The Latin Scot

In answer to @@qwazse's question, the Church has historically had a very large presence at World Jamborees, although not as much has been made of them as in decades past - National, yes, World, not so much. Now, @@swcline is correct in that, where there are co-ed Scouting activities happening, the segregation between boys and girls has of course been respected. Yet while that may be true, such camping issues have not been program-wide, and are still relatively isolated situations (and don't get me started on the teen dating frenzy that is EFY, @@swcline. I only recently graduated from BYU and had to put up with those crazy crowds every summer ). But it is also true that those kinds of issues really are secondary to the real problem, and I should have been clearer on that point. The primary potential for concern is neither logistical nor practical at its core. The primary dilemma with co-ed Scouting would be the ideological conflict, the changing of a program that has been centered on the development of young men into some kind of gender-neutral activity club that would be forced to change its very nature towards an end that would neither serve boys nor girls effectively. Others may not find that to be a problem, and that is of course their privilege, but the Church would not countenance such a massive change lightly. It clashes with too many of our central beliefs, and the with way that we raise and instruct our growing young men and women. MIND YOU, I am not saying that the Church would automatically jump ship if such a change were to be made, and to assume that it would would be most unwise. But that kind of huge alteration to the program would certainly generate serious discussions which could very easily lead to such a move. But again, until or unless it happens, speculation is, as in most cases, unproductive. More often than not it leads to paranoia rather than preparedness. Better to focus on the Now than on the Could Be. The Church is at present deeply entrenched in the Cub Scout and Boy Scout programs. So let's focus more on cultivating the fruits of our cooperation, rather than sowing any distressing seeds of doubt.

Being a Webelos leader gives me an advantage. I just ask parents for any old Cub Scout uniform items as the boys move up to the tan/olive uniform, and pass them down to any boys who need them. Living in an affluent area pocketed by a few low-income neighborhoods, the balance between needs and donations has maintained a remarkable equilibrium.

Well! This will be a huge, but not entirely surprising, change to the organization then. I am sure they will announce it in the next few days if this is really direction they are taking.

The problem is the MASSIVE list of ramifications that would come of making a program like the BSA into ... what? The BGSA? Just the "SA?" Even if the Church simply continued to charter all-boy units, there would be all kinds of issues with co-ed troops which the Church could not avoid. As a Church we prioritize the family, and we believe that gender is a divine and eternal part of our natures - as a result, we believe strongly that boys are different from girls. By making the BSA co-ed, it would be making a statement that boys and girls are to some extent the same, and that the needs of one are no different than the needs of the other, as though they were interchangeable. This would be a philosophy that we could not support - and that's only the fundamental, ideological issue. Mind you, we are deeply entrenched in every aspect of Scouting, from Camporees to Jamborees, from summer camps to local events. The complications at these kind of events would encompass everything from showering arrangements to inter-troop activities to tenting/campsite situations to patrol competitions, ALL of which would suddenly include girls. Which makes it difficult for those of a faith that believes in a sacred difference between the two sexes. Whether or not you agree with our doctrines, you can't deny that such a massive issue would pose huge logistical, ideological, and practical difficulties to a religion that believes so strongly in doing it Duty to God. Rather than try to navigate such potentially rough waters, it would be FAR easier for the Church at such a point to simply let Scouting be and initiate its own activities program. We have the tools and the organizational structure in place to do so with relative ease if absolutely needed - members in the 100+ other countries of the Church already have their own programs, so we would only need to adopt the same structure in place of Scouting. But the hope is the we don't ever have to. If Scouting will simply hold to the values it has always embraced, which align perfectly with the aims and desires of the Church and have for 100 years, then there is no problem. We love Scouting, we WANT Scouting - but we put the development and well-being of our young men even before loyalty to this program. As the Scout Oath itself makes clear, we put our Duty to God first. We can only hope that nothing happens within the BSA 's organization which would pit that Duty against our love for and loyalty to the Boy Scouts of America. As of now, thank goodness, no such thing has transpired, and we happily continue to ensconce our young men in the Scouting program for the time being. I hope this makes it somewhat clearer to understand; I know that we all see the religions of others "as through a glass, dimly," but I sincerely wish for you all to see where we are coming from with regards to this issue.

