Stosh

You going to blame the program and not the fumes? That's a breath of fresh air for a change. An older boy program is pretty much non-existent in a lot of units. Big emotional and adrenaline rush to get to FC, then arduous teaching, POR, MB's etc. to get to Eagle. Many units don't want their boys to get Eagle at a young age because they will leave. Well, they do anyway and if by some miracle they come back just in time to get their death-bed Eagle award before turning 18. No, it's not the cars, it's not the girls, it's the poorly run Venture patrol program. The regular patrols can handle the teaching of the young boys, they can do the mentoring and all the other "stuff" the adults force them to do. But Venture patrols need to be as autonomous as ... shall I say it out-loud?... Venturing Crews????? These units have no older boys focus so this is why we have Venturing Crews to try and shore up that lack of good program for Venture Patrols. Do we see Venturing Crews struggle when they interact with Boy Scout units? Sure for exactly the same reason. BSA doesn't know what to do with the older boys! These boys have matured to an adult level and now want to make use of their skills. Nope, the only skills you need to know is teaching the new scouts we have jammed into your patrol. Wow, does that sound like fun, or what! No, one does not need to rely on ineffective excuses like cars and girls. No, one does not need to spin off a Venturing program for the older guys. No, one does not need these older boys to hang around and babysit the younger boys. No, one does not need the 16-18 year olds taking leadership opportunities from the 13-15 year olds. All one needs to do is provide the adventure that was promised when the joined up, jumped through all the hoops and are now ready to fly. Going to Philmont every other year and getting in one Jambo, doesn't cut it. It has to be a lot more than that to hold the boys to the promise we made.

The old Exploring program (pre-1998ish) did not go away it was folded into the Learning for Life program. All the career posts went to Learning for Life and the rest went Venturing.

Care to comment or just ding the post for whatever reason? In the world of business, if someone so much as scratches themselves on a staple, they must report it, have it evaluated/treated and any surfaces that were involve need to be sanitized. Yes, I did that and I had to find the exact staple in the file cabinet that I was scratched on before returning to work. I do believe that is the same process for biohazard fluids in schools as well. I have observed BSA camp staff at one of "BSA's premiere camps" using a mop and bucket to clean up biohazard material with no protection on their persons. That deserves a ding? One should be reading this and notifying their councils of the importance of keeping up with such matters especially in the G2SS publications as they affect the units. Corporate biohazard documents make G2SS look pretty sad when it comes to protecting their members in situations like this. I was not allowed to work in the safety department of the corporation I worked for unless I had all the immunizations and followed extensive protocol just to put a bandaid on some poor bloke who poked himself putting up stuff on the bulletin board. Blood, vomit, body waste, saliva are all treated the same as if it were a chemical spill of some sort in the non-BSA world. There's a whole litany of diseases, some quite serious that are floating around and the HIPAA rulings means no one has to disclose any of that on their medical form to let you know what those issues are. And according to G2SS there is the issue of medical biohazard, but the mess hall cleanup was not considered a medical issue when in fact it was. Shall we talk about the biohazard issue connected to the latrines? G2SS does not address it at all.

Yep, a kid barfed in the mess hall (speaks well for the quality of food) and the staff got out the mop bucket and cleaned it up. No special biohazard steps taken. In schools if something like this happens the hazmat team shows up. Kid gets cut? gloves, eye protection, face shield? Nope, just wash it off and put a bandaid on and don' worry about it. Whereas the medical world sees things from one perspective, the world sees it differently. BSA is totally blind to the situation and sees nothing.

Scouting does offer the Learning for Life program that addresses these issues. It evolved out of the old Exploring program. They had career, hobby and high adventure posts back in the 70's, 80's and 90's. They then separated out the career posts into Learning for Life and the hobby/high adventure went Venturing. If there is a natural blending of such concepts, why after 30 years did BSA separate them back apart? Nothing wrong with S.T.E.M. being a part of the Learning for Life program, but stretching it to match an outdoor program more than a stretch. Never figured out how outdoor General Interest Post (high adventure) could interact with parallel interests to a Law Post, a Medical Post or a Law Enforcement Post. It was tried and didn't work, why they are bringing it back kinda surprises me.

