.

The shortened time frame is making scouting a higher priority.  Then they will have four years to do the Church's new program.

Interesting effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I recently discovered some additional effect this change is having on my family and I believe there is something parallel with many others as well.

Because of this change, we're really planning hard and putting scouting on a higher priority so my sons can make it to eagle by the time they are 14.  No more lolly-gagging around.  My 14 year old is trying to get everything done by the end of the year.  My 12 y.o. and 11 y.o. are both trying to plan out exactly when they can go camping in the time allotted to get the camping merit badge for their eagle.

The shortened time frame is making scouting a higher priority.  Then they will have four years to do the Church's new program.

Interesting effect.

This is exactly the point.  They dont want them sitting around and earning their eagles at 17 years and 364 days. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, workingonit said:

This is exactly the point.  They dont want them sitting around and earning their eagles at 17 years and 364 days. 

Funny. My oldest literally did exactly that. YM president came to our house at 11:30 pm to sign off the final requirement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
4 minutes ago, Vort said:

Funny. My oldest literally did exactly that. YM president came to our house at 11:30 pm to sign off the final requirement.

I cut it pretty close as well, but not that close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Godless said:

I cut it pretty close as well, but not that close.

FTR, it wasn't me or his mother pushing him. He came to me about three weeks before his birthday and said he wanted to get his Eagle rank. I told him I'd support him however I could, but that I thought it was too late, and not to get his hopes up. He had no Eagle project, no plans for one, and had six or eight merit badges to finish up.

But he did it. And I was so proud of him. I had never seen him that focused and engaged before. He did a great job, and he did the work himself. No cheating or "Mom's Eagle award" here.

Don't misunderstand. His mother and I worked our tails off. But my biggest contribution was suggesting his Eagle project, which was cataloging over 1000 headstones in an old graveyard here in town, taking photographs, gathering all information from them, then collating the information into a database format (really just Excel) and sending it to a few interested genealogy-related places.. Huuuuuuge amount of work, but it really turned out great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Vort said:

Funny. My oldest literally did exactly that. YM president came to our house at 11:30 pm to sign off the final requirement.

How did that help?  When my brother got his Eagle, he was told that the paperwork had to be in the mail and post marked before his birthday.  And he did mail it the day before his birthday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Carborendum said:

1. That is the regularly scheduled vacation time for GAs.

2. The BSA purposefully & quietly convened the meeting during their vacation time to keep them out of the vote.

3. The GAs found out about it during the middle of the vacation and sent word to have the meeting postponed until they were back in town.

4. The BSA denied the request and proceeded with insufficient time for anyone to get back in time to vote.

Next time you accuse Pres Monson of not doing his job, make sure you get the facts straight.

Response

1. Regards scheduled vacation....uh too bad. Like I said if it was important, they would have been there........all of them

2. 1st vote was on Jul 13 and that was of the smaller more senior comittee/ board or whatever. The final vote which required the entire scout exec board was on the 27th of Jul. If I knew about it, the lds members of the board knew of it. Additionally, three of the lds members were at the final vote and voted for the ban. The rest were on vacation. It was not a secret to anyone.

3. Like I said, if Pres Monson wanted all of them there on the record, then they would have. I'm pretty sure if that was the directive, they all would have been there.....vacation or not. The church has adequate resources to get them there in a pinch...in fact I bet they could get them anywhere in the world in less than 24 hrs. If they wanted to.

4. Yea, whatever. Like I said...if it was important enought, they would have taken some time from vacation to be there. They had notice.

Now as for saying I accused President Monson of not doing his job:

I never did accuse him of not doing his job. I posited some theories as to what may have happened,but that is just speculation  as to how the job was done, not that it wasnt. That is the question:what was the church's priority at that time? If it was to just let the chips fall where they may and not interrupt a vacation, then so be it. No one really knows. No where did I say he wasn't doing his job.

Don't make up a lie about what I said and expect it to go unchallenged. 

