Church announces date for complete split from BSA


pam
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, mordorbund said:

 

Just to round this out, it looks like the announcement was made last week. The new system has segregated troops. I haven't seen anything about summer camp though.

 

 

You beat me to it! I just found the info graphic. 

I'm convinced, the change to allowing girls wasn't the final line...it was in the works far before that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mordorbund said:

 

Just to round this out, it looks like the announcement was made last week. The new system has segregated troops. I haven't seen anything about summer camp though.

 

 

note also to @Crypto

The issue is not just gender-segregated troops.  IT IS THE PROGRAM ITSELF.  This is supposed to be a Boy Scouts program and the announcement says it is going to remain a Boy Scouts organization.  So, having girls in the same program brings the question which I asked the BSA via email:

Which of this is true:

1.)  The Boys Scout program is going to be used by girls in the female troops, therefore, girls are going to be mentored to be the best boy they can be.

2.)  The Boys Scout program is actually not a program designed to maximize the natural strengths of boys to become productive adult Men.  It's just a program that is not designed with a specific gender in mind.

3.)  Boys and Girls are the same.  They're not different in any way except one of them end up getting pregnant when they are put in close proximity to each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

note also to @Crypto

The issue is not just gender-segregated troops.  IT IS THE PROGRAM ITSELF.  This is supposed to be a Boy Scouts program and the announcement says it is going to remain a Boy Scouts organization.  So, having girls in the same program brings the question which I asked the BSA via email:

Which of this is true:

1.)  The Boys Scout program is going to be used by girls in the female troops, therefore, girls are going to be mentored to be the best boy they can be.

2.)  The Boys Scout program is actually not a program designed to maximize the natural strengths of boys to become productive adult Men.  It's just a program that is not designed with a specific gender in mind.

3.)  Boys and Girls are the same.  They're not different in any way except one of them end up getting pregnant when they are put in close proximity to each other.

4) The Boys Scout program is structured to create confident leaders by training them to do hard things autonomously and earn the respect of peers and adults. It allows for flexibility in the local units to accommodate a variety of interests and goals of charter organizations.

The Church continues to teach that men are different from women by divine design, yet produces the exact same curriculum for the women's group and the men's group. By having them meet separately, that material is then tailored for the specific needs of each sex. It's a pretty clever system. One might even say it's inspired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

4) The Boys Scout program is structured to create confident leaders by training them to do hard things autonomously and earn the respect of peers and adults. It allows for flexibility in the local units to accommodate a variety of interests and goals of charter organizations.

The Church continues to teach that men are different from women by divine design, yet produces the exact same curriculum for the women's group and the men's group. By having them meet separately, that material is then tailored for the specific needs of each sex. It's a pretty clever system. One might even say it's inspired.

So you're basically saying #2.

What do you mean "exact same curriculum".  They're not exact same curriculum, the program that culminates in an Eagle Scout award is not the exact same curriculum as the program that culminates in the Personal Progress medal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

So you're basically saying #2.

What do you mean "exact same curriculum".  They're not exact same curriculum, the program that culminates in an Eagle Scout award is not the exact same curriculum as the program that culminates in the Personal Progress medal.

I was referring to the adults having the exact same curriculum - yet the lessons still turn out different somehow. The new, older youth program (14-17) is still different for the two, but not by much. Compare the teacher and priests activities with the activities for all youth (including YW). There's a huge overlap between the two. The difference is that each category is run by leaders of a different sex and tailored to that particular group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, mgridle said:

Fat chance segregated troops last for very long.  Separate but equal? Not likely.  It takes enormous resources to run a scout troop effectively; they won't be separated for long.  It's the boiling frog scenario-just look how far scouts has traveled in 4 years and the idea that they will be separate for long holds b/c . . . . .

