Should Sam Young of the Protect LDS Children petition still be charged with apostasy?

[Exiled]

32 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I have problems with the two bolded sections but I'll only talk about 1 right now.

Short story: The handbook is clear that members should not be charged fees or asked to pay to participate in regular ward activities. Over the past couple of years our ward has been in open violation of this handbook policy. The ward requires youth to pay to participate in various youth night activities and even to participate in temple trips (presumably to help cover gas expenses). For families who may not be able to afford to have their children participate they can go to the bishop to receive financial assistance to cover the cost. For many people this isn't a big thing but it bugs me to no end because 1-it's a clear violation of what I consider to be a very good policy  2- it creates an undo burden on families (especially those with many children in the programs 3- it puts families in the situation of asking for financial aid simply to have their kids participate in ward activities 4- a well managed ward will have adequate budget to cover these expenses. If they don't, they shouldn't do the activity.

Each and every time my children are asked to pay to go on a temple trip or roller skating with their youth group or whatever offsite activity they are doing, I make a stink about it. I openly challenge the ward leadership every time for the reasons stated above. I'll object in meetings or on the ward FB page. Every time they rebuff me. According to the first definition of apostasy, that makes me apostate because I am repeatedly acting in clear, open and deliberate opposition to church leaders. Definition one has the ability to create little dictators at the local level, as well as the general.

Just because Sam Young's SP says he's apostate for acting in clear opposition to him or at least his interpretation of policy, does not mean Sam Young is an apostate.

Another shorter story- My father once worked for his SP. They had a dispute at work where his boss asked him to do something he wasn't comfortable with so he refused. The SP pulled his temple recommend for failing to sustain his SP. "Failing to sustain" is essentially the same thing as being "apostate". It allows for petty tyrants to rise up and enforce their will with the threat of eternal damnation if a person doesn't get in line. THAT is what's wrong (for starters) with the definition of apostasy.

 

Definition no. 1 definitely needs to go along with the prohibition of criticizing leaders even if the criticism is true.  Leaders should learn to have thicker skins and be better able to handle disagreement with their "authority."  They shouldn't need to hide behind definition no. 1.

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I admit, my wife has been asked about whether I masturbate or view porn more than I have in interviews.  When she told me she was asked about me, I was floored.  Then I realized the personal feelings the bishop and SP had for me and was like "Oh...okay".  Then last year the bishop who had asked her, having been released since but is a HC probed my wife further about me.  "You can't really leave alone in a room with his phone can you?"  "you don't want to see his browser history, do you?"  When she told me I was like, "that's sexual harassment".  

In my experience many former bishops and SPs have really unhealthy views of boundaries, mostly because of direction they have received.  I'm glad you have recognized that.  

 

Wow.  Those are extremely inappropriate questions to be asking your wife (or anyone about another person).

I hope your wife expressed that to him and then refused to answer.  

Edited March 28, 2018 by ALarson

[rongo]

 

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think you're right.  This seems to come from local leadership (directions on asking more probing questions such as about masturbation).  My SP has specifically directed us NOT to ask about it (especially with the young women and young men).  I wonder if these directives will become more prohibitive with what is taking place right now (i.e. "me too", and the abuse allegations in the news against church leaders, etc.).

rongo seems to have read something that came from Salt Lake instructing leaders to specifically ask about masturbation.  I'm hoping he can clarify or provide a source as I would like to see what he is referring to.

I just had a lengthy response disappear (aaaaarrrrrrggggghhhhh). Do you have access to the First Presidency letter from October 2017? It included the detailed interview questions and a lengthy appendix for teaching and clarification. We are instructed to provide candidates and their parents with the questions well in advance of the interview (our stake held a meeting where all youth and parents were invited, and handed out the letter packet with all of the material). Given the importance of teaching and preparing the youth for mission and temple, why would the Church/Church leaders not teach these things at all to youth? And, given that this is the standard for mission and temple, why would this somehow not be the standard for temple for others?

HappyJack is right. We have been instructed to teach and clarify, and I think your SP is an outlier in expressly forbidding it. 

Among other instruction, Elder Ballard, Rasband, and Acosta taught us in the Phoenix area that we need to distinguish between masturbation as a pervasive pattern or isolated incidents, because the counsel and repentance regimen is different for both (i.e., isolated incidents isn't as concerning as pervasive pattern). This clearly directs us to actually know, which can only be done by asking, right?

