Girls in BSA

[JohnsonJones]

If trail life would modify itself so any Christian would be allowed, I think trail life could and would take over the spot Boy Scouts previously had held.  Unfortunately, they are too blind with their own supremacy to realize that, otherwise it would be open and shut probably.  As it is, they are one of several organizations that stand to replace Boy Scouts of America down the line.

The new LDS program for young men is kind of weak to be honest.  It's already existed since 2013 alongside the rest of the young men's program and was supposed to be implemented along with it.  Taking away scouts is basically keeping only half the program intact, though admittedly, most leaders were not doing the program in the first place.  We'll see what happens from here.

[Just_A_Guy]

4 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

If trail life would modify itself so any Christian would be allowed, I think trail life could and would take over the spot Boy Scouts previously had held.  Unfortunately, they are too blind with their own supremacy to realize that, otherwise it would be open and shut probably.  As it is, they are one of several organizations that stand to replace Boy Scouts of America down the line.

The new LDS program for young men is kind of weak to be honest.  It's already existed since 2013 alongside the rest of the young men's program and was supposed to be implemented along with it.  Taking away scouts is basically keeping only half the program intact, though admittedly, most leaders were not doing the program in the first place.  We'll see what happens from here.

Trail Life gets way more press than it deserves.  They have about 25K members.  IIRC, the LDS Church sponsors something like 200-300K Boy Scouts.

I wish Trail Life well; but we don’t need them and we need not waste time sulking that they won’t let us into their clubhouse.  Our potential resources dwarf theirs by several orders of magnitude.

Edited October 12, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[JohnsonJones]

I think they are around 40K right now, but a LOT of that is because they have handicapped themselves.  Instead of actually being Christlike and accepting all who acknowledge him and are Christian, they make it so that only those who believe in their distinct brand of the trinity can be acknowledged from what I read on their site.  This means that they are in competition with the Royal Scouts and others who also have rather narrow interpretations. 

The Strength of the BSA when they were new was that they allowed all who had a firm belief and a patriotic sense to join.  This gave them a broader range then many other competing Scouting organizations (BSA was just one of a few at the time).  If Trail Life had a broader allowance to accept all Christians, I think their membership would be ten fold of what it is at this point, at least, if not more.  There is currently a massive gaping hole where Boy Scouts used to fill, and that's one Trail Life could have filled (and could still if they actually got their act together) if they had taken a stance similar to the original Boy Scouts at the beginning of the 20th century.  Instead they took a page from some of the now extinct boys organizations.

I know most of the GA's probably don't share my opinion, but I personally think a good route would be to cut a deal with the BSA.  Basically, have them let us cut out our own branch of the BSA.  We could call it something like LDS Boy Scouts of America, or Boy Scouts of America (LDS).  We would be over it in everything including membership and all other accounts, but still be able to utilize the same ranks, merit badges and other items that we have had in the past.  We would have our own leadership, rules, membership, and everything else...aka...part of them, but totally separate at the same time.    That way we could tailor it as we like, without having to adopt many of the crazy measures the BSA have adopted recently, but have the same structure of it as we have had in the past few decades.

That actually may end up being a great Missionary tool for the church if we did that.  I believe there is a huge dissonance with the BSA and those who are it's traditional members right now.  I think we could see a HUGE migration to the LDS BSA (if we could establish a separate branch under that banner) from the normal BSA in this instance, as we would be the ones filling up the gap that has been left out there by the BSA adopting all sorts of bizarre ideals that are not truly part of their organization or heritage.

[JoCa]

54 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

In a different direction: I am unfamiliar with GSA in general, other than knowing that it exists. What might this mean for GSA? Will girls who otherwise would have joined GSA opt for BSA instead? Will the two organizations compete for members, or will they opt to join forces into one? Will GSA start accepting Boys to balance? What does it mean for "social justice" if girls still have a female only club to join, but boys no longer have a male only club?

GSA in general is a very leftist/socialistic organization.  You've got to get with the program, social justice is for anyone who is not white or male or protestant. "Social Justice" is really about upending the entire society built by WASPs (white, anglo-saxon, protestant males) and transforming it into something else.  "Social justice" is anti-white and anti-male and anti-Christian.