I don't understand the nature of this post ... are you pointing out the decision of the LDS Church to pull out of the Varsity and Venturing programs? Because that happened all the way back in May, effective January 1st of next year, but still old news at this point (which has been discussed almost to wit's end). Or, is this news about the Varsity program itself coming to an end? If that is the case, can you please give us a source for this information? I have checked every official site I can find and there is no mention of this from what I can tell. Would you please share where you got this news?

@@krikkitbot makes a good point. There are some LDS members (as with in all faiths) who are not fully supportive of the Scouting program (I pity their short-sightedness). So as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in good standing, with first-hand communication from Church leadership, let me be EXPLICITLY CLEAR on one point. You guys ready? THE CHURCH IS NOT LEAVING SCOUTING. THOSE OF THE LDS FAITH ARE NOT DROPPING THE SCOUTING PROGRAM. THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS HAS NO PLANS TO SEVER ITS TIES WITH THE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA. I could go on. But do you see my point? I say this after long conversations with many Church leaders at the highest levels (it's nice to have good connections). But more than that, why should the church leave? Let's clarify a few points for those stubborn people who like to stir things up with false rumors, and quash them before they continue to permeate these lovely forums. 1. GIrls in the BSA - as @@swcline pointed out, there are of course instances where groups of girls, who happen to be LDS, have started their own Venturing posts. But this is purely done as individual agents, not endorsed by the Church or incorporated into the official Young Women's programs. The Church has never chartered young women in any of Scouting's programs, and while some individuals or groups, who happen to be LDS, may do so on their on dime, they are NOT affiliated with the Church in any official way, and so they are irrelevant to this topic. The Church does not endorse Scouting for girls or young women, and never has. 2. The pull-out from Varsity and Venturing - this was NOT A POLITICAL MOVE - I don't know how much more I can stress this. The Church pulled out of these programs because, frankly, we weren't running them very well, and it was a drain of resources and leadership that wasn't meeting the objectives of either program. It had nothing to do with politics. Church leaders have explained this to us over and again in the past few weeks, but those outside the Church don't get to hear it as often, so as an LDS leader, let me make it clear the choice was based on operations, not politics. Our Varsity and Venturing programs were largely inert or ineffective. We are GREAT with the Boy Scout program, but once the boys turned 14 they entered a program that their leaders didn't understand and weren't using very well, right at the age when they are starting high school and have their attentions pulled in all different directions. So we cut those two programs because we didn't run them very well! The Church did not pull out of those programs for any reason other than our own inability to effectively use them! No politics were involved!!! As for the Cub Scout and Boy Scout programs, why on Earth should we drop them when clearly we are still running them, and exceptionally well I might add? For proof, look at the 100+ years of close and deep partnership between the Church and the BSA (there's even a whole book about it at the Scout Store, "A Century of Honor"). Or look at the huge number of Eagle Scouts the Church produces, or the MASSIVE contingent of LDS Scouts just at this last Jamboree, where one of our Senior Apostles, Jeffrey R. Holland (an Eagle Scout), addressed more than 2,100 Boy Scouts to talk about how much the Church loves the Scouting program (this was only weeks ago, mind you). I mean, our Church President, Thomas S. Monson, has earned both the Silver Buffalo and the Bronze Wolf - we are dedicated to this program! Our ties to Scouting are full of history and brotherhood. Even with the changes the BSA has been making, we have stuck with them. Now, if the BSA were to do something INCREDIBLY foolish, like change to co-ed programming, then there might be cause to reconsider our close relationship. But for now, DO NOT SPREAD THE MYTH THAT THE LDS CHURCH IS LEAVING SCOUTING. It is exactly that - a myth. Anybody who claims otherwise is a trouble-making meddler looking to stir the pot - don't listen to them! We love Scouting, and will stick with it until they give us a solid reason not to.

Welcome to the boards, and commendations for accepting such a big job! You sound like you're prepared to do a great job with it; the boys will be lucky to have you! Good luck, and remember to ask any questions you may have here - I have received all kinds of help from the lovely folks here!

I got mine for my 33rd birthday last December. It was a gift from some of the boys in my den, and I LOVE it! And mind you I am young-looking - I still get mistaken for an older Scout or Venturer. OFTEN.