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Wow.  This those are extremely inappropriate questions to be asking your wife (or anyone about another person).  

Yeah....as I read that again I realized I wasn't clear.  A couple of years ago, she was asked both by the bishop and SP in separate interviews, while she was being told about a stake calling they were giving her, about whether I masturbate and view porn.  She basically laughed in their faces.  I figured, at the time, I was considered a problem to them, as they told me so, and were probing for negative info about me.  

Then last year this same guy who was our bishop, in a casual setting asked her basically one on one, as a conversation died about between a few people, the questions I mentioned in my previous post.  Meaning, he seemed to be negatively effected by the direction to disrespect people's boundaries and its carried over.  I saw the interviews problematic for sure, but the questioning last year I saw as sexual harassment.  

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

 

I just had a lengthy response disappear (aaaaarrrrrrggggghhhhh). Do you have access to the First Presidency letter from October 2017? It included the detailed interview questions and a lengthy appendix for teaching and clarification. We are instructed to provide candidates and their parents with the questions well in advance of the interview (our stake held a meeting where all youth and parents were invited, and handed out the letter packet with all of the material). Given the importance of teaching and preparing the youth for mission and temple, why would the Church/Church leaders not teach these things at all to youth? And, given that this is the standard for mission and temple, why would this somehow not be the standard for temple for others?

HappyJack is right. We have been instructed to teach and clarify, and I think your SP is an outlier in expressly forbidding it. 

Among other instruction, Elder Ballard, Rasband, and Acosta taught us in the Phoenix area that we need to distinguish between masturbation as a pervasive pattern or isolated incidents, because the counsel and repentance regimen is different for both (i.e., isolated incidents isn't as concerning as pervasive pattern). This clearly directs us to actually know, which can only be done by asking, right?

Thank you for the info.

I'm grateful that my SP has given the instructions he has given.  I am extremely opposed to asking the young men and young women about masturbation.  

I can possibly see a need to at least approach the subject with a young man who has come in for an interview in preparation for a mission, but then allow him to pursue it if he feels he has an issue with it or a need to repent.

I will ask my SP if he has received anything from Salt Lake that is specific regarding bringing up masturbation in youth interviews.

 

Edited March 28, 2018 by ALarson

[rongo]

39 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Short story: The handbook is clear that members should not be charged fees or asked to pay to participate in regular ward activities. Over the past couple of years our ward has been in open violation of this handbook policy. The ward requires youth to pay to participate in various youth night activities and even to participate in temple trips (presumably to help cover gas expenses). For families who may not be able to afford to have their children participate they can go to the bishop to receive financial assistance to cover the cost. For many people this isn't a big thing but it bugs me to no end because 1-it's a clear violation of what I consider to be a very good policy  2- it creates an undo burden on families (especially those with many children in the programs 3- it puts families in the situation of asking for financial aid simply to have their kids participate in ward activities 4- a well managed ward will have adequate budget to cover these expenses. If they don't, they shouldn't do the activity.

Each and every time my children are asked to pay to go on a temple trip or roller skating with their youth group or whatever offsite activity they are doing, I make a stink about it. I openly challenge the ward leadership every time for the reasons stated above. I'll object in meetings or on the ward FB page. Every time they rebuff me. According to the first definition of apostasy, that makes me apostate because I am repeatedly acting in clear, open and deliberate opposition to church leaders. Definition one has the ability to create little dictators at the local level, as well as the general.

I'm an outlier here, and the stake president is fascinated with how my ward manages to make it work without any fundraisers or having people pay for activities unreimbursed 100% of our activities are funded by the budget. This includes camps, and we still manage to take 60 youth to a play every year). 

I'm right with you. The handbook, and counsel given in 1990 when the budget system was drastically changed, are both clear that there should be no cost to members for activities --- and that it is embarrassing and spiritually damaging for people to have to debase themselves and ask for help meeting an "assessment" everyone else is doing (which are contra-policy, by the way). But most wards I know of do it, because you can exceed your budget by having members chip in. 

I don't think this rises to a Sam Young on your part, though. If you went to the media, started petitions, and marched on Salt Lake, I think it would. 

