The Demise of Scouting

[Bernard Gui]

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Okay fine, throw in some eugenics to make sure it turns out right this time.

I’m sure that would fix things up fine. 

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I worry about the shy or awkward or overweight or for any reason less popular boys who just lost the chance to build friendships with other boys through scouting. Now the girls that are already in primary classes and the whole school day, have taken that away too. 

The girls don't take it away any more than the boys wanting the girls' attention do.

It is the adults that took it away, imo.

It is a dynamic of teen interaction.  Pretending it doesn't exist and that the relationships will all be the same is a fantasy of adults.  I have never met a kid who didn't get it (haven't talked to many about it lately, maybe the attitude/expectation has changed, but I doubt it).

Edited April 25, 2018 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

13 minutes ago, kllindley said:

In many ways, I'm sure most would adapt and accept and still have fun. And at the same time miss out on a valuable opportunity to build brotherhood, confidence in their own masculinity, and the assurance that they belong with other boys. 

Which they don’t have much of a chance getting somewhere else. 

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Not really.  I honestly don’t have strong feelings one way or the other.  I do know that as a youth I envied all the cool things my older brothers got to do in scouting vs. those offered to girls (at least mine locally, others may have more).

I do think it’s kind of a common feeling among the young women.  Of course, some are happy they don’t have the same activities (and some boys hate scouting).  It’s hard to please everyone (actually it’s impossible!).

The thing is that girls don't have to move into boys' groups to have the same sort of activities if you can convince leaders to give it to them.  The problem is when leaders insist it is one size for all in a group, but then create two groups that get things done differently.

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, kllindley said:

 It's just that I think something needs to be. What else is left? 

Exactly on target, imo.

[Hamba Tuhan]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

The thing is that girls don't have to move into boys' groups to have the same sort of activities if you can convince leaders to give it to them.

And this problem is solved the instant that we follow the Church's repeated instruction to let class presidencies actually function in their roles. If the Laurels want a certain activity, for example, all they need to do is plan it themselves.

[RevTestament]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

It goes much deeper than cooties. 

Yep, it cuts right down to the cookies.  

[Of the GS variety, of course]

Speaking for myself, as a kid I felt very awkward in all girl environments. I wasn't interested in their conversation, and usually not in their activities - unless it involved eating GS cookies, that is. While I assume that might hold true for many girls as well, I suppose there is the occasional tom-boy who enjoys playing with the boys. I suppose the segregation thing was a kind of natural thing down from the hunter-gatherer days of mankind. Boys went off with dads to learn to hunt and fish. As the work place in America has changed, I think the gender lines in jobs has  become blurred.  Men no longer go off to the factory to work, and women no longer stay home, and make clothes. They both work designing software at Microsoft. So the distinction in learning job skills has also become blurred. It is still largely there in construction. Most framers, plumbers and electricians are males, but in many industries the gender distinction in job requirements and skills is simply gone. Hence, the need for boys to learn different skills in scouts is not as great. Nevertheless, as a branch of priesthood activity, it still seems to provide a worthwhile function. Take it away and another priesthood activity disappears. I am not against the Church providing its own, but I think there is something to be said for not making all priesthood activities co-ed, and for priesthood quorums to have significant bonding time to themselves.

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

And this problem is solved the instant that we follow the Church's repeated instruction to let class presidencies actually function in their roles. If the Laurels want a certain activity, for example, all they need to do is plan it themselves.

Kind of.

I'm in the states and I know you aren't so it's probably different internationally but while what you say is mostly true (and our YW in our ward have way better activities than the YM do), it breaks down with things like High Adventure (which isn't a scouting program but is a part of the YM's program but not the YWs).  So, while the priests can pretty easily plan a 4 day river rafting trip out of state for example, the Laurels really can't.  Priests and teachers get money to compensate for them not going to scout camp like the deacons but all YW are expected to attend girls camp all 6 years they are in the organization so they have no budget for such activities.

Hopefully that can start to change.  

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Kind of.

I'm in the states and I know you aren't so it's probably different internationally but while what you say is mostly true (and our YW in our ward have way better activities than the YM do), it breaks down with things like High Adventure (which isn't a scouting program but is a part of the YM's program but not the YWs).  So, while the priests can pretty easily plan a 4 day river rafting trip out of state for example, the Laurels really can't.  Priests and teachers get money to compensate for them not going to scout camp like the deacons but all YW are expected to attend girls camp all 6 years they are in the organization so they have no budget for such activities.

Hopefully that can start to change.  

Out of state high adventure are technically against handbook and Brethren counsel (against super activities that are expensive and very burdensome to families), but stakes/wards do it all the time. Depends on leadership. 

