TNScoutTroop

My Scout son is doing really well rising to the challenge of being an SPL of a new troop, with 2/3 of the Scouts NOT native English speakers. But, he & I have an ongoing if good natured dispute over whether I'm excessively enthusiastic about Scouting. This note -- which he read first -- was attached to his gift to me this morning: "'A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent.' This present is a testimony to my personal Scout spirit. I have showed my trustworthiness by not getting this gift for myself; my loyalness, kindness, obedience, and friendliness by actually giving you a gift; my helpfulness by wrapping it myself, instead of having mom do it; my courteousness by wrappting it at all; my cheerfulness by smiling while I did it, and even right now; my thriftiness by wrapping it in the bag it came in; my bravery by doing this at all, instead of chickening out like I would have a year ago; my cleanliness by washing my hands before wrapping it; and my reverence by praying that God would give me ideas to make this scheme work! Merry Christmas" . . . and the ribbon was, he pointed out, tied with a taut-line hitch. May God's grace be upon you all this day, even those of you who don't believe in Him! Merry Christmas TN Scout Troop PS. It was a bottle of wine, which his older brother helped him buy.(This message has been edited by tnscouttroop)

"Scouting changed and Wood Badge changed with it" There are plausible arguments for the position that the modified Wood Badge was a stealth hijacking of Scouting, and was used to change Scouting. The evidence that the no-woods Wood Badge *reflected* change already present in Scouting seems pretty thin. The evidence that those pushing the White Stag quasi-religion (adopted in the early 'leadership' Wood Badge) intended to use it to produce NEW change in Scouting seems substantial. It's worth noting that when an ORGANIZATION changes as a whole, and publicly, they often name the 'new' program something different and distinctive. On the other hand, when a minority within an organization hijacks an organization, they often KEEP the old names while gradually morphing existing programs into something new. This approach is used to prevent rank and file from noticing the hijack. This latter approach is precisely what happened in the Southern Presbyterian Church, and was successful in redirecting the denomination from Christian orthodoxy to religious modernism. Several smaller orthodox denominations (including ours) were formed when some frogs noticed that the pot was boiling and hopped out. There are many other interesting parallels. For example, Scouting's national leadership gives the impression that they don't actually believe in anything except organizational continuity and financial growth. If there are any Scouting principles which they treat as genuinely foundational and fundamental, we've missed those news reports. It seems plausible that Wood Badge represents an *on-going* hijacking of Scouting principles, and that the continuing 'progress' in WB is actually continuing progress toward the final emasculation of Scouting . TN Scout Troop

Scoutbox wrote, "The older courses were labor intensive (patrol cooking) and outdoor intensive - so we were essentially eliminating those who were less outdoor prone from participating, and we were taking too much time in teaching outdoor skills rather than leadership skills. Both are needed, but there are other venues for the outdoor piece." Yep, that's precisely the attitude we've found here in our Council -- outdoor skills can be taught in "some other venue". Unfortunately, that venue is IOLS, where those skills are taught by the WB'rs who are "less outdoor prone" . . . but well trained in leadership. TN Scout Troop

Does anyone else, besides us, see this article, and these type of incidents, as an argument for re-focusing WoodBadge on actual outdoor leadership skills, rather than on corporate training? TN Scout Troop

Speaking personally, I try not to trust the news much . . . except for the aforementioned "what, when, where". Without exception, every nationally reported event of which I've had personal knowledge was significantly distorted, even before political bias was added in. Likewise, I've never seen dependably accurate and useful analysis of current cultural issues where I have expertise and personal knowledge. Here, the problem has been that the writers simply did not have enough expertise in the realm they were covering to do any valid analysis. Particularly, it appears that there are virtually no journalists with significant personal knowledge of math and 'hard' science or engineering. So, what I've taught my sons is a pretty radical skepticism regarding news and 'accepted wisdom' in all areas of life. A few things are known and trustworthy, but not that many. History seems to support the reasonableness of such skepticism. For example, it appears that there was nowhere on earth where one could have gotten "news" that would have enabled either Allied or Axis citizens to reach in 1914, or even 1917, an informed and reasoned judgment regarding WWI. The same appears to have been true regarding US citizens in 1860. A positive value of the current Wikileaks mess is, I think, that it reveals how little public statements, and ordinary 'leaks', by US politicians and bureaucrats reveal of what's actually going on, either in their minds or international events. Our troop is too new for me to have addressed such issues with our Scouts. But I know that our ASM -- once an aspiring professional historian -- has similar views, so that's what we'll probably teach there, too. SM TN Scout Troop

Sort of like a constitutional amendment requiring all new laws & regulations apply to legislators for 12 months before they apply to anyone else? Works for us!

