More BSA misery


Just_A_Guy
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Vort said:

There are those who take umbrage at the idea that Latter-day Saints might be morally "better" than other groups. My rejoinder is: If membership in the kingdom of God does not, on average, help people to be significantly morally better than they otherwise would be, what is the point of joining the Restored Church?

Yup.

3 hours ago, Vort said:

Rates of sexual abuse are only one measure of moral turpitude.

That is a good point.  It is interesting to note that the Bible names Adultery, Fornication, and Homosexuality as sexual sins.  It doesn't mention anything else.  I'm not sure how we might interpret that through our "eyes of presentism."  But it is something to think about.

3 hours ago, Vort said:

Furthermore, not everything under the umbrella of "sexual abuse" is equally damaging to the victims (or the perpetrators).

Yes, and that was the point in itemizing the first point that I quoted from those giving the presentation.

3 hours ago, Vort said:

But if there is literally no statistical difference in rates of sexual abuse between Latter-day Saints and everyone else, and this is not actually an artifact of political convenience or a poorly (or dishonestly) designed metric, then I very seriously question our devotion as a people. There should be a measurably large difference.

I wonder if it isn't just about our people being "just as bad."

I should point out that the statistic was not of the perpetrators.  It was the number of victims.  I don't know the source of the statistics that were presented.  But it is entirely possible that the victim count was tainted because of outside perpetrators.  We do have to consider that those offshoot groups that hide in our ranks do still practice polygamy in secret.  And that will tend to increase child molestation rates.

It is also possible that the number was unfavorably biased against us because, well, as I've said before, Latter-day Saints tend to be very attractive people.  Not only that, but we're also raised to be pretty agreeable people (present company notwithstanding).

Get any abuser next to a very attractive and very agreeable person, and, yes, the rates of incidence against such individuals would be high.  So, the rates of abuse may be that we're only raising our children to be harmless as doves without being as wise as wolves.

For instance, I don't tell my children about the birds and the bees until they are old enough to understand sexual attraction.  I do, however, tell my children about modesty.  I wonder how many other parents do. What if something happened to the children before that age?  Would they know it was even wrong?   I know many parents (both in and out of the Church) who let their little girls (maybe 5 to 10 yo) run around topless because "they haven't developed yet, so it's no different than a boy." SMH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

I personally know three women that were raped or sexually assaulted.  Only one was molested by a member of the Church who I believe was ex-communicated.  Never heard what happened to him.

This lends to the credibility of my hypothesis that possibly, we have just as many victims, but the perpetrator statistics are supplemented by those outside the Church.

1 hour ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

I hope this is not common among Latter-Day Saints.

Depends on how "common" it has to be to be considered "common."

I think despite the general statistics, that we are at least marginally better than those outside the Church.  But it is still common enough that I can't just chalk it up to statistics.

Additionally, I see how many are just "hanging around" the Church without really living it at all.  If you don't live it, you won't be obedient.  So, I wouldn't be surprised if the stats worsened.  But I believe the last I heard the stats worsened across the board all over the country.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

@Carborendum any source from the 5th Sunday discussion that you can recall?
I've heard a similar statement as you, but nothing that could be followed to an official church source.

It was a very long time ago. And they were visitors who were appointed by the stake leadership.  I don't remember their credentials.  But at the time, they sounded pretty credentialed.

And, no, I didn't ask them for a source at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Update:

Official membership figures haven’t been released yet; but scuttlebutt is that BSA youth membership is now under 750,000 as of the end of March—this, down from 2.2 million at the end of 2019 and 1.1 million as of March 2020.  These are numbers the BSA hasn’t seen since the 1930s.

The Church’s withdrawal, the lawsuits/bankruptcy, and COVID seem to have created the perfect storm for the BSA.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Update:

Official membership figures haven’t been released yet; but scuttlebutt is that BSA youth membership is now under 750,000 as of the end of March—this, down from 2.2 million at the end of 2019 and 1.1 million as of March 2020.  These are numbers the BSA hasn’t seen since the 1930s.

The Church’s withdrawal, the lawsuits/bankruptcy, and COVID seem to have created the perfect storm for the BSA.

