JohnsonJones Posted September 23 Report Share Posted September 23 (edited) On 9/21/2024 at 9:17 AM, mordorbund said: From what I can tell, this is the primary difference in the two organizations preventative steps. I’m not sure how substantial it is. I certainly don’t think it’s significant enough to warrant the extensive praise you heap on the BSA (but that’s just a difference of opinion). Do you know who else has two-deep leadership? As long as we’re misrepresenting requirements, the Church calls for two “responsible adults”. The BSA does not require responsible leaders. For what it’s worth, I specifically posted the link so you would see that the Church requires two-deep leadership. Please stop saying it doesn’t. You will be disqualified as a leader if you do not practice two deep leadership in the Scouts. It is NOT a recommendation. It IS(a recommendation for the Church. If it were not, No Bishopric or Stake Presidency could interview a youth in a one on one setting behind closed doors. I know this occurs quite regularly in the church. Or are you saying, in accordance with the Boy Scout policy the Church would immediately excommunicate the Bishoprics and Stake Presidencies that do this, consider it an abuse situation which disqualifies them from membership and ever being part of the organization today? I don't see that in the policies your posted. I have unfortunately seen people merely accused (two in the past two years) of this with no evidence. They were promptly kicked out of Scouting and their membership revoked. It's such a big deal that there are those that have decided that this is too much of a hassle to deal with due to how drastic it is and how little it takes for it to occur. On 9/21/2024 at 9:17 AM, mordorbund said: Do you know what it means to be a mandatory reporter? That is a legal term for people who may be charged with a misdemeanor if they keep their mouth shut. The State determines that, not the organization. Now, the organization can require someone to report abuse, but the worst they can do is kick out the person who failed to report. It’s good that the BSA tells its leaders to report abuse when they see it. Do you know who else does? “If you learn of abuse, you should immediately contact legal authorities” Though I posted the section that you posted as the guidelines...if we go by what this is, it's a toothless tiger. It IS something that says it should happen, but ramifications occur if one does NOT report it as the guidelines say? Do they get kicked out of the church, face church punishment? What happens? There is no real guidance in this. It's more of a thing up to the local Bishop...and normally that means nothing will happen if they do NOT do this unless the authorities actually charge them with a crime. This is less likely to occur with Church youth leaders (to be charged) as they are not considered Mandatory Reporters last time I checked. On 9/21/2024 at 9:17 AM, mordorbund said: @NeuroTypical may be able to shed some light on the annotations on Church records. NT, if someone is known to have an abusive past would that show up in the records? Also would other criminal charges (such as fraud) make it there? Yay!!! I didn’t know about this BSA requirement. It looks like the differences between what the Church requires and what BSA requires is BSA has more frequent training and separate tenting for large age differences. As you note though, “the two deep leadership (meaning you ALWAYS should have another witness of what is happening, and hopefully at least one sane adult is there) and background checks, it does a LOT to curb situations where bad things could occur.” And the Church has this or something similar in place. So the Church does a LOT to curb bad situations where bad things can occur. As needed the two differences can be tweaked. Funny you should say that. An analysis of the BSA’s P-Files shows that The Church of Jesus Christ has a rate of abuse far below average when compared to other religions in Scouting. So would I, but because there are evil people in this world it’s good to know the Church has instituted safeguards to protect children and youth. Your source is FairLDS... AND it's a bad article. She uses and twists numbers which aren't really relevant (for example, her extrapolating that 30% of the units from when the majority of the abuse cases are coming from were LDS, that 30% is mostly from RECENT numbers, not from when the cases are from), she argues that background checks are not useful, and that the church helpline was a better thing to call (for an example of two teenagers involved in what could be abuse...YOU SHOULD CALL and REPORT...not ask the church helpline first whether this is something to report or not or what to do) in some of her examples. (and maybe this is why, after being released from church leadership a few years ago, I'm no longer in the Bishoprics and Stake Leadership...due to my views on this...or it could just be that I'm just [autocorrect] old). Even with college students...stuff she is arguing is a good thing would get me to lose my job. On the statistics themselves... Number vary depending on the source, and statistics are easy to bend. Part of the problem is that the church has previously dissuaded members from reporting abuse, and when it was reported via church leadership (which, ironically, fairlds tries to argue about). They were instructed to call a church helpline instead of the authorities. It has been seen that this actually has hidden the numbers of those abused. Numbers vary in what we've seen, but fairlds DID state one thing...this isn't really public information outside of the fact that possibly up to 7,800 people who were LDS (or connected in some way with the Church) were part of the Lawsuit. It really doesn't go into detail on HOW that connection is, whether it was because they were part of an LDS troop, or were just LDS, or any other thing. In addition, we don't see the NON-LDS who were members of LDS troops and their numbers of how many there are. Interestingly enough, one attorney stated that 15-20% of the cases were actually from the Church... Victim's attorney feels LDS churches 250 million settlement is inadequate Quote Kosnoff says he estimates 15-20 percent of all victims were Scouts under church-sponsored troops. The church, he says, had an outsized influence in scouting – a connection spanning a century that infused Boy Scouts of America with a culture that kept accusations of sex abuse quiet. --------------------------- Kosnoff says more than 70,000 chartering organizations are implicated in the bankruptcy proceedings, and the only way to be free of legal liability is through a “substantial contribution.” --------------------------- and Eric Hawkins, a spokesman for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, wrote this in an emailed statement: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints condemns abuse of any kind. We express our love and concern for those who have experienced abuse through Scouting or any other circumstance. This has been a prolonged process that included—as one of many interested parties—The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a former sponsoring organization. This contribution will provide opportunities to alleviate the suffering of those who have experienced abuse.” A majority of these cases are from the 60s, 70s, and 80s. How many Church members were boy scouts during that time. FairLDS takes the number from recent units (after a massive drop off of scouting units in the early and mid 2010s). During the time most of the abuse cases are coming from (but not all, unfortunately, abuse continues to this day) Scouts numbered from 4.5 