It's unfortunate b/c we've had it so good for so long in this country we have actually forgotten what the rest of the world looks like (and in general it aint' too pretty). We will find out soon enough. Ce la via.

Edited October 12, 2017 by JoCa

[JoCa]

27 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

  Basically, have them let us cut out our own branch of the BSA.  We could call it something like LDS Boy Scouts of America, or Boy Scouts of America (LDS). 

It's all about the money.  Not gonna happen.  BSA started down this road 4 years ago when they decided money was more important than principles.  They choose to serve mammon over God. 

You see the dirty secret with the actual why BSA allowed homosexuals in the first place came down to money. BSA corporate has very little actual connectivity to the troops and local units who actually run the program.  What they have are District Coordinators; that job is a full-time job paying maybe 50k.  The job of a DC is to fundraise. 

You see BSA corporate got fat on corporate donations.  It requires a lot of money to pay bloated salaries at the Corporate level. https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Boy-Scouts-of-America-Salaries-E7807.htm?sort.sortType=BP&sort.ascending=false.Anyone who thinks the BSA is paying Bob Gates (left-wing insider, former CIA director, former Sec. Def.) 200k/year is out of their mind. Tag on camps, etc. and BSA has a very, very large organizational salary base. 

Even with the number of scouts they have paying $15/year to register is a drop in the bucket compared to what it costs to actually run the organization.  This is where corporate donors come it.  Local DC contact local companies for donations, the company gets a tax write-off, gets to spread it's good name, local units get supplies and goodies, DC get paid, etc.  Well what happened in 2013ish when BSA allowed homosexuals in.  Immediately prior large corporate donations to BSA started drying up, the DC's couldn't get money from Home Depot, UPS, etc. b/c BSA was "bigoted".  So when the actual vote at the National BSA Convention came up, the DC directly voted for inclusion of homosexuals . . .why? Not b/c they thought it was good, but b/c they wanted their funding back and the only way to get it back from large corporations was to let them in. 

So regardless of the fact that probably at least 60-70% of the actual membership was against it, BSA did it anyway.  Why? B/c they love money more than principles.

Now that they have gone down this road, one of the major things that BSA provides is a legal umbrella framework; i.e. something goes wrong in one troop as long as the leaders were following BSA regulations, BSA will provide legal backstopping. Now to you think that BSA will want to provide legal backstopping to the LDS (which costs time, money, energy, etc.)?  Why would they when they know that the registration fees don't pay for squat towards their bloated budgets.  Are LDS members and businesses going to donate towards BSA?  No they will only donate towards their local units, not to BSA corporate.  

So what is in it for BSA?  Absolutely nothing.  They would get the entire headache and hassle of maintaining two separate organizations and the LDS branch wouldn't contribute much to their actual bottom line.  BSA doesn't care about membership numbers, they don't care about the Catholics leaving or about LDS leaving. 

They care about money. 

 

 

[MrShorty]

42 minutes ago, JoCa said:

GSA in general is a very leftist/socialistic organization.

The way some of us talk, BSA will soon be another leftist/socialist organization. If/When that happens, what will distinguish GSA from BSA -- especially for the girls who are deciding which one to join?

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, JoCa said:

It's all about the money.  Not gonna happen.  BSA started down this road 4 years ago when they decided money was more important than principles.  They choose to serve mammon over God. 

You see the dirty secret with the actual why BSA allowed homosexuals in the first place came down to money. BSA corporate has very little actual connectivity to the troops and local units who actually run the program.  What they have are District Coordinators; that job is a full-time job paying maybe 50k.  The job of a DC is to fundraise. 

You see BSA corporate got fat on corporate donations.  It requires a lot of money to pay bloated salaries at the Corporate level. https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Boy-Scouts-of-America-Salaries-E7807.htm?sort.sortType=BP&sort.ascending=false.Anyone who thinks the BSA is paying Bob Gates (left-wing insider, former CIA director, former Sec. Def.) 200k/year is out of their mind. Tag on camps, etc. and BSA has a very, very large organizational salary base. 