Moosetracker, a THREE hour test that sampled Scout skills (which is what tests typically do) rather than requiring testing of each and every skill would be way above 100% more than what's required of IOLS . . . INFINITELY more, since there is no testing at IOLS. If you can convince National to introduce "WoodBadge 1900 - the REAL version", staff it with instructors genuinely competent in Scoutcraft, and offer it to our leaders at an affordable price . . . we'll plan to attend AND pass your test. But, right now, what we want is something that's a step up from "IOLS - the butt-chair version" to "IOLS - the DIY version". We want a real test, but not an exhaustive one. To exhaustively and comprehensively test a group of 4 Scouters in each and every skill through 1st Class is going to be an impractical task. In our Council, you couldn't find people to GIVE that test competently. The people we know of who could do the test, aren't Wood Badge, and aren't active at the Council or District level. Tell you what . . . why don't you profile your test against your committee members. Tell them you need to do it, to calibrate the test, and to identify test proctors and judges. Once they find that they can't pass it maybe they'll go along with your easing up a bit.

Moosetracker, it's our understanding Wood Badge (the week of Scoutcraft training) was replaced by Wood Badge (the weekends of corporate management training) . . . not IOLS. As we understand it, the old Wood Badge DID take Scouter to the point of POSSESSING First Class skills, but we're not aware of any other class that has done so. You seem to be coming up with a test that would be valid after a week long Scoutcraft Wood Badge. IOLS (in our Council) is a "butt credit" course (if your butt's in the chair at the right place and time, you get credit) taught by people who often don't have the skill they are teaching. THERE IS NO TEST WHATSOEVER. We want our new leaders to be taught by people who have the skill taught, and we want them to 'pass' only after they've learned the basics of those skills themselves. But -- as desirable as it might be -- we aren't deluding ourselves into thinking that new and unskilled Scouters can acquire full First Class skills in one or two weekends. We don't think a test that requires them to do so is reasonable, especially since the test you describe could not be passed by 75% of the IOLS instructors or 95% of the IOLS graduates we've seen. It's reasonable for test-out to require more skill than IOLS, which in our Council requires none. But it's not reasonable for test-out to require what only a 'real' Wood Badge class could provide. The OTHER issue with the test you describe is that it's so comprehensive that setting it up would be nearly as difficult and time-consuming as setting up an IOLS course. Of course, that may be the goal of your committee. If so, it would parallel the classic bureaucratic approach of sandbagging a proposal that's disliked, without actually opposing it publicly. TN Scout Troop

"My only requirement will be that to be a tester, they have completed the IOLS test themselves." Entirely reasonable. But, the problem is that in our Council at least, not one of the 20 - 25 Scouters we know well enough to judge could themselves pass the IOLS test. No doubt there are some Scouters in the Council who could. Several rural troops who keep to themselves apparently have high skills, which suggests that their leaders do, too. But, among the highly visible active leaders, none could pass. Oops. Backing up -- there's a retired Marine who's started a new backpacking only troop who possibly could. Dunno for sure. TN Scout Troop

Moosetracker, it's not clear what your Council is like. But, the testing requirements you suggest are a HUGE step up from what's required (or demonstrated) at IOLS here. In our Council at least, there would be several problems. 1) Who could test that way? Given that our Council cannot assemble a team of of Wood Badgers who can do things like sharpen a knife correctly or use a compass competently . . . where could they find competent skill judges? One of us has already had a son turned down for advancement by one of these instructors because he "incorrectly identified 'boxwood' as the invasive 'privet hedge'". (It was privet hedge; neither plant is native.) 2) What justifies the HUGE increase from what's required at IOLS (attendance) to test-out (full blown demonstration of every skill)? Since mere attendance is good enough for the preferred instructional method, it's not clear what -- except envy -- would make 100% field competence the standard for 'test-out'. 3) Won't setting the bar so high, simply function as a way Council's can avoid test-out? If our Council follows your plan, the net result would simply be no 'test-out'. Your approach -- done right -- would take as long as IOLS, and would require MORE competent instructors than any IOLS here has had in the last decade. 4) Isn't what you suggest *really* what should be accomplished at Wood Badge (at least, old style Wood Badge)? TN Scout Troop