My daughter has been to BWCA, camping enough nights for a MB, but she hates the outdoors. She only goes to be with me. She did, however, graduate valedictorian of her class of about 400, won the annual award for Mathematics, studied Engineering at Marquette, does fantastic artwork (I have a painting she painted for me hanging in my living room.) So the dynamics don't always pan out. Somethings blend easily, others do not. Her daughter, on the other hand, likes to come out to Grampa's farm and walk in the woods looking for flowers. Of course the perennial raspberries and strawberries are coming in so the visits are more frequent. I don't have a problem with S.T.E.M per se, but the loci of the activity is critical. Does one go into the woods or the laboratory? The PR pictures seem to emphasize into the laboratory.

I have always just told the boys to invite someone to a meeting or bring a friend to an activity. Scout: "We're going camping next weekend, want to come along?: Friend: "No." We're done, the boy completed his advancement. No need for adults to over-think this. Boys of this age are very literal and they tend to follow the requirements to the letter.

@@qwazse I think my translation says "OF the Way", which translation do you have?

I was thinking crafts could replace technology... kinda the same thing anyway. Science Crafts Running or maybe Reading Engineering Arts Mathematics Inovation or maybe Inventing Nature for the Boy Scouts Gaming for the couch potatoes. Here it is screaming at cha!

Never get caught holding the bag.

@@fred johnson - David CO is correct, there are two basic traditions behind Christian communion. One is the bread and wine is the Real Presence of Christ in the sacrament. This is what some Protestants, Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, Anglican, Methodist (break off of the Anglican) all believe. The emphasis from Scripture is "THIS IS MY BODY/BLOOD". Jesus said so, that's what we go with. But he also said, "Do this to remember me." Now some Protestants emphasize that by saying Jesus is not really there, but we remember the sacrament to receive it's blessing. This would tend to be the Baptist, Evangelical, types of Christianity. I had a Jewish friend of mine square me away on that one. The Latin etymology for "Remember" is not the mental game of being reminded. In Latin the prefix re- means to do it again. Re-peat, re-mind (bring back into the mind) and re-member with member being a part that all the parts are put back together to become real again. One's hand is a member of the body, a person is a member of a group kind of thinking. So then the IN REMEMBERANCE means to bring the reality of Jesus back through the Sacrament. This is why the mainline Christian Churches go with the real presence, re-membered (put back together in real form) rather than the symbolic reminded process of some Protestants. Con- (Latin meaning "with") con-substantiation means the real presence of Christ (body and blood) is in and with the bread and wine. All the Churches who believe in the real presence of Christ opt for this. Looks like break and wine, but the act of God has changed it into the real presence of Christ's body and blood. Trans- (Latin meaning "across") trans-substantiation means the bread and wine are TRANS-formed actually changed into the real Body and Blood of Jesus. Once changed it cannot go back to it's bread/wine form. The wine is totally consumed during the mass and the wafers (now the Body of Christ (Host)) is stored on the altar until the next mass. More wine and bread will be trans-formed at the next service and the previous Body and Blood will be used in the service as well. Everyone agrees as an act of God, it is a mystery to humanity on how it actually works, but "traditionally" this is how the different parts of the Christian community have tried to explain it. Theologically it is a mystery but is held real by faith. This is why some denominations won't give Communion to certain other Christians. If they don't believe in the real presence of Christ they are asked not to join in. If it's just a symbol, well then, anyone can join in. If one is ex- (Latin for "out of") ex-communicated, it means they are "kicked out" and cannot participate in the Sacrament until they repent and give up their sin kinda thing. This is why this whole discussion is kinda touchy. The reality of Christ is at stake, those who are in and those who are out are defined, lots of "stuff" going on at this point, all kinda at the heart of the Christians' faith.

No, I am pointing out that with all the Christian denominations out there, only the Latin church teaches transubstantiation. How can one be provocative by simply stating a true fact. This is nothing new, the issue has been around for long before either of us was born.

I've had very little negative feedback. Most of such would have been between PL and scout. Those issues are easily resolved. Both in my rebuild troop and new troop, no resistance to the PL's signing off.