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

 

I just had a lengthy response disappear (aaaaarrrrrrggggghhhhh). Do you have access to the First Presidency letter from October 2017? It included the detailed interview questions and a lengthy appendix for teaching and clarification. We are instructed to provide candidates and their parents with the questions well in advance of the interview (our stake held a meeting where all youth and parents were invited, and handed out the letter packet with all of the material). Given the importance of teaching and preparing the youth for mission and temple, why would the Church/Church leaders not teach these things at all to youth? And, given that this is the standard for mission and temple, why would this somehow not be the standard for temple for others?

HappyJack is right. We have been instructed to teach and clarify, and I think your SP is an outlier in expressly forbidding it. 

Among other instruction, Elder Ballard, Rasband, and Acosta taught us in the Phoenix area that we need to distinguish between masturbation as a pervasive pattern or isolated incidents, because the counsel and repentance regimen is different for both (i.e., isolated incidents isn't as concerning as pervasive pattern). This clearly directs us to actually know, which can only be done by asking, right?

If the church really wants to make those questions standard for missions and temple they should include it as part of the TR interview. Why don't they? IMO- they want to ask, and they want to know, but they'd prefer to have some plausible deniability about the whole issue when it inevitably hits the fan.

Just wanted to emphasize the most important point

 

[rongo]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

If the church really wants to make those questions standard for missions and temple they should include it as part of the TR interview. Why don't they? IMO- they want to ask, and they want to know, but they'd prefer to have some plausible deniability about the whole issue when it inevitably hits the fan.

Just wanted to emphasize the most important point

You know what they say about broken clocks being right twice a day, or blind pigs finding acorns now and then . . . 

I agree. I think those who insist that the Brethren have made it clear that leaders are not to confirm people's understanding and full compliance with the law of chastity are . . . I don't know. It's pretty clear where the Church is on this.

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm an outlier here, and the stake president is fascinated with how my ward manages to make it work without any fundraisers or having people pay for activities unreimbursed 100% of our activities are funded by the budget. This includes camps, and we still manage to take 60 youth to a play every year). 

I'm right with you. The handbook, and counsel given in 1990 when the budget system was drastically changed, are both clear that there should be no cost to members for activities --- and that it is embarrassing and spiritually damaging for people to have to debase themselves and ask for help meeting an "assessment" everyone else is doing (which are contra-policy, by the way). But most wards I know of do it, because you can exceed your budget by having members chip in. 

I don't think this rises to a Sam Young on your part, though. If you went to the media, started petitions, and marched on Salt Lake, I think it would. 

I don't think you're unique in the way you budget. That is the way I've always seen it done. It's the way I did it. Worked great and was in compliance with church policy.

I disagree. Even if I started a petition, marched on the ward chapel, etc it would not be apostasy. Rejecting bad behavior publicly is not apostasy. It is disobedience to a person, not to God. HUGE difference. I could argue that the bishop is acting apostate by openly refusing to follow church policies, but that would be ridiculous as well.

[bsjkki]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

 

I just had a lengthy response disappear (aaaaarrrrrrggggghhhhh). Do you have access to the First Presidency letter from October 2017? It included the detailed interview questions and a lengthy appendix for teaching and clarification. We are instructed to provide candidates and their parents with the questions well in advance of the interview (our stake held a meeting where all youth and parents were invited, and handed out the letter packet with all of the material). Given the importance of teaching and preparing the youth for mission and temple, why would the Church/Church leaders not teach these things at all to youth? And, given that this is the standard for mission and temple, why would this somehow not be the standard for temple for others?

HappyJack is right. We have been instructed to teach and clarify, and I think your SP is an outlier in expressly forbidding it. 

Among other instruction, Elder Ballard, Rasband, and Acosta taught us in the Phoenix area that we need to distinguish between masturbation as a pervasive pattern or isolated incidents, because the counsel and repentance regimen is different for both (i.e., isolated incidents isn't as concerning as pervasive pattern). This clearly directs us to actually know, which can only be done by asking, right?