to 4.7 million each year in Scouts in the 60s and 70s, and to a drop of 3.5 million in the 80s. Members were no where close to being 1.3 million scouts each year during that time period. Even when the LDS church was pulling out of Scouts their numbers were LESS than 800,000. So, her supposition on where the church's paying for the amount is correct, but her supposition of the percentage of LDS who were boy scouts in relation to how many scout s there were total during that time is an absolute fallacy on her part in FairLDS. It was around 400K LDS scouts when the church left (~20% at the time), but it HAD been higher just prior to that. After many units left during the early 2000s and to the great exodus in 2010-2013, the LDS church probably had about 1/3 of the scouts in Scouting at that point with (as I said, somewhere between 600K and 800K scouts out of something like 2.5 million Boy Scouts). These are different numbers than they were during the HEYDAY of when the abuse cases were occurring and then were part of the big case against the scouts recently. NOW...the biggest irony. You can see the fruits of the way people think from HOW they now approach scouts in the Church. To most, the morals of the scouts mean nothing, from what I've seen. They are too willing to ignore these things, and even their own leaders in regards to scouts. The Church did not condemn scouts itself, and ironically the YOUTH program today is one that the church leaders have expressed can work with any youth goals set in anything from scouting to sports to other pursuits. Yet, I see members who actually DO condemn scouting for various reasons. Anyways, this is not really what I was trying to point out originally. The original point which I have been led away from, is that the current program for the Youth is NOT that good of a program and lacks in many areas from what I've seen over the past few years. It has very little guidance of exactly HOW the program is to be run, what is to be done with it, and HOW it is actually failing the youth (grandchildren, who are of the age of these programs in the Church) in MY family in a very horrendous and horrible way. I wouldn't say it empowers the bullies unless I have actually SEEN this occurring to family members (and not just one ward, multiple wards that are spread out across the US, so this is not just a ONE WARD problem). You can say...hey...we disagree, or hey, we hate you for seeing this, but nothing you do or say can extinguish the evidence and harm that has been done to my family due to the actions people have done via this program. I cannot say that the prior program was entirely successful, but of the older grand children that went through that program I've had a greater number strong with the church. Currently, with the grandchildren in the new program, I have almost 50% of them struggling with testimonies and several of them not even going to church now due to experiences they have had AT church. As someone who WANTS them to go to church and love the gospel, this is particularly hard. I would WANT the church to have a better program. This is NOTHING against the gospel, or the things that we know are true. I love the gospel, and believe it or not, I love the church. However, I DO wish that there was a better program that could lead our youth to be better than the one that is currently in place. I feel if our aim is to serve young people in bringing them closer to Christ and encouraging them to remain in the Church, then we need a more robust program to help teach them the principles of the Lord. I know today we say parents are supposed to be doing this, and this is true, but it is still discouraging to see grandchildren falling away or seeing how it is starting with them. However, as a grandparent, I still feel the church itself could do more to help as well. I'd done all I could asa a Parent, how could my children still leave the church This article seems to show me that my family is not the only one experiencing hardships in this area...and I sympathize with the things that it says. I just...I feel things were better when the Church actually had what I viewed as a stronger and more robust system in place for the youth, the system that my own children went through. On a brighter thought, we have at least two grandkids that DID go through this program that look to be getting ready to go on missions, but I have half a dozen that aren't really going to church or are not attending regularly as well at this point. So, how's it going? With me, probably pretty decently right now. With the younger generation...they need prayers. Edited September 27 by JohnsonJones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDSGator Posted September 23 Report Share Posted September 23 3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said: Part of the problem is that the church has previously dissuaded members from reporting abuse, and when it was reported via church leadership (which, ironically, fairlds tries to argue about). They were instructed to call a church helpline instead of the authorities. To be fair, this was happening in many churches. I’ve always thought that the way the churches covered it up was almost as bad as the abuse itself. There’s a lesson here. 1) don’t abuse children and 2) when you do something wrong, bring it to the open, admit you did it, and ask for forgiveness immediately. Luke 8:17 is always right. JohnsonJones 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mordorbund Posted September 30 Report Share Posted September 30 On 9/23/2024 at 7:06 AM, JohnsonJones said: You will be disqualified as a leader if you do not practice two deep leadership in the Scouts. It is NOT a recommendation. It IS(a recommendation for the Church. If it were not, No Bishopric or Stake Presidency could interview a youth in a one on one setting behind closed doors. I know this occurs quite regularly in the church. Or are you saying, in accordance with the Boy Scout policy the Church would immediately excommunicate the Bishoprics and Stake Presidencies that do this, consider it an abuse situation which disqualifies them from membership and ever being part of the organization today? I don't see that in the policies your posted. You're crossing the bishop's ecclesiastical role with the youth leader role. Walk through this hypothetical with me. A young man tells his scout master, who also happens to be his pastor, that he needs to meet with him in order to earn his religious emblem. The scout master says, why don't you meet with me this Sunday before services. When Sunday arrives the young man meets one-on-one behind closed doors where the pastor determines if he's living the religion's moral standards. Will the pastor get removed from his scouting position? I dare say he won't. When bishops go on campouts or carpool to youth activities they follow the 2-deep rule. When they meet with the youth in an ecclesiastical role he follows the rules outlined here: Quote Always give the member the option of having someone else be present during an interview or meeting. When meeting with a member of the opposite sex, a child, or a youth, ensure that a parent or another adult is present. He or she may join the meeting or wait outside the room, depending on the preferences of the member with whom you are meeting. More on that later. On 9/23/2024 at 7:06 AM, JohnsonJones said: Though I posted the section that you posted as the guidelines...if we go by what this is, it's a toothless tiger. It IS something that says it should happen, but ramifications occur if one does NOT report it as the guidelines say? Do they get kicked out of the church, face church punishment? What happens? There is