The Latin Scot

I think it would be far more instructive if there were three parts to the requirement. a. Explain the role and importance of the Father in the family. b. Explain the role and importance of the Mother in the family. c.Explain how they are different, and how both together contribute to building stronger family ties. Whether the Scout is a boy or a girl, from a healthy family or a broken home, these questions are important, and will help develop stronger families in the future as the Scouts learn to understand the vital nature of each parental role in their families, whether present or future.

Wait ... what? You are comapring to utterly different things; I can see which dots you are trying to connect, but you are ending up with the wrong picture and forcing some ideas that I do not believe a relevant. For you to claim that Solo is seeing less success (mind you, it's nothing near a flop - it's still making millions, just not as many as other Star Wars films) - because movie-goers are "voting with their wallets" "not to support Disney and Ms. Kennedy's progressive take on the Star Wars universe" I would find laughable if it wasn't so erroneous. I still don't know where fans are getting these "social justice themes" in TLJ, and honestly what's wrong with getting a few more female characters (= Rose and Holdo. 2. Big deal)? Honestly, Star Wars fans are the HARDEST to please and the MOST obnoxious in their reviews (well, with the exception of Trekkies, lol). You didn't like The Last Jedi. We get it. I thought it was great, and more fun that I have had in a Star Wars movie in a long time. I say this as somebody who is as big a Star Wars fan, if not far moreso, than almost anybody here. When you speak of the "ardent, longtime Star Wars fans, I am amongst their numbers. But you want to make this political, which isn't the case. Why isn't Solo doing well? Nothing to do with politics I can tell you - it's that nobody really cared about getting a Han Solo movie in the first place! LOL. It's simply a movie nobody asked for, coming too close off the heels of another, bigger Star Wars movie, which, as much as you may have hated TLJ, still made so many billions of dollars that it has generated a greater income than many world nations. Your may resent the changes to your idealized Star Wars childhood all you like, but they are going to continue to be made, and continue to be successful. I have enjoyed them greatly, and I am as conservative as anybody. Star Wars is such a juggernaut that your wishing Solo would flop won't make a ding-dong difference in the numbers. Sadly, the BSA is in far hotter water than Star Wars is. But experience is proving that those of us who want to preserve the Boy Scouts for what it is - a dynamic organization for boys that protects their right to explore their world without intervention from adults, girls, political agendas, et cetera - are in the minority now. And unlike Star Wars, which is simply a matter of artistic tastes and personal preferences, this is a matter of right and wrong, though too few will fight to protect that. This is why I will bow out of Scouting at the end of next year, but continue to happily enjoy Star Wars probably decades after the BSA is defunct.