Tale of two boys who did the same thing. One confessed . He was released as a Teachers Quorum president and could not take the sacrament a few weeks. His peers in the ward wanted to know why. Church became uncomfortable for him. He felt he was a sinner and that something was wrong with him. He slowly became less active. Never went on a mission and left  the church.  The other did not confess his sin. Went on a mission. Attended BYU and got married in the temple and is still active. 

Making teenage boys feel like they are breaking the law of chastity if they masturbate, and that they are sinners, can start a toxic shame cycle that is destructive to their emotional and spiritual well being. Is it worth it? 

I wish we had a study about teenage sexual assault victims and how many remain active. 

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Tale of two boys who did the same thing. One confessed . He was released as a Teachers Quorum president and could not take the sacrament a few weeks. His peers in the ward wanted to know why. Church became uncomfortable for him. He felt he was a sinner and that something was wrong with him. He slowly became less active. Never went on a mission and left  the church.  The other did not confess his sin. Went on a mission. Attended BYU and got married in the temple and is still active. 

Making teenage boys feel like they are breaking the law of chastity if they masturbate, and that they are sinners, can start a toxic shame cycle that is destructive to their emotional and spiritual well being. Is it worth it? 

I wish we had a study about teenage sexual assault victims and how many remain active. 

Spot on! I've read several stories like this! This boy had integrity too! I think LDS are conditioned or taught early about sins and this boy apparently took it very serious. (I like how you put it, the shame cycle.) Unlike the other boy, I guess that might be what keeps some people going in the church when they don't take it very serious and just enjoy the social part. But there are those that take everything serious and try so hard to be perfect. 

[rongo]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't think you're unique in the way you budget. That is the way I've always seen it done. It's the way I did it. Worked great and was in compliance with church policy.

I disagree. Even if I started a petition, marched on the ward chapel, etc it would not be apostasy. Rejecting bad behavior publicly is not apostasy. It is disobedience to a person, not to God. HUGE difference. I could argue that the bishop is acting apostate by openly refusing to follow church policies, but that would be ridiculous as well.

Well, it would also depend on what the issue was. The Brethren are obviously touchier about, say, abuse and policy dirty laundry being aired in the media than they would be for, say, local budget squabbles.  

I will clarify and say that I don't think you would be in apostasy for a "Jump on the HappyJackBandwagon" crusade on this issue, because . . . it is actually the policy of the Church (even though it is poorly enforced). Sam Young is trying to publicly twist the Church's arm and drive change, so I think that's an important difference. 

It makes me happy to hear that there are other wards that don't do the "assessment" thing (which President Packer blasted in 1990). All the ones I know of (in my limited anecdotal experience) do it. We have good friends who were in our ward when I was previously a bishop who are in a different ward, and their kids couldn't go to camp this summer because the families were to pay 100% of the camp fees (dad had been laid off, and things were tight). The bishop and ward's response was: well, guess you're not going to camp, then. They were told that there wasn't any budget for camp, and I told them that I couldn't imagine where their budget had gone or what it was being used for. Our stakes wards typically get around $13,000 per annum, more or less.

When I was bishop of that other ward, a sister wrote a letter to the stake president asking that I be released because I was "preaching socialism." The Relief Society wanted to charge sisters $5 for an activity, and I told them they couldn't do that. This sister's response was that if they couldn't or wouldn't afford it, then they didn't need to do the activity. I told her that the Church doesn't work like that, that there is supposed to not be any cost to members for activities, and that saying they can ask for help to pay it is degrading and humiliating (in President Packer's words, "In a church that preaches self-reliance like we do, an assessment families can't meet creates feelings that are unhealthy in a Latter-day Saint. People will go inactive rather than admit that they can't pay the cost of membership"). 

[rongo]

15 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Making teenage boys feel like they are breaking the law of chastity if they masturbate, and that they are sinners, can start a toxic shame cycle that is destructive to their emotional and spiritual well being. Is it worth it? 

You're at odds with what the Church teaches. It teaches that masturbation is a sin, and you wishing that it didn't doesn't change that. 

Parents and leaders also help people retain self-worth and hope, even while teaching and adhering to the standard. I think most do their best to "throw lifelines" so that they don't experience "toxic shame." Increasingly, many people experience "toxic shame" no matter what leaders and parents do, when held to a standard and encouraged to meet it. This isn't just in matters of sexuality. 

