What the Scouting decision shows about us

[Vort]

I'm surprised and perhaps a little disappointed in the joy exhibited by so many Saints regarding this announcement. It's practically Schadenfreude. But my surprise betrays my naivete.

Here is the blunt truth: Scouting has never worked in the Church as it ought to have worked, because the Saints never supported it as they ought to have supported it. I include myself in this indictment. We raised our hands to sustain the leaders, but did we sustain them? Did we donate to FOS, regardless of how much we didn't want to or couldn't afford it? Did we take time off of work to volunteer to go on campouts every few months? When we had sons in the program, did we work with them to help them to the best of our and their ability to accomplish what they wanted? When we didn't have sons in the program, did we ask the Young Men's leaders and the bishopric how we could help out? In either case, did we support the boys in their efforts, offer them encouragement, go to their Courts of Honor, and help them along the path?

Some did. I honor those good-hearted people. Most of us did not. Please note that most of the ideas above apply equally to our young women. How are we doing there? Are we supporting our young women in their programs any better than we have supported our young men?

Do we want to be a Zion society, or don't we? If we do, are we willing to pay the price? Will we do what Zion society people do -- go to festivals to honor young men and women, give of our substance and time and blood to further that part of the sacred work, really support it and show our commitment to the young men and women? Will we, in the wording of the Doctrine and Covenants, "waste and wear out our lives" in pursuit of these goals? Or will we weary in well-doing?

I hang my head in shame that I have not been one of the valiant in this effort. My own sons have greatly benefited from these programs, but my contribution has been small. Sure, I've done my calling and gone on campouts and such, but there was no fire in the belly. I received the benefits without really helping. And the benefits could have been greater for all had I been more involved -- I mean REALLY involved, not just helping out here and there.

So here we are. Scouting is going away for our more senior Young Men, for the most part at least. It will be replaced by something else. And when that new program comes online, what will we do? How will we support it? The same as we did with Scouting? If so, the new program won't accomplish anything more than Scouting did. We'll still get poor results, but maybe we'll spend less money getting them. Is that considered trading up?

The bottom line is that Scouting is not the problem. We are the problem.

[The Folk Prophet]

I don't understand the glee some have in the decision either. I don't find the loss of the program particularly sad, but I do find the failure sad, and agree that failure is on the part of the members.

[Guest]

I thought scouting worked wonderfully back in my childhood ward!  We had ten young men (a lot for a Texas ward) and almost all of them wound up getting their Eagle award (and now have a distinct advantage that will last for the rest of their lives).  Those who got their Eagle awards invariably went on to serve missions and get married in the Temple.  

My wife actually wished the Young Women's programs in her childhood ward worked more like scouting.

Of course, this is just how the scouting program and young womens' program worked in two very small Texas wards.  I am sure it varies widely from one stake to another.

I do feel sorry for all of the LDS boys who will now be less likely to get their Eagle rank.  I actually think my Eagle rank is almost more useful, in real life, than my undergraduate degree!  These boys can join a non-LDS troop, but what is the likelihood they will be motivated enough to follow through?

That said, I have absolute confidence the Church had a good reason for departing from scouting and that it was the right choice.  I just wish scouting could have stayed being the same worthy and important program it was just 20 years ago.

[workingonit]

I've been a scoutmaster in a fairly high functioning ward.  We had a military attorney from Texas move up here and get us all lined out on the "proper" way to do scouting.  From that experience I believe that  these boys should have their eagle earned by the time they turn 14 or within a couple of months following their 14th birthday.  After that they rarely want anything to do with scouting anyway.  They want to be involved in activities...it just need to be on their terms, and that is exactly what the church has been facilitating for some time now. 

[person0]

I am an Eagle Scout and am grateful for the Scouting experiences and opportunities I have had.  However, once I experienced the bureaucratic side of scout leadership, I quickly determined that I did not like scouting anymore. I believe that the advantages and opportunities it provided could be easily achieved without everything they require.  I hope that the new program the Church implements will include teaching many of the same skills and doing many of the same activities, but with a reduced burden on the young men's leadership.