@@qwazse I cannot speak much for how things are operated in Canada except that they do not register girls in their units, nor will they. Their program is under review, and more information about their program is likely to be forthcoming. @@HelpfulTracks Utah is actually home to no less than 4 councils, and they are among the largest and most active in the BSA. There are also huge councils in other areas with large LDS populations, such as California, Idaho, Arizona, and Wyoming. But it is a mistake to think that the Church only looks at what goes on in Utah. We are a global Church, with almost 16 million members in more than 160 countries, and every one of them matters. Thanks to meticulous organization of leadership, the young people in Canada receive as much attention as the members in Venezuela or Mongolia or Nigeria or the Ukraine. So you can be sure that the Scouts in Canada are getting all the attention they deserve in this regard. Your facts are mistaken about the Venturing program - the Church has never at any point chartered or endorsed Venturing units for girls. We have our own programs for girls and young women that we have run for more than 120 years, so we have never had any need to include them in any of Scouting's programs. If, however, Scouting were to cave to popular pressure and make their core programs (Cub and Boy Scouts) co-ed, it could be one of the last straws for the Church's involvement with Scouting. The Church has been remarkably patient with Scouting's changes up until now. The pull from Varsity and Venturing actually had nothing to do with any changes in Scouting, but rather happened because local leaders weren't implementing the programs correctly and so we were wasting resources on programs that weren't being properly used. But we have kept Boy Scout and Cub Scouts because they fit with our needs and ideals. If they were to collapse their values and ultimately make those programs co-ed, however, then it would be the time to wonder how long the Church would continue with the programs. @@RememberSchiff The Church will continue to run its Boy Scout troops as before, and boys over 14 who want to continue advancing will simply continue in their own troops. There will be no need for them to transfer to non-LDS troops. If they feel they have had enough Scouting, they they can continue in the Church's new activity programs for young men 14 and up, but to continue advancing, they need only remain in their own troop. No transferring to outside troops will be needed.

It's always a mixed bag of feelings to see how others who are not of our faith choose to interpret what we do or do not believe as a religion, or in this case, as a Chartered Organization. The simple facts are these - the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supports the ideals, values, and heritage of the Boy Scouts of America. As long as the BSA continues to adhere to those ideals, there is no reason for our church to leave the organization. So, for the time being, there is absolutely no reason for the Church to reconsider its affiliation with the organization, and I will state right now, anybody who claims to have 'insider information' which suggests otherwise is either flat-out lying or looking to stir controversy. And mind you, THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS HAS NOT LEFT SCOUTING!!! We no longer patronize the Varsity or Venturing programs, but all of those boys are simply being filtered back into the Boy Scout troops to continue their advancement. The Church has not left Scouting. If you have been spreading this rumor until now, please stop, as it is simply not true. That said, if the BSA does ever shift its ideology to the extreme that girls are allowed into the Boy Scout or Cub Scout programs, then the Church would very likely, and for good cause, have occasion to reconsider its affiliation with the group. As a body we are more than capable of creating our own programs that meet the needs of young men and boys; in fact, the Church already has such programs in place in hundreds of other nations. The US and Canada are actually the only countries where the Church uses Scouting as its official activity arm for youth. So it's really up to the BSA, not the Church - if things are allowed to stay as they are, with no more crazy membership changes or alterations, then the Church will have no reason whatsoever to consider leaving the BSA. But if such changes do take place, then the Church will of course need to consider the moral welfare of its youth before it considers the repercussions to a program that no longer meets their needs. So it's up to you, Boy Scouts of America. The Church will only act if you make it necessary. And as we can all surmise, both parties are intensely aware of this. Much of the BSA National Board is comprised of LDS officials, so all of this is deeply felt and understood.

The poor writing is precisely the problem. It is attempting to state that you may wear either the uniform pants OR the uniform shorts, but whether you choose the pants or the shorts, neither may be worn with cuffs. It's not written well at all, of course, but it doesn't take great reading skills to be able to discern the intention from the quotation. I would be more troubled by anybody who tries to find loopholes in the writing as an excuse to be sloppy in one's own uniforming.

Wait, is this discussion about the company, ClassB.com, or about activity uniforms in general?

