Poll: Majority Of Utah Mormons Want Lds Church To Leave The Boy Scouts

[Scott Lloyd]

"Utah Mormons", that tells me enough of what to think of the poll results.

Meaning what? (And keep in mind you'll be responding to a "Utah Mormon".)

Edited August 17, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[provoman]

Requirements may vary from place to place. But here in Utah, local Church units are given an FoS quota they must fill. Most leaders assign it out to reluctant ward members who must visit the same houses again and again until they've contacted everybody.

A bishop I know told me a horror story about one ward where they got industrious and met their quota way ahead of schedule. Instead of being appropriately appreciative when the money was turned in, the professional Scouting people told them to go back out now and start hitting up businesses. At that point, the ward leadership as much as told them "We think not."

I find it hard to believe that Scouting imposing quotas on local units, without pressure being applied by some Church leadership.

[Scott Lloyd]

I find it hard to believe that Scouting imposing quotas on local units, without pressure being applied by some Church leadership.

The "pressure applied by some Church leadership" is a direct result of the quotas being imposed.

 

Some local leaders do go overboard. I grant that. For some people, Scouting is a para-religion, regardless of where they live.

 

I think what happens more often is good, honest, salt-of-the-earth stake and ward leaders are trying their best to accomplish what they've been instructed to do.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Daniel2]

I am curious as to what you think of A) the Human Rights Campaign explicitly stating that the Boy Scouts should not allow church-sponsored units to continue excluding gays; B) Lambda Legal's skepticism that whether the BSA's new policy to let church-sponsored units continue to exclude gay adults would be sustainable (same link); and C) Lambda's threat to continue filing lawsuits designed to make church-sponsored scouting units "increasingly marginalized" (same link).

Your prediction seems to be quite at odds with the publicly-stated intentions of powerful factions of the Gay Rights Movement.

Thank you,

-Smac

 

This is my second draft of this post... I had ALMOST finished the first one when my computer crashed and I lost everything....  Grrrrr....   Wish this auto-saved drafts! Anyhoo...

These are great questions, Smac, and I appreciate you asking them.

I firmly and vocally disagree with HRC and Lambda Legal.

Both organizations may be the largest and most-well-funded LGBT advocacy groups... but funding and size do not guarantee success.  Even large, well-funded organizations will ultimately fail, if and when they are on the wrong side of the constitution and the law. The LGBT movement has won what they have won so far because we’ve been on the right side of history—and we lost BSA vs. Dale because we were on the wrong side of history—and we would be again, IMO, even if/when it came to that. Gay marriage doesn’t change the foundational judgements of Dale that allow private organizations to set their own membership rules—a principle which still stands in the BSA’s rules allowing sponsored troops to set their own regulations.

No matter what threats of lawsuits there are, justice will eventually prevail. I imagine you may know better than most that the legal process can be long and laborious and sometimes takes two steps forward and one step back. Lower courts make rulings which are overturned on appeal to higher courts. But as Dr. King said, “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

In their attempts to secure equality, the HRC and Lambda Legal have lost sight of what true equality means.

And so far as the BSA is concerned, it seems very clear to me that true equality for all viewpoints means exactly what the BSA compromise does: allowing troops sponsored by gay-inclusive churches to hire gay leaders while at the same time allowing troops sponsored by actively-gay-exclusive*** churches to refrain from hiring gay leaders.

***Note: In my earlier post, I previously used the term “anti-gay” to describe churches that are on-record as being against actively gay individuals (in this case, scout leaders) in the same fashion that many Latter-day Saints use the term “anti-Mormon” to describe individuals they perceive to be against Mormonism (though not necessarily against Mormons, themselves).  In other words, I often use the term “anti-gay” to merely mean “opposed to,” albeit in a much more benign fashion that you subsequently interpreted it as. It was not meant with malintent nor to “slander” nor to accuse Latter-day Saints of “bigotry,” as you misconstrued from my post. I understand that Latter-day Saints are uncomfortable with allowing openly gay men to go on campouts with LDS boys.  I understand the motivations behind it, even if I feel those concerns are misguided. Accordingly, I believe your subsequent post accusing me of slander and accusations of bigotry is unfounded and uncalled for. I’ve revised the term here to state “actively-gay-exclusive churches” in an attempt to find a term that may be more specific/accurate/palatable for you…?