It's depressing. I worked for the BSA a number of years and loved the best the program had to offer at that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My youngest son is still involved in Scouting and (as of this moment) still intending to earn his Eagle rank, as his brothers did. Scouting on the troop level, even on the district level, can be much different (better) than Scouting on the council or national level. Sadly, as goes the national organization, so go the local troops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Even in the 90’s, Scouting seemed very antiquated. I’m surprised it has lasted this long. I knew one kid who made it to Eagle Scout, and he was a complete train wreck. He got a girl pregnant in high school and eventually married and divorced three women before he hit 30! 

On a personal note I was stunned, absolutely stunned over how many people were outraged over the Boy Scouts letting in girls*. I honestly thought no one cared about the Scouts anymore! 
 

* this is not about them letting in girls, it’s only about me being surprised over the outrage. It was very eye opening to me. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

On a personal note I was stunned, absolutely stunned over how many people were outraged over the Boy Scouts letting in girls*. I honestly thought no one cared about the Scouts anymore! 

Many divorced people go through a period of being hyperaware and opinionated about everything their ex does.  I figure it's the same phenomenon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

Many divorced people go through a period of being hyperaware and opinionated about everything their ex does.  I figure it's the same phenomenon.

Great point. 
 

I am NOT insulting anyone who is a Boy Scout or those whose children are/were. But, for those of us who didn't grow up in the tribe, the Boy Scout thing can honestly seem a little strange. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Many divorced people go through a period of being hyperaware and opinionated about everything their ex does.  I figure it's the same phenomenon.

That’s a pretty good metaphor, actually.  Though people do often treat each other pretty badly in the run-up to a divorce, and I think BSA also treated the Church (and others) pretty shoddily in terms of broken promises, procedural tomfoolery in the National Council decision-making process, overpaid executives who didn’t deliver what our programs needed, and our units and their supporting wards perpetually being the subjects of squeezing—err, fundraising—via the “Friends of Scouting” program.   Some of us Mormon scouters also got a bit of “you need us more than we need you!” grief from BSA flunkies; so there’s a certain element of catharsis in watching the thing implode.

Seeing your nemesis finally get their comeuppance is a legitimate part of healing from PTSD, isn’t it? :D 

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Seeing your nemesis finally get their comeuppance is a legitimate part of healing from PTSD, isn’t it? :D 

Heh.  I hang out with a guy who has gone through the ending of his marriage over the last 3 years.  Watching him go through that, and following the impact on him, his ex, and their kids, has been interesting and heart-wrenching at the same time.  He did go through a phase where he had a lot of hard feelings and hurt towards her - especially when she started to date a year after the divorce was final.   I watched his emotions, his interest in life, his spirituality, even his weight and hours of sleep he got each night, fluctuate all over the place.  There are absolutely similarities between divorce and PTSD, as well as the grieving process after death of a loved one.

The answers are the primary answers though.  The things that brought him peace and healing, were repentance, forgiveness, keeping the commandments, and deepening his relationship with his God.

So yeah, folks with hard feelings towards the BSA - those are the things that'll help you find peace too.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Many divorced people go through a period of being hyperaware and opinionated about everything their ex does.  I figure it's the same phenomenon.

I was thinking that there is a concern over society as a whole.  I think divorce is an apt metaphor.  A husband who sees how his ex is sleeping around with boyfriend after boyfriend when the children are staying at her house is a concern to the father of these children.

As a homeschooler, I'm still shocked at some of the antics we hear about in public school.  That is because these children being raised in public school will be the population of adults that my children will have to work with and associate with on a daily basis.

As a child of God, we worry about what will happen to all of God's children as they are being raised with false doctrines and false beliefs.  How are we supposed to spread the gospel as we have been commanded when they are all being raised to believe perversions as unassailable truths?

So, yes, we can feel quite a bit of outrage over horrific things happening to the children who will be the future adults of this civilization.

Girls entering boy scouts?  How do campouts work?  Yeah, no danger of anything happening there.  Abortions anyone?  We may as well say that Planned Parenthood is none of our business.  And if that is the case, why do we care about crimes being committed in some far portion of the country that doesn't affect us in any way?  I obey all traffic rules.  So, why should I care if someone in California speeds 20 mph over in a residential zone.  It doesn't affect me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Girls entering boy scouts?  How do campouts work?  Yeah, no danger of anything happening there.