no real guidance in this. It's more of a thing up to the local Bishop...and normally that means nothing will happen if they do NOT do this unless the authorities actually charge them with a crime. This is less likely to occur with Church youth leaders (to be charged) as they are not considered Mandatory Reporters last time I checked. Again, mandatory reporters are defined by States. Especially if you're claiming scouting leaders will be charged for failure to comply. BSA can say what they will, but if the State doesn't require youth leaders to be mandatory reporters there will be no charges. If a church member fails to report an incident, I don't know what the consequence would be. You've escalated to a possible excommunication, but I would think a release would be more likely. Given that different States have different requirements and that the bishop knows the local members better than I do, perhaps that's why they have a legal line to call as well as counsellors. By the way, I've been looking through BSA's various pages and FAQ's on youth protection (a lot of them looked like this). I'm having a difficult time finding a standardized penalty for failure to report (or any penalty really). From what I can tell, the penalty for this (as well as the penalty for near-misses) is left up to the local Council. On 9/23/2024 at 7:06 AM, JohnsonJones said: Your source is FairLDS... Yes... And as we look into it, I think you might need to re-read it because you're arguing against claims that aren't there. On 9/23/2024 at 7:06 AM, JohnsonJones said: She uses and twists numbers which aren't really relevant (for example, her extrapolating that 30% of the units from when the majority of the abuse cases are coming from were LDS, that 30% is mostly from RECENT numbers, not from when the cases are from), She's not extrapolating why 30% should be the correct number. She's going off of a number the BSA negotiated and got. Are you saying the number should be different? So is she! Are you saying that the 30% actually represents something else? Then what?! On 9/23/2024 at 7:06 AM, JohnsonJones said: she argues that background checks are not useful Actually she argues that background checks have limited utility. Please take a moment to recognize the difference before continuing. Background checks have huge holes in the backgrounds getting checked. They're good for weeding out the most egregious offenders (where egregious is defined as "caught and convicted", not as "did really bad stuff") but if you don't know about the blind spots it can fill an organization with false confidence. The Church doesn't have background checks like BSA, but it does have a system to help weed out serious baddies. Even NT concluded: On 9/21/2024 at 5:26 PM, NeuroTypical said: It looks like horrible behavior can more easily show up on a church membership record than a background check. Because, for example, most sexual assaults are not reported to authorities, most of them are not investigated, most of them don't result in an arrest, most arrests don't result in charges, and most charges don't involve a conviction. Whereas in the church, if you assault someone and your church leaders know about it, they can/should add an annotation to your record, regardless of any official government action. On 9/23/2024 at 7:06 AM, JohnsonJones said: that the church helpline was a better thing to call (for an example of two teenagers involved in what could be abuse...YOU SHOULD CALL and REPORT...not ask the church helpline first whether this is something to report or not or what to do) in some of her examples. One advantage of calling the helpline first is that the bishop would know if he's revealing privileged information. There's legal and social reasons for that confidentiality. On 9/23/2024 at 7:06 AM, JohnsonJones said: Number vary depending on the source, and statistics are easy to bend. Part of the problem is that the church has previously dissuaded members from reporting abuse, and when it was reported via church leadership (which, ironically, fairlds tries to argue about). They were instructed to call a church helpline instead of the authorities. It has been seen that this actually has hidden the numbers of those abused. Numbers vary in what we've seen, but fairlds DID state one thing...this isn't really public information outside of the fact that possibly up to 7,800 people who were LDS (or connected in some way with the Church) were part of the Lawsuit. It really doesn't go into detail on HOW that connection is, whether it was because they were part of an LDS troop, or were just LDS, or any other thing. In addition, we don't see the NON-LDS who were members of LDS troops and their numbers of how many there are. Interestingly enough, one attorney stated that 15-20% of the cases were actually from the Church... Victim's attorney feels LDS churches 250 million settlement is inadequate Yes, it's difficult to know the rate of abuse in the Church of Jesus Christ if we base it solely on self-reporting and helpline data, but that's not what's happening here so I don't know why you're bringing it up. FairLDS provided their source: the P-files kept by the LA Times. Kosnoff also claims to use the same source. FairLDS tells us what their methodology is and how they got that number. Kosnoff (in that article at least) does not. Even if we assume Kosnoff's estimate is more accurate than FairLDS's, the Church is over-paying by 30-50%. On 9/23/2024 at 7:06 AM, JohnsonJones said: A majority of these cases are from the 60s, 70s, and 80s. How many Church members were boy scouts during that time. FairLDS takes the number from recent units (after a massive drop off of scouting units in the early and mid 2010s). During the time most of the abuse cases are coming from (but not all, unfortunately, abuse continues to this day) Scouts numbered from 4.5 to 4.7 million each year in Scouts in the 60s and 70s, and to a drop of 3.5 million in the 80s. Members were no where close to being 1.3 million scouts each year during that time period. Even when the LDS church was pulling out of Scouts their numbers were LESS than 800,000. So, her supposition on where the church's paying for the amount is correct, but her supposition of the percentage of LDS who were boy scouts in relation to how many scout s there were total during that time is an absolute fallacy on her part in FairLDS. It was around 400K LDS scouts when the church left (~20% at the time), but it HAD been higher just prior to that. After many units left during the early 2000s and to the great exodus in 2010-2013, the LDS church probably had about 1/3 of the scouts in Scouting at that point with (as I said, somewhere between 600K and 800K scouts out of something like 2.5 million Boy Scouts). These are different numbers than they were during the HEYDAY of when the abuse cases were occurring and then were part of the big case against the scouts recently. FairLDS uses 95% of the files across the entire 80 years that they've been kept. I don't know where you're getting it from that they only used recent numbers. I agree that we would get a more accurate percentage if we compared against % representation of any given year, but as a ball park I think this at least shows that the actual amount is less than what the financial burden suggests. On 9/23/2024 at 7:06 AM, JohnsonJones said: NOW...the biggest irony. You can see the fruits of the way people think from HOW they now approach scouts in the Church. To most, the morals of the scouts mean nothing, from what I've seen. They are too willing to ignore these things, and even their own leaders in regards to scouts. The Church did not condemn scouts itself, and ironically the