Even with the number of scouts they have paying $15/year to register is a drop in the bucket compared to what it costs to actually run the organization.  This is where corporate donors come it.  Local DC contact local companies for donations, the company gets a tax write-off, gets to spread it's good name, local units get supplies and goodies, DC get paid, etc.  Well what happened in 2013ish when BSA allowed homosexuals in.  Immediately prior large corporate donations to BSA started drying up, the DC's couldn't get money from Home Depot, UPS, etc. b/c BSA was "bigoted".  So when the actual vote at the National BSA Convention came up, the DC directly voted for inclusion of homosexuals . . .why? Not b/c they thought it was good, but b/c they wanted their funding back and the only way to get it back from large corporations was to let them in. 

So regardless of the fact that probably at least 60-70% of the actual membership was against it, BSA did it anyway.  Why? B/c they love money more than principles.

Now that they have gone down this road, one of the major things that BSA provides is a legal umbrella framework; i.e. something goes wrong in one troop as long as the leaders were following BSA regulations, BSA will provide legal backstopping. Now to you think that BSA will want to provide legal backstopping to the LDS (which costs time, money, energy, etc.)?  Why would they when they know that the registration fees don't pay for squat towards their bloated budgets.  Are LDS members and businesses going to donate towards BSA?  No they will only donate towards their local units, not to BSA corporate.  

So what is in it for BSA?  Absolutely nothing.  They would get the entire headache and hassle of maintaining two separate organizations and the LDS branch wouldn't contribute much to their actual bottom line.  BSA doesn't care about membership numbers, they don't care about the Catholics leaving or about LDS leaving. 

They care about money. 

Also, from another perspective, I don’t think the Church is going to entrust its youth program to yet another secular organization that may be infiltrated in the same way the BSA has been.  Even aside from Friends of Scouting, how many Church members have donated significant amounts of cash/property to the BSA anticipating that such donations would benefit their own sons and grandsons in future years?  

I know of a wealthy individual in my in-laws’ ward who, on his death, left hundreds of acres of prime forest land to the BSA for a scout camp.  In the event of a divorce, there’s no way the BSA is going to just gift that property back to the Church.  They’ll milk it for every cent it’s worth, and then some.  

The Church is going to walk out of this relationship with a lot less than it contributed; and the BSA will walk away with a lot more than it deserves.  We’d be absolute schmucks to run straight into the arms of TrailLife, 4H, Royal Scouts, or any other program that it can’t control one hundred percent.

[my two cents]

4 hours ago, JoCa said:

It's all about the money.  Not gonna happen.  BSA started down this road 4 years ago when they decided money was more important than principles. 

To me they demonstrated that long before 4 years ago. Choosing to ignore abuse - absolutely shameful.

[Guest MormonGator]

5 hours ago, my two cents said:

. Choosing to ignore abuse - absolutely shameful.

I totally agree.

The "good" news is that it's getting much harder to keep things quiet in 2017. From Chelsea Manning to Edward Snowden to that disgusting Duggar kid to Catholic priest sex abuse-it's much, much, much harder to engage in cover ups. What's done in the dark will be brought to the light. 

[JoCa]

9 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The Church is going to walk out of this relationship with a lot less than it contributed; and the BSA will walk away with a lot more than it deserves.  

Unfortunately yes and IMO a large part of it was their own doing.  If the US Catholics and the LDS Church banded together formed a coalition 4 years ago and held their ground with regards to homosexuality, this would have never happened.  Maybe the Chuch did that, I don't know, but everything I read says no.  The Church acquiesced and acquiesced and acquiesced. And this is the natural outcome . . . if you don't take a stand you will eventually stand for nothing.  Anyone who had half a brain could have and should have predicated this was the outcome 4 years ago. 

I can think of a few other issues that the Church in modern times has acquiesced on and eventually if it's not stopped some very, very big changes will be in the running. Mormon 8 comes to mind.

[JoCa]

23 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I totally agree.

The "good" news is that it's getting much harder to keep things quiet in 2017. From Chelsea Manning to Edward Snowden to that disgusting Duggar kid to Catholic priest sex abuse-it's much, much, much harder to engage in cover ups. What's done in the dark will be brought to the light. 