I have been referred to here at MD&D as a “one-note Nellie” that only comments on gay issues. Ironically, just as I advocate for mutual respect, civility, and equality for gays and lesbians here at MD&D, I am equally passionate and vocal on LGBT websites, blogs, message boards, and discussion groups about advocating for mutual respect, civility, and equality for Latter-day Saints.

Your question about my view of HRC’s position allows me to answer that in a very palpable way. Chad Griffiths is the HRC president. I have spoken with him personally at several fundraising dinners and we share many of the same views on marriage, employment, and housing protections for gays and lesbians. However, when I read of Chad’s statement on the BSA, which you referenced, I sent him a letter, which I also posted on HRC’s blog post on his BSA statement. Further, I circulated it and continue to defend the LDS church and call for respect on this matter on several other pro-gay sites—just as I do in defense of respect for gays, here.

Here are portions of what I sent and posted there:

 

I am a long time HRC ally and an openly gay, former LDS man living in Utah. I am actively involved in pro-equality initiatives, and am an outspoken advocate both online and in my local (and predominantly LDS) communities for gay equality. My husband and I recently attended the HRC gala in Salt Lake where we celebrated our recent marriage and the Supreme Court's ruling. I have spoken with you, Chad, on a few such occasions, and I respect and am grateful for the tremendous work you’ve done both at HRC and AFER.

However, Chad, this position advocated in the article above is both wrong and counterproductive. In Utah, the BSA is intricately linked with the Mormon Church. Each congregation sponsors its own internal troop comprised entirely of Latter-day Saints in that congregation. Imposing this rule would force the LDS faith to sever ties with the BSA, and would be disastrous to both organizations and affect countless youth--including my own son who participates scouting through his local LDS ward (an action which I fully support, despite my departure from and disbelief in Mormonism and my personal disagreements with the Boy Scouts over this issue).

Respect is often earned only after respect has been extended. If we truly advocate for equality and the desire to live and let live, religious organization that sponsor scouting troops within their congregations should not be forced to accept gay leaders in their ranks. If the Mormon or Catholic churches do not want gay leaders caring for their boys, that is and should be their right. If Unitarian Universalist or UCC congregations want to have a gay leader, that is and should be their right as well. Individual troops can reflect the values of their religious communities and still a full the principle of equality for all.

While I definitely agree with and work to support laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in public accommodations or by civil servants, the worst stereotype that religious conservatives have in mind about us is is that we seek to impose our "gay agenda" on private religious organizations. Your article above embodies that worst fear they have long attempted to justify against us, and already I hear a cries of, "See? I told you so! You don't want equality--you want to impose your values on our religious organziarions!

Chad and HRC, please reconsider this position. As Johnathan Rauch said, now that we've gained so much, we need to give our opponents time and space in SOME areas to "let us win" the rest of their hearts and minds. There are other battles still worth fighting, but forcing religious congregations to allow gay leaders isn't one of them. Attempting to force my Mormon family, friends, and neighbors to accept openly gay leaders will destroy much of the good will that has been cultivated in the years since Prop 8. Let us protect their right to religiously govern their own congregation-sponsored troops.

 

 

Follow up posts of mine on the HRC blog and others have included:

 

The LAW does not require religions not to discriminate. Nor does the LAW require the BSA not to discriminate. And the BSA is attempting to find a win/win comprise. Jonathan Rauch wisely said,

 

we—gay Americans and our straight allies—have won the central argument for gay rights. As a result, we must change. Much of what the gay rights movement has taken for granted until now, and much that has worked for us in the past, is now wrong and will hurt us. The turn we now need to execute will be the hardest maneuver the movement has ever had to make, because it will require us to deliberately leave room for homophobia in American society. We need to allow some discrimination and relinquish the “zero tolerance” mind-set. Paradoxical but true: We need to give our opponents the time and space they need to let us win.”

