Girls in BSA

[JohnsonJones]

So, I'm back to do more of an explanation on how this would work.  The LDS church wouldn't necessarily be under the thumb of the Boy Scouts if it had an independent branch (called the LDS Boy Scouts of America or otherwise named). 

Let me give the following examples.  The Star Wars license to make miniature games is currently held by Fantasy Flight Games.  They can make the rules for their miniatures as they like.  They license the Star Wars license within reason, but Disney does NOT control Fantasy Flight Games corporation or other things.  They can say they don't want things in Fantasy Flights games as per their contract, but Fantasy Flight Games is an independent company (under Asmodee North).  They have access to the Star Wars history and other things, but they are not controlled by Hasbro.

Here's another example,

We have a licensed Ford Dealer in our town.  They have a contract/agreement with Ford Motors.  The Dealer runs their company as they want within the confines of the contract.  They are not owned nor controlled by Ford, and actually sell used cars they obtain that are not Ford Vehicles.

Here's another Example which might not be if we had a contract...

I have graduate students that I utilize.  They have their freedom to write and do research as they desire without my direct oversight or control.  If I need them in my research I will use them as needed, but they are still free to do what they write and wish to research under my auspices at times.  I do NOT control their personal lives.

This is the type of thing I'm talking about.  I would say the LDS church hashes out an agreement in contract with the BSA to create a separate branch.  This branch is NOT under the control of National (BSA leadership) directly.  As the LDS has chairs on the board now, instead those become the direct leadership of the LDS BSA.  Under contract, they do not control how we run our branch of the organization.  In return, we pay them for the usage of the name, the model (so ranks, merit badges, and other things found currently under the BSA).  However, we run our program in the traditional manner, utilizing the ideas of present day and past (so we could bring up the ideas of rank advancement from the past instead of strictly sticking to the model they have now if we so desire...Belt Loops...let's see their return!!!) in our own Boy Scouts of America Program.

The details would be hashed in a contract, and beyond that, we control our organization as we see fit under their banner.  They only have the say that the contract allows them to have.

That's the idea that I'm discussing, but as I said, not too popular.  Overall, I think many of the Saints in the US have been somewhat anti-scouts (and anti-young men's program...we've actually had the current program since 2013, and another one was in place even before that...and MOST UNITS NEVER USED IT, OR EVEN USE IT NOW!!!!) for the past 20 years.  They say they support the LDS church, but in reality, it seems that they have no desire to actually follow the program.  The most success we've actually had is in the BSA program as that's the only thing that membership in the US have actually followed.  They seem to ignore everything else that's been put out for guidance of the Young Men's programs.

If one wants to know a major reason for the LDS church staying in BSA thus far, it's probably because that's the ONLY PART of the Young Men's program in the US that's actually being utilized except for the Sunday Lessons in Priesthood.  There are other parts of the Young Men's program, but just like Venture and Varsity Scouts were, most of the time none of it is actually being utilized or even noticed!

Edited October 13, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[anatess2]

10 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

This is the type of thing I'm talking about.  I would say the LDS church hashes out an agreement in contract with the BSA to create a separate branch.  This branch is NOT under the control of National (BSA leadership) directly.  As the LDS has chairs on the board now, instead those become the direct leadership of the LDS BSA.  Under contract, they do not control how we run our branch of the organization.  In return, we pay them for the usage of the name, the model (so ranks, merit badges, and other things found currently under the BSA).  However, we run our program in the traditional manner, utilizing the ideas of present day and past (so we could bring up the ideas of rank advancement from the past instead of strictly sticking to the model they have now if we so desire...Belt Loops...let's see their return!!!) in our own Boy Scouts of America Program.

I just don't see why we need to continue association with the BSA.  The LDS Church have our own properties, the LDS Church will have our own program and are perfectly capable of creating our own handbooks, the LDS Church doesn't need the BSA for rank advancements and the like.  Merit badges are easy to make especially if we don't give our money to anybody else.  I betcha we can provide stiff competition to the BSA and we're worldwide!

Edited October 13, 2017 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

10 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

So, I'm back to do more of an explanation on how this would work.  The LDS church wouldn't necessarily be under the thumb of the Boy Scouts if it had an independent branch (called the LDS Boy Scouts of America or otherwise named). 

Let me give the following examples.  The Star Wars license to make miniature games is currently held by Fantasy Flight Games.  They can make the rules for their miniatures as they like.  They license the Star Wars license within reason, but Disney does NOT control Fantasy Flight Games corporation or other things.  They can say they don't want things in Fantasy Flights games as per their contract, but Fantasy Flight Games is an independent company (under Asmodee North).  They have access to the Star Wars history and other things, but they are not controlled by Hasbro.