If they don't make a statement about transgendered, then what difference does it make.  One boy decides to get smart and declare himself to "identify" as a girl and they'll have to let him in.  Then when sleeping assignments are given, then what?  Sure, you can say that everyone must bring their own tent.  But some kids are close enough friends that they'll share a tent and this one kid doesn't.  All he has to do is cry discrimmination and the Scouts BS (A) is going to understand why we didn't want to go down this road in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

note also to @Crypto

The issue is not just gender-segregated troops.  IT IS THE PROGRAM ITSELF.  This is supposed to be a Boy Scouts program and the announcement says it is going to remain a Boy Scouts organization.  So, having girls in the same program brings the question which I asked the BSA via email:

Which of this is true:

1.)  The Boys Scout program is going to be used by girls in the female troops, therefore, girls are going to be mentored to be the best boy they can be.

2.)  The Boys Scout program is actually not a program designed to maximize the natural strengths of boys to become productive adult Men.  It's just a program that is not designed with a specific gender in mind.

3.)  Boys and Girls are the same.  They're not different in any way except one of them end up getting pregnant when they are put in close proximity to each other.

Agreed. Now b/c you introduce girls and women into the organization that means you will have women scoutmasters, you will have women in the leadership roles at the top of BSA, now woman's "issues" (whatever that means) will be taken into account.  For example the backpacker merit badge requires a 50miler in a short amount of time.  Eventually the requirements to be Eagle will be watered down and additional merit badges will be created to take into account girls interest.  It will no longer be "scouting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Crypto said:

You beat me to it! I just found the info graphic. 

I'm convinced, the change to allowing girls wasn't the final line...it was in the works far before that.

At least someone understands.  The real split occurred when BSA allowed open homosexuals in-that was when the decision was really made.  The PC crowd and maybe even the Church's PR department won't admit it.  But that was the exact moment when this was destined to happen.  It just took 4-5 years for the rest of the membership to actually want the Church to split from BSA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

All he has to do is cry discrimmination and the Scouts BS (A) is going to understand why we didn't want to go down this road in the first place.

I know, I can never get things right in today's society of who is supposed to be the bad guy. Originally I thought men were the bad guys and we had to keep men and women separate b/c men would pray upon innocent young women (#metoo!), but then I thought women were so powerful and "strong" women that they can do anything and don't need a man's help (don't open the door for me), then I thought oh men and women are completely equal so a man can claim to be a woman compete in a woman's sport beat the snot out of the woman and it should be totally cool, then I thought well don't we have separate genders in sports to help women . . .

I'm just all confused, silly me, I just need to "get with" whatever identity politics, group I'm supposed to hate that has too much privelege of the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mgridle said:

I know, I can never get things right in today's society of who is supposed to be the bad guy. Originally I thought men were the bad guys and we had to keep men and women separate b/c men would pray upon innocent young women (#metoo!), but then I thought women were so powerful and "strong" women that they can do anything and don't need a man's help (don't open the door for me), then I thought oh men and women are completely equal so a man can claim to be a woman compete in a woman's sport beat the snot out of the woman and it should be totally cool, then I thought well don't we have separate genders in sports to help women . . .

I'm just all confused, silly me, I just need to "get with" whatever identity politics, group I'm supposed to hate that has too much privelege of the day.

How dare you even declare that there is such a thing as "men" or "women."  Those are just arbitrary social constructs made by old white males who just want to exercise power over innocent, pure, defenseless women who are fully capable of handling themselves.  We all know there's no difference!!  

... uhhmmm... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

3.)  Boys and Girls are the same.  They're not different in any way except one of them end up getting pregnant when they are put in close proximity to each other.

Unfortunately, in the modern BSA culture, it's a coin toss as to which one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/9/2018 at 11:26 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

Just remember to stay in the back of their trinitarian, sola scriptura bus; you heretic Mormon!

To quote a local Baptist talking to one of the missionaries about trinitarian-vs-anything-else "It's been a thousand years or more since anybody worth listening to gave a rat's ___ about that, one way or any of a dozen others.  Makes about as much difference as His eye color in how we follow Him."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, NightSG said:

To quote a local Baptist talking to one of the missionaries about trinitarian-vs-anything-else "It's been a thousand years or more since anybody worth listening to gave a rat's ___ about that, one way or any of a dozen others.  Makes about as much difference as His eye color in how we follow Him."

