The Demise of Scouting

[Prof]

41 minutes ago, rongo said:

 

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.

 

 

 

I tend to agree. I feel sometimes like the youth in our church are overscheduled at times.

I am reminded that the scoutmaster in our ward sometimes has referred to Wednesday night meetings as "Teenage Day Care"

[bsjkki]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

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.

I agree. When my child was bullied and when there are no "friends" at mid-week activities, I wonder if it would be better just to axe them entirely. So many of the activities seem pointless and just turn into social torture for my kids. I often would like more free time with my kids when they are not scheduled. With a large family, it seems most weekends are booked in advance and I end up attending most mid-week activities for kids that are not mine.  I think by 16, most of the kids are "done" with the whole thing--internally if not externally. They're working or have intense homework loads...I'm not even talking about extra activities. 

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

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:

 

 

If there hadn't been Mutual, I would never had developed any friends in the Church save one...and while not Utah, California was a Mormon dense area.  While in Illinois, the only activity I had with other Mormon kids was in Primary.

Peers have enormous influence on youth.  Sunday lessons where many are passive, where they are often more focused on adults rather than their peers don't provide a real chance at getting to be friends, having fun, developing a desire to be with others who share certain values with you in a religious community.

I am shy, was very very shy in my youth and I hated Mutual.  I also think it helped immensely in letting me know it was okay to be different, to believe as I did.

Active bullying at Mutual is different though, I have no problem with removing your kid from that environment.  If that happened to my child, I would try to find an LDS kid they could be friends with and work to get them doing things together.

Edited April 25, 2018 by Calm

[carbon dioxide]

On 4/23/2018 at 11:18 AM, Bernard Gui said:

In spite of an old and very good Girl Scout/Brownie tradition, Cub Scouting is no longer an activity for boys. Another important American cultural institution falls to progressive action. Perhaps it is now time for the Church and Scouting to permanently separate. As a life-long Scouter, I’m sad to see the program fail. Your thoughts?

http://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/article209368169.html

I have never been a fan of scouts and the changes recently have only added more reasons to not liking it.  It is perhaps the one calling in the Church that I will refuse.  I don't want to serve in something that I can careless about and now actually sort of despise.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, bsjkki said:

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. 

Having access to experts in these fields seems to work for the YM in my experience.  Scouting may have forced them to go this route however to meet badge requirements.  YW leaders need to get used to asking for outside help to fill their own gaps rather than doing it on their own if they haven't already.

[rockpond]

On 4/23/2018 at 11:18 AM, Bernard Gui said:

In spite of an old and very good Girl Scout/Brownie tradition, Cub Scouting is no longer an activity for boys. Another important American cultural institution falls to progressive action. Perhaps it is now time for the Church and Scouting to permanently separate. As a life-long Scouter, I’m sad to see the program fail. Your thoughts?

http://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/article209368169.html

I don't see why this would necessitate that the Church drop Scouting.  Never in my adult life has the Church run our scouting program in a way that was perfectly aligned with the way the BSA designed it (Tigers? 11yo Scouts?).  For example, Venturing was designed to be a co-ed program for 14 and up but we used it for our Priests only.  I see no reason why we can't keep the Cubs as an all boys program in the church.

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

If there hadn't been Mutual, I would never had developed any friends in the Church save one...and while not Utah, California was a Mormon dense area.  While in Illinois, the only activity I had with other Mormon kids was in Primary.

Peers have enormous influence on youth.  Sunday lessons where many are passive, where they are often more focused on adults rather than their peers don't provide a real chance at getting to be friends, having fun, developing a desire to be with others who share certain values with you in a religious community.

Balance is good. I'm not saying we should do away with youth activities altogether, but I think we have way too many (especially weekly).

Granted, my family is super-close (we are homebodies, and would rather stay home together than go to activities, but we go to support them much more often than we get anything out of them). Others are different and, as you pointed out, very much need them (more than others). 

I think a good balance is somewhere between where we currently are and far, far fewer and less frequent. 

I remember high school in Chicago when *I* was the activation project because I always had school sports. When approached, my dad asked if anyone was concerned about my testimony or my Church attendance, and the answer was always "Oh, no! Not at all." They were just concerned because I didn't go to Scouts. I was made the basketball coach at 16, which was fun. 

 

ETA: Anyone have that Gene R. Cook book excerpt quote handy? Duncan's BYU-I link is now inoperable. He spoke of how his family, when they got home from Brazil or Latin America, were bombarded with like 36 church and school activities in one month. When they chose to go to very few, their bishop tried to reactivate them, and he explained that they went to the "requireds," and then chose which of the "optionals" they would go to. A Scout fundraiser was the straw that broke the camel's back, and the bishop initially told him he didn't feel like their family was supporting ward activities. Elder Cook responded that he thought activities were supposed to support the family, not the other way around. I'm not doing the lengthy quote justice. 