"Teach the Scouts to look at all the spiders in the leaves and pinestraw, by seeing their eyes reflecting light. I have found using a headlight works well." Cool. We'll have to try that. We've already scheduled a hike with a local amateur herpetologist for this spring to look for snakes. But, looking for spiders systematically is a new idea!

Clear evidence of National's clear vision and competent follow-through. . . TN Scout Troop

We're looking at doing at least one of the Hiking MB 10-milers at night . . . partly because it's cool, and partly to generate 'bragging rights' for our new Scouts and partly to develop a practical awareness of what it takes to move around at night. Had anyone else done this? Some of us have hiked 5+ miles at night with no lights, but none of us have done it with boys before. TN Scout Troop

Zero clue how this happened -- was posting in the "trainers" thread.

"At the risk of being labeled a heretic... If I was in Mazzuca's place, and I was serious about these training requirements, I'd order all Wood Badge courses suspended until no units failed recharter because of a lack of training." Hear! hear! . . . and perhaps . . . "until no unit failed to offer EFFECTIVE IOLS courses, staffed by trainers SKILLED in Scoutcraft"! Tn Scout Troop (In our opinion, Scouting needs Wood badge just about exactly as much as it needs a MB in video games.)

@shortridge "How do you know what the quality of the IOLS training is if you don't go?" We know, because we DID go to what we were later told was the best IOLS in years. And, because we went to the "best", we're not going to send our new leaders. TN Scout Troop

Thanks, Eagle92. We're definitely keeping these links (with backup copies!) tucked away to pull out in the new future. Council just had our annual IOLS this past weekend, but I haven't had a chance to hear how it went. ASM162, you may consider it a disservice to those who worked on preparing IOLS; we can sort of sympathize. They did, and have, worked quite hard. Some of them have even worked skillfully. But, our obligation is first of all to OUR boys, and OUR new leaders. If our local IOLS actually fielded trainers who genuinely possessed -- and could teach -- Scoutcraft skills, we would have sent 3 or 4 folk this past weekend. Unfortunately, that's not the case. And we're not willing to sacrifice new and enthusiastic leaders on the altar of "supporting the Council". We believe that our actions are consistent with the original goals of Scouting, and with the Scout Law. Fortunately, this offers, to those who can do so, the option to do better. TN Scout Troop (And since someone is almost certain to suggest that, if we can train those skills, why don't we help the Council do a better job? The answer to that is simple: we would if we could, but we can't so we won't. In our Council, IOLS trainers are Wood Badge only. We're not and won't be, so we can't. End of story.)

"Our troop is what I consider small with 16 scouts. We would like to see it grow to about twice that number which B-P considered to be a good working size for a troop." Actually, what B-P said was that 16 was as many as he himself could effectively handle, but that other people could probably do better, but that even so, 32 was the MAXIMUM. (not the ideal!) TN Scout Troop

We're aware that starting a troop with a close relationship with its CO, as we've done, is controversial here. However, none of us have had to work closely with our DE before. Doing so has been enlightening. We've seen the comments that suggested DE's were number driven, but we had no experience with that. Well, we do now. It has become crystal clear that our DE lives or dies by the numbers. Our impression is that this something they didn't choose. But regardless of where it came from, it's what drives them. And, it's what drives their relationship with us. Currently, there's some fairly low key tension because we have a large recruitment opportunity we're not exploiting. (We could add 30 - 50 Cubs overnight.) Our DE is well aware that we're not ready to handle that effectively, and hasn't really pushed us. But, it's pretty clear what choice would be made if the Council was our CO. We gather that, like many large organizations, employee performance is gauged by metrics set corporately. And for our DE at least, that's those metrics are new units, new Scouts, and retention rates. So if it was left up to our DE, we'd go for the recruitment numbers, and not worry so much about whether it was a successful program. We can't say how typical this is of DEs and Councils elsewhere. But we'd guess it's not that uncommon. TN Scout Troop