I'm pretty sure that as a forum member, accusing the prophet of not doing his job would be a violation of TOS  and my post would have been addressed by a moderator.

Don't lie about what I said.

 

Our  edit....accusing the prophet of not doing his job would be a violation of rule number 1 of the mormonhub rules. Would a moderator please review the post where carb says I accused the prophet of not doing his job and please suspend me for the appropriate amount of time if that is indeed what I did?? 

Edited by paracaidista508
Request for moderator review of my post...and I would like public feedback
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

I never did accuse him of not doing his job.

Then explain what you meant by:

On 5/12/2017 at 9:59 PM, paracaidista508 said:

If a vacation is all it takes to excuse someone from doing their job for a high-profile culture changing action such as this then a vacation can be used as an excuse for anything.

You tried to explain thusly:

2 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

I posited some theories as to what may have happened,but that is just speculation  as to how the job was done, not that it wasnt.

Then you really got to work on your wording.  Even with your clarification and explanation I'm having difficulty seeing the bolded portion as anything other than saying he didn't do his job.  So, if you're saying otherwise, I'd ask for further clarification.

2 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

3. Like I said, if Pres Monson wanted all of them there on the record, then they would have. I'm pretty sure if that was the directive, they all would have been there.....vacation or not. The church has adequate resources to get them there in a pinch...in fact I bet they could get them anywhere in the world in less than 24 hrs. If they wanted to.

Can you actually corroborate this?  I know billionaires (OK, I just know one billionaire, going on two if things go right) that can't make that statement about themselves.  How can you make that supposition about an organization that owns no high speed transportation and have to stand in line like everyone else?

As for a directive, I don't think anyone said that was the directive.  In fact, I don't see anyone saying he gave a directive at all.  I see people saying he wasn't given enough time to even issue a directive.

2 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

2. 1st vote was on Jul 13 and that was of the smaller more senior comittee/ board or whatever. The final vote which required the entire scout exec board was on the 27th of Jul. If I knew about it, the lds members of the board knew of it. Additionally, three of the lds members were at the final vote and voted for the ban. The rest were on vacation. It was not a secret to anyone.

4. Yea, whatever. Like I said...if it was important enought, they would have taken some time from vacation to be there. They had notice.

OK, I got the month wrong.  July was the month they were gone.  And this vacation happens every year.  Why do you think the board scheduled this that month?  They KNEW the Mormons (most of them anyway) would be gone that month. 

Where did you get the bolded part above?  Your comment that it was no secret to anyone is unfounded.  Don't make a statement like that and expect it not to get challenged.  If you can show a source, then fine, I'll apologize.

Where was the notification to the General Authorities?  That there was a meeting that day?  Or the subject of the votes?  When were they alerted?  Yes, I'm asking "what did they know and when did they know it?"  Do you have actual documentation stating so? 

The official statement from the Church states that it was held at a time when the General Authorities are not in their offices.  Is there any kind of timeline documented about who knew what when?

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

I never did accuse him of not doing his job.

Then explain what you meant by:

  On 5/12/2017 at 7:59 PM, paracaidista508 said:

If a vacation is all it takes to excuse someone from doing their job for a high-profile culture changing action such as this then a vacation can be used as an excuse for anything.

 

***Nice way to take out of context. I said this:  

"...if it was actually important to the church we exclude gays from being leaders for our boys then Pres Monson likely would have made sure they were there to vote. If a vacation is all it takes to excuse someone from doing their job for a high-profile culture changing action such as this then a vacation can be used as an excuse for anything."

So, the assumption is Pres Monson didnt direct them to be there as they are obedient and if he said to be there they would have been. That is not saying Pres Monson isnt doing his job, that is saying that was likely the decision made in the course of doing the job. When you are the Prophet (CEO) whatever decision you make is part of your job. If he told them to not worry and enjoy vacation then so be it. The Church is who stated these guys were not meeting that month (it is their vacation month) and used that as the reason many did not attend the vote. That is called an excuse. Justified or not that is what it is being used as.