Speaking for LDS units, we do have age-based patrols, but other than the fact that they are divided by age they are, for all intents and purposes, run just like other BSA units. I cannot speak on how that has influenced the NSP program direction. What I can say is this - while the Church does not have any current plans to leave the BSA (despite the many paranoid alarmists or reactionaries who would tell you otherwise), the decision to include girls in the program would be the final breaking point. In our religion, we believe strongly in the importance of both the male and female roles both in strengthening families and in building healthy societies. To change the very nature of a program that, for over 100 years, has met the needs of boys' growth and development by including girls, whose needs and natures are fundamentally different, would be in my eyes a tragedy of epic proportions. And not just for the boys mind you. The girls who are being raised like boys may be suffering an even greater loss than anybody, since they would be the ones being put into a program that was not designed to meet the needs of their sex. Their unique qualities and gifts are not treated nor nurtured by the Boy Scout program, and while the activities would be fun for some of them, the full power and potential of women is not something which the Boy Scout of America is equipped to develop. It's unfair to them, it's unfair to the boys. It's unfair to the nation.

I received my order in the mail Saturday morning; it's a nice patch that I'm sure the boys will love. I was told they haven't made very many compared to other event patches, so I am sure in a few years it will be very popular with collectors. A fun patch for an exciting event!

Yes, this is an older article that already generated a few threads on the very topic (long before I joined these forums). I personally feel that if they are going to receive help uniforming their Scouts, it would be far better spent on pants/shorts than on campaign hats, even if they're just plain olive pants or shorts from a generic brand. You can get almost the entire uniform for the price of just one of those hats, while you can often find nice olive-green shorts for youth at Walmart for under $10! As a whole they would look better as a unit, too. Don't get me wrong, I am glad they don't make it hard on the boys if they can't afford everything, but to choose campaign hats over pants and socks and belts ... that just seems strange to me. And mind you, I LOVE my ol' smokey. I think this kind of maneuver is just meant to keep people from feeling bad if they can't afford the full uniform (which is good), but they do it by splurging on a flashy, but unnecessary, item which garners attention but doesn't meet the need (which is bad). It becomes a smoke and mirrors act - "look! they might be poorly uniformed, but they have hats! FANCY HATS!" Even if they did get a good deal on their campaign hats, it still can't be less expensive than getting them other, more essential parts of the uniform that would make them look far more, well, uniformed. Giving them their iconic hats doesn't distract from the fact that they are, for all intents and purposes, in their street clothes. In my own opinion, of course.

I like the idea of expecting the potential leaders to present all relevant information/potential conflicts/whatever to the boys before they vote - but what I like shouldn't have any final bearing on the internal affairs of the Troop. The simple fact, as the others here have pointed out, is that the Troop committee has no say in the internal affairs of the Troop. Nor does the Scoutmaster, nor his assistants. The only people who have any voice in Troop elections are the boys of the Troop itself. Any meddling from adult leadership or the Troop committee robs the boys of their right to lead their group, run their program, and yes, even their right to make mistakes, learn from them, and improve their program. The whole point of the Scouting program is to teach boys the leadership skills and character virtues they will need to be successful, self-reliant adults, and a central part of that program is allowing them to run their own activities and choose their own leaders. That is what teaches boys why it is essential to choose good leaders through the democratic process, and how to become skilled leaders themselves - it generate both conscientious citizens and responsible authority. If you decide to take away the very processes by which those qualities are meant to be learned, bending them to your own ideas of how the program should be run (and therefore, unjustly manipulated), you might as well take their uniforms and badges away from them too, because at that point you aren't running a Scouting program any more.

I like that idea a lot, and I have seen it nicely done before too. I have decided to wear the patches for a few months to complement his uniform, which already has the new patches on it. But after a few months, I will switch them out and frame them nicely, making sure to show him how much his gift means to me. I think this will be the best solution, and seeing as most of the leaders I work with don't even know what the trained patch is, I think I will be able to avoid any nit-picking patch police.

Thanks all for your replies. I haven't ever worn a patch from an event I did attend, but this is an exceptional case, and since the patch is from my own lodge and council, I think I will go ahead and honor the wishes of the young Scout who gave it to me. I won't wear it for more than a few months though; that way my Scout will feel honored while I avoid the nit-pickers who may question my right to wear the thing. After a decent amount of time I'll just pop it off and stitch on the regular patch. THIS is why it pays to know how to sew.

