To star or not to star?

[The Latin Scot]

I like service stars. They're small, they're shiny, they're utterly impractical and yet one of the oldest and most historical insignia still in use. So here's my question - I wear stars for Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, Varsity Scouts, and adult leadership. But, TECHNICALLY I was also a Venturing Scout for two years (from 16 to 18 years old), so TECHNICALLY I suppose I am entitled to wear a red-backed 2-year star as well - but do I deserve to? 

Coming from a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints unit, we never really implemented the Venturing program correctly. Sure, we still did some Scouting during my older years, and I earned some merit badges - and we were indeed a chartered Venturing Crew, and I was officially registered in the unit. We did LOTS of activities and outings, but never as a "Venturing" unit - at least not to my awareness. I never really got to know nor enjoy that program because my leaders were, for lack of a better term, clueless. I never got to wear the fabulous green shirts, never knew I could have earned special Venturing Awards (that Trust Award would have been right up my alley!), and I never even knew I was actually a Venturing Scout until long after the fact. So: a part of me wants to wear the star for those two years because, by jingo, I WAS a Venturing Scout, if only on paper, and I was still involved in Scouting to an extent. But it wasn't truly the Venturing program, so part of me feels like it's cheating. 

I bring this up because a fellow leader and friend was a very active Venturing Scout, and he encourages me to wear the star if only for the sake of being properly uniformed (as in, I was in the program, so I should wear the insignia). But I'm hesitant. I don't really think there is a right or wrong answer, and I am still quite undecided at the moment, so I would love to read your thoughts and opinions. Thanks all!

Edited February 24, 2020 by The Latin Scot

[desertrat77]

@The Latin Scot, I'd recommend swinging by the scout shop, picking up that service star, and pinning it on your uniform. 

I understand your concerns but the truth is, oftentimes scouting is a pick up game.  And as much as I respect and enjoy the Norman Rockwell paintings, scouting is rarely that organized or cut/dried.  We still have great scouting experiences. 

 

Edited February 24, 2020 by desertrat77

[mds3d]

I think if you are going to wear stars, they should actually add up to your years of service.   I am a combined under the scouter blue man myself, but that's mostly laziness. 

[ParkMan]

I concur - wear the star.

When that application was submitted you were a member in the program.  Yes, it may not have been the experience you'd have wanted - but that's ok.  Service stars are our participation ribbons.  You participated - you wear the star.

The quality of your participation is evidenced in other awards.  You don't have those.

 

[qwazse]

More specifics on service stars: https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2014/04/02/service-stars-for-scouts-and-scouters-pins-with-a-point/

I'm going to go the opposite direction.  Paper venturers were the mechanism of choice for false inflation of program growth for DE's wanting an easy pat on the back. I wish you really were a venturer like the kids in my crew -- whose applications I would not accept if there was any hint that the parent filled out anything other than his/her signature. You would have made a great one! Do you really want a star because your good name was used to help some pro- get props on their evaluation for starting a unit? Your leaders were clueless because the pro- who approved them could have cared less if they were going to do anything for the program.

Just something to think about from the perspective of the guy who sat in the room calling a DE on the carpet for giving me a list of crews whose contact info didn't even work.

[mds3d]

7 minutes ago, qwazse said:

More specifics on service stars: https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2014/04/02/service-stars-for-scouts-and-scouters-pins-with-a-point/

I'm going to go the opposite direction.  Paper venturers were the mechanism of choice for false inflation of program growth for DE's wanting an easy pat on the back. I wish you really were a venturer like the kids in my crew -- whose applications I would not accept if there was any hint that the parent filled out anything other than his/her signature. You would have made a great one! Do you really want a star because your good name was used to help some pro- get props on their evaluation for starting a unit? Your leaders were clueless because the pro- who approved them could have cared less if they were going to do anything for the program.

Just something to think about from the perspective of the guy who sat in the room calling a DE on the carpet for giving me a list of crews whose contact info didn't even work.

I think everyone was aware that LDS Crews weren't the same thing as a traditional crew.  It's not quite the same thing as a paper crew that didn't really exist.