I've been thinking a lot about this over the past few days. I do indeed see things differently, though not in the ways many seem to think. I know this may not be the thread for this, but it is in response to a comment made in this thread, so I knew not where else to post it - moderators may remove it to a more appropriate thread without objection from me if that better serves the integrity of this topic. First of all, people are trying to "sequence" events, trying to determine which came first - a church move to exit Scouting, or incoming policy changes which the church found objectionable. I think the question is at this point irrelevant. Asking how we got to this point is no longer what matters - the question is, where are we now, and where will that lead us? For the church, growth continues throughout the world, in many lands at astronomical rates - Latin America, Western Africa, the Philippines - all are seeing incredible growth, and such continues in all other nations and domestically as well. It makes sense that we would want to unify all our members, and that starts with teaching the children (something every Scouter will appreciate). By unifying our programs, we are unifying youth all over the world in a shared program that will build harmony of faith, ideals, fellowship, understanding, and morality. Scouting has been a wonderful asset in helping the church understand the essentials of building successful foundations in the growth of young men - now we are equiped to create an equally effective program, but centered on our own unchanged and unchanging moral beliefs. For Scouting, those core moral beliefs are no longer clear. Unlike the church, which has a clear leadership structure based on one shared doctrinal foundation, Scouting must share the moral and philosophical beliefs of many hundreds of religions and ideologies - and far more so, it can be affected by popular opinion and partisan agendas. When the moral fiber of its society is srong, Scouting itself is all the stronger for it, because its leadership is inherently built out of an amalgamation of shared ideals. But when that society becomes divisive, demanding changes to the core values which Scouting once clung to, Scouting itself does not have the internal structural integrity required to withstand the pressure - in other words, Scouting does not have the inherent authority to repulse outside influences forever. The Boy Scouts of America has held out far longer than most other world Scouting organizations (Scouting UK's recent push to make its Scouts "employable" reflects drastically a complete abandonment of Baden-Powell's purpose of building men of character and not material ambition). For over 100 years, the BSA still believed that boys needed a special place of their own, a place where their unique character, temperment, energy and zeal for life could find a safe, healthy outlet - a place where they could commune with each other, with nature, and with God. Now, its internal structure, which was originally designed to openly allow invested, caring adults to share a guiding hand in protecting that environment, has been hijacked and usupred by conspiring men and women determined to use the BSA and its proud heritage as a platform from which to push their own selfish and destructive societal agendas - and the young men of this country are their primary targets. Now, it seems, they are winning greater and greater victories. Now girls are coming in, crowding out the safe space boys should have enjoyed by signing up for a program that wasn't designed for them, and which simply will not serve them like it serves boys. And so eventually changes will be made, and boys will slowly lose all the benefits that Scouting was meant to offer them. They will become marginalized in their own program. They will eventually be taught in Scouting that immoral behaviors should be tolerated, even celebrated. And soon this organization will no longer be the Boy Scouts of America. They will cling to that name for a while, till the advantages of that name are used up, and eventually it too is dropped. But already, that orginal program of over one hundred years, is almost gone. It may become a fun program, it may become an instructive program - but will not be the same program. That program, the Boy Scouts of America, the one founded by Baden-Powell, Beard, Seton, West, Hillcourt - that program does not exist anymore. The images you see in the Rockwell paintings, of boys in the woods and on the streets, in churches, communities, shelters, hospitals, backyards and living rooms, boys camping, fishing, serving, helping, caring - they are of an organization I believe will soon no longer exist. And so. Whereas before I felt that I was sad to leave, I realize now that to say Scouting is losing me would be a falsehood. Not that losing one volunteer would make any difference, but that I - that our nation - we are losing Scouting. The quote above stated "Who the BSA admits is less important to me than the core mission of bringing Scouting to the youth in the program." And this is just the tragedy. Scouting will no longer be brought to them, because Scouting is not simply the activities, the achievements, the adventures. It is the boys themselves who for 108 years have been blessed and protected within this inspired program. And now they no longer have it; it belongs now not to them, but to outside powers making changes that the boys cannot control, and cannot stop; and being young, they do not realize fully what is being stolen from them, nor will they be given the power to rescue it themselves. So yes, at the end of next year I will no longer be a part of Scouting. I will continue to deliver the program will all my heart, mind, and strength until then, within my unit, as the walls crash around me. But I will be sad (albeit not surprised) to find that I have stayed in my place, while Scouting has moved to a different world altogether. These decisions have not "overshadowed the core program." I believe they reject it entirely, but will inevitably use it only as long as it is useful to them. I only pray for the sake of the boys who remain that such will last for a small time longer at least. In many units with dedicated, inspired and visionary leaders, it may last much longer. I believe there will be many pockets of successful, true Scouting scattered all over the nation, and I look forward to hearing their stories of success against the waves of compelled change. But I will have other battles to fight then, and other programs to nurture, and other flocks to tend. I hope however that I and those brave units will be able to depend on each other for support and encouragement whenever we may we call upon each other. My prayer is that those future alliances will ever hold strong against whatever troubles may come.

Yeah, a lot of the information in this is outdated - is this really the latest edition? EDIT: The copyright date does indeed say 2015. If there is a new 2018 edition, the files at the link aren't it.

How can a few people chatting online "establish" what was ultimately behind the BSA's decision? Alas, we can hypothesize all we want, but we don't really know what went behind the move. All I know is that I am against it, and will leave the program with the Church next year. Do I believe in Scouting? Yes, with all my heart yes. Do I believe that the Boy Scouts of America still delivers the quality of Scouting and the purity of the program that it once did? No. I don't believe it does anymore. And I can't invest my time in an organization that has lost the vision of its original programming. It breaks my heart, but I have principles that the BSA is moving away from, and my principles come before my passions.

The only real requirement to be a SPL is: you are a registered Scout in good standing, and the boys elect you. Bam. If the boys pick a kid, that's their choice. He may be 11, he may be a Tenderfoot, he may have awful attendance - makes no difference. The boys pick who they pick, and soon enough they will learn what makes a good leader or not. And they can always oust a leader and choose a new one whenever they feel a change is needed! The most important thing is to trust the boys and not interfere. Let them handle it on their own; after all, it's their troop!