Our young women actually get way more money than our boys do, but we do the bare minimum with Scouting and try to follow the counsel on keeping activities simple and being a support to families, not competition. It's like my wife and I discuss all the time: it's one of the nice things about being in charge. You control your own fate in a lot of ways, and you can set the direction and the tone. 

[california boy]

9 hours ago, kllindley said:

I hope they do, too.

For the record, I don't think there's anything about scouting itself that has to be all boy. It's just that I think something needs to be. What else is left? 

What else is left?  The vast majority of boys are not involved in the scouting program.  Are you really suggesting that there is no way for the vast majority of boys to bind together as boys?  Did you not have close boy friends growing up that were not in the scouting program?  Maybe just boy friends you walked to school with?  Do you have the opportunity to take your sons out camping along with their other boy friends?  Or hunting if that is your interest?  Or boating, or skiing, or rafting or to the gym with you or whatever activity you enjoy doing?  Do you not see sports as a place boys can get a lot of companionship with other boys?  99% of those sports activities are still segregated by sex.  Any father that is not providing opportunities for their son to interact with other males is missing out on a very important aspect of raising their son.  The most important male your son needs to bond with is with his father. Passing that responsibility on to scouting and now blaming scouting for your son not bonding with other boys is a poor excuse.  

Kilindley, this is not directed specifically at you.  It is to all those parents that think this is the end of their sons bonding with other boys.  I only quoted your post because you asked the (in my opinion) absurd question, What else is left?

 

[Prof]

10 hours ago, Rivers said:

If the church really does break its ties with Boy Scouts of America, I can see Pres. Nelson being the one to do it.  

The church could then do its own program for young men at a lower cost.  

 

Agree about the costs. Where I live, scout camp is 3 times as much as girls camp. 

 

[california boy]

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Which they don’t have much of a chance getting somewhere else. 

Oh Brother.  Really?  Read my post above.  Some of you just don't like change of any kind.  Well things do change. Things consolidate.  Some disappear.  Some rise up.  Life is dynamic.  

[bsjkki]

My fear with the new girls camp guidelines is that instead of learning outdoor skills and enjoying the outdoors, it will turn into “EFY” in the woods with lots of speakers. In my experience, the girls want to shoot, learn archery, hike and river raft and build fires etc... but many of the adult female leaders do not so they just say no. I had one young women’s president who did not want the girls to learn to shoot because it wasn’t ladylike.  My Bishop insisted the girls have fun activities like mountain biking and river rafting at girls camp and he got push back from the young women leaders.

After 4 daughters in activity days and young women’s, I wish the program was more structured so it was not so dependent on the whims or competency of local leaders. 

The new young men’s program may suffer this way too without the scouting structure. 

[kllindley]

36 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

Kilindley, this is not directed specifically at you.  It is to all those parents that think this is the end of their sons bonding with other boys.  I only quoted your post because you asked the (in my opinion) absurd question, What else is left?

 

That's a fair point. We as fathers can and will have to do more. You may have noticed that I'm really not to worked up about scouting specifically. In fact, I've got some personal history with scouting that wasn't very positive. While I understand that this post was not directly to me I'd like to respond to your questions.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Oh Brother.  Really?  Read my post above.  Some of you just don't like change of any kind.  Well things do change. Things consolidate.  Some disappear.  Some rise up.  Life is dynamic.  

Indeed they do.

I love change. I embrace change.  Like when in a meeting the Boss says, “There are going to be some changes here. All change is good!” And Dilbert ask, “If all change is good, then can we change your salary for mine?” The Boss answers, “Not all change is good.”

 

Edited April 25, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Oliblish]

5 hours ago, rongo said:

Our young women actually get way more money than our boys do, but we do the bare minimum with Scouting and try to follow the counsel on keeping activities simple and being a support to families, not competition. It's like my wife and I discuss all the time: it's one of the nice things about being in charge. You control your own fate in a lot of ways, and you can set the direction and the tone. 

Really?  It has always been my experience that the YM have a much bigger budget than the YW.  It is even worse if you consider how much everyone is expected to contribute to Friends of Scouting. 

When I was in YM,  the YW leaders would always complain about how they didn't have money to do anything.  We would be planning a 4 day canyoneering trip to hike in slot canyons including multiple rappels that required helmets, ropes, and harnesses.  We stayed in a nice cabin and had good food.  The trip cost thousands of dollars.  That was in addition to a big stake wide campout for all YM the same summer.

The YW leaders would complain that they couldn't get approval to have treats on their mid-week activity because there was no budget for it.  They do a nice girls camp but their budget was a fraction of the YM budget.