[qwazse]

Just now, mds3d said:

I think everyone was aware that LDS Crews weren't the same thing as a traditional crew.  It's not quite the same thing as a paper crew that didn't really exist.

How is it different? What activities did that LDS crew do? Did they elect officers according to the leadership manual? If so did their president attend venturing officers associations? Or did they have a modified leadership manual? Did they adhere to that?

I'm sorry, but just because a CO has a peculiar interest in the program, they don't get a pass on being part of the problem that made a program seem to be booming when in fact getting crews that venturers were proud to be in was no slam dunk at all!

Every paper crew existed at some point. Some club filled out paperwork for their youth members to get them in on BSA's insurance. They did one or two activities of whatever they did, and they kept up appearances without ever actually promoting venturing. No district official attempted to make them contribute any more than that. Then the chickens came home to roost in about '08 as those of us who wanted our officers to really know how great scouting was had lists that were 50-percent irrelevant. Then, when membership costed real money and real time to complete position specific training, those units dropped like flies.

[Pale Horse]

I guess a question first of all: If a Scout is dual registered as both a Venture and Scout BSA (or Boy Scout at the time), do they earn a Service Star for each program for the same year?

If not, do your current Green Stars overstate your number of years as a youth in Boy Scouts, which should be reflected as Red Stars?

Edited February 24, 2020 by Pale Horse

[qwazse]

2 hours ago, Pale Horse said:

I guess a question first of all: If a Scout is dual registered as both a Venture and Scout BSA (or Boy Scout at the time), do they earn a Service Star for each program for the same year?

If not, do your current Green Stars overstate your number of years as a youth in Boy Scouts, which should be reflected as Red Stars?

@The Latin Scot's friend may be thinking that if the youth is active in both programs, he/she should have a service star for each program, with the numbers on the star representing the years in each. Once an adult he/she can add another star representing the years serving as an adult -- or can consolidate the consecutive years of BSA membership into one star. So, by that logic it might be possible to see a 21 year-old with yellow-back 7,  green-back 7,  brown-back 7,  red-back 7, and blue-back 3 stars who would have served as a youth in a pack, troop, team, and crew/ship, and was probably an ASM for the past three years. Or, that person could just have blue-backed 10 year + 5 year stars (the backs are sold separately, so a young scouter could simply recycle stars earned previously).

However, the Insignia Guide, page 67, states:

Quote

The stars are worn with the appropriate color background for the phase of Scouting in which the service was rendered. If an individual’s primary registration is in one phase of Scouting and later in another, separate stars with the appropriate background and numerals may be worn simultaneously.

Primary registration is the pivotal term here. So, a youth cannot have a year counted more than once. @The Latin Scot would have to subtract the years off of his green-back star (and possibly his blue-back star if he was serving an adult role between age 18 and 20) so he could have a red-back star for the years someone had put him as "primary" with a crew that he barely knew existed! I'm assuming TLS' friend is saying that since he was on the books as venturer -- is knowledge about it is immaterial.

Someone bore false witness about this scout, and now they are asking him to perpetuate the lie.

This is truly a "take the BS out of the BSA" moment.

If I were TLS, I would ask them to produce the registration form with my signature. Or, I would say, "That's it, I'm only wearing a blue-backed star from now on. Find somebody else to brag about your in-name-only crew."

[The Latin Scot]

Thanks to everybody who has commented so far; I value the questions asked and the insights given. It's fun being spoken of in the third person!

In truth, I have never worn any service stars representing the two years between 16 and 18 because I haven't been sure which stars to wear, let alone if I deserved them. In a ward of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, boys were automatically raised from the troop to the Varsity team at 14, then again to the crew at 16. Not that they ever told us this was happening, mind you (even for an LDS unit my leaders were particularly inept). So, for those two years, I was ONLY in the Venturing crew. The leaders didn't know the difference, but at least one committee member of the era must have been aware of the divisions because somebody was at least entering the information for advancement correctly (I have spoken to our council registrar to confirm this), but we only worked on Boy Scout awards - probably because the boys of my group were a less-than-savory bunch who either didn't make it past Tenderfoot or earned their Eagles at 17 years 364 day old - but I digress. 