 

Here's his article in the Advocate, which is highly applicable here: http://www.advocate.com/politics/commentary/2010/11/19/majority-report

 

Hopefully that answers your questions on my views, Smac, as well as clarifying my so-called “slander.”

Edited August 17, 2015 by Daniel2

[Calm]

 

If we are to throw away the great traditions and principles of Scouting over arguments of what it means to be morally straight, especially when we can guide that for our own units, and in light of the fact that we don't limit faith in God to a particular religion... then we may be sacrificing more than we protect.

It has already been done for half the boys in the Church and all of the girls. If their youth programs have survived without it, it seems to me likely programs for LDS boys in the US will be able to survive as well.

[Calm]

I find it hard to believe that Scouting imposing quotas on local units, without pressure being applied by some Church leadership.

Our stake refuses to allow the quotas from what my husband says.

[strappinglad]

Where I live ( not Utah ) , if given permission, our stake would be out of Scouts in a New York minute.

[Russell C McGregor]

In contrast to Scott's prophecy, I predict that no chartering entities, including the religious ones, will ever be forced to admit volunteer leaders whose lifestyles are not consistent with the entities' values.

 

Rather, it appears that most anti-gay religious chartering entities will leave the organization entirely, therefore making any attempts to sue an anti-gay troop obsolete, and therefore the spirit (if not the letter, eventually) of the the BSA's current policy allowing local chartering agencies to only admit leaders that reflect the entities' values will remain in tact, because no anti-gay entities will be left, anyway.

 

If the BSA survives the next 50 years, troops will look back at the historical exclusion of gay scouts in the same fashion that troops today look back at the historical exclusion of black scouts.

 

That's largely because, in 50 years' time, if things continue as they are (and as you clearly hope they do) the Boy Scouts will be virtually indistinguishable from the late 19th century German Wandervögel, and most scout leaders will be what are affectionately -- and always approvingly -- known as "chickenhawks."

 

Isn't that right?

Edited August 18, 2015 by Russell C McGregor

[hagoth7]

 

What do you think?  What factors likely contribute to what appears to be an abrupt and profound change in sentiment and opinion amongst LDS Utahns toward Scouting?

 

Also, do you think these sentiments are reflected by Latter-day Saints outside of Utah?

I can't speak for others, but as a youth, I seriously disliked scouting, except for the occasional camping, fishing, and hiking.

 

The whole merit badge thing, where you were supposed to wear outward badges for your accomplishment seemed wrong to me. Yes, accomplishment is important, but teaching kids the intrinsic reward of both learning and accomplishment can get pushed out of the way if there's an external reward and public applause every time they do something.  The book Punished by Rewards helped me understand as an adult why that aspect of scouting never resonated with me in my younger years.

[Scott Lloyd]

That's largely because, in 50 years' time, if things continue as they are (and as you clearly hope they do) the Boy Scouts will be virtually indistinguishable from the late 19th century German Wandervögel, and most scout leaders will be what are affectionately -- and always approvingly -- known as "chickenhawks."

 

Isn't that right?

Once the Church disengages, I doubt there will be a BSA in 50 years' time. I don't think the gay advocacy groups care enough about it to sustain it once the sizable support from the Church is withdrawn. I think they are only using it as a pawn to push their agenda.

 

Or to put it another way, they are hijacking the movement and, once that happens, will eventually starve it to death.

[jwhitlock]

And the exorbitant expense.  We are assessed FOS then an additional 200+ per boy for camp plus each volunteer leader, who goes to camp, is assessed 80 dollars.  This year our ward opted not to go to but did a week of camping. 

 

$200 for scout camp?? Where do I sign up?

 

Out here, scout camp is north of $400 for the week per boy.