The programmer side of my brain came up with the concept of Open Source Scouts, where people could collaborate to create a similar meaningful program that would not entail any bureaucracy and any person or organization could do it!  I hope no one steals my idea!   Does my posting this count as a copyright?  Show me the royalties!  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Here is the blunt truth: Scouting has never worked in the Church as it ought to have worked, because the Saints never supported it as they ought to have supported it.

Scouting worked just fine for many many years.  In my ward growing up we had many enriching experiences that allowed us to mature throughout our youth.  And, yes, it was because those involved supported it with time, talents, and means.

1 hour ago, Vort said:

We raised our hands to sustain the leaders, but did we sustain them? Did we donate to FOS, regardless of how much we didn't want to or couldn't afford it? Did we take time off of work to volunteer to go on campouts every few months? When we had sons in the program, did we work with them to help them to the best of our and their ability to accomplish what they wanted? When we didn't have sons in the program, did we ask the Young Men's leaders and the bishopric how we could help out? In either case, did we support the boys in their efforts, offer them encouragement, go to their Courts of Honor, and help them along the path?

And when that new program comes online, what will we do? How will we support it? The same as we did with Scouting?

Yes, to all.  And many still do.  And many will.

1 hour ago, Vort said:

If so, the new program won't accomplish anything more than Scouting did. We'll still get poor results, but maybe we'll spend less money getting them. Is that considered trading up?

The bottom line is that Scouting is not the problem. We are the problem.

Vort, this sounds an awful lot like (forgive the inaccuracy of the term) blaming the victim.  We always have had and still do have the most Eagle Scouts per capita than any other charter organization.  That will change now.  But that one statistic alone should tell you that by and large we have been quite valiant in our efforts to support Scouting and the boys in it.

And what did we get for it?  

• They did an end run around us on the gay leadership vote.  
• Other charter organizations mock us and call us liars and cheaters because "there's no way you could get that many eagle scouts!"  
• When we have small wards that simply don't have the resources or population to support a full patrol other charters shun us from their groups -- they did with my sons.
• The BSA constantly asks for more money from us because,"Hey, you can afford it."
• Many of the volunteer leadership is heavily, disproportionately LDS.  And they still mock us.
• They've watered down the requirements for rank advancements and merit badges such that it doesn't make men anymore.  They make man-children.
• With each passing year, they give into secularism and the morality of the day rather than standing for the moral center that they were meant to be.

Nope, sorry vort.  I just can't agree with your assessment.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Guest

[Vort]

1 hour ago, person0 said:

The programmer side of my brain came up with the concept of Open Source Scouts, where people could collaborate to create a similar meaningful program that would not entail any bureaucracy and any person or organization could do it!  I hope no one steals my idea!   Does my posting this count as a copyright?  Show me the royalties!  

Thus violating the very premise of open-source...

[Just_A_Guy]

I second @person0.  Whatever BSA's past virtues, it has devolved into a morass of bureaucracy and avarice.  As a cubmaster for 2 years and an 11-year-old leader for 4-5 years before that in two different wards; I find that my council is quick to tell me what I'm doing wrong, quick to say "no", quick to lose records, quick to sell me crap at inflated prices, quick to extol its own virtues, quick to ask for money, quick to give me boneheaded "tips" that haven't worked for any boy born after 1949, quick to nag me about why I'm not growing my pack . . . But agonizingly slow to provide any meaningful support to those of us volunteers who are in the trenches, making the program work.

Any time a relationship dissolves, there will inevitably be some navel-gazing and questions about what we could have done better.  On the whole, that's healthy.  But we need not view the BSA through rose-colored glasses.  Scouting is no longer the blessing that once it was; and the benefits it still provides are by no means exclusive to the BSA--as Trail Life USA has shown.  And it's worth noting that TLUSA's entire membership is only 1/5 of the number of LDS boys affected by this new policy.