 

Edited April 25, 2018 by rongo

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

Balance is good. I'm not saying we should do away with youth activities altogether, but I think we have way too many (especially weekly).

Granted, my family is super-close (we are homebodies, and would rather stay home together than go to activities, but we go to support them much more often than we get anything out of them). Others are different and, as you pointed out, very much need them (more than others). 

I think a good balance is somewhere between where we currently are and far, far fewer and less frequent. 

I remember high school in Chicago when *I* was the activation project because I always had school sports. When approached, my dad asked if anyone was concerned about my testimony or my Church attendance, and the answer was always "Oh, no! Not at all." They were just concerned because I didn't go to Scouts. I was made the basketball coach at 16, which was fun. 

 

For kids who are shy, if it isn't weekly, you might as well not bother, imo.  Each encounter will feel like one has to start over again and one will never get past the point where anxiety about how others are acting, will react to one diminishes because one becomes familiar enough with the others' behaviour.

I would get rid of the additional activities before I got rid of the weekly ones.

My family was very close as well, it made life harder, not easier, imo, when it was time to leave...and often before that.  Having more independent activity with others outside my family would have, imo, made us better suited for adulthood.

Edited April 25, 2018 by Calm

[bsjkki]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I don't see why this would necessitate that the Church drop Scouting.  Never in my adult life has the Church run our scouting program in a way that was perfectly aligned with the way the BSA designed it (Tigers? 11yo Scouts?).  For example, Venturing was designed to be a co-ed program for 14 and up but we used it for our Priests only.  I see no reason why we can't keep the Cubs as an all boys program in the church.

Cubs is a good program but it is hard to staff and it costs a ton of money. The girls get 1/4 of what the cubs get in my ward. The money goes to all those pins and badges and they go to a 3 day cub camp each year (which my stake partially hosts) and the girls get nothing like it. In my Stake, most if not all the Primary Presidents would cheer if cub scouts went away and was turned into the Activity Day for boys program. We would lose out on the structure and requirements of cub scouts but I feel the church could provide more guidance/suggested ideas for the program and it would be much better. 

[bsjkki]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

Balance is good. I'm not saying we should do away with youth activities altogether, but I think we have way too many (especially weekly).

Granted, my family is super-close (we are homebodies, and would rather stay home together than go to activities, but we go to support them much more often than we get anything out of them). Others are different and, as you pointed out, very much need them (more than others). 

I think a good balance is somewhere between where we currently are and far, far fewer and less frequent. 

I remember high school in Chicago when *I* was the activation project because I always had school sports. When approached, my dad asked if anyone was concerned about my testimony or my Church attendance, and the answer was always "Oh, no! Not at all." They were just concerned because I didn't go to Scouts. I was made the basketball coach at 16, which was fun. 

 

I had a firm testimony as a teenager and was very faithful but did not attend weekly activities. I had no friends at church and it was awkward for me. I was very active in my high school. I was in Marching Band, on the tennis team and also in clubs. I also had a job once I turned 16...there really wasn't time to go. My mom prayed about it and got the answer to just leave me alone and that I was fine. I was fine...I think every family could consider week night activities as "extra" and not necessarily required. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

So, while the priests can pretty easily plan a 4 day river rafting trip out of state for example, the Laurels really can't. 

Is this all about budget somehow where you live? If so, in our ward, the YM and YW budgets are identical. It's always been that way. In fact, they base it on numbers of active youth, so in the past our YW often had more.

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, bsjkki said:

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.

Then they will be violating very clear guidelines from the Church:

Quote

“What we hope will be one of the major changes with using the Young Women Camp Guide is the involvement of the youth camp leaders,” Sister Bonnie L. Oscarson, Young Women General President, told the Church News. “We want to see them take a major role in both determining what needs to happen at camp and in leading camp activities.”

 

Quote

Sister Neill F. Marriott, Second Counselor in the Young Women General Presidency, added, “Because the new guide is principle based, it allows the youth camp leaders space to receive personal revelation for their own camp. They aren’t just told what to do. They are practicing the leadership principle of counseling together and learning to seek direction from the Spirit to meet their needs. These skills will bless the young women, their families, and the Church for years to come.”

 

Edited April 25, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Is this all about budget somehow where you live? If so, in our ward, the YM and YW budgets are identical. It's always been that way. In fact, they base it on numbers of active youth, so in the past our YW often had more.

It wasn't just budget in the past.  YW couldn't go out of province when my son was in YM, while his group went out of country to .Nauvoo and off to all parts of Canada, including ocean kayaking.

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Is this all about budget somehow where you live? If so, in our ward, the YM and YW budgets are identical. It's always been that way. In fact, they base it on numbers of active youth, so in the past our YW often had more.

Our budgets are the same as well, it’s just that the YW program is set up so that the YW have less say in how the budget is used for the older girls than the YMs program is. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

YW couldn't go out of province when my son was in YM, while his group went out of country to .Nauvoo and off to all parts of Canada, including ocean kayaking.