[Buckeye]

Like I said, I'd like to see the numbers.  You and I are a contrasting sample of two.

 

In the Stakes around our Council (Atlanta) we have a strong relationship with the BSA.  Several of our LDS men serve in district and council volunteer positions in addition to their own ward and Stake callings.  The relationship has been beneficial to both the BSA and LDS.

Kevin, I earned my eagle in the early 90's in an Atlanta area council. Went to several scout camps and high adventures. All really great memories. My boys will stay with scouts even if we have to join a non-LDS unit.

I'm also quite worried about how my youth group will do if we drop scouts. Youth today have an abundance of well organized activity options. Sports, band, service groups etc. Scouts ranks right up there. My biggest worry isn't that Wednesday's will become basketball night. It's that they will become mission prep night and the youth will choose other options entirely. Our youth are superb. But there comes a saturation point for even for spiritual things.

[thatjimguy]

I think there is a more interesting question.

 

How many will stay with the program anyway?

[Ahab]

If the Church bails on the BSA I hope they/we will still organize camping out and hiking and all of the other good outdoor activities that I associate with the BSA. And learning/teaching how to tie all kinds of knots would would be good too. And service projects. Lots of good service projects. The best parts of the BSA programs even though it wouldn't be the BSA, officially.

Things like uniforms and merit badges and fees charged by the BSA for being part of their organization are not really necessary, or cool. I still think it's funny to see grown adults wearing the uniforms and the badges. We really don't need no BSA badges.

[jcake]

I'm all for the church leaving BSA.  I think it's great if people in the church want to start their own scout troops.  I've seen so  much disparity in what is required of kids to become Eagle Scouts that I can no longer take the rank as seriously as I once did.  I've seen moms doing the scout requirements for the son, and leaders signing off on very haphazard projects with little effort put out.  I see very dedicated scouts work diligently at the program, also.  I would love to see the financial investment in the YW come at least closer to the amount of money spent on the YM because of the additional investment in BSA  now being divided amongst all.

 

We still need to remember that being gay isn't a choice, and church  leaders acknowledge that.  Not allowing gay leaders is akin to calling them pedophiles. The obvious correlation would be making darn sure there are no priesthood holders at girls camp, due to the problems that would come from having men that are attracted to females on these outings.  Won't some of you be glad when you get to the other side and you can complain to Heavenly Father about his consistent pattern of creating a predictable percentage of the population gay? Maybe you can ask him why he couldn't get it right, or explain to him how wrong he's been, and how right you are.

 

I'm obviously feeling a little feisty, today. 

[The Nehor]

Won't some of you be glad when you get to the other side and you can complain to Heavenly Father about his consistent pattern of creating a predictable percentage of the population gay? Maybe you can ask him why he couldn't get it right, or explain to him how wrong he's been, and how right you are.

 

I have much better things to complain about.

[carbon dioxide]

I can't speak for others, but as a youth, I seriously disliked scouting, except for the occasional camping, fishing, and hiking.

 

The whole merit badge thing, where you were supposed to wear outward badges for your accomplishment seemed wrong to me. Yes, accomplishment is important, but teaching kids the intrinsic reward of both learning and accomplishment can get pushed out of the way if there's an external reward and public applause every time they do something.  The book Punished by Rewards helped me understand as an adult why that aspect of scouting never resonated with me in my younger years.

I hated the whole uniform as it simply was not attractive.  I think one can enjoy camping in blue jeans and a t-shirt.  

[williamsmith]

I think divorcing ourselves from a program that is largely worthwhile (despite a politically policy change that has almost no effect on the ground in most districts) and attempting to replace it with home grown programs will be disastrous for our youth programs in the short term, and bad for them in the long term.

 

Some of the things we will miss (and in LDS troops sometimes miss anyway):

 

Exposure to other faiths

Exposure to other cultures

Use of facilities and grounds held by the BSA

Partnerships with other youth leaders 

100 year old traditions of Honor, Faith, Duty to God, Duty to Country

 

to name a few.