Our future remains bright.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

11 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Here is the blunt truth: Scouting has never worked in the Church as it ought to have worked, because the Saints never supported it as they ought to have supported it.

Scouting worked just fine for many many years.  In my ward growing up we had many enriching experiences that allowed us to mature throughout our youth.  And, yes, it was because those involved supported it with time, talents, and means.

1 hour ago, Vort said:

We raised our hands to sustain the leaders, but did we sustain them? Did we donate to FOS, regardless of how much we didn't want to or couldn't afford it? Did we take time off of work to volunteer to go on campouts every few months? When we had sons in the program, did we work with them to help them to the best of our and their ability to accomplish what they wanted? When we didn't have sons in the program, did we ask the Young Men's leaders and the bishopric how we could help out? In either case, did we support the boys in their efforts, offer them encouragement, go to their Courts of Honor, and help them along the path?

And when that new program comes online, what will we do? How will we support it? The same as we did with Scouting?

Yes, to all.  And many still do.  And many will.

From what I have seen in my life in the Church, both as a Scout and as an adult, I submit that your wards have been the exception to the rule. My current ward has had a very good, strong Scouting program, but even it has not been what it might have been. We could have done much more, and I am standing at the front of the line of people to blame.

13 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Vort, this sounds an awful lot like (forgive the inaccuracy of the term) blaming the victim.  We always have had and still do have the most Eagle Scouts per capita than any other charter organization.  That will change now.  But that one statistic alone should tell you that by and large we have been quite valiant in our efforts to support Scouting and the boys in it.

I care only a little about the Eagle Scout rank (and I concede that you were using it only as an example, not as a final metric). I care about young men becoming who and what they ought to become. Scouting had an important role in that, and too often it did not fulfill that role. And I don't think the ultimate root of that failure to fully pull off that role was the Scouting program itself; I think it was a failure of the leadership and the other adults to do the necessary work to understand Scouting and make it work. And I believe that same failure will follow us into the next program, and the next, and the next, until we finally understand that Zion happens when people truly consecrate themselves. Until that happens, we are largely marking time.

16 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

And what did we get for it?  

• They did an end run around us on the gay leadership vote.  
• Other charter organizations mock us and call us liars and cheaters because "there's no way you could get that many eagle scouts!"  
• When we have small wards that simply don't have the resources or population to support a full patrol other charters shun us from their groups -- they did with my sons.
• The BSA constantly asks for more money from us because,"Hey, you can afford it."
• Many of the volunteer leadership is heavily, disproportionately LDS.  And they still mock us.
• They've watered down the requirements for rank advancements and merit badges such that it doesn't make men anymore.  They make man-children.
• With each passing year, they give into secularism and the morality of the day rather than standing for the moral center that they were meant to be.

I agree with every bullet point above. But in my estimation, those are not the reasons that Scouting never fulfilled the Church-wide purpose it was intended to. The reason that Scouting never worked in the American/Canadian Church the way it was envisioned to work is because people like me didn't consecrate ourselves to the work as we ought to have done. You don't have to agree, but that's my view.

[person0]

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

Thus violating the very premise of open-source...

In most cases, yes, but you can have open source with paid commercialization for t-shirts and other items not needed to the actual usage of the program/service. (i.e. the program is free but if you want here is a kit you can purchase for convenience to complete [x] merit badge) But also allow that they could just get the materials on their own.

[Guest MormonGator]

The LDS church can be singing this song. Boy Scouts are going to regret this divorce. 

[Just_A_Guy]

21 minutes ago, Vort said:

I agree with every bullet point above. But in my estimation, those are not the reasons that Scouting never fulfilled the Church-wide purpose it was intended to. The reason that Scouting never worked in the American/Canadian Church the way it was envisioned to work is because people like me didn't consecrate ourselves to the work as we ought to have done. You don't have to agree, but that's my view.

