LDS BSA Relationship

[packsaddle]

Thanks OGE, for restating the question about local option. THAT was the local option aspect I was commenting on.

However, the question seems to remain...only answered by one person who is obviously biased. But at least there is that one answer. Given the absence of responses to the contrary, it is safe to tentatively conclude that 'local option' is local only for LDS units and that LDS limits that option for all non-LDS units through the threat of loss of their involvement if 'local option' IS allowed for other units.

I think that is also what BadenP is referring to with regard to the inflated numbers and the importance of money to BSA when deciding these policies.

If it IS true that 'local option' is closed for non-LDS units because LDS is able to exercise its clout in the form of funds based on inflated membership numbers, then I agree that the situation is a study in deception and dishonesty.

 

Edited part: I add that while I know of no CO's in the area who have decided not to sponsor units because of BSA policy, I do know of many families who have left or decided not to join because of it. Interesting...this kind of thing would tend to strengthen the grip of LDS on BSA and it would work the same way for any church that managed to dominate the numbers and then exercise that clout to control policy for all faiths.

I don't blame LDS any more than I would blame any other faith if they did something similar. The actual responsibility resides with spineless BSA officials whose god is money. What was that verse about "love of money"?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[BadenP]

packsaddle

 

Well put, but I think the numbers of actual participating LDS scouts is at best less than one third of what is reported. I have had more than a few LDS SM's tell me how frustrating it is for them to be appointed to the position for one or two years, given a roster of 20 boys and only 4-5 show up to meetings. It is really about the true driving force of the National BSA office its all about the MONEY!!!!

 

jhankins - the problems you describe are internal ones within the LDS organization and only they can correct them. We can not offer constructive ideas because to the LDS hierarchy we are nothing more than a bunch of unsaved souls.

[Gunny2862]

As to Ghost Scouts in non-LDS scouting it really is simple economics, if we have non-attending/inactive Scouts on the roster there is no way we get a free leader at some events - for our particular situation unless we want to pay additional costs at every event we go to we need to pare DOWN our list rather than just carry in-actives.

When your CO doesn't foot the tab and the Scouts and their parents pay for everything except the meeting place, economics and certain parts of the Scout law, i.e. Thriftiness, become important.

[bacchus]

Thank you for all your comments. I'll do everything I can to make those units that I'm involved with a positive force in our scouting area.

 

Even your anti- comments are helpful so that I can see what attitudes may lurk below the surface with some of our volunteers.

[Gary_Miller]

I don't understand why the problem with the LDS church registering every youth who are on their membership rolls wither they are active in the church or not. Part of the mission of any church is to reach out to their membership and keep them active in the congregation. All the LDS church is doing is making sure that those inactive youth are registered so on the occasion where they may come on a camp out or another activity the youth is on the rolls and covered by the BSA and church insurance. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

 

As for the gay and atheist question to the LDS church leaving BSA if the policy was changed. I have heard that statement but not from any church official who would have the authority of the church to make such a statement for the church. So for the most part I think its just speculation from individuals on what they think the LDS church would do.

 

To add to that speculation I would ask why would the LDS Church, or any other church or organization, stay with or be a member of any organization where the moral values of that organization are not in-line with the organizations (LDS Church) values and teachings.

 

However, since the people at making such big changes at the national level is the National Board of Directors which is made up of individuals and organizations who believe in the current values of the BSA. I doubt such a change as the so called "local option" is going to happen any time soon.

 

Speaking for myself. If the "local option" does happen. This Scouter will be among the many who will leave the organization. If that makes me bias, so be it.

[GernBlansten]

Gary,

the problem with the registration policies of the LDS is that you yourself use the inflated numbers of youth served by the LDS/BSA program as justification for the LDS to sway and control the policies of the BSA. As minority members of the organization (on paper only), that really chaffs us when that power is artificial and unjustifiable.

[Gary_Miller]

GernBlansten

 

While I understand your concerns your argument is weak. Do to the facts that the LDS Church Policy to register all young men ages 8-15 in scouting has only been in effect since 1995. Before then parents or units (using fund raisers) paid for registration and we only registered young men who were active in the program, and the LDS Church still was the oldest CO, and still had the most units and the most registered members.

 

The BSA is governed by the National Executive Board. Which makes and implements the policies of the BSA. The LDS Church is only one of many organizations and members who have a vote on the board.(This message has been edited by Gary_Miller)

[Gunny2862]

But see Gary, you are fine with exercising local options to use the program the way YOUR COR wants to use it but don't want anyone else to have the ability to do with a local option what they want to.

 

And while I may not personally agree with everyones choice of local option - it should be all have it or none have it.

 

Also while i understand and applaud your COR's commitment to providing Scouting to your youth in most other COR's (IME) Scouting is only one of the programs - not an intentionally integrated part of the COR's youth strategy.

And if we disagree about what another COR chooses for their local option one is free to seek out a new COR who wants it run the way each of us would want it done.

(This message has been edited by Gunny2862)

[Gary_Miller]

Every CO in the BSA have the right to exercise local options to use the program the way their CO wants as long as they stay within the guidelines and policies set fourth by the Boy Scouts of America.

[Bando]

"However, since the people at making such big changes at the national level is the National Board of Directors which is made up of individuals and organizations who believe in the current values of the BSA. I doubt such a change as the so called "local option" is going to happen any time soon. "

 

And who is on the National Board of Directors? More than a few LDS folks.