Here's another example,

We have a licensed Ford Dealer in our town.  They have a contract/agreement with Ford Motors.  The Dealer runs their company as they want within the confines of the contract.  They are not owned nor controlled by Ford, and actually sell used cars they obtain that are not Ford Vehicles.

Here's another Example which might not be if we had a contract...

I have graduate students that I utilize.  They have their freedom to write and do research as they desire without my direct oversight or control.  If I need them in my research I will use them as needed, but they are still free to do what they write and wish to research under my auspices at times.  I do NOT control their personal lives.

This is the type of thing I'm talking about.  I would say the LDS church hashes out an agreement in contract with the BSA to create a separate branch.  This branch is NOT under the control of National (BSA leadership) directly.  As the LDS has chairs on the board now, instead those become the direct leadership of the LDS BSA.  Under contract, they do not control how we run our branch of the organization.  In return, we pay them for the usage of the name, the model (so ranks, merit badges, and other things found currently under the BSA).  However, we run our program in the traditional manner, utilizing the ideas of present day and past (so we could bring up the ideas of rank advancement from the past instead of strictly sticking to the model they have now if we so desire...Belt Loops...let's see their return!!!) in our own Boy Scouts of America Program.

The details would be hashed in a contract, and beyond that, we control our organization as we see fit under their banner.  They only have the say that the contract allows them to have.

That's the idea that I'm discussing, but as I said, not too popular.  Overall, I think many of the Saints in the US have been somewhat anti-scouts (and anti-young men's program...we've actually had the current program since 2013, and another one was in place even before that...and MOST UNITS NEVER USED IT, OR EVEN USE IT NOW!!!!) for the past 20 years.  They say they support the LDS church, but in reality, it seems that they have no desire to actually follow the program.  The most success we've actually had is in the BSA program as that's the only thing that membership in the US have actually followed.  They seem to ignore everything else that's been put out for guidance of the Young Men's programs.

If one wants to know a major reason for the LDS church staying in BSA thus far, it's probably because that's the ONLY PART of the Young Men's program in the US that's actually being utilized except for the Sunday Lessons in Priesthood.  There are other parts of the Young Men's program, but just like Venture and Varsity Scouts were, most of the time none of it is actually being utilized or even noticed!

It’s an intriguing idea.  To some extent we already do that—units are owned and run by the chartering org under what amounts to a license from the BSA; and (though councils tell us not to) many of us in some way customize the rank requirements, etc. to fit the needs of our own units. 

That said, I don’t think the BSA would be too fond of the notion of Eagle Scout “officially” meaning that a Mormon boy has done one set of requirements whereas a Lutheran boy has done another.  Nor would they be willing to foot the bill for the continued manufacture of badges, insignia and belt loops that BSA National has phased out of its program.  Nor would BSA provide the liability/indemnity coverage to LDS units that are ripe for discrimination lawsuits.  

It *might* be possible to convince BSA to authorize a “Scouting Classic” program that basically says that a unit can use *any* rank program/requirement set that BSA has used at any time in its history; and boys who came through that program would be generally known as “Classic Eagles” or “Classic Life Scouts” to set them apart from the “Eagles” and “Life Scouts” who have done the traditional program.  The Church might then adopt the advancement program from—say—1998, or 1975; or we could get really crazy and do the requirements from 1920.  But even then—BSA wouldn’t pay to resurrect old insignia, they won’t indemnify us for discrimination, and we probably won’t want to send our units to coeducational BSA-run camps.  So fundamentally, we’d be paying for a name.  And the contents of old BSA rank requirements aren’t exactly a state secret, so the Church can still draw off that history (and other sources) for inspiration as it develops its own program (BSA would probably sue us if we tried to call our groups “patrols” or “troops”, but they don’t exactly own the idea of segregating boys into age-defined groups.  Nor do they have a monopoly on the ability to provide general information about first-aid, astronomy, citizenship, etc—and have children be rewarded for demonstrating proficiency in those topics—so long as we aren’t just copying and pasting the BSA’s program into our own).

[Just_A_Guy]

57 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I just don't see why we need to continue association with the BSA.  The LDS Church have our own properties, the LDS Church will have our own program and are perfectly capable of creating our own handbooks, the LDS Church doesn't need the BSA for rank advancements and the like.  Merit badges are easy to make especially if we don't give our money to anybody else.  I betcha we can provide stiff competition to the BSA and we're worldwide!