That said:  Scouting just takes a lot of manpower to run well.  You need a trained Cubmaster, Scoutmaster, Coach, Crew leader, at least one assistant for all aforementioned positions, and chairs for the Cub and Pack committees; plus full support from the YM presidency, intensive parent involvement, and a substantial time commitment from one Primary counselor and one bishopric counselor.

From a ward staffing standpoint, that's at least ten extra callings for Scouting that have no counterparts for the girls in the YW or Primary (not counting den leaders and 11-year-open scout leaders, who are analogous to Activity Day Girls leaders--but are Activity Day Girls leaders subject to two-deep leadership?) In a ward with maybe fifty adults with which to staff the quorum and auxiliary presidencies, Sunday teaching slots, missionary committees, etc--not to mention do all the ward's home and visiting teaching--ten extra BSA positions can be a substantial burden.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

5 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

The LDS church can be singing this song. Boy Scouts are going to regret this divorce. 

 

[Vort]

8 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

That said:  Scouting just takes a lot of manpower to run well.  You need a trained Cubmaster, Scoutmaster, Coach, Crew leader, at least one assistant for all aforementioned positions, and chairs for the Cub and Pack committees; plus full support from the YM presidency, intensive parent involvement, and a substantial time commitment from one Primary counselor and one bishopric counselor.

This is true. But isn't that the point of consecration?

Besides, the Scoutmaster, Varsity Coach, and Crew Leader make up the YM presidency, so they're not really "extra" callings at all. Were Church to have combined all young men into a single troop, like some of us outliers wanted, one YM counselor could act as the Scoutmaster and the other as the Assistant Scoutmaster, and you could get dads to come along and help out as needed on campouts. (Which you probably wouldn't need much, because the older boys would be fulfilling their leadership assignments in the troop, as Scouting is intended to work.) As for the Cubs, those leadership roles can be completely staffed by sisters. Even the eleven-year-old scout leader can be a sister, as long as brethren are available for the three-times-per-year camping trips.

14 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

From a ward staffing standpoint, that's at least ten extra callings for Scouting that have no counterparts for the girls in the YW or Primary (not counting den leaders and 11-year-open scout leaders, who are analogous to Activity Day Girls leaders--but are Activity Day Girls leaders subject to two-deep leadership?) In a ward with maybe fifty adults with which to staff the quorum and auxiliary presidencies, Sunday teaching slots, missionary committees, etc--not to mention do all the ward's home and visiting teaching--ten extra BSA positions can be a substantial b

As I've pointed out, this is not really true. At most, we're talking two or three brethren called as assistants to help out with the Scouts. And remember that the Cubs can be (and often are) 100% female led, even at the Cub committee level.

[Guest]

We have a YW program that overall runs fantastically well, even lacking an outside source telling us how to do it. Of course it's run by humans who are imperfect, but on the whole it is a good and inspired program. Do we get to take credit for that as much as we should take blame for our "failure" with BSA?

[NightSG]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

• When we have small wards that simply don't have the resources or population to support a full patrol other charters shun us from their groups -- they did with my sons.

Never saw that here, but then, the few LDS in the regular troops didn't form up into one patrol either.  It was a lesson in the real world, where you might someday have to work outside the Clone Army, with infidels and such.  Even learning to lead them.

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

• They've watered down the requirements for rank advancements and merit badges such that it doesn't make men anymore.  They make man-children.

That's sort of the pot calling the kettle black.  What does signing off requirements not actually met to the published standard make?

[Just_A_Guy]

33 minutes ago, Vort said:

This is true. But isn't that the point of consecration?

Besides, the Scoutmaster, Varsity Coach, and Crew Leader make up the YM presidency, so they're not really "extra" callings at all. Were Church to have combined all young men into a single troop, like some of us outliers wanted, one YM counselor could act as the Scoutmaster and the other as the Assistant Scoutmaster, and you could get dads to come along and help out as needed on campouts. (Which you probably wouldn't need much, because the older boys would be fulfilling their leadership assignments in the troop, as Scouting is intended to work.) As for the Cubs, those leadership roles can be completely staffed by sisters. Even the eleven-year-old scout leader can be a sister, as long as brethren are available for the three-times-per-year camping trips.