In any case, the topic of the thread is more about my situation: my PRIMARY, indeed ONLY, registration from 16 - 18 was with a Venturing crew. We did Scouting activities, but none related to the Venturing program - just vestiges of our old Boy Scout activities and basic-level advancement for some, primarily just earning extra merit-badges here or there (although we mostly just played basketball at the Church - I despise basketball now). I have never worn a star representing those two years out of respect for those who DID have a genuine Venturing experience, but my friend, a good young Scouter who had a REAL Venturing crew up in Utah, feels that I shouldn't ignore those two years just because I was unaware of what my program could have been - in his mind, I was still Scouting during that time (a vaguely true statement), so I should count it.

In any case, this thread is already proving to be most enlightening. Thanks to all who are participating in this discussion!

Edited February 24, 2020 by The Latin Scot

[malraux]

I wish they made a magnetic holder for service stars so I had an easy way to remove them for washing or to change shirts.  

[qwazse]

As you may know, TLS, I became a crew advisor because someone had filled out an adult application for me to sign explaining that I didn't have to do anything else, they were setting this up just so some girl scouts could go to Seabase (which my son and his buddies had blabbed about at the lunch table one day). I told her, "You know I hate paperwork so much that I won't sign anything I don't mean. You and I are going to  learn what this program has to offer, present it to everyone, and give the youth right of first refusal."

They didn't refuse. And I owe them a debt of gratitude for a wonderful, wild, ride.

So, what someone put on paper -- if they didn't put any muscle behind it -- makes for great kindling. I suspect your ward did not fully deploy venturing because doing so would have required at least some communal development with girls. (At the very least, girls would be found in the venturing handbook.) They absolutley refused to deploy the program for Young Women in most stakes. Therefore, your crew's officers if they fulfilled their responsibilities according to the Venturing Leadership Guide would be spending quality time contributing to a council program with non-LDS women. Not a bad thing, really, but not something many bishops wanted to offer to their boys. Clearly, they didn't want to "drink the bug juice." I'm not judging them. There were plenty of folks in my troop who were bothered that I was letting scouts be venturers, not merely boy-scouts-plus.  Most of them apologized to me after the fact when they saw the good it was doing for their sons and their friends. But unlike my community, yours really only had interest in an older boys Troop/Team. So "if it walks like a duck ..."

I wouldn't discount those two "ambiguous" years. I might color them varsity, not venturing. But, at your age, I'd probably just get blue backing and put together the stars that reflect your total years of service including those two.

[Thunderbird]

@The Latin Scot  You were properly registered, and you were active.  You should definitely wear service stars for those two years.  The question is what color backing should you wear for those years.  On the one hand, you were registered as a Venturer.  As that was your primary (and only) registration, then you could wear the 2 year star with red backing.  On the other hand, it sounds like your crew was mostly playing basketball and continuing the Boy Scout program (with maybe some Varsity stuff mixed in?).  It sounds like a judgement call to me.  I would probably just roll everything up into a single star with blue backing.

Edited February 24, 2020 by Thunderbird

[The Latin Scot]

2 hours ago, qwazse said:

As you may know, TLS, I became a crew advisor because someone had filled out an adult application for me to sign explaining that I didn't have to do anything else, they were setting this up just so some girl scouts could go to Seabase (which my son and his buddies had blabbed about at the lunch table one day). I told her, "You know I hate paperwork so much that I won't sign anything I don't mean. You and I are going to  learn what this program has to offer, present it to everyone, and give the youth right of first refusal."

They didn't refuse. And I owe them a debt of gratitude for a wonderful, wild, ride.

