LVAllen

Sure, for certain definitions of "leading." I prefer Stosh's explanation of leadership (and have shamelessly stolen it when dealing with my own Scouts): leadership is taking care of your boys. With that in mind, what kind of activities do the adults do that take care of their Scouts? Well, since the adults' goals, i.e. Scouting's Aims, are to develop physical fitness, citizenship, and character, the adults "lead" by coaching and developing the scouts. They don't lead by dictatorial fiat, because that eliminates the boys' opportunity to grow, and that's not "taking care of the boys."

I'd be curious to know why he thinks the term "Family Scouting" refers to an entirely distinct program, a la Scouting and Soccer. The curriculum will remain the same for each group, which means the Rules for the Great Game of Scouting remain the same. Different troops, be they of whatever gender, may play the game differently, as they do now, but the rules are the same. Scouts do mist everything by patrols.

Really? My state requires every volunteer who might have regular or unsupervised contact with students or in-class time to undergo a background check. "Regular" means more than 4 times in a month. The volunteer gets to pay $60 for the privilege. $33 if you are in the vicinity for more than 72 hours seems more feasible than that.

Allow me to step back and say that I could have expressed myself less caustically. If you want to know, the specific part of your post that I found objectionable was the following: It appears from this comment that you are concerned that girls are too girly to like scouts because girls, and that they'll either drop out or make scouts more girly. Frankly, this implies that girls aren't interested in the doing things Scouts do. And what exactly is it that Scouts do? Why have the Scouts volunteered their time to meet with their troop and patrol? So they can have fun with friends, be part of a group, learn how to do cool stuff, etc. And saying that girls aren't interested in such things is just incorrect. You say boys are drawn to uniforms. I say boys and girls alike are drawn to being an equal part of a larger whole, and wearing a uniform is only a reflection of that feeling. Nobody joins Scouting so they can wear a uniform. They wear a uniform because they're Scouts. In many other countries, the Scout uniform is really just the necker. But wearing just the necker still identifies them as a member of the Scouting movement, and a brother or sister to all other Scouts, including ones wearing a full tan uniform sans necker. I will admit that girls tend to do better in a classroom-style adult-directed sit-quietly-and-listen setting. But if a scout activity resembles anything like such a classroom, something has gone seriously off the rails. Scouts learn by doing.

What a load of horse dung. Apparently, girls you know don't like to do fun things with their friends, be that camping, hiking, running, exploring, or building things. Girls don't like to feel like they belong in a group, and apparently teamwork is anathema to the way they grow. Girls apparently can't learn through associating with adults. And girl leadership? Ha! Girls are biologically inferior to boys, am i right? No point in wasting valuable time teaching them to look out for their fellows. We'll just go ahead and ignore the historical fact that girls picked up BP's Scouting just as fast as boys did, when they were allowed to do so.

I would think that would be exceptionally unlikely. No charter = no authorization to use any of BSA's materials. And despite the Church's current offerings for 14-17 year old youth looking suspiciously like the Venturing program it refused to pay for, I expect the new Mormon program will not look much like Scouting. Expect plenty of service projects, lots of Sunday School on Weeknights, and limited camping opportunities. My expectations are not high.

Please don't use the term "we" to imply some sort of general, unanimous consensus among members of our Church. Scouting is a perfect fit for my daughters. Scouting would have been a wonderful fit for my older sister. Dahlquist is addressing current LDS Scouts, and how they can transition more or less seamlessly into community units. Since there aren't any female Scouts in units chartered by the church, there isn't any reason to address that possibility.

While I can't speak for others, I'll never be insulted if you call me a Mormon. I'll never even try to adjust anyone's usage of the term if they're using it to refer to member of my church. Shoot, I won't even go as far as the new and revised style guide and personally try to "discourage" folks from using the term. I'm a Mormon. He's a Mormon. She's a Mormon. Wouldn't you like to be a Mormon too? (Is that reference too old?)

Let me provide an example. I'm Mormon. My 13 year old son is also part of a community troop, which typically camps out Friday afternoon through Sunday mid-morning. Generally, he will go through Saturday evening. After the campfire, he and I will head home. He makes sure he's on the duty roster plenty on Saturday, so noone can accuse him of bailing on work. It's not 100% ideal. On the other hand, these scouts are his friends, and friends support each other, particularly in personal choices.

Ask Andy would run clean out of material if every troop followed the program. The fact he's been writing columns since 2001 should provide ample evidence for the above statement.

I would argue that having scouts sit in merit badge classes is a much bigger departure from traditional scouting than the Introduction of females. Solution: more doing, much less passive sitting and waiting for information. But that would require counselors who are only teaching 1-2 scouts at a time, and that's not cost effective for camps.

Not even for Leatherworking MB? That makes me sad.

Every aspect of the program is open to observation. That does not mean a parent should be permitted to interfere with the program.

How does he earn 2nd Class if he refuses to spend the night in a tent he pitched or other structure he helped erect? And removing a Scout from a campout without informing the SPL or SM beforehand should have resulted in an immediate disinvite of the dad to any future outings.