As I've pointed out, this is not really true. At most, we're talking two or three brethren called as assistants to help out with the Scouts. And remember that the Cubs can be (and often are) 100% female led, even at the Cub committee level.

We may yet adopt the one-troop-per-ward-and-the-troop-includes-everyone paradigm that you're advocating; but such a paradigm still renders Varsity and Venture Scouting extraneous as far as the Church is concerned.  But even then, there will be multiple weekly meetings that due to BSA policy each have to be attended by at least two adult leaders; and experience indicates that both YM and Scouting programs tend to run better if those leaders aren't trying to wear multiple hats.  Sure, you can raid the RS/YW/Primary to staff some of those positions; but that's going to impose a cost on those other programs' abilities to fulfill their own missions.

Nor do I think the leadership skills of older boys will be a panacea.  The Church is already reluctant to send boys of different age groups camping together; and for good reason (a significant number of sexual assaults against children are committed by other children--somewhere between 10 and 30%, if memory serves). 

Edited May 11, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[james12]

I have mixed feelings about the change. I have been in scouting for many years. I was over the Varsity program at the stake level as the Stake YM 1st Councilor and on the ward level as the Varsity Coach, and now I'm serving as the YM President. It has always been hard to get buy in from some parents (and consequently some young men). Quite a number of leaders did not want to be trained. There were complaints about the program, just like I see here. It was indeed an uphill battle. But the YM who have been involved have turned out to be great YM. We had three of them get there Eagles last month.  

Over many years I have found that we love to find problems with current programs (scouting, work systems, government, etc). Once we find a problem we harp on it over and over again. It's kind of like beating a lame horse. This really was impressed on me at work a number of years ago. I used to deal with quality problems with consumer products we would design and produce. The were many people who would dig and find some issue with a part. I think they felt some sort of satisfaction on being able to dig and find a problem, and certainly these needed to be found. But after a while I started getting tired of it because these same people would never present a solution. They continued to find problem after problem. But they would never be bothered by having to find a solution and make it work. 

This is now what the leadership of the church must do (that includes you and me). We must take what we have been given (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/multimedia/file/first-presidency-letter-young-men-program-changes-may-2017.pdf) and form it into a program that is more effective to our 14 -18 year old YM than Varsity and Venture scouting was. If we cannot do that, than all our complaints have not helped our YM be more prepared for missions, for marriage, or for life. I hope it will get the support it needs. 

Edited May 12, 2017 by james12

[Backroads]

How many LDS wards were actually focusing on the specific Varsity and Venturing programs anyway? When I worked there it all seemed to be about the Eagle. Which is fine, but why then bother with the other programs?

[Vort]

31 minutes ago, Backroads said:

How many LDS wards were actually focusing on the specific Varsity and Venturing programs anyway? When I worked there it all seemed to be about the Eagle. Which is fine, but why then bother with the other programs?

The Varsity and Venturing programs, especially the former, were adopted with a vision of what they were to be. In most units, I believe that vision was never realized. The Eagle rank is a worthy goal, even for the older Scouts, but the Varsity and Venturing were meant to broaden the young men's horizons past Scout advancement and merit badges -- not necessarily replacing that ideal, but augmenting it and providing relevant experiences for the young men who didn't care for traditional Scouting.

[Just_A_Guy]

37 minutes ago, Vort said:

The Varsity and Venturing programs, especially the former, were adopted with a vision of what they were to be. In most units, I believe that vision was never realized. The Eagle rank is a worthy goal, even for the older Scouts, but the Varsity and Venturing were meant to broaden the young men's horizons past Scout advancement and merit badges -- not necessarily replacing that ideal, but augmenting it and providing relevant experiences for the young men who didn't care for traditional Scouting.

Were they?  Or were they stopgap measures adopted as a desperate attempt to hold the attention of older boys for whom the appeal of traditional Scouting had faded?