 

The expense of trying to do it all on our own will pale in comparison to the current expense of partnering with the BSA.  

 

Na...

 

1. Scouts don't generally get exposed to other faiths essentially at all, unless they are members of an LDS scout troup.  Most scouting activities are almost always "Ward/Stake" based, not wider.  Also, Mormon's will still get exposed to other faiths by other means.

 

2. Pretty much the same as above.

 

3. The BSA could rent or sale certain property to the Church, nothing would really need to change there.  Further, the Church actually owns many of the properties already.

 

4. Not sure what you mean here.

 

5. The new scouting program can be similar values, traditions, teachings etc.  Nothing much will really need to change, save how old the organization is.

 

6. Actually no.  Having our own scouting program would be far less expensive.  We wouldn't be paying the huge salaries and more of the BSA organization.  In business eliminating an unnecessary third party is almost always cheaper.

 

7. Another potential solution to this issue is for the Church to combine with other Churches that wish to leave the Boy Scouts, and to form a new organization.  Of course, this would likely end up with the same problems at some point just as has happened with the Boy Scouts, which was also supposed to be a Religious based organization.  Plus, cost would end up being more, so it might not be a good idea.

Edited August 18, 2015 by williamsmith

[smac97]

This is my second draft of this post... I had ALMOST finished the first one when my computer crashed and I lost everything....  Grrrrr....   Wish this auto-saved drafts! Anyhoo...

These are great questions, Smac, and I appreciate you asking them.

I firmly and vocally disagree with HRC and Lambda Legal.

==Alas, I think you are something of a lone voice in the wilderness. You will not get your way, just like we will not get ours. Remember the threat issued by Lambda Legal on the very day the BSA capitulated to your movement: "The lawsuits (will) keep coming."

> Both organizations may be the largest and most-well-funded LGBT advocacy groups... but funding and size do not guarantee success.

==If by "success" you mean they will somehow not be able to continue protracted lawfare tactics until they get what you want (either the utter capitulation of religious groups who stay with the BSA, or else the decimation of the BSA caused by a mass exodus of religious chartering organizations) . . . I think you are wrong. I think their success is pretty much guaranteed.

> Even large, well-funded organizations will ultimately fail, if and when they are on the wrong side of the constitution and the law.

==I'm not sure about that. Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey are on the wrong side of the Constitution, but they are presently the law of the land.  So is Kelo v. City of New London.  And the chances of upending them seem very, very slim. There are many examples of constitutional jurisprudence that are just bad law. But they are the laws of the land and we have been and will be stuck with them for a very, very long time.

> The LGBT movement has won what they have won so far because we’ve been on the right side of history

==I'm sorry, but after seeing this phrase used so many times I just have to say this: Unilaterally declaring to be on "the right side of history," particularly as regarding an issue about which there is profound and principled and reasoned disagreement, is just so much self-congratulatory tripe. It doesn't mean anything except to demean those who disagree with you (and by "you" I mean "whomever is using the phrase 'right side of history'").

==In any event, "the LGBT movement" has won not through the legislative process, not through persuasion, but principally through A) lawfare and the attendant persuasion, in many cases, of a bare majority of a handful of judges, and B) accusing anyone who disagrees with them of bigotry and hatred (Brendan Eich, call your office . . . oh, wait, you were fired...). Being on one side or the other of "history" has had precious little to do with it.

> Gay marriage doesn’t change the foundational judgements of Dale that allow private organizations to set their own membership rules—a principle which still stands in the BSA’s rules allowing sponsored troops to set their own regulations.

==Have you read Nate Oman's theory on this subject?

> No matter what threats of lawsuits there are, justice will eventually prevail.

==True. The world will spin further into depravity and sin. The family will continue to disintegrate, and that this will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. And then the Savior will come sweep away the wicked parts of the earth, right all wrongs, and usher in an era of peace.  The "eventually" part of your statement is still a ways off, I think.  I strongly believe "justice will eventually prevail," but it won't be through the pernicious, execrable efforts of your movement.