Isn't that filter skipping? The last time I checked that was frowned upon in the forum rules. 

Still there:

Quote

5. No cursing or crude language. Any swearing, including filter skipping, will result in an automatic one week suspension.

I don't want anyone getting suspended - but perhaps a reminder to everyone reading this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Crypto said:

You beat me to it! I just found the info graphic. 

I'm convinced, the change to allowing girls wasn't the final line...it was in the works far before that.

Indeed. I would imagine if allowing girls in was the end of BSA and the Church that the Church would've severed ties with Scouts Canada decades ago. I believe they've allowed girl scouts since the seventies. However, it appears they claim to have only done so officially across all scouting programs since 1998. Even so that's 20 years back and we've still been involved with Scouting in the Church in Canada all this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

Isn't that filter skipping? The last time I checked that was frowned upon in the forum rules. 

Still there:

I don't want anyone getting suspended - but perhaps a reminder to everyone reading this.

I get some things are filter skipping but does rat's patootie count?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, NightSG said:

To quote a local Baptist talking to one of the missionaries about trinitarian-vs-anything-else "It's been a thousand years or more since anybody worth listening to gave a rat's ___ about that, one way or any of a dozen others.  Makes about as much difference as His eye color in how we follow Him."

The world is filled with people (including Baptist ministers) who are not worth listening to. Yet people still listen to them, and their misinformation still needs to be countered. I have never heard the anti-Mormon worth listening to, but that doesn't mean we should simply ignore the lies they spread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mgridle said:

I get some things are filter skipping but does rat's patootie count?

Everyone has different tolerance levels for foul language. I personally didn't pick up on terminology such as a word used to describe an illegitimate child or another for the act of bestiality as being foul language, but when I learned they are commonly offensive terms to others I decided it would be better not to use them even though I can be using them in correct context and don't find them offensive. 

I believe that by inserting a blank where a common word in the phrase belongs signals that the author is both aware that the word could be offensive by omitting the use of it, and that they intend to use a literary device to still have that word in use for the reader without actually using said word. Your example of substituting patootie is preferable because it doesn't leave the blank to be filled in by the vulgar term. I also understand that this was quoting someone else and perhaps the need was felt to preserve the "integrity" of the quote. That being said since there is no formal name involved for the person being quoted I doubt it would hurt anything to simply substitute a few words to still convey the message in different words that are appropriate to site rules.

My point is simply that any variety of people can be reading here including children and many will have far more sensitivity to language than you or I. Maybe I should just keep quiet and let the moderators deal with everything as they see fit in such circumstances. I'm not trying to come across as self-righteous, just trying to raise a little awareness and help keep the environment as safe and respectable for everyone as the site rules indicate it should be, and hopefully not get anyone in trouble for a seemingly minor offense. Should I have just silently reported the post and said nothing? Perhaps sent a private message to @NightSG? I don't know. They say hindsight is 20/20, but I'm not sure what action would have been best.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

Isn't that filter skipping? The last time I checked that was frowned upon in the forum rules. 

If that counts, then we really need to find something else to call female parents, because everybody knows the old term is just half of a really dirty word in modern English.

2 hours ago, Vort said:

The world is filled with people (including Baptist ministers) who are not worth listening to. Yet people still listen to them, and their misinformation still needs to be countered. I have never heard the anti-Mormon worth listening to, but that doesn't mean we should simply ignore the lies they spread.

Then explain how it really matters; does the way we follow Christ change one bit whether he was the literal Son of God, God Himself formless but stuffed into a human suit to come down for a few years, some part of God's essence given human form, or some other relationship we're entirely incapable of understanding in this state?  If an angel stopped by tomorrow to give you a note signed by God that says "Hey, you guys have all got that one point mixed up, and your brains simply can't handle even an approximation of how it really is, but Jesus still lived as the perfect example for you, suffered and died for your sins, and acts as your mediator in prayer regardless of how We are actually related, so Son is probably as good a word as any you have" would you consider your faith so irreparably shaken as to go join the Hari Krishnas, or would you do exactly the same things that you've done all your life?  Do you really believe that if everyone got those, that even one person who possesses any measure of faith in any representation of Christ would change anything about their lives other than to find some other point of Scripture to bicker about?