You tried to explain thusly:

  11 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

I posited some theories as to what may have happened,but that is just speculation  as to how the job was done, not that it wasnt.

Then you really got to work on your wording.  Even with your clarification and explanation I'm having difficulty seeing the bolded portion as anything other than saying he didn't do his job.  So, if you're saying otherwise, I'd ask for further clarification.

** See above

  11 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

3. Like I said, if Pres Monson wanted all of them there on the record, then they would have. I'm pretty sure if that was the directive, they all would have been there.....vacation or not. The church has adequate resources to get them there in a pinch...in fact I bet they could get them anywhere in the world in less than 24 hrs. If they wanted to.

Can you actually corroborate this?  I know billionaires (OK, I just know one billionaire, going on two if things go right) that can't make that statement about themselves.  How can you make that supposition about an organization that owns no high speed transportation and have to stand in line like everyone else?

 

*** Corroborate what? Are you saying the church does not have the financial ability to move someone around the globe??? The church is a "Billionaire" so to speak...many times over.
How do you think these missionaries who have mental meltdowns or otherwise get sent home at the drop of a hat get home from Russia, Africa, Brazil or wherever overnight? On a plane. The church has an extensive network of travel connections, pre-contracted transportation of all sorts and as a last resort, rich membership who owns these same types of assets. Also, every GA out there is passported and visad for everywhere they need to go. Back to reality for a minute- it was only Texas so it doesnt take a Miracle to get there. I am lower middle class and I have the financial assets to get a plane ticket anywhere I want. I may not enjoy the pricetag, but I can do it. If I can, then the church with its Billions can do the same- probably much easie
r.

 

As for a directive, I don't think anyone said that was the directive.  In fact, I don't see anyone saying he gave a directive at all.  I see people saying he wasn't given enough time to even issue a directive.

  11 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

2. 1st vote was on Jul 13 and that was of the smaller more senior comittee/ board or whatever. The final vote which required the entire scout exec board was on the 27th of Jul. If I knew about it, the lds members of the board knew of it. Additionally, three of the lds members were at the final vote and voted for the ban. The rest were on vacation. It was not a secret to anyone.

4. Yea, whatever. Like I said...if it was important enought, they would have taken some time from vacation to be there. They had notice.

OK, I got the month wrong.  July was the month they were gone.  And this vacation happens every year.  Why do you think the board scheduled this that month?  They KNEW the Mormons (most of them anyway) would be gone that month. 

*** Again. So now the world revolves around some people's vacations??? I think not. If it was important enough, they could have taken a break from vacation for 12 hrs and go vote. If all it takes is to say ur gonna be on vacation to delay a vote then anyone can call for a delay and then nothing gets done.

Where did you get the bolded part above?  Your comment that it was no secret to anyone is unfounded.  Don't make a statement like that and expect it not to get challenged.  If you can show a source, then fine, I'll apologize.

Here is the source. I realize it is fairly obscure and many peole dont have access to it, but it is what it is:
Heres the first one - Jul 13, 2015  http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/13/us/boy-scouts-gay-ban/index.html

And the follow up on the 28th: http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/27/us/boy-scouts-gay-leaders-feat/

Where was the notification to the General Authorities?  That there was a meeting that day?  Or the subject of the votes?  When were they alerted?  Yes, I'm asking "what did they know and when did they know it?"  Do you have actual documentation stating so? 

The official statement from the Church states that it was held at a time when the General Authorities are not in their offices.  Is there any kind of timeline documented about who knew what when?

Edited by paracaidista508
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is church's claim to how it went down.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-re-evaluating-scouting-program?cid=social_20150727_49844076&adbid=625815481509806080&adbpl=tw&adbpr=10047382

Frankly given the long history of the church with the BSA the idea that the BSA did not know about the vacation time is laughable.  Which means the BSA scheduled it at a time when they knew their long term partner and supporter was unavailable.  Since Gays in scouting was not an unexpected issue that came out of no where there is no justification for the BSA to say "we had to do this right now"  Which means the BSA actions reek of political maneuvering to get the vote to go the way Gates wanted rather then the way those with votes would have voted.