I agree with nearly all of what you say; but I don’t see such a program offering real “competition” to the BSA because such a program would be run by, and primarily for, Mormons.  That will always limit its appeal to a very significant degree—missionary opportunities will certainly exist; but on the whole I suspect non-Mormons would be about as eager to put their kids in our program as we are to enroll our kids in Trail Life.

[JohnsonJones]

19 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It *might* be possible to convince BSA to authorize a “Scouting Classic” program that basically says that a unit can use *any* rank program/requirement set that BSA has used at any time in its history; and boys who came through that program would be generally known as “Classic Eagles” or “Classic Life Scouts” to set them apart from the “Eagles” and “Life Scouts” who have done the traditional program.  The Church might then adopt the advancement program from—say—1998, or 1975; or we could get really crazy and do the requirements from 1920.  But even then—BSA wouldn’t pay to resurrect old insignia, they won’t indemnify us for discrimination, and we probably won’t want to send our units to coeducational BSA-run camps.  So fundamentally, we’d be paying for a name.  And the contents of old BSA rank requirements aren’t exactly a state secret, so the Church can still draw off that history (and other sources) for inspiration as it develops its own program (BSA would probably sue us if we tried to call our groups “patrols” or “troops”, but they don’t exactly own the idea of segregating boys into age-defined groups.  Nor do they have a monopoly on the ability to provide general information about first-aid, astronomy, citizenship, etc—and have children be rewarded for demonstrating proficiency in those topics—so long as we aren’t just copying and pasting the BSA’s program into our own).

That could actually end up as a bonus for the LDS church if we didn't have to buy materials from the BSA.  Think about how much these badges and things cost currently...and how much they probably could cost if we made and sold them via distribution services instead.  If we had to manufacture the materials for our BSA programs, I think we'd save a LOT of money that we use in purchasing stuff...I'd call that a win/win.

Call them LDS Eagles rather than Classic Eagles and I think both us and the BSA might consider that a win (afterall, there's already the term non-lds use in some instances for those Eagles in LDS troops, calling them the Mormon Eagles and other such things...this would just make a more stark difference and officialize the differences between LDS troops and the ones that follow the BSA into chaotic policy heck).

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I agree with nearly all of what you say; but I don’t see such a program offering real “competition” to the BSA because such a program would be run by, and primarily for, Mormons.  That will always limit its appeal to a very significant degree—missionary opportunities will certainly exist; but on the whole I suspect non-Mormons would be about as eager to put their kids in our program as we are to enroll our kids in Trail Life.

But that's because Trail Life banned us.   The travails of the BSA are driving out Christian troops.  The Roman Catholics, I'm sure, would be open to banding with an LDS Program as long as they're not required to declare Joseph Smith a prophet or perfectly align with LDS morality - like the WOW and such.  The Worldwide feature could also be a selling point for these religious troops.

Edited October 13, 2017 by anatess2

[anatess2]

50 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

That could actually end up as a bonus for the LDS church if we didn't have to buy materials from the BSA.  Think about how much these badges and things cost currently...and how much they probably could cost if we made and sold them via distribution services instead.  If we had to manufacture the materials for our BSA programs, I think we'd save a LOT of money that we use in purchasing stuff...I'd call that a win/win.

Call them LDS Eagles rather than Classic Eagles and I think both us and the BSA might consider that a win (afterall, there's already the term non-lds use in some instances for those Eagles in LDS troops, calling them the Mormon Eagles and other such things...this would just make a more stark difference and officialize the differences between LDS troops and the ones that follow the BSA into chaotic policy heck).

That's one thing I didn't think about.  The brand recognition of the Eagle rank especially as an entry to the military.  I wonder if the military would accept the LDS Eagle as the same worth as a BSA Eagle.

[skippy740]

First, I agree that BSA cares about money.  However, it's also about protecting that money against lawsuits.  When "The Left" decides to take down a traditional organization, they'll find ways to do it through "discrimination" laws and practices.

Personally, while this move was decided by BSA, I see it as only a hair or two away from Government "managing" religious groups that claim 501(c)3 tax-exempt status.  The Left destroyed one group, and now I'm sure they have other religious groups set in their sights now.

The only good news I can see, is now girls can compete against boys for Pinewood Derby races!  I had a girl who made a car at this year's race, and didn't let her race against the scouts, because she's not a scout.  At least, I'm sure, Pinewood Derby races can accommodate even non-registered girls and just make it fun.  (The parents - who were also scout leaders - understood, but I hate feeling like a jerk.)