"So I really wonder about the claim that if gays and atheists were allowed, tens of thousands of church COs would drop their troops and packs and crews immediately." That's a local question, with local answers. Pollsters could probably find a broad answer, of course. However, in the years prior to deciding we needed to roll our own, so to speak, we collectively encountered a number of troops, with a number of CO's, mostly churches. NONE of the CO's were actively involved with the troops. The 8 troops we can think of quickly include 1 Kiwanis, 2 UMC, 1 PCA, 1 Church of God, 1 Roman Catholic, & 2 S Baptist. Except for the Kiwanis and UMC troops, all 5 others would have immediately dropped the troops the minute word reached the pastor or church leaders that the troop was accepting OPENLY atheistic or homosexual leaders. The UMC churches might not, if it the decision was made solely by the paid staff. But to the extent the congregation got involved, they might. We don't know the churches well enough to predict. With the Kiwanis, we have no idea. Still that's 5 of 8 that would drop Scouts, and 3 more that might. Another possibility to consider would be that, if the LDS left the BSA, they might employ legal and political means to 'break' the BSA monopoly on Scouting, and to create a Scout organization that explicitly (rather than somewhat stealthily) allowed CO's to define the religious and ethical content of the troop. They'd need to find a partner, say the Southern Baptist Convention, to convince others that they were establishing a Scout organization open to all orthodox Judeo-Christian denominations, rather than a stealth Mormon organization. But, if they found such a partner, the results could be catastrophic for the BSA. Given that Councils are locally owned, you could easily face the specter of having individual councils try to break away from the BSA and affiliate with the "new" Scout organization. A Scouting organization that explicitly encouraged conservative Christian churches to form troops that reflected their values might be able to charter brand new troops at a pretty rapid rate, at least in this area. And, given the 'red neck' quality of many conservative churches, the Scoutcraft of these troops might, by drawing on the skills country rednecks brought with them, rapidly exceed the Scoutcraft of typical BSA troops in this area. The BSA, dealing with the loss of funding from the LDS (20%?) plus losing at least 15% of other troops, and struggling to cut staff and fixed costs rapidly, might find it impossible to mount an effective legal battle. In addition, such a battle would be very public, would expose the "very cynical bylaws" Beavuh often refers to, and would erode public confidence in the BSA. It seems likely that, after the BSA lost 35+% of its Scouts overnight, it would then continue to loose boys at a rate rivaling the urban Scouting disaster. Given that the only substantial new markets for Scouts (conservative church and home schooled youth) would gravitate much more toward the new organization than the BSA, all ideas of "growing" the BSA would disappear for years. Of course, all this is speculation. Until it's actually tried, no one *knows* what would happen. TN Scout Troop

There seems to be a common theme in the thinking of many posters here, that Scouting would be better off and more successful, if the influence of religious organizations was eliminated. But we see a rather striking irony here: there already IS a large American Scouting organization that has done precisely that. Nothing's certain till it's tried, but it would certainly seem probable that this alternative US Scouting organization would be willing to embrace an influx of ex-Boy Scouts with open arms. . . . and yet most of the same posters here seem not to like that Scouting organization very much. Why is that? TN Scout Troop

This thread probably does belong elsewhere. But having just read the original AP article here: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2010/1021/Boy-Scouts-group-removes-Mormons-from-leadership-roles-over-religious-beliefs it's hard to miss several striking ironies. Contrary to several posters in this thread, the LDS church has been involved in the BSA from the very beginning. It is simply ignorance to refer to the LDS church as 'corrupting' the BSA -- they were there, shaping it's development from the very beginning. But, they've always been exclusive -- in the ways the BSA allowed from the beginning. It would be an unusual LDS congregation that would allow non-LDS leaders in its Scout program. The LDS Scouters we know are nice guys, but are rather clear that a central purpose of Scouting is to prepare young men for the "mission". This simply not a task they could delegate to non-Mormons. The Mormon father is quoted as saying, ""I can't believe they had the audacity to say, 'You can't be leaders but we want your boys'". That sounds suspicious. The idea that a church would exclude non-Mormon leaders would hardly seem audacious or even surprising to most Mormons, but rather pretty normal. Like Mormons, evangelicals would tend to be interested in 'converting' the boys. The parents in this case would either have to be pretty naive, or else pretty inactive as Mormons to be surprised by this. One has to wonder what was really going on there. TN Scout Troop