I find this bizarre. It's certainly not in any handbook.

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The YW program is set up so that the YW have less say in how the budget is used for the older girls than the YMs program is. 

I don't understand this. Class presidents should still be the ones who plan and execute activities. What in 'the program' is giving them less say?

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I find this bizarre. It's certainly not in any handbook.

I don't understand this. Class presidents should still be the ones who plan and execute activities. What in 'the program' is giving them less say?

It was almost 20 years ago.  I wasn't in YWs so don't know if the restriction was local or not, but I never heard of YWs taking these kinds of long distance excursions anywhere.  YWs here in Utah, I have heard of going camping in one of the southern Utah national parks (and that was considered unusual), but never out of state.

Edited April 25, 2018 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

Just now, Calm said:

It was almost 20 years ago.  I wasn't in YWs so don't know if the restriction was local or not, but I never heard of YWs taking these kinds of long distance excursions anywhere.

As Rongo already pointed out, no one should have been. And where on earth did the boys come up with money for travel like that???

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I find this bizarre. It's certainly not in any handbook.

I don't understand this. Class presidents should still be the ones who plan and execute activities. What in 'the program' is giving them less say?

They have to go to girls' camp, a specific location and time and allocated funds to the whole program must be used to pay for it, I believe.

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

As Rongo already pointed out, no one should have been. And where on earth did the boys come up with money for travel like that???

Parking in our church parking lot for Stampeder and other games.  5$ a car (most places same distance charged more iirc so we filled up quickly) and they were really good at squeezing them in.  Parking needed to be supervised for liability reasons so why not make money off it?  (My memory is that after fundraising was curtailed, they got special permission, but it has been awhile...I remember there was grumbling about sharing it, but given it was a unique opportunity, I think it was right to share it even if those wards didn't contribute to collecting it...it became as much as a service project as a fundraiser).

Funds were split with YWs among the wards that shared the building, eventually later with the whole stake.

We had thirteen YM in my son's group.  I think all went but one relatively inactive that refused to do the training.

Also there were two fund raising projects...once a year bottle drives for YM (garage full at least, drinking was popular) and telephone book deliveries for YW iirc.

Edited April 25, 2018 by Calm

[strappinglad]

In today's society , in contrast to 50+ years ago, the standard outdoor activity is going to the Mall. Leaders feel inadequate if faced with activities they have little to no familiarity with . That means much more training in a variety of outdoor events. Callings can't be 2 year stints either.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

In today's society , in contrast to 50+ years ago, the standard outdoor activity is going to the Mall. Leaders feel inadequate if faced with activities they have little to no familiarity with . That means much more training in a variety of outdoor events. Callings can't be 2 year stints either.

Stake specialists or at least a list of local willing experts that can be called for either YMs or YWs would be smart, imo.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I find this bizarre. It's certainly not in any handbook.

I don't understand this. Class presidents should still be the ones who plan and execute activities. What in 'the program' is giving them less say?

Class presidencies have to work within the parameters that the church sets up. One parameter (within the USA church anyway) is girls camp.  Girls camp uses up hundreds of dollars of the YW budget each year (sometimes over $1000) and class presidencies have no say in that.

The loss of that money impacts what other activities YW class presidencies can plan.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

They have to go to girls' camp, a specific location and time and allocated funds to the whole program must be used to pay for it, I believe.

 

41 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Girls camp uses up hundreds of dollars of the YW budget each year (sometimes over $1000) and class presidencies have no say in that.

The loss of that money impacts what other activities YW class presidencies can plan.  

Is YW camp a ward activity where you both live? Here, it's a stake activity, and therefore it's funded out of the stake budget.

ETA: It looks like it can be funded out of the ward, but it shouldn't do damage to the budget (and other activities) in the process:

Quote

Funding for an Annual Camp or Similar Activity

If the ward budget does not have sufficient funds to pay for an annual Young Women camp or similar activity, leaders may ask participants to pay for part or all of it. If funds from participants are not sufficient, the bishop may authorize one group fund-raising activity each year that complies with the guidelines in 13.6.8.

In no case should the expenses or travel for an annual camp or similar activity be excessive. Nor should the lack of personal funds prohibit a member from participating.

 

Edited April 26, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

I understand that it is put on by the stake (women are called to do so), but the wards pay per girl as part of the funding.

"Damage" is in the eye of the beholder.  Many will not ask for funds for an activity unless they know the funds are already there.  They work within the budget given them.

Edited April 26, 2018 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

I don't see why this would necessitate that the Church drop Scouting.  Never in my adult life has the Church run our scouting program in a way that was perfectly aligned with the way the BSA designed it (Tigers? 11yo Scouts?).  For example, Venturing was designed to be a co-ed program for 14 and up but we used it for our Priests only.  I see no reason why we can't keep the Cubs as an all boys program in the church.

Time will tell.