I am glad to hear it; hopefully the process goes smoothly so that the family can draw comfort from this honor during their time of grief. My thoughts and prayers are with them, as well as with you and your troop. All the best.

Okay, so I get that the boy can wear his patches, which makes sense since he attended the events; it seems completely right. But as for me, it's okay then to wear patches from my council and lodge even if I didn't attend the event? I wouldn't wear the official Jambo patch, naturally, but then a council strip or OA flap is okay for me to wear even if I didn't go to Jamboree myself? I actually wonder the same about another patch set I got two years ago; another Scout gave me an OA flap and matching pocket cover patch from NOAC (both exceptionally handsome patches), but since I didn't go to NOAC, I haven't felt right about wearing them. But they are from my own lodge, and they are so attractive - if I can wear them, I will. Heck, even if the official language is just vague enough to get away with it, I may wear them anyway and go with Stosh's approach - tell the story and ignore the naysayers.

Hey gang; I had a new issue come up that has me a little befuddled, so as always, I come to you for insight. I don't have any experience with patch trading or collecting beyond the patches I have saved from my own Scouting days, so I am pretty much clueless in this regard. A boy I know just got home from Jamboree (had a great time, memories for life, etc.). As a gift to me, he brought me the special lodge patch issued by my OA lodge, as well as a collectible council strip, also from my own council. I was very grateful (he's one thoughtful kid), but then he asked me if it was permissible to wear Jamboree-issue patches on the uniform. I could only tell him that I had no idea, but that I would find out ASAP. Are Jamboree Council patches and lodge flaps just meant to be collected and admired, or can they be worn as long as they are appropriate to your location? And if so, must one have attended Jamboree to wear them? Both myself and this young Scout are eager to know; he wants to wear his, and he brought me the pair specifically so that I could wear them too, but we are both uniform purists and will only use them if it follows established uniforming protocols, regardless of whether it means one, both, or neither of us can use them. Any input is, as always, appreciated. Thanks!

I understand that customs can change and norms are never normal long. However, I cannot cede to the subsequent belief that because they do change, that means they should, nor that I should be the one to change it. A Scout is courteous. He is polite and well-mannered, and even if he does not necessarily understand why he should remove his hat at the table, or open the door for a lady, or keep his elbows off the table, he still does so, because he knows that observing such customs will make life easier for the greatest number of people. Now, it is an accepted fact that these rules and ideals change, although never as dramatically or absolutely as some would have us believe. Maybe in a crowded room few will notice if if a Scout doffs his hat nowadays, but there may be somebody who does, and by tailoring his manners to please even that one person, the Scout serves everybody in the end by setting an example of courtesy and kindness that is appreciated and sets the tone for the Scouting movement as a whole. A Scout is always conscious of who may be watching his actions, and he always tries to set the best example he can. Good manners, the living of ideals and customs simply because they make the lives of others easier, should define a Scout's behavior.

Impossible ... how will the Emperor National maintain control without the bureaucracy?

Glad I can help. Do extend my sympathies to the boy's loved ones.

I've learned not to let thick hair like mine become an excuse for disregarding courtesy. While I may be embarrassed by what my hair chooses to do with itself whenever I remove my hat, I acknowledge that showing respect at the table matters more than how I look. And if somebody gets offended by my hair (or even by the hat for that matter), that is their choice. I am certainly not going to let the opinions of others dictate to me what I should and shouldn't do. Common decency in our era demands that hats be removed at the table - that is one of the few absolute cases of hats coming off. The others are when entering somebody else's home, and when entering a religious sanctuary, be it a church, temple, chapel, mosque or synagogue. Other than those instances, their wearing can be debated, as this thread demonstrates. But those three - meals, homes, and religious centers - should be beyond dispute. @@Col. Flagg The 1970's?!? Okay, then yes, that is a little odd. But they weren't required uniform items by then, so it must have been a local/unit aberrance you were dealing with, for which you have my sympathy. But you certainly aren't wrong about my Gaelic tastes; I just bought a new pair of high socks for those chilly California January days when it gets all the way down to the low 50's. They actually look pretty snappy with my campaign hat to compliment them. I mean, what else do you want me to do, wear long pants?!? That's just crazy talk.