The training, testing and continued review of scoutcraft skills is the responsibility of the PL. It's up to him to make sure his boys are prepared! While he can't guarantee learning, he surely can provide the appropriate opportunity to learn. In no way would a BOR be responsible for testing the boy to see how well the PL is doing, but if it were to come up in a SMC that the boy had no idea what a square knot was, this could be an issue that needed to be addressed prior to the BOR and the first place to check would be the boy's book to see who signed off. (could be multiple PL's) There has to be some accountability for knowing the skills. If a PL signed off, why does the boy not know his stuff? There's nothing worse than taking over as SM of a troop and finding out the Life scouts in the troop don't know how to start a fire when asked. Seriously? How many lessons did they have on that? How many Camporees did they attend where that was a competition? how many times was the boy asked to start a cook fire for the Grubmaster? and here he is on the verge of getting his Eagle and he can't do a simple survival skill of starting a fire. Since implementing a PL sign-off with responsibility, I'm finding that by the boy gets to FC he really knows his stuff. Just this past week as I mentioned someplace, one of my boys noticed that when I tied down the camp trailer after summer camp, I tied all double half-hitches. It was the boy that was acting as if he was the PL but wasn't selected to the position. There's a scout that's going to be great at what he does for the troop and his boys.

This is where the clergy are able to see things in a different light. There theological issues of religion and there are traditional issues. We all have the same Creeds, same Scriptures, same liturgical worship practices, use the same lectionary on Sunday morning. Then there are the traditional issues. This is where 99% of the problems arise between the denominations. None of these kinds of issues are even discussed on a theological level because they aren't theology. All Christian denominations have baptism. That's theological, straight out of Scripture. HOW one does baptism is tradition. So we end up fighting about sprinkling, pouring, dunking, etc. Catholic and Baptist were arguing over baptism. Baptist: Sprinkling on the top of the head is not proper, nor a valid baptism. The person needs to be immersed. Catholic: But if he walks in up to his knees it should be okay? Baptist: No, the person needs to be immersed. Catholic: How about up to his waist? Baptist: No, the person needs to be immersed. Catholic: Up to his neck? Baptist: No, the person needs to be completely immersed! Catholic: So it doesn't work unless the top of the person's head gets wet? Baptist. YES That is correct. Catholic: Well we just cut to the chase and do the important part and sprinkle on the top of the head to begin with. That story was first told to me by a Baptist minister friend of mine. A lot of the conflict comes when people are locked into the traditions without knowing the theology. Infant baptism? Scripture tells us whole households were baptized all at the same time. Yet, there are those who say no to infant baptism. Same holds true for Communion. Infant communion is not forbidden in Scripture, but there's a lot of tradition against it in Christianity today. I would say that pretty much of all the dynamics holding Christians apart today is tradition, not theology. Having a class in a consortium of Roman Catholic, Lutheran and Presbyterian seminaries, we all spent a lot of time understanding the differences were more traditional than theological. There were a ton of lengthy dialog among the students, none of it has harsh as that which resides on the laity level where the distinction between theology and tradition are often quite blurred. Sure we all believe there are other sources of divine revelation, Lutherans have their Book of Concord, Mormons their Book of Mormon, Catholics their papal edicts, etc. But those are the codified traditions of the interpretations of Scripture. i.e. baptism, communion, etc. They are important, but they don't stand equal to the Scriptures. Now if Gabriel showed up on one's doorstep and had a message, one would think that would be pretty important,.... A lot of people seem to have had experiences like these ...whose to say?

This sounds close to my system except the boy signs and review the book, not a worksheet. There's enough paperwork without having that added to it.

Over the years, I have found a few spin off dynamics occurring with the PL total sign-off system I use. 1) Whenever there's a change in PL there seems to be a lot more discussion about his ability to actually function in the sign-off position. Is he fair?, does he play favorites? will he really keep track of things? Those kinds of discussions. Picking scouts on popularity and Rock-Paper-Scissors is ancient history. My new troop is just now beginning to figure that out. One boy was selected as PL but another boy quietly functions as PL. The boys are beginning to notice. 2) PL's insist Instructors actually can and do instruct, be available and know the requirements. They (the PL's) who are consulted and given a consensus when a troop officer POR is evaluated. Boys tend to function at a high level of proficiency when they are facing a Colosseum Thumbs UP/DOWN for advancement. If Mr. SM notices Joey can't tie a taunt-line on his tent, this becomes and issue for the PL. Why do you have boys in your patrol who don't know.....? 3) PL's know that if the boy isn't actually learning and his signature is on the records, he's the one left holding the bag. There's a lot more "review" of skills along the way and then there's the incentive to review by teaching the NSP boys when the Instructors can't be there for some reason. 4) Patrol Method is reinforced in that advancement is an in-house patrol activity. The boys used to practice a bit before Camporee competition. Joey does this for first aid, Johnny that. Fire building? Assignments are made prior to the event and practiced. 5) Issues that become glaringly obvious with lack of skills, it becomes a teaching moment for the whole patrol. Why is the whole troop learning knots just because the NSP doesn't know them? Don't other patrols have other things they might be interested in doing? It keeps the S->FC issues in the patrols and doesn't affect the troop. Troop officers maybe, too, but not the whole troop. Patrol remain autonomous.