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, skippy740 said:

The only good news I can see, is now girls can compete against boys for Pinewood Derby races!  

That is good news. There are some girls who probably like to do those things but couldn't for years just because they weren't in Boy Scouts. Huge win for them. 

[Just_A_Guy]

35 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

But that's because Trail Life banned us.   The travails of the BSA are driving out Christian troops.  The Roman Catholics, I'm sure, would be open to banding with an LDS Program as long as they're not required to declare Joseph Smith a prophet or perfectly align with LDS morality - like the WOW and such.  The Worldwide feature could also be a selling point for these religious troops.

FWIW Trail Life didn’t ban Mormon kids; they just require that all their adult leaders be Trinitarians.  We can ride in their bus; we just gotta sit in the back.

I’d be thrilled if Catholics were willing to trust us with their kids; but given that the BSA has burned them the same way the BSA has burned us—the Catholics would probably (like us) want to be prudent and not entrust their kids to outsiders.  And frankly, as a Cubmaster with a couple of non-LDS kids in my pack—LDS teaching and history does come up in ordinary interactions with the kids, more often than one might think.  You try to be sensitive; but I’d hate to be officially muzzled.

Oh, and @skippy740 - nothing wrong with girls in the Derby.  Our ward traditionally invites the Activity Day girls to participate, and our last two winners have been girls.

Edited October 13, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest MormonGator]

18 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

FWIW Trail Life didn’t ban Mormon kids; they just require that all their adult leaders be Trinitarians.  We can ride in their bus; we just gotta sit in the back.

It raises an uncomfortable issue for LDS. If the Boy Scouts at one time had the right to ban homosexuals from leadership, than it's sort of hypocritical to demand that Trial Life accept LDS men as leaders. I know you aren't saying Trail Life should be forced to accept us as leaders, @Just_A_Guy. Just something I thought of. 

[anatess2]

13 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

FWIW Trail Life didn’t ban Mormon kids; they just require that all their adult leaders be Trinitarians.  We can ride in their bus; we just gotta sit in the back.

I’d be thrilled if Catholics were willing to trust us with their kids; but given that the BSA has burned them the same way the BSA has burned us—the Catholics would probably (like us) want to be prudent and not entrust their kids to outsiders.  And frankly, as a Cubmaster with a couple of non-LDS kids in my pack—LDS teaching and history does come up in ordinary interactions with the kids, more often than one might think.  You try to be sensitive; but I’d hate to be officially muzzled.

Oh, and @skippy740 - nothing wrong with girls in the Derby.  Our ward traditionally invites the Activity Day girls to participate, and our last two winners have been girls.

Yeah, not sure about coming up with their own program.  All of the Catholic Church's youth efforts are spent on Catholic Schools and Prep classes (for those not enrolled in Catholic Schools).  In the Philippines, scouting is a part of the Catholic school curriculum but in the US, it is not.  It's a separate activity.  A lot of Catholics are in Boy Scouts because it is encouraged by the church.  If it stops being encouraged, I have a feeling they're just going to find other stuff to do in the community like when they stopped promoting Girls Scouts and several diocese joined the protestant program Heritage Girls.

[mordorbund]

14 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Well, what's Girls Scouts for then?

Cookies?

But seriously, that question shows yet another reason the GSA is not too keen on this. I understand the Gold Award is similar to the Eagle, so in many respects there was already a parallel program set up. Bummer for them, right?

[anatess2]

Just now, mordorbund said:

Cookies?

But seriously, that question shows yet another reason the GSA is not too keen on this. I understand the Gold Award is similar to the Eagle, so in many respects there was already a parallel program set up. Bummer for them, right?

Yeah.  Direct competition seems like!

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

It raises an uncomfortable issue for LDS. If the Boy Scouts at one time had the right to ban homosexuals from leadership, than it's sort of hypocritical to demand that Trial Life accept LDS men as leaders. I know you aren't saying Trail Life should be forced to accept us as leaders, @Just_A_Guy. Just something I thought of. 

No, I totally agree.  Their house, their rules—but therein lies the rub:  if we don’t like the rules, we don’t go to their house.

[Grunt]

22 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

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.

I'd be down for that.

[Guest MormonGator]

4 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

No, I totally agree.  Their house, their rules—but therein lies the rub:  if we don’t like the rules, we don’t go to their house.