==I suspect you have a somewhat different take on the subject. Sadly, I am not persuaded that we will be able to fully redeem the Constitution and our system of laws from the deplorable decisions tearing apart our liberties. And your compatriots at the HRC and Lambda Legal are at the forefront of those efforts. Let us remember that on the same day that the BSA announced its capitulation to the lawfare tactics of the Gay Rights Movement, your compatriots announced to the world that "the Boy Scouts should not allow church-sponsored units to continue excluding gays."

=="Should not allow." These are trenchant words. Calculated words. Foreboding words. The "right side of history?" Malarky.

...

> In their attempts to secure equality, the HRC and Lambda Legal have lost sight of what true equality means.

==Yep. So have most of your compatriots, I think. As I said, you appear to be more or less a lone voice in the wilderness. Religionists of good conscience are not welcome where your compatriots have their way.

==I am glad you have taken the position you have. Really, I am. But it won't stop the lawfare pogroms against me and mine by your compatriots. Remember their words: "The Boy Scouts should not allow church-sponsored units to continue excluding gays ... the lawsuits (will) keep coming..."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 18, 2015 by smac97

[Rain]

I have long wanted the church to drop scouts. For a decade or so. Ironically, I'm not as excited about the idea as I once was since I have a son working on his eagle.

Funny thing is, reading this thread has me seeing benefits in dropping it. I am not a mom who does her son's scout stuff. I am a mom who often tells her son the badge doesn't matter to me except where it helps you learn. And sometimes that means we keep his signed blue card till he finishes the requirements to my satisfaction instead of an effort that wasn't as good as it should be. If the church were to pull out I would give DS a choice in joining another troop or not, but I would continue having him work on his Eagle even if it were not official.

I would live a personal progress kind of thing for my son. I think it's funny that some would think it is all serious, stuffy spiritual stuff. Personal progress is spiritual in nature, but it is also what you make of it. I've been working on it with my daughter and have had quilting, weight loss and blogging as goals along with the spiritual.

The funny thing is we always compare YW with YM and feel YW come up short because of scouts. Having just worked through Duty to God, deacon's portion with DS I find that it comes up short compared to personal progress.

Our last scout camp was not BSA. It was at the ranch of a stake leader. From what I can tell it was pretty cool. You don't have to have BSA camps to do a boy's camp well.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm all for the church leaving BSA. I think it's great if people in the church want to start their own scout troops. I've seen so much disparity in what is required of kids to become Eagle Scouts that I can no longer take the rank as seriously as I once did. I've seen moms doing the scout requirements for the son, and leaders signing off on very haphazard projects with little effort put out. I see very dedicated scouts work diligently at the program, also. I would love to see the financial investment in the YW come at least closer to the amount of money spent on the YM because of the additional investment in BSA now being divided amongst all.

We still need to remember that being gay isn't a choice, and church leaders acknowledge that. Not allowing gay leaders is akin to calling them pedophiles. The obvious correlation would be making darn sure there are no priesthood holders at girls camp, due to the problems that would come from having men that are attracted to females on these outings. Won't some of you be glad when you get to the other side and you can complain to Heavenly Father about his consistent pattern of creating a predictable percentage of the population gay? Maybe you can ask him why he couldn't get it right, or explain to him how wrong he's been, and how right you are.

I'm obviously feeling a little feisty, today.

We need to remember that having congenital maladies and birth defects is not a matter of choice and that Church leaders acknowledge that. Won't you be glad when you get to the other side and can ask Heavenly Father about His consistent pattern of creating a certain percentage of the population with congenital abnormalities. Maybe you can ask Him then why He couldn't get it right and rail against Him about how unfair His laws and commandments are. Edited August 19, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I have long wanted the church to drop scouts. For a decade or so. Ironically, I'm not as excited about the idea as I once was since I have a son working on his eagle.