I am afraid this is not an accurate understanding of our relationship with the BSA. We did not adopt Scouting as a matter of convenience; in fact, implementing it took a great deal of effort, and meant cancelling a youth program we already had in place. The need for a unified global program is only one part of the reason for our exit. The other very much is the fact that the BSA is making a broad statement with its recent policy changes - the statement that boys and girls learn in the same way, and that one program can adequately meet the needs of both with no need to differentiate between the sexes. This fundamental ideology, that boys and girls should just share the same program, is a complete turn-around from the roots of Scouting, which was a program specifically tailored to the needs of boys. It also goes against what we believe in the Church - that men and women are fundamentally different, that both serve complimentary but distinct roles in the family and in society, and that our gender is an eternal part of our divine identity. The new BSA ideology no longer matches those beliefs, and so it would be inappropriate for the Church to be associated with a program that now has a distinctly different worldview. This is not a matter of convenience. It's a matter of principle. We can still support and serve and encourage one another's growth, but we cannot share the same ties that we could when our core beliefs were the same. Had the BSA stuck to its original values, there would not have been such a need for us to take a stand like this.

Whatever happened to this site? It hasn't been updated in almost a year. Such a pity too; I think it was one of the best websites on Scouting one could hope to find.

It's all a matter of being gracious and tactful. If you are again nominated for an award that you should only have received once, there's nothing wrong with informing the powers that be that you have already received the honor, and that you would rather not break rules to receive it again. Certainly nobody could fault you for pointing it out; it would be an honorable thing to do. After all, we aren't here for the awards (I should hope). Should they bestow the honor upon you anyway, even after said declination, simply receive it graciously. Make no fuss of it; modesty is always more becoming and more mature than gratuitously turning it into a big deal. But certainly do not wear two of the same knot on your uniform - not only would that be a tasteless flaunting of a double-bestowal, but it goes against uniform policy as well. One never wears two knots for the same award; that's what devices are for, and if there are no devices that fit the situation, it won't matter anyway. A good Scouter never seeks recognition, and certainly won't mind whether or not people know about all the honors he has received, because that's not what he is there for.

Welcome; glad to have you with us!

Glad to have you here!

Well, it'll have to do, lol.

Oh for crying out loud ... Now I gotta update my chart since they are getting rid of the diamond blue rank patch! Just when I had my poster looking all perfect, lol. Where are my markers?!

I found the videos and posted a link to the site on another thread. Thanks guys!

That's $0.04! Already I've earned almost a whole nickle off this thread. Both of the above are good points though; I am just going to recycle all the used stuff I can for the next 18 months. And I just realized @ValleyBoy's point this morning - any Webelos Scout who wants to stick to the blue uniform can easily just say he's wearing an authentic vintage uniform and he will remain correctly dressed. Problem solved!

It seems they are looking to sell out all the yellow stock before putting out the red materials. Same with the new light blue Bear rank patches and all the other cosmetic uniform changes in Cub Scouting.

Welcome welcome! Glad to have you aboard!

Well, that's one reason I wouldn't wait till the end of the year to award ranks. As soon as a boy can get the requirements done, he should get his rank - in my program in fact, we don't follow school calendars at all. When a boy turns 10 he joins my Webelos group, and he is with me for a year till he turns 11. We don't take summer breaks, and we don't have a "start" or "end" to the program year. It's ongoing, and boys earn their ranks as they complete the adventures/other requirements for them. Obviously it means careful planning and juggling of activities, but it sure is nice not to be beholden to the schools for scheduling and planning activities and rank advancement. In fact, summer is when I see the highest rates of advancement and progress, since we don't have school activities conflicting with our program.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that! Haha. Well in that case, maybe my families can get by without having to worry about the changes after all! I just gotta stock up on the blue patches so that I have enough for any boys who stay in the blue uniform up till the end of next year.

After hearing the swirl of rumors, I found this! http://www.texastrailsbsa.com/openrosters/ViewOrgPageLink.aspx?orgkey=2998&itemkey=14780 I have to say, I do understand the majority of these uniform changes, even if I don't like them all (I have always been resistant to change). I have always wondered about the aqua color being used for Bears; light blue is much simpler. But making the switch out to the tan/olive uniform for ALL Webelos is annoying, and for some, expensive. I understand the cunning behind it - get the boys in the uniform early, and there is a far better chance they'll continue on to Boy Scouts since they own the uniform already. But still, it's kind of frustrating. I won't require it of my families for a couple of years at least. But I will miss the diamond blue patch!

Oh, the standards - Schubert, Verdi, Barber, Purcell, et cetera. 😉

In my council uniforms are worn to everything. I was especially impressed by how well uniformed our district was during the entirety of Camporee weekend and Scout-O-Rama this past month. I gotta say, uniforms are being worn much more often and more correctly than when I was a Scout in this area growing up. So yeah - lots of people are still wearing the uniform on their activities. I guess just not where you live.

What triangle patch? You mean the blue square patch? Where is this news from?

Wait wait wait wait wait - where did you hear this?! I haven't heard about this anywhere else; when did they announce this?