YOUTH program today is one that the church leaders have expressed can work with any youth goals set in anything from scouting to sports to other pursuits. Yet, I see members who actually DO condemn scouting for various reasons. Anyways, this is not really what I was trying to point out originally. The original point which I have been led away from, is that the current program for the Youth is NOT that good of a program and lacks in many areas from what I've seen over the past few years. It has very little guidance of exactly HOW the program is to be run, what is to be done with it, and HOW it is actually failing the youth (grandchildren, who are of the age of these programs in the Church) in MY family in a very horrendous and horrible way. I wouldn't say it empowers the bullies unless I have actually SEEN this occurring to family members (and not just one ward, multiple wards that are spread out across the US, so this is not just a ONE WARD problem). You can say...hey...we disagree, or hey, we hate you for seeing this, but nothing you do or say can extinguish the evidence and harm that has been done to my family due to the actions people have done via this program. I haven't compared youth programs here, and if this is your main point then I encourage you to stick to it. I am only raising an objection to the provably false statement that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not use 2-deep leadership in its youth program. Don't repeat it and I'll return to my lawn. Carborendum, NeuroTypical, zil2 and 1 other 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnsonJones Posted October 2 Report Share Posted October 2 (edited) On 9/29/2024 at 8:13 PM, mordorbund said: You're crossing the bishop's ecclesiastical role with the youth leader role. Walk through this hypothetical with me. A young man tells his scout master, who also happens to be his pastor, that he needs to meet with him in order to earn his religious emblem. The scout master says, why don't you meet with me this Sunday before services. When Sunday arrives the young man meets one-on-one behind closed doors where the pastor determines if he's living the religion's moral standards. Will the pastor get removed from his scouting position? I dare say he won't. Yes, he will. That's where you made the mistakes. On the 1/3 numbers... I'm saying she is not understanding the number or PURPOSEFULLY DECEIVING people. Look, it's NO mystery the numbers. LDS scouts during the time of the problems didn't number 1/3 of the units. In fact, considering the number of LDS members and the young men at that time...it would have literally been impossible. Even with 16 million members the LDS church only had 800,000 scouts...and THAT's when they had 1/3 of the scouting units. This is in the 2010s after many of the other units left over BSA allowing gay scouts to be in units (which, ironically the LDS church had been allowing, against scouting rules...for decades). At the time of the lawsuit the LDS church accepted the number because, as I said, after 2013 they had around 1/3 of the scouts. This should NOT be a hard thing to understand and is actually quite clear from the documents as well. In the 1960s to the 1980s...they did not. This is just numbers. It's not that hard to comprehend or understand. Anyways, I wrote a much longer post in response, but I realize you don't really understand the rules in scouts or the protections they use. You don't understand the numbers from the lawsuit or the numbers which have been recorded of organizations and the numbers of scouts in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s in relation to how many LDS scouts there were said to be. Ignoring such things really isn't making a conversation in good faith and ignores what I was saying originally, which was that the LDS program currently is not that good of a program for the youth. I've had the unfortunate experience of seeing it firsthand affecting my grandkids. I see no one actually trying to address the REAL problems in this thread. That's actually indicative of one of the problems as well. I know one reason the program was designed was so that it could incorporate Scouting and other youth programs under one umbrella. In this fashion a youth could pick which one was best suited to them and under the same umbrella and same group, youth could all be part of a robust program under the Church's youth program. That's not how it turned out though. Members are so against other youth programs that it really hasn't succeeded in general in this capacity. There's too little direction and without direction the program gives power to those who have it, and disempowers those who do not. I'm having to deal with the results of this program with my grandkids. In light of the thread...then I'd say it's not going well for some of them. I don't see an overabundance of support or help in this regards either. If you feel that scouts was a terrible program...well...great. That still doesn't change the focus of my problems...and that's something you've done VERY LITTLE at actually addressing. Instead of taking into account what I've seen personally and seen done to my grandkids, you've tried to gloss over things saying they could never happen or does not happen in the church... I pray that others do not have to undergo what is happening with some of my grandkids, but I have an unfortunate feeling that I am not alone in this and my family is not the only ones experiencing this stuff. As I said, I can console myself in the words of the Prophet and what he has said about our time and what is coming. I can only imagine that he is trying to prepare us for what is coming (and it is possible that the church will NOT be what we can depend on in the future, but as he has said, it will be upon our reliance on the spirit which will determine whether we are counted among the wheat or the tares) and think that this is all part of something bigger coming on the horizon. All of it, the bigger focus on home study, the focus on studying more as families could be preparing for something in the future that will make it so that we can't depend on the programs of the church like we used to and the youth program in it's present condition is only the beginning. Edited October 2 by JohnsonJones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted October 2 Report Share Posted October 2 5 hours ago, JohnsonJones said: what I was saying originally, which was that the LDS program currently is not that good of a program for the youth. I've had the unfortunate experience of seeing it firsthand affecting my grandkids. I'm sort of uninvolved with this issue as I've had daughters only, and they are grown. But I must say that I've heard that exact complaint, pretty much word for word, voiced by saints for decades. People weren't happy when Scouting was the program, and people aren't happy now. My own personal experience in scouting was poor. Some camping trips, sporadic periods of weekly activities, long periods of no activity. Intense bursts of activity right before some deadline like earning badges or an upcoming Jamboree. Zero program continuity as scoutmasters came and went. One superstar scoutmaster who made a positive impact on my life, 2-3 folks who kept things active, entire years of nothing happening. Zero incidents or reports of abuse. No interactions with any evil adults. So that's nice. Some awkward camping experiences with the boy who these days go by she/her pronouns and is married to a spouse born female but goes by the name George. A bit of confusion introduced in my youth, but nothing traumatic. Just_A_Guy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted October 2 Report Share