My son just returned from his first camp. He chose Small Boat Sailing, Motorboating, and Kayaking and spent most of his day at the waterfront. During his free time (of which we made sure he had plenty) he was either snorkeling or shooting at the archery range. He attended a star watching party, even though he didn't take Astronomy, just because he loves stars (and it's hard to see them in our city). He went on an overnight canoing trip in which dolphins played next to the canoes. Sure, the camp was pricey if we thought about it as a weeklong merit badge university and gauged it as $/MB Earned. Fortunately for him, we didn't see that as its main purpose. And, sure, he could have sat in a T-1C class for two hours a day and come out with most things ready to be signed off. But he wouldn't have been nearly as energized about Scouts afterword. He has plenty of time to work with his fellow scouts to improve those skills anyway.

No. Not every ward is failing. Not every unit has leaders that refuse to be trained. Not every stake has SYM / unit commissioners that (until the elimination of Venturing and Varsity) were responsible for visiting 8-10 units per month, but ignored that part of their responsibility. Not every stake decided to off-load the cost of summer camp onto volunteers by rolling their own Hobo Camp which could not in any way meet National Camp School standards, were unlikely to have Certificates of Insurance issued, and which put the scouts at risk. But many did. I manage my expectations of institutions by what they have historically been able to accomplish. Now, maybe the Church will produce some wondrous plan by which adults will enthusiastically use yet-to-be-created-or-tested resources, despite these same adults ignoring or refusing the use copious resources available for many years. Maybe the Church will surprise me with its skills in creating a curriculum that appeals to the interests of today's youth while providing them a structure to improve themselves and reach higher. Its results with the Duty of God Certificate, something very few people receive unless they are dragooned into doing it via "Duty to God Nights," leads me to suspect not. I'd love to be surprised. But there's really nothing in the history of the Church that demonstrates that success comes from the top. Instead, long-lasting programs and ideas have usually come from the members, and have then been adopted by the Church as a whole. Relief Society? Members. Mutual? Members. Scouting? Members. Oh, and rest your mind at ease. I am very firmly a member of the Church. But I'm also a father of youth, both boys and girls, who will be encountering this new program as it rolls out. I look out for their long-term spiritual, physical, and emotional development first. To the extent that the new program provides ample support for that, I'm all for it. To the extent it doesn't? There are better uses of their time, and my loyalty to the Church doesn't mean they'll spend their money on that which is not bread, nor their labor for that which does not satisfy.

That makes two imperfect organizations in the partnership, not just one. Except I'm not certain that the Church has chosen a "better path." A cheaper one in the short run, probably. Only the long run, demonstrating how the "new program's" effect on the youth, will determine whether this was a wise decision. Unfortunately for individual youths, they don't have a long run in the program. A few short years in mutual, (12-17), and they're out on their own. Fewer, if they decide what they get out of it isn't worth their time. This, more than anything else, has been the tragedy of adults refusing or neglecting to get trained. The youth deserve trained leaders because their time frame is too short to permit the adult 4-5 months to get a handle on the program. And yet, the only thing you need to do to see how successful the Church has been at creating youth programs is to take a look outside the US and review the programs there. Oh, wait. There aren't any, despite a history of clear needs. On the one hand, I see the wink and assume you're being playful. On the other, that wagon carried a lot of resources, even if those resources were ignored by a number of those charged with overseeing the youth. Regardless of your personal views on its condition, it's just foolish to expect that you can reach the same destination by striking out on your own, assuming "the Lord will provide." You may get there. Your charges will be buried along the trail. The likely result? Settling for mediocre goals, achieving abysmal results, and saying All is Well in Zion.

This is the same office that had all the skills, tools, and authority needed to guide the church's success in the Scouting program for the last 100 years? Yeaaah. I'm not holding my breath for the "new" program. If we couldn't make it work with the incredible resources available from BSA, I rather expect the new program will be "Roll your own, let the Spirit guide, but don't do anything that has the remotest risk involved." Meaning little, if any, real training will be provided, and the youth will suffer for it.

Speaking as a fellow LVAC Scouter.... Thank you. Leatherworking is so cool, but most Scouts' exposure to it is limited to a few hours at camp, at best. Hopefully, your work will help the council be organised enough to offer the experience to more scouts.

Also suggests Day Camps as a "typical Scouts BSA activity." Parlor Scouting got a tiny boost here.

Not the entire church. I would be over the moon with the possibility of not having to take my daughters to a non-LDS troop to get a great experience, the way I've had to with my son.

ABSOLUTELY NOT! The Council Executive Board can approve registration beyond 18. Councils can approve alternate requirements for S-1C. Councils may approve alternate merit badges used for completing the "Earn X Merit Badges" requirement for Star - Eagle. The Council may NOT alter the MB requirements themselves. When it says "Show or demonstrate," the Scout must show or demonstrate. When it says "explain," a non-verbal scout will need to come up with some kind of method of explaining. If he can not explain in some fashion, he can't earn that merit badge.

So... if the CO wants to permit girls to join a scout unit associated with their CO, they need to charter a new unit. What's the fee for that again? Suddenly the push to create paper units with paper leaders when everyone is meeting together at the same time and place makes more sense.

Gee. A party that filed a lawsuit and ran straight to the press misrepresented the actual facts of the situation (the scout kept his merit badges, and was never "demoted" to Cub Scout). Call the press (again!), since that's the real shocker of the day.

The same way existing packs who haven't cared about National have done it: just include the girls with the existing dens.