Agree. I think it's sad that even though we agree on morals and values with Evangelicals/Catholics there is still a lot of distrust between the religions. Very sad. 

[Traveler]

 

I do not have all the answers to life but I believe that maturing boys need specific guidance and enlightenment unique to their gender to prepare them for manhood.   I believe young girls need something very similar but specific to their gender to prepare them for womanhood.  Something is going on in our society that is prohibitive to gender that clouds the benefits and reasons that our intelligent species have evolved with gender.  I agree that many things that have defined gender roles are not all that beneficial and can be removed from our social structure – but that does not mean that all gender roles must be abolished.   For example – I do not think we should project math and science as something that should be preserved for the male gender.

I am open to allowing gender to cross many of the old barriers but I am against developing medical procedures for modifying gender (realizing that genetics can blur gender and in some cases medical procedures are necessary to “unblur” what the physical spectrum has allowed.

Young boys and young girls need to feel that they and their gender have a place in society.  I am concerned with the future or any society that is not willing to prepare young boys to grow up to be men and young girls to grow up to be ladies.  I believe society has lost something of its purpose when it has lost all definition that make distinctions of what a lady and a man is.

 

The Traveler

Edited October 16, 2017 by Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

Year/Scouts/% change from prior year
2010 898651 0.04%
2011 909576 1.22%
2012 910668 0.12%
2013 888947 -2.39% Homosexual scouts allowed
2014 885000 -0.44%
2015 840654 -5.01% Homosexual leaders allowed
2016 822999 -2.10%
2017 ---TBD----TBD%  Girls now allowed

Any guesses?

[Guest MormonGator]

25 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Year/Scouts/% change from prior year
2010 898651 0.04%
2011 909576 1.22%
2012 910668 0.12%
2013 888947 -2.39% Homosexual scouts allowed
2014 885000 -0.44%
2015 840654 -5.01% Homosexual leaders allowed
2016 822999 -2.10%
2017 ---TBD----TBD%  Girls now allowed

Any guesses?

The scouting goose is cooked. I mean no offense to anyone but when I grew up in the 80's it was viewed as sort of old fashioned and a little dorky. That was thirty years ago. Putting the politics of the scouts on the shelf for a minute-it's still a dying organization. 

[NeuroTypical]

4-H, baby.  My daughter made enough money selling chickens, she wanted to buy an egg refrigerator (and not a piercing or an iphone or a boyfriend or a spa day or anything like that.)  

[anatess2]

43 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

4-H, baby.  My daughter made enough money selling chickens, she wanted to buy an egg refrigerator (and not a piercing or an iphone or a boyfriend or a spa day or anything like that.)  

My son wants to do this!  He just hatched out 2 silkies a few days ago and he's super excited.  By the way, our silkie's siblings (still in the farm where we got them from) won several ribbons in the show over the weekend.  Anyway, he's trying to figure out where he can go to sell chickens.  He was thinking craigslist and I'm like, uhm... I don't think they let you sell living animals over there.  You can only put one up for adoption.  They're gonna report you if you keep on advertising chickens over and over.

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Year/Scouts/% change from prior year
2010 898651 0.04%
2011 909576 1.22%
2012 910668 0.12%
2013 888947 -2.39% Homosexual scouts allowed
2014 885000 -0.44%
2015 840654 -5.01% Homosexual leaders allowed
2016 822999 -2.10%
2017 ---TBD----TBD%  Girls now allowed

Any guesses?

-7% (boys -10%, girls +3%).  What do I win?

Edited October 16, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

4-H, baby.  My daughter made enough money selling chickens, she wanted to buy an egg refrigerator (and not a piercing or an iphone or a boyfriend or a spa day or anything like that.)  

  My neighbor raises chickens too. 

[JohnsonJones]

57 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

My son wants to do this!  He just hatched out 2 silkies a few days ago and he's super excited.  By the way, our silkie's siblings (still in the farm where we got them from) won several ribbons in the show over the weekend.  Anyway, he's trying to figure out where he can go to sell chickens.  He was thinking craigslist and I'm like, uhm... I don't think they let you sell living animals over there.  You can only put one up for adoption.  They're gonna report you if you keep on advertising chickens over and over.

Normally at the bigger competitions (or almost always at the county fair and state fair) if you win a ribbon you'll be able to sell right there at the fair to someone.  It's normally been fairly easy on that front for our 4-h kids around our area.  I suppose you could try the local plants or processing yards perhaps...not sure with chickens though, my experience was more with cattle.