Edited April 25, 2018 by Oliblish
typo

[bluebell]

58 minutes ago, rongo said:

Out of state high adventure are technically against handbook and Brethren counsel (against super activities that are expensive and very burdensome to families), but stakes/wards do it all the time. Depends on leadership. 

Our young women actually get way more money than our boys do, but we do the bare minimum with Scouting and try to follow the counsel on keeping activities simple and being a support to families, not competition. It's like my wife and I discuss all the time: it's one of the nice things about being in charge. You control your own fate in a lot of ways, and you can set the direction and the tone. 

Our families don't pay for high adventure activities, and since our ward is close to the borders of two different states, going out of state here can be accomplished after an hour in the car.  Besides that, the deacons frequently travel up to five hours out of state just to go to scout camp (it's a good camp, better than a lot of the ones that are closer).  Still, no parent pays out of pocket for scout camp either.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

What else is left?  The vast majority of boys are not involved in the scouting program.  Are you really suggesting that there is no way for the vast majority of boys to bind together as boys?  Did you not have close boy friends growing up that were not in the scouting program?  Maybe just boy friends you walked to school with?  Do you have the opportunity to take your sons out camping along with their other boy friends?  Or hunting if that is your interest?  Or boating, or skiing, or rafting or to the gym with you or whatever activity you enjoy doing?  Do you not see sports as a place boys can get a lot of companionship with other boys?  99% of those sports activities are still segregated by sex.  Any father that is not providing opportunities for their son to interact with other males is missing out on a very important aspect of raising their son.  The most important male your son needs to bond with is with his father. Passing that responsibility on to scouting and now blaming scouting for your son not bonding with other boys is a poor excuse.  

All good things we must do for not only our sons, but also our daughters, plus more. We need all the tools we can lay our hands on.

I don’t hear anyone advocating Scouting as a substitute for being a dad or at the exclusion of other important activities. Still, we should be allowed to note the demise of a good and long-respected institution, pay our respects, and move on.

Edited April 25, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[kllindley]

43 minutes ago, california boy said:

What else is left?  The vast majority of boys are not involved in the scouting program.  Are you really suggesting that there is no way for the vast majority of boys to bind together as boys?  

Of course I'm not suggesting that there is *no* other way. But if you look at the research, it's clear that a get large percentage of boys are not finding ways to meet that need. The fact that scouting doesn't help everyone doesn't seem like a good excuse for taking it away from those it is helping. 

Did you not have close boy friends growing up that were not in the scouting program?

No, I didn't. Partly because I grew up in an area that was 95% LDS and partly because I really didn't have any friends growing up. 

 Maybe just boy friends you walked to school with?

Again, no. I can't speak from experience, but I don't think the experience of walking to school provides quite the same opportunity for team problem solving, group cohesion, and personal development. Maybe I really missed out on that opportunity. 

 Do you have the opportunity to take your sons out camping along with their other boy friends?

Absolutely. 

 Or hunting if that is your interest?  Or boating, or skiing, or rafting or to the gym with you or whatever activity you enjoy doing?  

Yes. 

Do you not see sports as a place boys can get a lot of companionship with other boys?  99% of those sports activities are still segregated by sex.  

And boys that are not athletic? Actually, I would be fascinated to see any stats on the number of gendered sports programs. We have very few and here. Generally only at the high school level, and even then there is pressure to include girls on the football and wrestling teams. Almost all of the beginner/rec leagues are coed. 

Any father that is not providing opportunities for their son to interact with other males is missing out on a very important aspect of raising their son.  

I don't disagree. At the same time, is there no room for parents to get help? Single mothers? Boys whose dads work two jobs or evenings or weekends? 

The most important male your son needs to bond with is with his father.

No argument here. What about boys with absent (physically or emotionally) fathers? Or boys who never get a father? 

Passing that responsibility on to scouting and now blaming scouting for your son not bonding with other boys is a poor excuse.  

I don't see it as passing responsibility, and I'm certainly not blaming scouting. I see it as using an available resource and expressing disappointment that it may no longer be available.

 

[rongo]

21 minutes ago, Oliblish said:

Really?  It has always been my experience that the YM have a much bigger budget than the YW.  It is even worse if you consider how much everyone is expected to contribute to Friends of Scouting. 

I think in most cases, you are correct, but I refuse to pay the thousands to BSA for their camps. We camp on our own, much, much cheaper.

I think FOS has pretty much dried up. For the second straight year, our drive consisted of one announcement over the pulpit that if you want to donate to FOS, talk to a member of the bishopric. For the second straight year, our ward has had no donations for FOS. And, we aren't hassled by the stake like in the past to meet some quota. If we were hassled, I would tell them that our drive is done, and if they want to call ward members on their own, be our guests. 