Funny thing is, reading this thread has me seeing benefits in dropping it. I am not a mom who does her son's scout stuff. I am a mom who often tells her son the badge doesn't matter to me except where it helps you learn. And sometimes that means we keep his signed blue card till he finishes the requirements to my satisfaction instead of an effort that wasn't as good as it should be. If the church were to pull out I would give DS a choice in joining another troop or not, but I would continue having him work on his Eagle even if it were not official.

I would live a personal progress kind of thing for my son. I think it's funny that some would think it is all serious, stuffy spiritual stuff. Personal progress is spiritual in nature, but it is also what you make of it. I've been working on it with my daughter and have had quilting, weight loss and blogging as goals along with the spiritual.

The funny thing is we always compare YW with YM and feel YW come up short because of scouts. Having just worked through Duty to God, deacon's portion with DS I find that it comes up short compared to personal progress.

Our last scout camp was not BSA. It was at the ranch of a stake leader. From what I can tell it was pretty cool. You don't have to have BSA camps to do a boy's camp well.

If Duty to God comes up short, it is because we have tried to superimpose it upon a largely and increasingly secular program (BSA) that does not optimally meet our needs. If the Church disengages from Scouting, there will be an unprecedented opportunity to design a program from the ground up that more perfectly does what we need it to do. I started a thread on this the other day, and I think it is still open. Edited August 18, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[janderich]

I am currently the Varsity Coach in our ward and was serving for three years as a Unit Commissioner on the stake level before that. I have definitely seen some of the draw backs to scouting such as paperwork, high expenses for badges, uniforms, etc. But there are other areas that I believe the church will not be able to replace quickly or easily. Let me name a few:

 

1. Eagle Scout Award - Whatever award the church comes up with it will not have the recognition that the Eagle holds. I also believe it will not be as challenging/rewarding as the Eagle. Why? Because there is a large structure setup to help ensure that merit badges and rank advancements are earned. Does it fail sometimes? Sure. But I bet we will not see such a structure around a new award for the YM.

 

2. Training - I have yet to see any type of serious training program for any calling in the church. However, the scouting program is very serious about it. Now of course many leaders do not take advantage of the training but that is a different issue than not having the training available. 

 

3. Support - There is no way to quickly develop all of the buy-in, understanding, and commitment that the BSA has earned over the past 100+ years. A new program will create confusion and in some areas this confusion will translate into half-hearted support. Also with a new program there will be certain aspects that some will not like, and in those areas it will inevitably be compared to scouting and found wanting.

 

4. Infrastructure - Perhaps over time the church will come up with camps, leaders, etc. But this will not be all at once. I also believe the church will shy away from many high-adventure activities.

 

Now, at the end of the day, I am concerned about our YM. If the church can provide a program that better prepares our YM both spiritually and temporally than I am all for it. Some of the above issues may be resolved over time and some may not but I do have concerns. 

[Calm]

I wonder if one can take the training without being in BSA.

My son's high adventure required no involvment with BSC, they went camping in the mountains one year (every year, but their major activity), traveled to Nauvoo another one and went sea kayaking another time. Iwill have to ask them how often they used BSC facilities. I know we used them once a year for a Cub Scout activity, but while it would take more prep, from what I saw it could be done relatively easy in a general park area.

Edited August 18, 2015 by calmoriah

[Jeanne]

If the Church bails on the BSA I hope they/we will still organize camping out and hiking and all of the other good outdoor activities that I associate with the BSA. And learning/teaching how to tie all kinds of knots would would be good too. And service projects. Lots of good service projects. The best parts of the BSA programs even though it wouldn't be the BSA, officially.

Things like uniforms and merit badges and fees charged by the BSA for being part of their organization are not really necessary, or cool. I still think it's funny to see grown adults wearing the uniforms and the badges. We really don't need no BSA badges.

Stuff like this is good for ALL kids..outdoors and learning new things.  Hope they can now have extra dollar and curriculum for the girls too.  That being said, I think in the future..merit badges will include "seer stone" awards.