We already have boy-led, semi-autonomous groups for older teenagers:  the priesthood quorums themselves.

Venturing has always been the BSA's red-headed step-child and the program is in a constant state of flux; having evolved from or swallowed up other programs like Exploring and Sea Scouts.  Just in the last year or two BSA discontinued use of the venturing oath; so in terms of values and leadership development Venturers today aren't really getting anything they didn't already get as Boy Scouts.  They're just doing riskier activities (rappelling, whitewater rafting, shooting, etc)--and from an LDS standpoint, regardless of BSA affiliation; either your bishop approves that stuff, or he doesn't.  Either you have a budget for it, or you don't.

Varsity Scouting was an interesting concept; but I think it was undermined by (what I perceive to have been) the decline of church-wide competitive sports in the '80s and '90s.  (And its appeal to anti-athletic types (like me) was always going to be limited anyways.)  

So no; I'm not convinced by the narrative that it is our own faithlessness that is denying us of the blessings of the Varsity and Venturing programs.  I think that out of respect for old friendships the Church was waiting to see what further inspiration might come to the BSA in terms of new programming for this problematic age group; and I take this partial withdrawal as a sign that the Church no longer believes that the spirit of inspiration is operating in the BSA.

Edited May 12, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Rob Osborn]

My opinion is that the BSA has slowly but surely been losing the lSpirit of God in their plans, goals, etc. I have witnessed the slow painful divorce. When this last decision came out to allow transgenders it was like the final straw for me. I divorced myself from the national BSA organization. Im still the active Scout master in my ward but we have been in the slow process of changing our program to focus more on priesthood activities with less emphasis and less time doing scouts.

The problem with the BSA is that whereas there was a very slight spiritual and moral emphasus side to it in the past, there is no spiritual or moral side to their program anymore. Less and less parents are pushing their kids in scouting anymore. Its not like it used to be. I dont find it surprising at all that a majority of members are applauding this move and you will see more applause when the church fully pulls out. That applause is in direct reaction to the lackluster performance of the BSA, especially in light of their decisiobs to allow gay leaders and trangenders in. Why the church continues to affiliate with an organization with no morals is beyond me. 

This organization now isnt the BSA we grew up embracing.

[Fether]

9 hours ago, Vort said:

The bottom line is that Scouting is not the problem. We are the problem.

I agree with you 100%. I feel that often times when organizations "fail", it is more in those receiving the services.

Other examples of this is when there is a "bad teacher" and the student does not learn. I know teachers like to say things like "If you don't learn, it is my fault"... but frankly that isn't true. When a person or organization seeks to teach and inspire, it is only a tool and the tool can only be used by the student. Much like how we choose to learn and be inspired when we attend church, even if the speaker/teacher is uninspiring.

I loved scouting but my ward did very little with it growing up. I saw other, far more wealthy and involved, wards taking their youth on great adventures all across the western United States and I was very jealous. 

The problem is more times than not those in charge of the application of the program and not the program itself. What we learn is our responsibility, not the BSA's, they simply provided a tool.

I am, however, glad we left. With all the secularism and politics entering the program, I feel like it needed to be done. I feel like the church can now build a program specific for members of the church instead of using one established outside the church.

[yjacket]

6 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

This organization now isnt the BSA we grew up embracing.

I applaud it and cheer the decision but am saddened that it has come to this.

Gladiator:

Maximus Pres. Monson: Baden Powell Marcus Aurelius had a dream that was Rome  Boy Scouts, Proximo  BSA CEO. That is not it. That is not it!

Proximo BSA CEO: Marcus Aurelius Baden Powell is dead, Pres. MonsonMaximus. We mortals are but shadows and dust. Shadows and dust, Pres. MonsonMaximus!

 

Edited May 12, 2017 by yjacket

[NightSG]

9 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

My opinion is that the BSA has slowly but surely been losing the lSpirit of God in their plans, goals, etc.

iSpirit?  Has Apple even ruined Divinity with a proprietary version now?