When I was the YM,  the YW leaders would always complain about how they didn't have money to do anything.  We would be planning a 4 day canyoneering trip to hike in slot canyons including multiple rappels that required helmets, ropes, and harnesses.  We stayed in a nice cabin and had good food.  The trip cost thousands of dollars.  That was in addition to a big stake wide campout for all YM the same summer.

The YW leaders would complain that they couldn't get approval to have treats on their mid-week activity because there was no budget for it.  They do a nice girls camp but their budget was a fraction of the YM budget.

Yeah, we don't do super duper expensive activities for the boys or for the girls (that is the spirit and the letter of the counsel since 1990, although most wards and stakes don't follow it. This was anticipated by President Monson, who recited a poem in 1990 about such stake and ward leaders: "The sermon was ended / The priest had descended / Much delighted were they / But preferred the old way").

I know from experience that stake camps in our stake cost around $20,000 (girls camp, trek, stake campout). I would also cut back on that (to put it mildly) if I were in charge of a stake. As was said back in 1990, many members think that we somehow "save" our youth with expensive and elaborate activities, but they in no way begin to compensate for failure or casualness in living the gospel in the home. 

[california boy]

31 minutes ago, kllindley said:

What else is left?  The vast majority of boys are not involved in the scouting program.  Are you really suggesting that there is no way for the vast majority of boys to bind together as boys?  

Of course I'm not suggesting that there is *no* other way. But if you look at the research, it's clear that a get large percentage of boys are not finding ways to meet that need. The fact that scouting doesn't help everyone doesn't seem like a good excuse for taking it away from those it is helping. 

Did you not have close boy friends growing up that were not in the scouting program?

No, I didn't. Partly because I grew up in an area that was 95% LDS and partly because I really didn't have any friends growing up. 

 Maybe just boy friends you walked to school with?

Again, no. I can't speak from experience, but I don't think the experience of walking to school provides quite the same opportunity for team problem solving, group cohesion, and personal development. Maybe I really missed out on that opportunity. 

 Do you have the opportunity to take your sons out camping along with their other boy friends?

Absolutely. 

 Or hunting if that is your interest?  Or boating, or skiing, or rafting or to the gym with you or whatever activity you enjoy doing?  

Yes. 

Do you not see sports as a place boys can get a lot of companionship with other boys?  99% of those sports activities are still segregated by sex.  

And boys that are not athletic? Actually, I would be fascinated to see any stats on the number of gendered sports programs. We have very few and here. Generally only at the high school level, and even then there is pressure to include girls on the football and wrestling teams. Almost all of the beginner/rec leagues are coed. 

Any father that is not providing opportunities for their son to interact with other males is missing out on a very important aspect of raising their son.  

I don't disagree. At the same time, is there no room for parents to get help? Single mothers? Boys whose dads work two jobs or evenings or weekends? 

The most important male your son needs to bond with is with his father.

No argument here. What about boys with absent (physically or emotionally) fathers? Or boys who never get a father? 

Passing that responsibility on to scouting and now blaming scouting for your son not bonding with other boys is a poor excuse.  

I don't see it as passing responsibility, and I'm certainly not blaming scouting. I see it as using an available resource and expressing disappointment that it may no longer be available.

You bring up some good points.  Especially I liked your perspective on single moms and absent fathers.  It reminds me to pay special attention to those situations and do what I can to help provide a good role model for those boys and include them in activities I do with my kids.

I am not discounting the value that scouts has played in a lot of boys lives.  But I take the word of the BSA that this decision is based on demographics and ways of keeping a viable program for kids.  If including girls in the scouting program stabilizes the finances of the scouting program and allows them to continue to fulfill their mission, then I don't begrudge them for that decision.  Mostly I see such a doom and gloom among members on this board, not just about this issue, but others as well before they see if any of this is really going to have any affect on their children or not.  Boys can still bond with other boys even if girls are around.

I am confused about one thing.  I thought the church announced that they were pulling out of the scouting program anyway.  How is any of this relevant?  Wouldn't the church run the cub scout program the way it wants anyway?  Hasn't scouting integrated girls in the venture and explore program for years?  Is this really such a big change?  It seems like the church has done what it wanted to for years.  Why all the worries all the sudden that the church would listen to scout headquarters on how to run the cub scout program now?  For me, this announcement is more of a yawn.  I doubt very much it will make much difference among LDS youth.  Am I wrong?

[Prof]

I have been told many times by many people that the Duty to God program is an excellent program and could be used instead of scouts.