Posted October 2 (edited) 5 hours ago, JohnsonJones said: PURPOSEFULLY DECEIVING NO mystery THAT's when should NOT be a hard thing REAL problems VERY LITTLE at actually addressing. will NOT be Just a quick note @JohnsonJones that you may or may not find helpful. Pretty much everyone and their dog, when online, interpret ALL CAPS as yelling. I'm guessing you're just using all caps as a way to provide a little stress or emphasis to various points, a way of putting our verbal emphases into text. It's just that, well, I think pretty much all English speaking online cultures interpret all caps as yelling. And when we try to convey information or make points or persuade others, yelling is often counterproductive. Please accept this post as it is intended. I'm not criticizing or calling you out or anything. I love ya JJ, but when I read your posts I need to try hard to keep this image out of my head: (I mean, if that's the impression you are wishing to convey, then it's working just fine. ) Edited October 2 by NeuroTypical mirkwood and JohnsonJones 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carborendum Posted October 2 Report Share Posted October 2 11 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said: I'm sort of uninvolved with this issue as I've had daughters only, and they are grown. But I must say that I've heard that exact complaint, pretty much word for word, voiced by saints for decades. People weren't happy when Scouting was the program, and people aren't happy now. My own personal experience in scouting was poor. Some camping trips, sporadic periods of weekly activities, long periods of no activity. Intense bursts of activity right before some deadline like earning badges or an upcoming Jamboree. Zero program continuity as scoutmasters came and went. One superstar scoutmaster who made a positive impact on my life, 2-3 folks who kept things active, entire years of nothing happening. Zero incidents or reports of abuse. No interactions with any evil adults. So that's nice. Some awkward camping experiences with the boy who these days go by she/her pronouns and is married to a spouse born female but goes by the name George. A bit of confusion introduced in my youth, but nothing traumatic. While I was growing up, I never considered scouting as part of the YM program. I know that is how it was presented. But I never saw it that way. I just saw scouting as a means of learning some skills and going on campouts... doing something meaningful instead of watching Saturday morning cartoons, etc. As such, it worked for me. Did it ever build "character"? No one seems to have brought this up yet in this thread (at least, I didn't notice it). But that is probably the question to ask. It helped me (remember that I was very socially awkward in my youth) figure out some things that were appropriate and some things that were not appropriate behavior in public. Did scouting ever "build on gospel principles"? Not that I noticed. Sure, you could make the argument that learning skills that men need to know (e.g. we had one week where they taught us how to change a tire and change the oil). But those spiritual things that we consider "gospel principles"? I sure don't remember anything off the top of my head. Did either of those things matter to me? Not in the least. I still thought it was a worthwhile activity. I became a more capable individual because of scouting. ******************* How about the current program? I think it has noble goals that are much more gospel centered. That's a good thing. Execution...??? Not so much. I would not call many of the people in my ward "spiritual." They're good people, don't get me wrong. But it seems like church is more of a pass-time and social club than a worship service. Sunday discussions and youth activities tend to reflect that attitude. Recently, in Sunday School, we were asked two things: What are some titles of Jesus Christ? How do you know that Jesus is the Savior? Many titles were given. Not one person said "Savior." People know that Jesus is their Savior because... guess what? No one talked about His role as Savior. They testified that He gives them strength and encouragement to do things they find difficult. They testified that they felt comfort. etc. etc. All great things. Yes, they are valid. Yes, it's all part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I had to ask why no one said the title "Savior." I then wondered why no one talked about repentance and forgiveness. If we're talking about the Savior and His role in our lives, then we need to talk about "saving from what?" -- sin and death... That means repentance and asking for forgiveness. But no one brought that up. I'm sure there are other wards that are more on top of things like this. But when I realized no one volunteered the title "Savior" and no one talked about sin, repentance, and forgiveness, it was kinda depressing. JohnsonJones and Just_A_Guy 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnsonJones Posted October 3 Report Share Posted October 3 17 hours ago, NeuroTypical said: Just a quick note @JohnsonJones that you may or may not find helpful. Pretty much everyone and their dog, when online, interpret ALL CAPS as yelling. I'm guessing you're just using all caps as a way to provide a little stress or emphasis to various points, a way of putting our verbal emphases into text. It's just that, well, I think pretty much all English speaking online cultures interpret all caps as yelling. And when we try to convey information or make points or persuade others, yelling is often counterproductive. Please accept this post as it is intended. I'm not criticizing or calling you out or anything. I love ya JJ, but when I read your posts I need to try hard to keep this image out of my head: (I mean, if that's the impression you are wishing to convey, then it's working just fine. ) I am an old man. You are correct, I use caps as an emphasis. I probably could use some education on how to emphasis words otherwise. Should I bold them instead? NeuroTypical 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnsonJones Posted October 3 Report Share Posted October 3 17 hours ago, Carborendum said: While I was growing up, I never considered scouting as part of the YM program. I know that is how it was presented. But I never saw it that way. I just saw scouting as a means of learning some skills and going on campouts... doing something meaningful instead of watching Saturday morning cartoons, etc. As such, it worked for me. Did it ever build "character"? No one seems to have brought this up yet in this thread (at least, I didn't notice it). But that is probably the question to ask. It helped me (remember that I was very socially awkward in my youth) figure out some things that were appropriate and some things that were not appropriate behavior in public. Did scouting ever "build on gospel principles"? Not that I noticed. Sure, you could make the argument that learning skills that men need to know (e.g. we had one week where they taught us how to change a tire and change the oil). But those spiritual things that we consider "gospel principles"? I sure don't remember anything off the top of my head. Did either of those things matter to me? Not in the least. I still thought it was a worthwhile activity. I became a more capable individual because of scouting. ******************* How about the current program? I think it has noble goals that are much more gospel centered. That's a good thing. Execution...??? Not so much. I would not call many of the people in my ward "spiritual." They're good people, don't get me wrong. But it seems like church is more of a pass-time and social club than a