Quote

I wish we had a study about teenage sexual assault victims and how many remain active.

Are you really equating teaching and enforcing Church standards as sexual assault? 

 

Edited March 28, 2018 by rongo

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I will clarify and say that I don't think you would be in apostasy for a "Jump on the HappyJackBandwagon" crusade on this issue, because . . . it is actually the policy of the Church (even though it is poorly enforced). Sam Young is trying to publicly twist the Church's arm and drive change, so I think that's an important difference. 

He is trying to change (may have succeeded) a policy. While I agree that members should be subject to discipline for extreme disobedience, it should not be labeled 'apostasy'. Apostasy is the renunciation of a religious belief. Are we going to start labeling church policies as "religious beliefs"? Why bother to distinguish between a policy and doctrine?

I don't believe his actions even rise to the level of requiring church discipline, but I understand that some might feel that way. My issue is the way the church allows its local leadership to threaten members in a way that not only threatens their membership but implies that they are disagreeing with God's will. If we are going to interpret policies as God's will we need to stop calling them policies and start canonizing them. Maybe we need a section in the D&C mandating white shirts and ties to pass the sacrament.

Edited March 28, 2018 by CA Steve

[Exiled]

35 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Yeah....as I read that again I realized I wasn't clear.  A couple of years ago, she was asked both by the bishop and SP in separate interviews, while she was being told about a stake calling they were giving her, about whether I masturbate and view porn.  She basically laughed in their faces.  I figured, at the time, I was considered a problem to them, as they told me so, and were probing for negative info about me.  

Then last year this same guy who was our bishop, in a casual setting asked her basically one on one, as a conversation died about between a few people, the questions I mentioned in my previous post.  Meaning, he seemed to be negatively effected by the direction to disrespect people's boundaries and its carried over.  I saw the interviews problematic for sure, but the questioning last year I saw as sexual harassment.  

It is unbelievable sometimes how leaders don't respect privacy rights, how invasive these guys think they can be.

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I have problems with the two bolded sections but I'll only talk about 1 right now.

Short story: The handbook is clear that members should not be charged fees or asked to pay to participate in regular ward activities. Over the past couple of years our ward has been in open violation of this handbook policy. The ward requires youth to pay to participate in various youth night activities and even to participate in temple trips (presumably to help cover gas expenses). For families who may not be able to afford to have their children participate they can go to the bishop to receive financial assistance to cover the cost. For many people this isn't a big thing but it bugs me to no end because 1-it's a clear violation of what I consider to be a very good policy  2- it creates an undo burden on families (especially those with many children in the programs 3- it puts families in the situation of asking for financial aid simply to have their kids participate in ward activities 4- a well managed ward will have adequate budget to cover these expenses. If they don't, they shouldn't do the activity.

Each and every time my children are asked to pay to go on a temple trip or roller skating with their youth group or whatever offsite activity they are doing, I make a stink about it. I openly challenge the ward leadership every time for the reasons stated above. I'll object in meetings or on the ward FB page. Every time they rebuff me. According to the first definition of apostasy, that makes me apostate because I am repeatedly acting in clear, open and deliberate opposition to church leaders. Definition one has the ability to create little dictators at the local level, as well as the general.

 

 

To make it short: If my ward was asking youth to pay to participate in activities it would bother me just as much as it seems to be bothering you.

If one is following the handbook one cannot be said to be in apostasy.  The handbook comes to us from the First Presidency.  You cannot be following guidance set down by the First Presidency and be in apostasy on that point.

[bsjkki]

 

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

Are you really equating teaching and enforcing Church standards as sexual assault?

Sorry, two separate topics entirely. I should not have conflated them but the toxic shame cycle ties them together. I have a lot of experience with teenage rape victims and few of them are active in the church. I wish we had more statistics on certain topics. I also have experience with teenage boys and I would love to know, by statistics and study, what are the most effective measures when dealing with the topic of masturbation for overall mental and spiritual health in the long run. 

[rongo]

Just now, bsjkki said:

Sorry, two separate topics entirely.

Whew!  

I should not have conflated them but the toxic shame cycle ties them together. I have a lot of experience with teenage rape victims and few of them are active in the church. I wish we had more statistics on certain topics. I also have experience with teenage boys and I would love to know, by statistics and study, what are the most effective measures when dealing with the topic of masturbation for overall mental and spiritual health in the long run.