 

"Speaking for myself. If the "local option" does happen. This Scouter will be among the many who will leave the organization. If that makes me bias, so be it. "

 

I've never understood this sentiment. At all. Are you really telling me that your involvement with Scouting, your child's ability to take part in all of the great things Scouting provides, is completely outweighed by the audacity Nationals would have in asking you to accept a gay leader in your troop? That's really the linchpin in your involvement in Scouting? That's what's most important to you, that this is an organization where your kid will never have to encounter a gay person?

 

The point of my issue with LDS Scouting is that the BSA has never asked LDS to accept their program as it was/is. Rather, the BSA has continually morphed itself, especially over the last 20 years, so that the LDS would stay in the fold. That means encouraging phantom units and authorizing the use of non-mainstream scout books and leadership techniques. That means imposing the need to enact rigid membership policies that seem only to serve to keep the LDS contingent from taking their ball and going home, because let's face it, if such decisions were changed, the only units that would wholesale leave the organization would be LDS. The rest of us would only be filling a few holes in our troops or finding new CO's. That means encouraging an entire wing of the Scouting movement in America to operate in hands-off obscurity from the rest of the boys, with separate camp weeks and isolation from what make Scouting so much fun: watching boys learn from each other through a diversity of beliefs and backgrounds.

 

Scouting may be great for LDS, but is the LDS great for Scouting? What do the rest of us get out of it?

[OldGreyEagle]

I serve on the District and Council Advancement Committee. One of the focuses of late is to look at every unit and keep track of their "Percentage of Advancement". This is because each Scout advancing a rank a year is a stated Council Goal.

 

Each year the Centennial Unit forms come out and Troops must set "Advancement Goals" for their unit. 60% of Units must meet their Advancement goals for the District to qualify for a Centennial District and then 60% of all units must meet their Advancement Goals to have the Council meet the criteria for Centennial Council. (N.B. the Centennial Program replaced the Quality unit, district, council program a few years back)

 

Most Troops set 50% as their goal as the younger scouts may earn 2-3 ranks a year but then as they get to the higher ranks, a rank a year isnt as likley. I am not sure how the LDS units do this. If they register say 25 youth and only 10 participte, if all 10 advance one rank a year, then they are at 40%. Thats if all 10 active advance.

 

Now, if 5 scouts advance, that is 50% of the Active youth but only 20% of the registered youth. How does a District with several LDS troops reach Centennial status? I guess they could set a 20% Advancement goal, while the non-LDS troops set 50%, but that just seems wrong that troops have advancement expectations based on the CO's registration patterns.

 

Getting Centennial District a a big deal in the Council I serve, it is a critical acheivement for the DE, making it a very big deal

 

Edited Note:

 

Bando, the local option would not require a LDS troop to accept gay leadership. While I am for the local option, I in no way want to force any unit to accept gay leaders, that issue is for the CO to decide, who to pick to run the program, thats the local in local option. Just as CO's can determine if they will be closed to only select members of the community (IE their faith) they get to decide adult leadership criteria within BSA standards(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[Bando]

OGE, perhaps I worded that wrong. You're correct in the fact that the local option would not require anybody to do anything except for CO's to choose what's best for their own units.

 

My point is that even the availability of a local option for gay leadership would likely cause a mass exodus of LDS units. And if a gay-free BSA is more important to LDS (or any other CO) than just saying no to the option, keeping their units as-is, and letting other CO's make the decision for themselves, well, that probably says more about their dedication to the Scouting movement than anything else.

[Twocubdad]

I'll honor Beavah's request to avoid psudo-legal debate, but I believe some councils have been subjected to federal investigations for registering "ghosts" scouts and paying their registration independently.

 

I'm not suggesting the LDS church is doing anything illegal by registering all their boys in mass, but if it is wrong for a DE to go into a school and register all the students in mass, why is it okay for a chartered organization to do so? Maybe the church has good reasons for doing so, but when those ghost members show up on the council's roster, they're still being reported to show membership growth and to justify United Way funding, etc. Even if the church is justified in handling membership the way it does, BSA has an ethical obligation to maintain and report it's membership numbers accurately. Pretending it is an internal matter of a chartered organization doesn't change the ethical obligations.

 

Here's a question on a different tact: Does anyone know who is on the National Committee and their affiliations? Granted, going through and identifying everyone by religion may seem a bit tacky, but I also think it reasonable to know how the various consituent groups are represented.

[BadenP]

I think some of you are missing the point. LDS control of the BSA is not because of numbers, which we now know are greatly inflated, it's because of the money pure and simple. The massive registration fees sent in each year for all their boys, whether or not they even participate in scouting, and their FOS tithes making them the biggest single financial contributor of any CO in scouting. MONEY and that alone is why the LDS enjoys the control they do over the BSA. All the rest of us combined still could not compete with the LDS juggernaut. This is not about local options, it is all about if the LDS support a change it will happen, if not it will never see the light of day. National is not about to do anything that will ever upset the cash cow of the BSA.

[RememberSchiff]

Understand I'm just asking. I know little about LDS, other than hearing that Spock maybe did little too much LDS back in the '60s at Berkeley.

 

1. Did LDS approve National creating coed Exploring and Venturing which has local gender option with LDS crews choosing not to be coed?

 

2. Did LDS approve the changes by National to allow women in adult leadership roles which also appears to be a local opt-out with LDS?

 

My $0.01