worship service. Sunday discussions and youth activities tend to reflect that attitude. Recently, in Sunday School, we were asked two things: What are some titles of Jesus Christ? How do you know that Jesus is the Savior? Many titles were given. Not one person said "Savior." People know that Jesus is their Savior because... guess what? No one talked about His role as Savior. They testified that He gives them strength and encouragement to do things they find difficult. They testified that they felt comfort. etc. etc. All great things. Yes, they are valid. Yes, it's all part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I had to ask why no one said the title "Savior." I then wondered why no one talked about repentance and forgiveness. If we're talking about the Savior and His role in our lives, then we need to talk about "saving from what?" -- sin and death... That means repentance and asking for forgiveness. But no one brought that up. I'm sure there are other wards that are more on top of things like this. But when I realized no one volunteered the title "Savior" and no one talked about sin, repentance, and forgiveness, it was kinda depressing. That's a good insight. I do not know what or how the classes my grandkids get in church are taught. I have two grand daughters that refuse to go to church now. I offered to let one of them go to Young Woman's camp in our stake last year and she almost went, but backed out at the last minute. She was unwilling to go to her own Stake's young woman's camp and had some experiences with Young woman in the ward that I feel probably was influencing her decisions on participation. It breaks my heart to see her in such a state. Her sister has also stopped going to church in the past few months, though I'm not sure if it's just the others in the ward, or also has to do with her sister's influence as well. I know their family has family prayer when I'm over there as well as daily scripture reading and I try to discuss the gospel as I can. Sometimes I just feel so helpless with the younger grandkids in this situation. It's not one I really faced with my own kids growing up, and as I see my kids struggle with my grandkids with testimony and love of the church, it's hard. Luckily it's not all the younger group of my grandkids. Some seem to be doing quite well. The ones that are struggling though, I just feel so powerless to help them develop a love for the gospel. From what I've read from your posts it sounds like your children have a good footing in the church and a good foundation in the gospel. I hope they continue to do so and remain strong with the church. In that, you must be doing something right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirkwood Posted October 3 Report Share Posted October 3 2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said: Should I bold them instead? That is what I do. JohnsonJones 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDSGator Posted October 3 Report Share Posted October 3 (edited) 5 hours ago, JohnsonJones said: I am an old man. You are correct, I use caps as an emphasis. I probably could use some education on how to emphasis words otherwise. Should I bold them instead? We still love you @JohnsonJones. Edited October 3 by LDSGator NeuroTypical and JohnsonJones 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted October 3 Report Share Posted October 3 7 hours ago, JohnsonJones said: I am an old man. I am getting older every year, and I find myself also getting more crotchety. I find I have to spend more energy to be civil and polite than I used to. There just so many people out there that could use a good talking to, or even a trip to the woodshed. This is me an embarrassingly large amount of the time: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDSGator Posted October 3 Report Share Posted October 3 4 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said: am getting older every year, and I find myself also getting more crotchety. I find I have to spend more energy to be civil and polite than I used to. That’s sort of a fallacy. One, you aren’t crotchety and you are always polite and nice. Two, I think after age 30 or so personalities don’t change. A cranky, unpleasant man at age 60 was almost certainly a cranky, unpleasant man at age 29 too. Age just gives them an “excuse” to act like a jerk. NeuroTypical 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ironhold Posted October 3 Report Share Posted October 3 38 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said: I am getting older every year, and I find myself also getting more crotchety. I find I have to spend more energy to be civil and polite than I used to. There just so many people out there that could use a good talking to, or even a trip to the woodshed. This is me an embarrassingly large amount of the time: As I noted a few months ago, I was removed from my position as moderator of a Discord server because I explained to someone that "just because you hear it in a rap song doesn't mean that you need to repeat it". Apparently, the server administration found that more offensive than the word the person was saying even though the word itself was against the rules. NeuroTypical 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted October 3 Report Share Posted October 3 2 hours ago, LDSGator said: I think after age 30 or so personalities don’t change. It's possible that it's not an age thing, but a learning and life milestone thing. The more I learn, the less surprises me. Plus, both my wife and I have an awful lot of gallows/irreverent humor about a lot of things, and as the years go by, the less invested I am in keeping it to myself because gallows humor is often unproductive. Plus, as my kids are grown, I used to keep my "I'm raising my kids this way" zeal to myself, to not traumatize them. Now every day that goes by, my attitude of "I raised my kids that way so bite me" grows. But it's also possible that I'm just taking after my dad. People tell me that he came back from WWII looking and acting 20 years older than he was. Plus, his industry disappeared and he took early retirement at 55. I was raised hearing much he was looking forward to demanding his old perks and restaurant discounts and whatnot. I sort of internalized my admiration of my dad, and have been looking forward to being too old to care for a while. LDSGator 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDSGator Posted October 3 Report Share Posted October 3 2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said: It's possible that it's not an age thing, but a learning and life milestone thing. The more I learn, the less surprises me. Plus, both my wife and I have an awful lot of gallows/irreverent humor about a lot of things, and as the years go by, the less invested I am in keeping it to myself because gallows humor is often unproductive. Plus, as my kids are grown, I used to keep my "I'm raising my kids this way" zeal to myself, to not traumatize them. Now every day that goes by, my attitude of "I raised my kids that way so bite me" grows. But it's also possible that I'm just taking after my dad. People tell me that he came back from WWII looking and acting 20 years older than he was. Plus, his industry disappeared and he took early retirement at 55. I was raised hearing much he was looking forward to demanding his old perks and restaurant discounts and whatnot. I sort of internalized my admiration of my dad, and have been looking forward to being too old to care for a while. I’ve told Melissa that if I ever get cranky and acrimonious in my old age to pull an Old Yeller on me. Take me out back, tell me about the rabbits, and make it