It's not so much that things are being brought to light in modern times.  What is dark is turning into light.  30 years ago a openly homosexual leader in BSA would have been ousted in 2 sec. flat.  That was something dark being brought to light.  Today it is celebrated.  What once was dark is no longer dark.

Pedophilia man . . .it's coming.  I will probably see it gaining acceptance in my lifetime.  I understand you think the world is all great and that every generation complains about the previous one.  And yes there is a lot of good things, but if we truly believe we are in the "Latter-days" then it follows that the massive wickedness of the last days will become prevalent.

[Just_A_Guy]

13 minutes ago, JoCa said:

Unfortunately yes and IMO a large part of it was their own doing.  If the US Catholics and the LDS Church banded together formed a coalition 4 years ago and held their ground with regards to homosexuality, this would have never happened.  Maybe the Chuch did that, I don't know, but everything I read says no.  The Church acquiesced and acquiesced and acquiesced. And this is the natural outcome . . . if you don't take a stand you will eventually stand for nothing.  Anyone who had half a brain could have and should have predicated this was the outcome 4 years ago. 

I can think of a few other issues that the Church in modern times has acquiesced on and eventually if it's not stopped some very, very big changes will be in the running. Mormon 8 comes to mind.

I don’t think a conservative coalition could have held the line on this with the BSA.  The BSA thinks we are the past; it is aligning itself towards a future in which it thinks there will be no conservatives (or at least, that conservatism will be, from a socio-political point of view, permanently—pardon the pun—emasculated).

Meanwhile, apropos of . . . something:

 

Edited October 12, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[zil]

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Meanwhile, apropos of . . . something:

 

Wow, that looks an awful lot like what happens in the Book of Mormon when the Nephite government is taken over by the Gadianton robbers (and in other places where the people claim to be righteous to justify their sins).

[JoCa]

42 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I don’t think a conservative coalition could have held the line on this with the BSA.  

I think you are absolutely right for this issue at this time. 

I think you might be right on had their been a coalition against homosexuals in BSA 4 years; but at least had their been a coalition it would have been a clear delineating battle, rather than this mealy-mouthed 4 year stagnant slowly going down the drain-hole approach that has taken a lot of time, effort, energy, money.  Sometimes in life, it is good to draw lines in the sand.

In some ways it's disheartening . . .the Church has had 4 years to prepare for this.  I'm sort-of surprised they do not have a replacement program ready to go.  But ce la vie.

Edited October 12, 2017 by JoCa

[JoCa]

44 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Meanwhile, apropos of . . . something:

You mean Rules for Radicals:

1. "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and blood.
2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people." It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
3. "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They're doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.
7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't become old news.
8. "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition." It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.
11. "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive." Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." Never let the enemy score points because you're caught without a solution to the problem.
13. "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

Satan is very willy and powerful-not as powerful as God or Christ . . .but he tries do be.  If you don't think he isn't trying to do his best to take down the Church, it's members, and destroy God's work . . .

At some point Christ will return and set everything straight; it is in Him and in His return that I put my trust, not in the arm of man.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 minute ago, JoCa said:

In some ways it's disheartening . . .the Church has had 4 years to prepare for this.  I'm sort-of surprised they do not have a replacement program ready to go.  But ce la vie.

I sort of agree with you on this.  As a church we’ve been rumbling for at least two years now about the need to develop a program that serves *all* of our young men, globally; which need the BSA by definition can’t fill.  I can understand not wanting to make a clean break during President Monson’s lifetime, especially as he becomes more frail.  But all I can say is, we’d better have a crackerjack program ready to go at a moment’s notice—heaven knows we’ve had plenty of time to plan it.

[JoCa]

7 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

  But all I can say is, we’d better have a crackerjack program ready to go at a moment’s notice—heaven knows we’ve had plenty of time to plan it.

I agree . . .we shall see.

[anatess2]

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I don’t think a conservative coalition could have held the line on this with the BSA.  The BSA thinks we are the past; it is aligning itself towards a future in which it thinks there will be no conservatives (or at least, that conservatism will be, from a socio-political point of view, permanently—pardon the pun—emasculated).

