LDS Question

[The Latin Scot]

You forget one thing - Scouting is an imperfect organization. A great organization for many decades (far less so now), but still imperfect. There are better paths, as the Church has clearly realized. And I'm afraid the thought that the Church "couldn't make it work with the incredible resources available from BSA" is as far off from the truth as one could be. The Church was one of the most successful of all the BSA's Chartered Partners for almost the entirety of our century together. We DID make it work, and with incredible results at that! Regions with heavy concentrations of LDS Scouts such as Utah, Idaho and Arizona have historically yielded huge numbers of Eagle Scouts; the Utah National Parks Council is the largest and most successful in the nation, and the number of LDS Scouters who move on to earn such awards as the Silver Beaver, Antelope and Buffalo are proportionally enormous. It's the BSA, not the Church, that is changing our capacity to succeed together, and there is nothing the BSA can offer us now that we cannot replicate and improve upon ourselves. 

With all the past controversy, program changes, et cetera, the BSA is beginning to limp along at a distressing pace. It's far better for us not to keep ourselves hitched to a wagon that's falling apart. 

[Hawkwin]

11 hours ago, The Latin Scot said:

 A great organization for many decades (far less so now), but still imperfect. There are better paths, as the Church has clearly realized....

With all the past controversy, program changes, et cetera, the BSA is beginning to limp along at a distressing pace. It's far better for us not to keep ourselves hitched to a wagon that's falling apart. 

I don't know exactly how to respond to this, but I know that it rubs me the wrong way. As a guy that keeps professing their commitment to getting their Brotherhood and to being the best Den Leader they can be through the end of next year, your condescension of BSA certainly appears to have increased lately.

Maybe you don't intend such a change in tone but this is not the first time that it struck me as out of character from your previous posting history, especially as it pertains to esprit de corps between BSA and LDS.

 

[LVAllen]

15 hours ago, The Latin Scot said:

You forget one thing - Scouting is an imperfect organization. A great organization for many decades (far less so now), but still imperfect.

That makes two imperfect organizations in the partnership, not just one.

Quote

There are better paths, as the Church has clearly realized. And I'm afraid the thought that the Church "couldn't make it work with the incredible resources available from BSA" is as far off from the truth as one could be. The Church was one of the most successful of all the BSA's Chartered Partners for almost the entirety of our century together. We DID make it work, and with incredible results at that! Regions with heavy concentrations of LDS Scouts such as Utah, Idaho and Arizona have historically yielded huge numbers of Eagle Scouts; the Utah National Parks Council is the largest and most successful in the nation, and the number of LDS Scouters who move on to earn such awards as the Silver Beaver, Antelope and Buffalo are proportionally enormous.

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.

Quote

It's the BSA, not the Church, that is changing our capacity to succeed together, and there is nothing the BSA can offer us now that we cannot replicate and improve upon ourselves. 

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.

Quote

With all the past controversy, program changes, et cetera, the BSA is beginning to limp along at a distressing pace. It's far better for us not to keep ourselves hitched to a wagon that's falling apart. 

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. 

Edited June 5, 2018 by LVAllen

[The Latin Scot]

3 hours ago, Hawkwin said:

I don't know exactly how to respond to this, but I know that it rubs me the wrong way. As a guy that keeps professing their commitment to getting their Brotherhood and to being the best Den Leader they can be through the end of next year, your condescension of BSA certainly appears to have increased lately.

Maybe you don't intend such a change in tone but this is not the first time that it struck me as out of character from your previous posting history, especially as it pertains to esprit de corps between BSA and LDS.

What I imagine you are registering as hypocracy stems from a very real dichotomy of personal feelings. Allow me to help you understand my position better, as my feelings are very consistent, but obvious expressing them on an online forum makes it easy to be misunderstood. 

The reason why some of my posts reflect my dedication to supporting Scouting while others demonstrate more frustration than appreciation is that, frankly, I no longer consider "Scouting" and "The Boy Scouts of America" as synonymous terms. And for me that is indeed grievous to suggest, but that's the way it is. 

Scouting as an Ideal

I feel that Scouting, as originally conceived by Baden-Powell, Beard, Seton, Hillcourt, and all the other founders, is an inspired, effective, wonderful program when executed correctly. Quite simply, IT WORKS. I believe in it with all my heart. It has been refined and improved over the past century to be one of the best programs there has ever been for raising young boys to be good, honest, capable men, fathers, husbands and citizens. It's ability to channel the inner nature of boys towards productive and character-building maturation has proven unparalleled, and I do indeed strive to do all I can to support it, encourage it, and use its methods, from uniforming to boy-led leadership to outdoor activities. I feel Cub Scouting has been the natural and exceptional preparatory program for Scouting. It comprehends who young boys are and how they grow, and I wish every boy could be part of it. This is the program I have dedicated myself to for the next 18 months and which I will also gladly support whole-heartedly until then. Because I prefer to be cheerful not only in person but in writing, most of my posts consciously reflect this portion of my sentiments regarding the changes wrought over the past year or two. However, there are elements of these changes which are difficult to accept as well.