Now from the date of the first article to the date of the vote is two weeks.  In that two weeks the Church requested a delay and presumably they were told that their requested was denied.  We don't have any details on how long that took.  But lets presume the church had enough time to disrupt the family vacations to get the GA's there.

Would the fight be worth the disruption?  The church does not control the BSA.  The BSA leadership is clearly moving in a direction that the Church doesn't like, and is willing to cut the Church out to make that happen.  Which means it is a fight the Church will lose at some point (thus the church could not "save" the BSA in any sense), the only question is how long and drawn out the fight is and how much bad blood is generated.  To me this seems like the Church knew that pulling in the GA's would make no difference in the long term so they made other plans instead.

The "instead of" plan was the church peacefully uncoupling from the BSA, and working in a way to minimize the disruptions to the boys in the programs

Edited by estradling75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carborendum,

You done calling me a liar yet?

Your quote:   " Where did you get the bolded part above?  Your comment that it was no secret to anyone is unfounded.  Don't make a statement like that and expect it not to get challenged.  If you can show a source, then fine, I'll apologize."

I proved it with info any moron ( to include this one) can find...cnn. I already knew it before i posted it. You should have figued that when i used specific dates in my original post where you accused me of using unfounded info.

So now we have mr carb making up a falsehood about what i wrote and subsequently calling me a liar in his very next post. Wrong answer.

Perhaps it is you who needs to get their stuff wired tight before posting.

Edited by paracaidista508
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/15/2017 at 3:09 PM, Carborendum said:

Because of this change, we're really planning hard and putting scouting on a higher priority so my sons can make it to eagle by the time they are 14.

And therein lies the reason LDS Eagles don't have a lot of credibility.  Right up there with 11 year old PhDs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
1 hour ago, paracaidista508 said:

Carborendum,

You done calling me a liar yet?

Your quote:   " Where did you get the bolded part above?  Your comment that it was no secret to anyone is unfounded.  Don't make a statement like that and expect it not to get challenged.  If you can show a source, then fine, I'll apologize."

I proved it with info any moron ( to include this one) can find...cnn. I already knew it before i posted it. You should have figued that when i used specific dates in my original post where you accused me of using unfounded info.

So now we have mr carb making up a falsehood about what i wrote and subsequently calling me a liar in his very next post. Wrong answer.

Perhaps it is you who needs to get their stuff wired tight before posting.

Excuse me, but @Carborendum is a great guy, my friend, and is very well respected here. He did not make up any "falsehoods". Nor is he calling you a liar. 

You need to tone it down and not talk about people like that. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NightSG said:

And therein lies the reason LDS Eagles don't have a lot of credibility.  Right up there with 11 year old PhDs.

Meh.  Joseph Smith was given the Vision at 14.  You think too little of 14-year-olds I think.  My 15-year-old could have gotten Eagle at 14 if he wanted to.  But, he wanted to do a project for the Philippines so he decided to wait until our next trip.   I'll pit my 14-year-old with any 17-year-old any day of the week except Sunday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my BSA career time, I saw plenty of kids in and out of LDS troops earning their Eagles earlier. It's generally thought of as a good idea so they can advance in ranks beyond Eagle, with the palms and such. Yes, Eagle is a high honor and there is no shame in not getting it at 14, but it's not like it's necessarily rushing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Backroads said:

In my BSA career time, I saw plenty of kids in and out of LDS troops earning their Eagles earlier. It's generally thought of as a good idea so they can advance in ranks beyond Eagle, with the palms and such. Yes, Eagle is a high honor and there is no shame in not getting it at 14, but it's not like it's necessarily rushing.

My husband encouraged my kids to get their Eagles done before they get their driver's licenses.  He tells me once a boy gets a driver's license... it's bye Eagle, hello girls...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

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