One is well within the program if the SM is the only one who can sign off in the books, too. We all do what we think is best. The continuum is rather broad in this area. It is one of the easiest to address, however, when one wants to visibly promote the patrol method. And seriously, the only time I have had negative feedback is when the PL takes the responsibility too well. I have to re-emphasize taking care of people and holding them back are two different issues that need to be balanced out. Just another lesson in leadership development.....

In the reenacting world there are a few written rules and a whole lot of unwritten rules. Big bore artillery have written rules as do veterinarian health certification for horses and mules. Infantry has a ton of unwritten rules. Those that can't follow the unwritten rules are asked never to come back to the event ever again. Safety was of prime importance and idiots were weeded out immediately. National reenactment doing Gettysburg in Pennsylvania. I was captain of the company of Venturing Crew reenactors. We moved forward along with thousands of others in a single battleline. I was struck in the chest with a Wonder Wad from a confederate pistol. Wonder Wads are outlawed in reenactIng. I ordered my company to stop, do an about face and kneel. The Major came riding up and yelled why I had left a hole in the line. I called out Wonder Wad and he said, As you were captain, and rode off. No questions asked, if a confederate unit was loading with wonder wads, no infantry was to move forward on them. I was lucky to get hit in heavy wool clothing because it would have been a different story had it be in the face. The effect attempted for the paying public was disrupted because of a few idiots in the ranks. The spot on the line was identified and the confederate command notified. I'm sure the unit was packed up and out of there by night fall. There was no written policy anywhere about loading with Wonder Wads, but everyone knew how to enforce any infraction of the practice. BSA could be doing the same thing. Instead of drawing attention to sheath knives being banned, maybe a better approach would be to deal more severely with ALL knife safety issues, not just the sheath knives. I wore my knife and drew it only when needed. Maybe that's why no one had a problem with it.

I have to answer yes and no. I have had an Eagle Scout as my TG for two years. I had no SPL at that time, so the NSP PL signed off on his TG palms. We didn't have many "older boys" at that time, we were in the process of rebuilding the troop from 5 boys to 28 boys so it took a while for the group to get near to a Venture patrol option.

The United Methodist Church recognizes two sacraments in which Christ himself participated: baptism and the Lord's Supper. Baptism Baptism marks the beginning of our lifelong journey as disciples of Jesus Christ. Through baptism, we are joined with the Triune God, the whole of Christ’s church, and our local congregation. The water and the work of the Holy Spirit in baptism convey God’s saving grace, the forgiveness of our sins, and new life in Jesus Christ. Persons of any age may be baptized—infants, children, youth, and adults. United Methodists baptize in a variety of ways—immersion, pouring, or sprinkling. A person receives the sacrament of baptism only once in his or her life. For further study: By Water and Spirit, the church's official statement on baptism. (Download as PDF) Renewing waters: How United Methodists understand baptism This Is Your Baptismal Liturgy, a guide to the baptism ritual A United Methodist Understanding of Baptism The Lord's Supper (also called Holy Communion, Eucharist) The Lord’s Supper is another name for the Eucharist, the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving the church offers to God for all God has done, is doing, and will do to save us and renew all things in Christ. Through offering ourselves in praise and thanksgiving, and through receiving the bread and cup—which the Spirit makes for us the body and blood of Christ—celebrating the Lord’s Supper together nourishes and sustains us in our journey as disciples of Jesus Christ. As we pray together and receive the body and blood of Christ together, we are united with Christ, with one another, and in ministry to all the world. All who love Christ, earnestly repent of their sin and seek to live in peace with one another are invited to join us in offering our prayer of thanksgiving and receive the body and blood of Christ—regardless of age or church membership. Congregations serve the elements of the Lord’s Supper several ways, but always include both bread and cup. The Lord's Supper is to be celebrated and received regularly—John Wesley said, “as often as [one] can.†Having grown up in the United Methodist Church, I can assure everyone the description put forth by the UMC is CONsubstantiation, not TRANSsubstantiation as practiced by the Roman Church. Through offering ourselves in praise and thanksgiving, and through receiving the Body and Blood bread and cup—which the Spirit makes for us the body and blood of Christ—celebrating the Lord’s Supper together nourishes and sustains us in our journey as disciples of Jesus Christ. (There is no bread and wine for the Roman Church, it is forever changed into the Body and Blood of Christ.) This is why the wine is completely consumed and the Host (wafers) are stored on the altar until the next communion service. Consubstantiation is the basis for all Lutheran synods as well. As I mentioned earlier, I had my theological training in a consortium of Roman Catholic, Lutheran and Protestant seminaries. Sorry UMC, but you guys aren't any different than the standard Lutheran teachings on the Eucharist.