I mean, you're probably one of those heathens who will follow the green eyed impostor right into eternal torment, and have tuned out those of us who follow the true brown eyed Savior as spreading heresy, but it's possible there could be some hope that you will see His brown eyed Light of Truth someday.

Edited by NightSG
Spell check is possessed by bad grammar demons.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, NightSG said:

If that counts, then we really need to find something else to call female parents, because everybody knows the old term is just half of a really dirty word in modern English.

I'm sorry you feel that way. It makes all the difference in the world when the term is followed by a blank or string of symbols representing an undesirable word is missing and simply using the word as a stand alone. There is nothing wrong with rats or mothers when the words are not followed by a filter skip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not believe that the changes in Boy Scout policy were the main force behind this at all. For this reason, I think plans have been in place since before 2013. I would not at all be surprised if FB and Q12 discussions of this started no later than 2010. In fact I suspect it was discussed with stake holders including current BSA National Chair Charles W. Dahlquist back in 2004-2009 when he was YMGP.

 

The driving forces behind this are most likely the following.

 

1. The Church has, for a broad number of reasons, never implemented scouting outside the US and Canada. The Church wants the same youth program world-wide, and an end to spend more on a boy in SLC than one in Aba, Nigeria, at least as much as can be done.

 

2. The mission age change of 2012, the change in what youth can do in the temple last year, increased emphasis on the role of youth in findibng names for temple work, and many other things mean a change in the way theyouth program works is wanted.

 

3. A big, big complaint, most often from femanists, but in some ways a doorway to Mormon feminism, was that the programs for boys and young men cost way more than for girls and young women. The Primary budget mainly went to cub scouts and 11-year-old scouts. There was no Young Women medallion equivalent to an eagle court of honor. In fact girls and women just were not getting awards at the level of boys, and those merit badge patches were not cheap.

 

4. The Church decided in 1991 to pay for every baptized boy to be in scouting. There were active boys in my ward who showed up to Church who never came to scouting. Then there were baptized boys whose families went inactive when they were 9, yet the Church kept paying for them to be in scouting another 8 years. If the Church ran a program all on its own, this outside cost would not factor in.

 

5. 11-year-old scouts. In the 1990s when the Church moved to a braod primary curriculum designed to be friendly for branches like the one my fiancee is in, it created a system where one primary class could be easily done for all children ages 8-12. Still my ward normally does one class per age, but if you are low on teachers, or have very few children in an age, you can easily combine. Yet, with 11-year-old scouts you had a single-sex group that was always limited to just one year. Most of the time I was an 11-year-old scout I was the only one. This just makes a bad schedule, because at least once a month there is a combined activity which is only open to youth 12 and up. My second 11-year-old scout leader was a recent convert who went totally inactive about two weeks after he was called. Or maybe he moved away. I am not sure I was ever clear, except he was gone, but with the scout master and the primary president both figuring the other was overweeing the matter, nothing happened for 5 months. 

 

6. Scouting was built on a model for larger troops than most LDS wards could support. This has become harder with falling fertility rates, and rising life expectancy. My ward may still have lots of families with 4 and 5 children, but we only have 1 with 7 children, while when I was young there were at least 3. I am not sure my stake has any families with over 10 children, there were multiple such families when I was growing up. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that people seem to overlook is that boy scouts was the only outside program the LDS Church ran. The phrase "no man can serve two masters" comes to mind.

 

From seminaries, to institutes, to young women, to EFY, to missions, to Sunday school, everything else the Church ran was entirely run by the Church. The welfare program may from time to time fund and cooperate with outside organizations, but at heart it is a Church run program. The Perpetual Education Fund may pay for people to go to various institutions, but the operations by the Church are all controlled by the Church.

 

Scouting was the only place the Church interfaced with outside forces. I had one friend who felt it was wrong to hold scout committee meeting on Sunday. I can understand both sides of the issue, and have never gone to a scout committee meeting so I can't fully formulate the issue. Still, bishopric meeting and ward council at times will discuss budgets, and are held on Sunday, so if we are having a non-active meeting at Church that shoudn't be on Sunday, what does that mean?