In my area, it is not used. Girls do Personal Progress and get the awards, but I have not seen one boy active in the Duty to God program.

For those in areas which implement the program, what are your impressions? Could it replace Scouts? 

[rongo]

Just now, Prof said:

I have been told many times by many people that the Duty to God program is an excellent program and could be used instead of scouts.

In my area, it is not used. Girls do Personal Progress and get the awards, but I have not seen one boy active in the Duty to God program.

For those in areas which implement the program, what are your impressions? Could it replace Scouts? 

My son is the only priest I have ever seen get his Duty to God. 

I don't think it's a replacement for Scouting, because it is mostly male "personal progress" and entails goals, journaling, service projects, doctrinal research and reflection, etc. 

Personally, I think that the Church should pull back from the philosophy that it should or needs to provide weekly activities for teenagers. I think *families* should be the focus of gospel study, activities, etc. I realize that there are dysfunctional families or situations where the Church is looked to to provide these things because the family does not, but our culture looks to the Church to provide these things for active, functioning families.

This was also a focus for President Packer, President Hinckley, and President Monson in 1990: the demands that are placed on active, functioning families for programs, activities, etc. that are really the purview and purpose of the family. They were concerned that our programs are "taking strength unto themselves" (like the olive trees in Jacob 5) and doing things for families that they should be doing themselves. They were also concerned about the inevitable response that the Church needs to provide activities for weak families at the expense of the strong ones.

Here is President Packer's thought, over the course of the conference, in a nutshell:

This change in budgeting will have the effect of returning much of the responsibility for teaching and counseling and activities to the family where it belongs. There will be fewer intrusions into the family schedules and into the family purses.

I repeat, perhaps for one time only we have the opportunity to adjust that balance so that Church activities sustain parents and families rather than the other way around.

Now, there will be smaller budgets and fewer activities, fewer programs. That will leave a vacuum. Nothing likes a vacuum.

We must resist, absolutely resist, the temptation to program that vacuum. That space belongs to families. When we cut down on Sundays to the block plan that consolidated our meetings and left some time open, you know what happened. Now brethren, it is their time. Let them use it as they feel to do — for better or for worse. That is the risk. If we fail to teach them correct principles, teach them the doctrine, they will not know how to govern themselves.

If we do, then that vacuum will be filled with prayer and work and study, study for school, for instance, study the gospel. It will be filled with faith and reverence. It will be filled with the intimate love between husband and wife, with the tender love of parents to children. There will come a safe and virtuous dependency. Latter-day Saints will come to depend upon the Lord instead of upon the headquarters of the Church.

This has been largely ignored and not followed, even 28 years later. 

 

[Mansquatch]

Scouting was always torture to me. I was always jealous that the young women didn't have to do any of it. Going places and hanging out was fine but the actual organization and official stuff was always a waste of time. Most of the merit badges didn't help me actually learn anything and we had to wear kerchiefs for crying out loud.

[RevTestament]

6 minutes ago, Prof said:

I have been told many times by many people that the Duty to God program is an excellent program and could be used instead of scouts.

In my area, it is not used. Girls do Personal Progress and get the awards, but I have not seen one boy active in the Duty to God program.

For those in areas which implement the program, what are your impressions? Could it replace Scouts? 

Well, I don't quite qualify to answer since my area still uses scouts, but from what I have seen the Duty to God program has not risen to the level where it effectively replaces scouts. I think it was not really designed with that in mind, but has been adapted with that inevitability in mind.  I think that in order to effectively replace scouting, the activities material needs more work. Perhaps that was delayed so as to not be a direct affront to the scouting organization. We are just seeing all the reasons scouting was implemented as a priesthood activity being eroded away. While with their changes scouting may survive, it just keeps becoming a less compelling case for extra-curricular priesthood activities(and YW activities). Maybe it will survive as a combined activity of some sort, but the expense has become an issue as well. It is cheaper just to go make our own reservations at campgrounds than to pay the thousands sometimes involved in scout camps, clothing, badges, etc. It has just become a less useful tool for the Church. It doesn't really seem to expose many non-members to the Church either - at least not in my experience - I think it works some for cub scouts, but in my years, I haven't seen any conversions arise out of it. I do recall some of my kids' friends going on a campout with us, and getting enthused enough to visit Church - one even tried to bear his testimony, but alas nothing lasting has arisen yet. Personally, I would like to see the Church buff up its duty to God or have its own outdoor priesthood activity program of some sort. I think the scouting program did have a major impact on our three boys, and just provided them with a lot of experiences and some close friendships they otherwise would not have had.