The Boy Scouts of America - specifically, Scouts BSA and the inclusion of girls in Cub Scouting

I believe that Scouting is an effective, proven program that works. However, I no longer feel that the Boy Scouts of America will continue to support and provide a true Scouting experience for its youth members going forward. There have been too many compromises, too much fundamental change wrought to allow me to accept that they will deliver Scouting in its purest, most effective form to the young men in its organization. The most shocking change has been allowing girls into the program. BOYS AND GIRLS ARE FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT. I believe this is a difference not only of physicality, but also of nature, even a spiritual difference, and I do NOT believe that Scouting will work for girls as it does for boys because girls learn differently. Scouting has been refined for a century to work for boys, and while the aims of Scouting are certainly just as important for young women as they are for young men, I believe the methods of Scouting do not work as well for them. I also feel that by including girls in the same programs, the boys who remain are being robbed of their once-special place to act comfortably and freely as boys. BOYS DO NOT ACT THE SAME WHEN GIRLS PARTICIPATE IN THE SAME EXTENDED ACTIVITIES. They may be in different dens or troops, they may have different leaders - but they are now part of pack meetings, summer camp, Scout-O-Rama, Camporee - spaces and activities which were fundamentally created to be successful venues where boys could feel free to express their growing skills, talents and nature in arenas tailored to their specific dispositions. Now that is being taken from them, and yes, I am frustrated that the BSA has done this. I do not believe the Boy Scouts of America will appropriately be considered a "true" Scouting program after the integration has taken full effect. And that is heartbreaking to me. 

So - yes, I believe in Scouting. I will be as invested as I can for the next 18 months, and even after that I will continue to be friendly and supportive of it. After all, once an Eagle Scout, always and Eagle Scout. Same with my membership in the OA, and nobody will ever change the fact that I WAS AND AM A SCOUT. But The Boy Scouts of America is making changes to its program that I severely disapprove of. I do not oppose what they seek to accomplish, and I still believe in their ultimate aims. But I do not agree with how they seek to accomplish their objectives. I am not "anti-BSA." But as with any loved one who makes bad choices in life, I can only step back and encourage them to go back to their old ways. They have their agency, but I won't conceal that I am disappointed with their new direction. How can I not feel frustrated with a dear friend that, after 100 years of courage, has finally started to buckle under outside pressure? 

21 minutes ago, LVAllen said:

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.

Quite frankly, I can only say that I feel you are wrong. The Lord DOES provide. He always has and He always will. Especially when an organization such as the BSA no longers seeks the same destination as the Church and we are compelled to forge a new road. I can't quite tell if you are a member of the Church or an outside observer; you seem to imply an insider's knowledge of how things operate, yet based on your skepticism and clear lack of confidence in the Church's revelatory process, I would be surprised to discover you were LDS. From what I read, it sounds as though you think everybody is failing, and I refuse to accept that as a possibility, much less a reality. You couch your language in terms of what's best for the youth, but I worry it is actually a vehicle for you to complain about the Church's decision. I will always side with the Church before anything else - Scouting taught me that - and honestly, I feel pessimism and doubt accomplish nothing. Besides, it's not the programs that save any of us anyway, is it?

Unfortunately I cannot agree with anything you have said. I know that to the outside world it seems like a strange choice, even a foolish one, but for those of us within the Church, it makes sense, and we are moving forward, if not with a plan, at least with a lot of faith. And that seems to me like plenty to go on.

Edited June 5, 2018 by The Latin Scot

[LVAllen]

1 hour ago, The Latin Scot said:

Quite frankly, I can only say that I feel you are wrong. The Lord DOES provide. He always has and He always will. Especially when an organization such as the BSA no longers seeks the same destination as the Church and we are compelled to forge a new road. I can't quite tell if you are a member of the Church or an outside observer; you seem to imply an insider's knowledge of how things operate, yet based on your skepticism and clear lack of confidence in the Church's revelatory process, I would be surprised to discover you were LDS. From what I read, it sounds as though you think everybody is failing, and I refuse to accept that as a possibility, much less a reality. You couch your language in terms of what's best for the youth, but I worry it is actually a vehicle for you to complain about the Church's decision. I will always side with the Church before anything else - Scouting taught me that - and honestly, I feel pessimism and doubt accomplish nothing. Besides, it's not the programs that save any of us anyway, is it?

Unfortunately I cannot agree with anything you have said. I know that to the outside world it seems like a strange choice, even a foolish one, but for those of us within the Church, it makes sense, and we are moving forward, if not with a plan, at least with a lot of faith. And that seems to me like plenty to go on.

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. 

Edited June 5, 2018 by LVAllen