So, what someone put on paper -- if they didn't put any muscle behind it -- makes for great kindling. I suspect your ward did not fully deploy venturing because doing so would have required at least some communal development with girls. (At the very least, girls would be found in the venturing handbook.) They absolutley refused to deploy the program for Young Women in most stakes. Therefore, your crew's officers if they fulfilled their responsibilities according to the Venturing Leadership Guide would be spending quality time contributing to a council program with non-LDS women. Not a bad thing, really, but not something many bishops wanted to offer to their boys. Clearly, they didn't want to "drink the bug juice." I'm not judging them. There were plenty of folks in my troop who were bothered that I was letting scouts be venturers, not merely boy-scouts-plus.  Most of them apologized to me after the fact when they saw the good it was doing for their sons and their friends. But unlike my community, yours really only had interest in an older boys Troop/Team. So "if it walks like a duck ..."

I wouldn't discount those two "ambiguous" years. I might color them varsity, not venturing. But, at your age, I'd probably just get blue backing and put together the stars that reflect your total years of service including those two.

I appreciate your thoughts, though much of the idea is ... less than true of Scouting, at least in my area. First of all, it was standard Church-wide policy not to have our young women in Venturing - most wards and stakes wouldn't have minded I imagine, but the Church has long had its own Young Women's Program, which was both the spiritual and activities program for girls. As such, the official handbook of instructions for Scouting in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints set the policy that we did not endorse female crews. Much of it is more to do with overnight camping together more than simply being together. And and mind you, we were constantly interacting with the sisters at all our other, non-overnight-activity-related events (which in our church are many and varied). Sunday School, seminary, youth conferences, dances, firesides - in fact, in our church we are more often together than apart, and the new program that's just rolled out has much more interaction with the boys and the girls than most people would believe. Let's not forget just how anxious LDS families are to get their kids married and sprouting grandkids as soon as they come back from their missions. 😅

No, I firmly believe that Venturing was never really adopted by LDS units because of ignorance. Most people still have no clue what Venturing Scouts are; the system rechartered all 16-year-old Scouts into crews automatically, but to the leaders it was only a change of name - they were, I'm sure, completely unaware that Venturing was a program and entity separate and distinct from Boy Scouting. Heck, most of my leaders couldn't even tell you the Scout ranks in order, or what district they were in. And Varsity was just as ambiguous and unknown to them. Really, we didn't do Venturing because our leaders didn't know what Venturing was. Sadly, most thought Scouting finished after a boy earned his Eagle. Caveat: this was primarily in my own area, that being South Orange County in CA. Most of my friends with whom I went to college in Utah had FABULOUS programs of Scouting, Varsity, and Venturing, with large healthy units and committed leadership. Scouting is actually much stronger in Utah, Idaho, and Arizona, where there are higher concentrations of kids from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Where I'm at, I wasn't so lucky.

So I will add two years after reading the commentary here, but how I will add them, I'm still not sure. I suppose adding them to my blue star would be the least offensive as it's somewhat all-inclusive ... but still uncertain. Thanks to all those who are sharing their thoughts with me. It helps me to sort out the emotions of the rather pitiful two years in question. 🤣

[qwazse]

44 minutes ago, The Latin Scot said:

... As such, the official handbook of instructions for Scouting in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints set the policy that we did not endorse female crews. Much of it is more to do with overnight camping together more than simply being together. ...

Sorry for the confusion. By "communal development," I was specifically referring to overnight camping, of which council, area, and regional officers did a good bit. Leaders who firmly believed in sex segregation on overnights would not be pleased with council officers. I suspect, top LDS scouters made a point of keeping your leaders in the dark about what Venturing was simply because of the potential of overnight camping with the opposite sex.

Now that I think about it, the Venturing division might have been more successful if they produced two additional handbooks: Venturing for Young Men, and Venturing for Young Women. They would often market "your crew could be single-sex", but they never really provided material that would talk about how that would look, the advantages of setting it up that way, and objectives for leaders to pursue for single-sex crews.

That's the weakness of venturing, it's extremely flexible. Venturers can do anything, but they could also do nothing. JTE and the current ALPS model, for all its faults, has changed that. I just hope it's not too little too late.

Edited February 24, 2020 by qwazse