quick. NeuroTypical 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirkwood Posted October 3 Report Share Posted October 3 12 minutes ago, LDSGator said: I’ve told Melissa that if I ever get cranky and acrimonious in my old age to pull an Old Yeller on me. Take me out back, tell me about the rabbits, and make it quick. Shipment in bound... mordorbund, NeuroTypical, JohnsonJones and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted October 3 Report Share Posted October 3 My wife says this a lot: "Ya know, when we got married, you said you'd die for me and you haven't yet..." LDSGator 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDSGator Posted October 3 Report Share Posted October 3 30 minutes ago, mirkwood said: Shipment in bound... We have the death penalty down here officer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDSGator Posted October 3 Report Share Posted October 3 51 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said: My wife says this a lot: "Ya know, when we got married, you said you'd die for me and you haven't yet..." “Marriage is being willing to lay down in traffic for your partner, but if he doesn’t stop snapping his gum I’m going to push him out of this car.”-Facebook post from Melissa many years ago NeuroTypical 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnsonJones Posted October 4 Report Share Posted October 4 15 hours ago, NeuroTypical said: But it's also possible that I'm just taking after my dad. People tell me that he came back from WWII looking and acting 20 years older than he was. Plus, his industry disappeared and he took early retirement at 55. I was raised hearing much he was looking forward to demanding his old perks and restaurant discounts and whatnot. I sort of internalized my admiration of my dad, and have been looking forward to being too old to care for a while. Those restaurant perks aren't as great as you may think. Neither are some of the other perks. 1. We go to take the Grandkids out to dinner or lunch. Invariably, one of the younger ones will only be happy if we go to Mcdonalds. McDonald's senior perks are not exactly stellar... 2. There are some places we go where we could get the Senior Dinner, but invariably they always seem to give you smaller portions than if you order the normal dinner. I've become wary of Senior prices at restaurants due to this. 3. Some parks and such offer senior discounts. They know we aren't going to be going on the wild rides at our age. It's more to just walk around and see if they have any shows. Some are decent, some are really bad (as in, they only have one stage and one show). I would ride the little kiddy rides (no kidding!!!), but I fear getting terrible looks from others. I did go on one or two with a grandson this summer...it was an airsail ride. He really liked going back and forth with it. I felt sick afterwards and realized my body just can't take that sort of abuse anymore. I let him go on it several times again, while I sat off to the side and tried to recover. NeuroTypical 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted October 5 Report Share Posted October 5 On 10/3/2024 at 4:26 PM, LDSGator said: “Marriage is being willing to lay down in traffic for your partner, but if he doesn’t stop snapping his gum I’m going to push him out of this car.”-Facebook post from Melissa many years ago And just today, she posted this in a group chat of us and a bunch of friends, explaining “he can attest to this“: LDSGator 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted October 5 Report Share Posted October 5 (edited) I'm a latecomer here, and the discussion is too extensive for me to use the mutli-quote function; but I'd like to respond to a couple of what I understand to be @JohnsonJones's points/allegations: The Church isn't protecting children as much as the BSA because, inter alia, it doesn't subject those working with youth to background checks and it doesn't require as-frequent renewal of Youth Protection Training. In addition to the question that the FAIR article addresses as to what would even show up on a background check (commercially-available checks in the US would be limited to criminal history; often just criminal convictions. I can assure you that they won't include CPS history--at least, not in the State of Utah)--I think one dynamic that gets missed here is that in the Church, if you waltz into a new ward and say "I want to work with the children. Please do not give me any calling unless it puts me in close proximity to the children"--that's a red flag; because we have a strong ethic of not aspiring to any calling and instead, as @LDSGator eloquently relates, serving where we are asked to serve. By contrast, in the BSA everyone is there because they want to work with kids; and such statements don't trigger any "creepy alarms". So it's entirely appropriate that BSA "volunteers" should be subjected to a more rigorous vetting process than LDS (pardon the term) "conscripts". Another dynamic that gets missed is that the burden of proof for getting a notation put on your LDS membership record, is lower than the burden of proof for getting a conviction put on your criminal record. The new LDS youth program is toothless because, inter alia, youth are not excluded for failure to comply with the terms of the program; and especially failure to live moral standards/failure to hold temple recommends/failure to attend the temple. Well, yeah. The BSA is fundamentally a social club and can exclude anyone it wants to with no spiritual/eternal ramifications. The Church doesn't have that luxury; we can't kick kids out of the youth program (whatever it may be) just because they wouldn't buy the uniforms or badges or manuals or camping gear or whatnot. And I suspect that if the Church did start kicking out youth who couldn't qualify for a temple recommend, the hue and cry of protest would arise from many quarters of the Church--possibly even including my good friend, JohnsonJones. LDS youth protections are inferior because the BSA will immediately kick out violators of, eg, the "two deep policy", whereas the LDS Church won't. I have a couple of family members involved in non-LDS BSA troops (not in Utah), and they are desperately strapped for adult leadership. Barring additional creepiness, an adult violator of the two-deep policy would not be immediately kicked out; (s)he would be counseled and given a couple of warnings. BSA national may talk a tough game in order to give themselves legal cover (and of course, BSA national is not exactly known for their honesty, which is one reason the LDS Church bailed on them). But while the LDS policy recommending two-deep leadership may sound softer, it more honestly reflects what's realistically attainable at the grass-roots level. The LDS policy requiring those working with youth to report disclosures of abuse is toothless because there is no universal proscribed punishment for those who fail to comply with it. Such as . . . what? It's not enough that we instruct our people to render unto Caesar; we now have to do Caesar's work for him by launching inquisitions as to which Church members have failed to obey the policy and then revoke their temple covenants as punishment? The Church's inferior youth protection policies are what will render it more vulnerable to future litigation than the BSA. I think that's dubious. It is the Church's publicly-known, vastly deeper pockets that render it a more attractive target. If you look at most of the publicized LDS sex abuse litigation over the past ten years, precious little of it comes from two-deep leadership violations by bishops or youth leaders who perped on children themselves. Rather, the