Meanwhile, apropos of . . . something:

 

Hey hey hey.  There goes the NFL.

[mordorbund]

I think a lot will depend on what the program looks like in a year when it's announced how girls will be integrated in the teenager program. The changes for cubs looks like it still fits within the Church program. Dens are same-sex only. So you will not have boys and girls in the same den. Additionally, the charter organization has the choice of whether to maintain segregated packs or integrated packs. A ward cub scout program with a single pack comprised of boy dens is exactly what we have today. A ward cub scout program that has one pack for boys and one pack for girls could potentially replace the Activity Days program. Other places in the world that don't have the scouting program run Activity Days for the primary-aged boys.

Admittedly, day camp becomes more problematic, so I'll hold off until I see how that works.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, mordorbund said:

I think a lot will depend on what the program looks like in a year when it's announced how girls will be integrated in the teenager program. The changes for cubs looks like it still fits within the Church program. Dens are same-sex only. So you will not have boys and girls in the same den. Additionally, the charter organization has the choice of whether to maintain segregated packs or integrated packs. A ward cub scout program with a single pack comprised of boy dens is exactly what we have today. A ward cub scout program that has one pack for boys and one pack for girls could potentially replace the Activity Days program. Other places in the world that don't have the scouting program run Activity Days for the primary-aged boys.

Admittedly, day camp becomes more problematic, so I'll hold off until I see how that works.

The thing about BSA National making all these assurances to us, is simply this:

BSA National tells lies.

Just this summer, when word got out that BSA was focus-grouping the idea of expanding its girls’ programs, BSA swore to us, as well as to the GSUSA, that they wouldn’t act rashly.  They were just gathering information—they said.  They recognized the importance of buy-in from a variety of stakeholders—they said.

It was all a lie.  They were planning this all along, and they knowingly and deliberately concealed it through deceit. I could not in good conscience introduce such inveterate liars into the pack in which I serve as Cubmaster—but here are these amoral rats in Irving, running the whole show and making scads of money in the process.

And the million-dollar question is whether, when push comes to shove, BSA will stand behind and indemnify units that get sued over their choice not to integrate; or whether BSA will shank the Church again just like they did over the issue of selecting senior patrol leaders back in the 1970s.

Edited October 12, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, mordorbund said:

I think a lot will depend on what the program looks like in a year when it's announced how girls will be integrated in the teenager program. The changes for cubs looks like it still fits within the Church program. Dens are same-sex only. So you will not have boys and girls in the same den. Additionally, the charter organization has the choice of whether to maintain segregated packs or integrated packs. A ward cub scout program with a single pack comprised of boy dens is exactly what we have today. A ward cub scout program that has one pack for boys and one pack for girls could potentially replace the Activity Days program. Other places in the world that don't have the scouting program run Activity Days for the primary-aged boys.

Admittedly, day camp becomes more problematic, so I'll hold off until I see how that works.

The concern I have is that we put kids in BOY scouts to enhance their strengths and minimize their weaknesses as BOYS.  Boys and Girls have different strengths and weaknesses and the Boy Scouts PROGRAM is designed for BOYS.

Integrating Girls into Boy Scouts will only work if they have their own program, their own dens, their own leadership.  So yes, Girl Scouts.

[mordorbund]

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Integrating Girls into Boy Scouts will only work if they have their own program, their own dens, their own leadership.  So yes, Girl Scouts.

According to the article, they will [for cubs anyways, they haven't spoken on the youth program].

[Guest MormonGator]

Social media has been on fire with this. I'm surprised (again, I was never a scout so I don't get the culture) about the responses. 

[JohnsonJones]

An organization run by the LDS church under the BSA umbrella wouldn't be subject to the BSA laws.  That's something that I don't think you understand completely @Joca in what I was stating.

In an agreement where one is able to use the name and resources of something, but control their own organization is the type of deal I am discussing.

I have to go visit inactives and other members so I don't have time to really explain right now, but if I can find time later I'll try to explain more fully.

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, mordorbund said:

According to the article, they will [for cubs anyways, they haven't spoken on the youth program].

Well, what's Girls Scouts for then?