My understanding is that girl troops are separate from boy troops, so the only possibility for "sleepovers" would be in intertroop activities, which are pretty uncommon.

In principle, I have no objection to the inclusion of girls in Scouting. My daughter often wanted to go camping with her youth group, and some of the other girls were excited to do so. But the leaders were totally intimidated at the idea, suggesting instead things like "camping in So-and-so's back yard." I would have been happy to have her involved in a Scouting unit with a girls' troop.

In practice, the "girls in Scouting" thing is an extension of efforts to force the former BSA into a politically correct mold. That is and always has been a recipe for disaster, a death sentence for the BSA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Vort said:

My understanding is that girl troops are separate from boy troops, so the only possibility for "sleepovers" would be in intertroop activities, which are pretty uncommon.

In principle, I have no objection to the inclusion of girls in Scouting.

In principle, if that is the way they're handling it, then I would have no objection either.  But with today's transgenders being accepted into athletics, how is this going to be enforced in the future?

I admit that this concern is not just about scouting.  But that's the whole point.  It is a national/societal issue that we should all be concerned about. The effect on scouting is just one head of that hydra.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Vort said:

My understanding is that girl troops are separate from boy troops, so the only possibility for "sleepovers" would be in intertroop activities, which are pretty uncommon.

In principle, I have no objection to the inclusion of girls in Scouting. My daughter often wanted to go camping with her youth group, and some of the other girls were excited to do so. But the leaders were totally intimidated at the idea, suggesting instead things like "camping in So-and-so's back yard." I would have been happy to have her involved in a Scouting unit with a girls' troop.

In practice, the "girls in Scouting" thing is an extension of efforts to force the former BSA into a politically correct mold. That is and always has been a recipe for disaster, a death sentence for the BSA.

AFAIK individual troops can choose whether to be integrated or coed.

There are pedagogical advantages to having a boys-only or girls-only program; but at this point I see the debate as more of a social/institutional issue.  There is a remarkable series of events that tends to happen when women seek entry to a previously male-dominated institution like a university, or a corporate boardroom, or a sports team, or an armed service:

1). The institution works fabulously well, giving material prosperity and/or prestige to its participants.

2). Women seek an equal share of the prestige and prosperity created by such institutions, and therefore apply for admission to those institutions.

3). The institutions resist, noting that the institutions were designed by males for males and that women may find themselves feeling out-of-place in the institutions as-designed.

4).  Females reply that their own feelings are their own affair and that they aren’t looking to change anything about the institutions, but that the institutions have a moral duty to admit anyone who wants to participate in the institution as it is.

5).  The institutions give in and admit females.

6).  Females find themselves feeling out-of-place in the institutions as-designed, and express discontent.

7).  Males in institution say “well, we told you so.  If you don’t like it, leave.”  Life goes on.

Haha, no.  Affronted women complain of institutional misogyny.  Said institution engages in public navel-gazing and contrition about how it has failed to meet the needs of today’s women.  Institution radically reforms, to the point that its original raison d’etre is suborned by “inclusiveness”.  Bonus points for use of the terms “privilege”, “colonization”, “systemic injustice”, and/or any noun or participial adjective preceded by “cis-“.

8 ).  End result:  a ginormous institution that doesn’t really know why it exists and slowly exhausts its store of social and financial capital accomplishing nothing in particular—but accomplishing it in a beautifully inclusive way.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

End result:  a ginormous institution that doesn’t really know why it exists and slowly exhausts its store of social and financial capital accomplishing nothing in particular—but accomplishing it in a beautifully inclusive way.

The irony may be lost here.  But the movement did exactly what everyone wanted to have happen.  And then they are surprised that it did so.

Any worthy institution is designed to separate people.  They are designed to make people stand out from the crowd.  While the mindset may or may not be elitist, the result is that it will hopefully generate a reason to think someone is better than others.  I say "better", but I'd use other words. 

  • Accomplished
  • Capable
  • Educated
  • Inspiring

The very idea of "inclusive" sounds great simply because it sounds so egalitarian.  And we're all for egalitarian.  But when we mistake equality of opportunity for equality of result, then the only way for that to be accomplished is to make sure that no one accomplishes anything.  That way NO one stands out.

And when no one stands out the social organization fails to do anything meaningful except to say "we included everyone."

Edited by Carborendum
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