 

The non-fit was clear, but in most cases not galling. Tiger cubs have existed for decades, yet the Church never moved the start age below 8. This at heart was based on the strong religious views connecting 8 to baptism age. This might not have been too much of a dysfunction, but even in the early 1990s I could tell our Church policy on camping by weblows was not the same as the BSA policy. 

 

11-year-old scouts were an even bigger anomaly. That to me was the biggest problem. Then the scout master never fully fit into the way young men were organized, having a senior patrol leader be a 13-year-old and 14-plus year olds be seperate programs always seemed to needlessly fracture young men.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/9/2018 at 9:53 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

You mean in the church?

The church doesn't "require" anything.

And there's never been an association with the Girl Scouts.

The LDS Church did not sponsor girl scouts. The LDS church paid the full dues for every baptized boy (that is age 8-17) to be a boy scout. This included those who were baptized on their 8th birthday, and were never seen at church again until after they turned 18. When I was a youth there was a boy in my ward who reguarly came to church, was a deacon, passed the sacrament, etc, but never once came to scouts. So you could have full standing in the Church and never participate in scouts at all, in any way.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
22 minutes ago, John_Pack_Lambert said:

. The Church decided in 1991 to pay for every baptized boy to be in scouting.

Wow! Never knew that. Classy move by the church. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/9/2018 at 12:26 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

Just remember to stay in the back of their trinitarian, sola scriptura bus; you heretic Mormon!

I remember a few years ago a Church member in the south who decided to enroll his boys in a troop sponsored by a local Protestant Church instead of the ward troop ran into a problem when they rejected him as a leader, because even though he wrote eloquently of his testimony of Jesus, they decided they did not want a Mormon as a troop leader. He was then made a leader in the local ward troop or pack, I think this was all actually pack. I am not sure of all the factors involved, but it was probably a mix of desire to be fully engaged in his community and maybe factored by long distances to the ward. 

 

When I was in cub scouts we had two combined wolf/bear dens that met in two different locations in our ward because it was 25 miles from the north end to the south end of our ward. My mom and some other moms still car pooled us to cub scouts, and it still was a sizeable drive. Almost as long as to the Church, and longer than it now takes us to get to the temple, and we have not moved.

 

My Dad was weblows leader, but we lived more or less in the middle of the ward. It helped there were no weblows in the southern 6 miles or the northern 4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/9/2018 at 12:31 PM, Crypto said:

My thought process was along the lines of how both genders potentially having close proximity to each other during activities much like camping and not wanting to participate in the potential risks that follow. In my area at least for one week they are trying to fill a single boy scout camp with lds boy only troops. (quite a big area btw multi stake....)

I'm open to being incorrect, girls have been allowed in venturing for quite some time.

Except that there will not be coed groups camping. Scout troops will remain all boy or all girl. So the closest you will be is in adjacent camp sites. Well, back in the summer of 1994 when I was at scout camp the adjacent camp site was taken up by a CYO group that was all girls, so the new program can not increase overnight proximity.

 

Daytime proximity in merit badge classes, etc might increase. Yet we have 12-year-olds in Sunday School classes with girls and stake youth activities. Dances and youth conference and trecks not until they turn 14, but I really don't think fear of boys having to take an orienteering merit badge class or even a swimming merit badge class with girls present is what is driving this decision. Especially since in almost all cases these boys are in coed classes at school. 

 

If troops themselves would be coed there might be worry, but I don't see it with any joint troop activites.

 

On thinking further, we did have 12 and 13 year old boys and girls at combined activities as well. 

 

At least here in Michigan women have been working at scout camps as counselors since at least the 1990s. So the idea that the changes in scouting will end the all male nature of scout camp don't apply. I even went to Jamborees with Canadian scouts where there were women scouts present. The Church has been running scouts Canada troops for at least 27 years since they admitted girls, so I do not see accepting girls as the bridge that was not to be crossed. Such a claim just does not stand up to any scruitiny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share