claims come from a) children who were victimized by a family acquaintance who happened to hold an LDS priesthood office, which tort lawyers then seized upon to try to establish respondeat superior; or b) bishops who heard a disclosure of abuse by a perpetrator or victim in a confessional context and encouraged the member to make a confession/report to law enforcement but felt unauthorized to make their own independent report. Additionally, right now there's sort of a blood-in-the-water mentality because of what happened to the BSA. Also, I think there's been an assumption that we basically did what the Catholics had done--assumed for theological reasons that our clergy were not subject to civil law, and deliberately shuffled pedophiles around and put them in new positions of authority from which they could strike again. But the majority of the high-profile cases lately have ended in legal victories for the Church; and I think the personal injury bar is finally starting to realize that the Church's approach was not nearly so outrageous. A college employee's professional associations with college students is an appropriate model of the desirable dynamic to be established within the LDS Church. Strongly disagree. The Church is specifically trying to build a trust-based, Zion society. That may or may not be attainable as broader secular socio-political conditions evolve; but I don't think the ideal should be thrown overboard just because our critics (many of whom resent the Church for providing a socio-theological framework that reinforces the choice of many LDS youth to be remain chaste and otherwise immune from critics' advances, exploitation, or other influence) make unquantified accusations about how harmful it supposedly is to children. This quote: Quote Part of the problem is that the church has previously dissuaded members from reporting abuse, and when it was reported via church leadership . . . They were instructed to call a church helpline instead of the authorities. There may have been individual leaders and congregational cultures that, reflecting (along with the BSA) the broader culture in which they found themselves, preferred to seek resolutions "in house" (I find it ironic that under the standards of the time in question, by documenting the identities and complaints against the perpetrators and then drumming the perps out of the organization, the BSA was actually doing *more* to combat child abuse than many other groups; but then those same records resulted in their being publicly pilloried for failure to protect children). But I'd be very surprised if you were able to point to a single directive from Church leadership in SLC urging a general policy of concealment of child sex abuse from the legal authorities. And as for the hotline: the phone number for that hotline was actually concealed from lay Church members until the last ten years or so. It was not something that existed to help the Church bigwigs identify and hush up allegations of abuse. It was intended as a resource for lay clergy. I've corresponded with you before about legal issues, JohnsonJones; and you are savvy enough to know what clerical privilege is, who holds it, and that the circumstances under which it can be waived vary from state to state. The FAIR article cited by @mordorbund offers inaccurate numbers. For example, it wrongly "extrapolates" a 30% figure. It sounds like maybe you didn't read the article very carefully, and went into it wanting to reject the optimistic picture it presented. The 30% figure comes from the fact that the Church paid 30% of the settlement pot; and the article then goes on to reject any suggestion that because the Church paid 30% of the fund it was the origin for 30% of the abuse cases. You then retreat into a sort of factual nihilism by claiming that "numbers vary depending on the source", but the numbers in the FAIR article--and the methodology--seem clear: the authors went into the LA Times database of the Ineligible Volunteer files (which spanned the last 80 years), threw out the cases where no religious affiliation of a troop could be identified, and then isolated the remaining cases where there was demonstrable affiliation with the LDS Church (a process that would result in the Church's being over-represented). And even so, only 5.16% of the abusers were LDS-affiliated. You link to an article quoting one of the victim attorneys in the BSA bankruptcy, Tim Kosnoff, claiming that the figure was more like 15-20%; but Kosnoff had the same data the FAIR authors had. The simple fact is: Kosnoff lied. (If you've been following the bankruptcy or the ScouterForum discussions, Kosnoff was determined to drag the Church into the proceeding and milk it for everything it had. He had a novel theory that since the Church had delegates at BSA National, BSA National's policies were the Church's fault and that all victims, LDS or not, ought to be able to hold the Church jointly and severally liable. Even a number of the victims ultimately concluded that Kosnoff was something of a snake.) One can muddy the waters about how many LDS Scouts, and troops there were over the last 8 decades, but the simple fact is that no one in this discussion has offered any basis for claiming that LDS abusers or LDS troops were over-represented in the documented BSA sex abuse cases--not in the total number of cases, not in any decade, not in any one year. Nor has any statistical basis been offered to contest the claim that, troop for troop, a scout was statistically safer in a random LDS unit than he was pretty much anywhere else in the BSA. The Church's current youth program is vague and being applied inconsistently and, in most cases, poorly. We would have been better off sticking with the BSA. I agree with the first part. I thought we'd have something much more structured and robust ready to go when we left the BSA--or, within a couple of years. I do see my son getting socialization and leadership experience and some outdoor activity in his deacon's quorum. Then again, it was surprising and disappointing when I took the Teachers' Quorum sailing a couple of weeks ago and asked one of them to tie a square not on a reefing line, and none of them knew how to do it. Then again--Gospel teaching was a much bigger priority on our sailing outing than in any BSA outdoor activity I'd ever done. The leaders did it in a way that was very inspirational, natural, and unobtrusive to the activity that we were doing. And that, in the end, is what's going to save my boy. As far as the Church goes: The BSA had its purpose. Then circumstances changed. The BSA may still be a good choice for individual families, but it is not a good choice for the Church. Its national leadership got taken over by people who bold-faced lied about where they planned to take the organization, and then shut the Church's representatives out of the decision-making process by subterfuge at a pivotal moment. It slowly became more sympathetic to social activists who want to pull the organization in direction where the Church cannot follow. Its financial demands on both individual boys and the chartering orgs were increasing by leaps and bounds and it insisted on treating the Church as a cash cow, even as it steadfastly refused to get its own fiscal house in order--and in hindsight, the Church extricated itself from the BSA just in time to avoid getting caught up in the collapse. I regret the Church's leaving the BSA, just like Lot regretted leaving Sodom and Gomorrah. But there are costs to spending too much time looking backwards . . . Edited October 5 by Just_A_Guy zil2, Carborendum, Vort and 2 others 2 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.