I think such studies would be hopelessly agenda-driven (on both sides and in both directions --- not just bias in favor of "decriminalizing" it, but bias in favor of keeping traditional approach). I have no doubt that sexual assault victims struggle in many areas, not just conservative church culture (LDS or otherwise). I think that Jesus' strong words about millstones being hung around necks aren't just hyperbole. The impact of abuse and assault ripples outward through generations. Incalculable damage. 

[bsjkki]

53 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm an outlier here, and the stake president is fascinated with how my ward manages to make it work without any fundraisers or having people pay for activities unreimbursed 100% of our activities are funded by the budget. This includes camps, and we still manage to take 60 youth to a play every year). 

I'm right with you. The handbook, and counsel given in 1990 when the budget system was drastically changed, are both clear that there should be no cost to members for activities --- and that it is embarrassing and spiritually damaging for people to have to debase themselves and ask for help meeting an "assessment" everyone else is doing (which are contra-policy, by the way). But most wards I know of do it, because you can exceed your budget by having members chip in. 

I don't think this rises to a Sam Young on your part, though. If you went to the media, started petitions, and marched on Salt Lake, I think it would. 

How does this work with camp fees? Our region is having a lds regional encampment which is $375 per boy. I think this is a ridiculous amount of money to charge but I have no idea how the ward could pay these fees out of the ward budget. If we payed all camp fees for cub camp from the Primary budget, cubs would end up taking 3/4's of  the primary budget. I like that you are able to do this and hate fundraisers. I honestly don't know how you do it. 

[rongo]

15 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

How does this work with camp fees? Our region is having a lds regional encampment which is $375 per boy. I think this is a ridiculous amount of money to charge but I have no idea how the ward could pay these fees out of the ward budget. If we payed all camp fees for cub camp from the Primary budget, cubs would end up taking 3/4's of  the primary budget. I like that you are able to do this and hate fundraisers. I honestly don't know how you do it. 

How does it work? We don't do the BSA camps. They are a pyramid scam to make money (as are other scouting costs and fees). It's much cheaper and a better experience to just go camping and do activities on our own for a week.

Girls camp is typically $75-$90 per girl and leader, x 30 girls and about 4 leaders. 

We didn't do cub scout day camp last year at all, and that is typically around $900. 

And, we don't do a traditional ward budget where each organization gets X, Y, or Z dollars per quarter or per year. All activity reimbursements come out of "Administration," and we have never had a problem with organizations not being able to do what they want to do. In fact, we typically carry over $500 - $1000 every year, even after the Christmas Party. So, primary submits reimbursement receipts, and young women's submits reimbursement receipts, etc. and they are all paid out from the overall ward budget (which is usually around $13,000 or so per year). The next quarterly allotment comes out in April for all the wards. 

 

Edited March 28, 2018 by rongo

[bsjkki]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

How does it work? We don't do the BSA camps. They are a pyramid scam to make money (as are other scouting costs and fees). It's much cheaper and a better experience to just go camping and do activities on our own for a week.

Girls camp is typically $75-$90 per girl and leader, x 30 girls and about 4 leaders. 

We didn't do cub scout day camp last year at all, and that is typically around $900. 

And, we don't do a traditional ward budget where each organization gets X, Y, or Z dollars per quarter or per year. All activity reimbursements come out of "Administration," and we have never had a problem with organizations not being able to do what they want to do. In fact, we typically carry over $500 - $1000 every year, even after the Christmas Party. So, primary submits reimbursement receipts, and young women's submits reimbursement receipts, etc. and they are all paid out from the overall ward budget (which is usually around $13,000 or so per year). The next quarterly allotment comes out in April for all the wards. 

 

I agree about BSA Camps. We once cooked for a stake lds encampment/scout camp and it was $25 per boy. I am disappointed with this regional lds encampment that is charging so much money and the wards are required to go (per the stake). Our ward leadership was completely against it due to the cost. Our ward also avoids BSA camps. No day camp and no BSA camps, makes your budget process possible. If we just did away with scouting, ward budgets would look really good!