If a boy can't teach, read, or write, he can still be a great PL. A PL can sign off on ALL requirements regardless of his own rank. As I might have mentioned ( ) PL's take care of their boys. If a Star scout comes and needs a sign off on his 6 MB's. He just shows the 6 cards in question, all signed off by MB counselors, and the 2nd Class PL reads through the cards, makes sure 4 of them are Eagle MB's and then when satisfied, signs the Star scout's book. The Life scout comes to the same PL and says his service project hours are fulfilled. The PL checks his attendance records for the boy at those activities, and yep, he's done. Signs the book and life goes on. What would have been better would have been when the Life scout finished his last hour of service work, the PL said, "Give me your book, you have the needed hours for advancement." Signing off is an administrative duty of the PL. If he doesn't know how to instruct the map and compass he finds someone who can. An organized/trained Scout or Tenderfoot scout can do that for a Life scout when it comes to reading the advancement and deciding whether the expectations have been met. I'm thinking the biggest argument for all these frivolous rules is because the adults want to retain control, especially in the later ranks. Tenderfoot PL, Eagle scout working on palms Eagle: I need you to sign off on my palms TF PL: Gee, it's been three months already? That's great! Got your 5 blue cards handy? Eagle: Yep. TF PL: You weren't the SPL, but you've been really helpful with the PL guys. The other guys have commented to me about it., I'm gonna mark you down for that leadership thing. Eagle: okay TF PL: Mr. SM will check you off on Scout Spirit and do a SMC, and you should be all done and ready for the BOR. Congrats! Eagle: Thanks. What's so hard about that?

Fantastic! Major step in the courage to even "promptly (and politely)" challenge adult authority and the courage of the adults to let the reins pass to the boys! Kinda exciting, isn't it! Next time order donuts for the adults while they wait for the boys to mature into great young men.

It is obvious that these boys hadn't been trained, were in over their head, did not load the gun properly and were an accident waiting to happen. I have had a few dozen cups of coffee around the campfire with the artillery boys to know the danger of what happened and I can almost guarantee I know why the gun exploded. Someone had plugged the barrel to get more bang for the buck. Every blackpowder shooter and even modern rifle shooter knows that if something plugs the barrel will cause the breech to explode. We hear it all the time when a hunter stumbles, plugs the end of the barrel with a bit of dirt and when fires, the gun ruptures. This is why our artillery in the reenactment world are fully trained and certified before operating the guns. I remember as a kid having flag ceremonies at camp with a guy with a cannon. I remember he pounded pieces of wood in the barrel to make it louder. When fired, we could hear the pieces tearing through the woods. Knowing what I now know about this stuff, I can see why BSA banned it. In the hands of idiots, it's dangerous. Otherwise if done correctly, it is totally safe and quite impressive.

"Boy Leadership was hoping?" You actually let your Boy Leadership come up with some cockamamie idea like that and you're going to go along with it? You have to be careful, stuff like that could lead to some real adventures and then you'll have to do that adventure stuff all the time. If that happens and the boys are leading it could mean you might have to be drinking twice as much coffee as you do now!