Mr_Boyce wrote . . . ". . wow, it's really amazing to be that a divinity school AND an ostensibly Christian denomination would deny the divinity of Christ!" Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, so we'll take what you wrote at face value. It's actually very common for accepted and approved students and professors in denominational divinity schools to deny most of the articles of faith found in the Christian ecumenical creeds. It is common to doubt or even deny doctrines such as the Incarnation or the Resurrection. Of course, this denial is often couched in terms like "I interpret that to be a statement of Paul's personal faith" (= he believed it, but we don't). This is true of schools operated by the UMC, the PCUSA, the Episcopal Church in the US, and more. And of course denominations like Unitarian/Universalists and Christian Science NEVER accepted those doctrines. A pastor who recently moved to the EPC, after 30 years in the PCUSA, commented to one of us that he finds it disorienting to go to denominational meetings where most of the clergy present actually believe the Apostle's Creed to be true! Now, we're speaking of ideas, not behavior here. Many who accept orthodox theology nevertheless live despicable lives. But that's a distinguishable issue. TN Scout Troop

You wrote, "a member of the Presbyterian Church of America which separated from PCUSA in opposition to what PCA viewed as liberalization of PCUSA (read - support of civil rights)". It is likely some individual congregations like yours separated from the PCUS for racist reasons. Racism may have become a motivation for leaving the PCUS in later years (or the PCUSA even later). But in the years just before and just after the formation of the PCA race simply was not part of the discussion. During that period the "liberalism" being discussed never had a racial component: it was ALWAYS theological or philosophical. This is not to say that the the PCA didn't contain racists: it did. But virtually every white person in the South during that era (mid-60's) was racist. Racism simply was not a distinguishing factor between PCA and PCUS. During the era when the PCA was formed, even the most liberal bureaucrat in the PCUS wouldn't have touched that issue. Many 'good Southern Presbyterians' might not have gotten upset over the 'minute' theological issues like whether Christ was God, or merely a man with religious feelings. And some might even have allowed that Martin Luther King was not actually the devil incarnate. But they would have been in a total uproar if someone suggested that they -- personally and actually -- had to worship with blacks. If the hierarcy of the PCUS had attempted to impose that in 1965, either those men would have all lost their positions, or the PCUS would simple have ceased to exist. To suppose that racism could have been a distinguishing issue between PCA and PCUS during that era is simply to betray an ignorance of those times. The fact that your individual congregation was split over this issue, perhaps years later, is certainly tragic. But that does not make your original statement true. TN Scout Troop(This message has been edited by tnscouttroop)

Packsaddle's statement about the PCA's division from the PCUS (the PCUSA came some years later) deserves to be corrected, or at least countered. His remarks, suggesting that the formation of the PCA was racist, no doubt accurately reports explanations given after the fact within the PCUSA. His explanations suffer from an ignorance of the actual motivations driving the principal organizers within "Concerned Presbyterians" and the "PEF", the parent organizations that formed the PCA. However, even more obviously, they reflect a basic misunderstanding of the historical and social milieu in which those events took place. He is guilty of an anachronism in supposing that "civil rights" were a denominationally divisive issue at that time. When the PCA was formed, and for a number of years later, virtually ALL churches in the South were segregated regardless of theology. It would never have occurred to most on either side that churches would be "integrated". Schools? Yes. But at that time, integrating churches was an idea that simply didn't occur to most Southerners, as even a theoretical possibility. While it was certainly true that many members and leaders in PCUS churches that moved into the PCA were racist, it is also true that many who remained in the PCUS were racist as well. But, none of that had much to do with the PCA. However, if you want a single precipitating event leading to the PCA's formation, there were probably two. ;-) The first was a decision by one of the key PCUS seminaries to no longer require that its students acknowledge a belief in the deity of Christ and in the virginity of Mary. The second was the adoption of SS materials called "Covenant Life Curriculum", which embedded Bultmannian neo-orthodoxy into instructional materials for elementary age children. It is perhaps an irony that, in our own area today, the only significantly biracial Presbyterian churches are PCA, not PCUSA. TN Scout Troop