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I agree about BSA Camps. We once cooked for a stake lds encampment/scout camp and it was $25 per boy. I am disappointed with this regional lds encampment that is charging so much money and the wards are required to go (per the stake). Our ward leadership was completely against it due to the cost. Our ward also avoids BSA camps. No day camp and no BSA camps, makes your budget process possible. If we just did away with scouting, ward budgets would look really good!

Amen, sister!  

It is staggering when you think of the entitlements that accrue to Scouting through the Church. BSA gets annual chartering fees through the stakes for every boy and leader, even very inactive ones who don't attend. Then, they get whatever they get through FoS (which has to be greatly diminished in recent years. Our ward hasn't collected any money for FoS in two years. There was a letter that went out from the Presidency of the Seventy saying that FoS is still in force, so drives are still expected. That letter wouldn't be necessary if there weren't a problem). Then, they get the exorbitant camp fees, plus the profit off of books, badges, and uniforms (and the profit margin is better than in many industries). 

I think the big reason why the Church hasn't pulled out yet is that it will kill it. BSA is used to the steady LDS income, and if/when that goes away, there will be a huge shortfall. The Church hasn't had the stomach to administer the coup de grace. 

You are correct that a lot more money for activities is freed up when there is no more Scouting cost at the ward and stake level.

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

How does this work with camp fees? Our region is having a lds regional encampment which is $375 per boy. I think this is a ridiculous amount of money to charge but I have no idea how the ward could pay these fees out of the ward budget. If we payed all camp fees for cub camp from the Primary budget, cubs would end up taking 3/4's of  the primary budget. I like that you are able to do this and hate fundraisers. I honestly don't know how you do it. 

Some wards are a lot better at fundraising than others.  Our ward and my friend's ward each went to the same scout camp last year (a really good one four hours away next to yellowstone) and she had to pay $200 out of pocket for her boy and we didn't have to pay anything out of pocket for ours.  But her ward is upper middle class to upper class and they don't even try to fundraise because most members are wealthy (it drives my friend crazy though because she sees value in fundraising and not every family in her ward has money to spare).

Our ward's fundraiser is flags and it seems to pay for everything the ward needs.  Our YW didn't have to pay anything out of pocket for girls camp either last year while her daughter had to pay $45.  Different wards, different focus I guess.

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, rongo said:

How does it work? We don't do the BSA camps. They are a pyramid scam to make money (as are other scouting costs and fees). It's much cheaper and a better experience to just go camping and do activities on our own for a week.

Girls camp is typically $75-$90 per girl and leader, x 30 girls and about 4 leaders. 

We didn't do cub scout day camp last year at all, and that is typically around $900. 

And, we don't do a traditional ward budget where each organization gets X, Y, or Z dollars per quarter or per year. All activity reimbursements come out of "Administration," and we have never had a problem with organizations not being able to do what they want to do. In fact, we typically carry over $500 - $1000 every year, even after the Christmas Party. So, primary submits reimbursement receipts, and young women's submits reimbursement receipts, etc. and they are all paid out from the overall ward budget (which is usually around $13,000 or so per year). The next quarterly allotment comes out in April for all the wards. 

 

I've seen both kinds of BSA camps.  Some are horrible and some are awesome.  I haven't noticed that the horrible ones are really any cheaper though.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I have problems with the two bolded sections but I'll only talk about 1 right now.

Short story: The handbook is clear that members should not be charged fees or asked to pay to participate in regular ward activities. Over the past couple of years our ward has been in open violation of this handbook policy. The ward requires youth to pay to participate in various youth night activities and even to participate in temple trips (presumably to help cover gas expenses). For families who may not be able to afford to have their children participate they can go to the bishop to receive financial assistance to cover the cost. For many people this isn't a big thing but it bugs me to no end because 1-it's a clear violation of what I consider to be a very good policy  2- it creates an undo burden on families (especially those with many children in the programs 3- it puts families in the situation of asking for financial aid simply to have their kids participate in ward activities 4- a well managed ward will have adequate budget to cover these expenses. If they don't, they shouldn't do the activity.

 

That is crazy.  I can't believe your ward is getting away with that!  I've lived in five states, served in the youth program in three of them, and I've never been in a ward that didn't cover all costs except for BSA and girls camp occasionally.  

Edited March 28, 2018 by bluebell