If you combine with another ward in your calling. ..

[Rain]

I am the wolf den leader in my ward.  We combine with another ward for most things - pack meeting, pack activities, planning at round table, entering requirements on scoutbook.com etc. Our den combines with a third ward just for den meeting - she takes care of the requirements on her own.

We do this because we have very few boys. Sometimes we will have boys from all the wards. Sometimes from just 1. 

My thinking is that these are all my boys in all the wards.  In my calling I am here for all of them. Since June we haven't had boys from the second ward. The other leader has seemed to do things as a favor to me and mentions things like not coming to pack meeting because she has no ward boys in scouts right now. 

So I'm curious.  If you were combined with another ward for lack of members in your ward,  would you feel it is still your responsibility when none of the youth are of age or would you feel you had a break? 

Or just never occurred to me to think like my Co den leader and I'm wondering if that is how others feel about it too.

[rpn]

When you are combined, you aren't there just for your kiddos.   Two deep leadership is required.   The other leader must not understand that.

[Prof]

I would view my calling as to the pack, not just the boys from my ward in the pack.

I would definitely attend, whether boys from my ward were present or not.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

I am the wolf den leader in my ward.  We combine with another ward for most things - pack meeting, pack activities, planning at round table, entering requirements on scoutbook.com etc. Our den combines with a third ward just for den meeting - she takes care of the requirements on her own.

We do this because we have very few boys. Sometimes we will have boys from all the wards. Sometimes from just 1. 

My thinking is that these are all my boys in all the wards.  In my calling I am here for all of them. Since June we haven't had boys from the second ward. The other leader has seemed to do things as a favor to me and mentions things like not coming to pack meeting because she has no ward boys in scouts right now. 

So I'm curious.  If you were combined with another ward for lack of members in your ward,  would you feel it is still your responsibility when none of the youth are of age or would you feel you had a break? 

Or just never occurred to me to think like my Co den leader and I'm wondering if that is how others feel about it too.

I am the scout master in my ward and we combine scouts with the entire stake due to low numbers.  We have discussed this issue and agree that our responsibility is for all the boys in the stake and not just our ward.  I go on all the campouts etc. even when no boys from my ward are there. 

[Jane_Doe]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

I am the wolf den leader in my ward.  We combine with another ward for most things - pack meeting, pack activities, planning at round table, entering requirements on scoutbook.com etc. Our den combines with a third ward just for den meeting - she takes care of the requirements on her own.

We do this because we have very few boys. Sometimes we will have boys from all the wards. Sometimes from just 1. 

My thinking is that these are all my boys in all the wards.  In my calling I am here for all of them. Since June we haven't had boys from the second ward. The other leader has seemed to do things as a favor to me and mentions things like not coming to pack meeting because she has no ward boys in scouts right now. 

So I'm curious.  If you were combined with another ward for lack of members in your ward,  would you feel it is still your responsibility when none of the youth are of age or would you feel you had a break? 

Or just never occurred to me to think like my Co den leader and I'm wondering if that is how others feel about it too.

Duty is to the boys.  Boys = all the boys under my jurisdiction (like me having all the wolves), regardless of what their home ward is, they are 'my' boy to take care of.  I do my thing, and I'll let you do yours.  If you want to do something together or ask for help, then I'm there for you, but else I'll let you run your show with me being peanut gallery.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

When I was a newly called Young Men president 12 years ago, a member of the Young Men General Presidency came and did training with us. He told us that under no circumstances should wards be combining for the purpose of activities for a couple of reasons.

First, leadership and responsibility get muddled. Who, for example, presides over an activity that involves boys from two wards? Can a teachers quorum president in Ward A preside over the boys in Ward B? No, they have their own president. This is the express reason, he said, why activities need to be held at the level of the quorum (where the quorum president presides), at the level of the ward (where the bishopric presides) or at the level of the stake (where stake leaders can preside). A person whose calling is within a ward simply cannot function across multiple wards.

Second, combining wards to boost numbers merely hides the real problem of low numbers, discouraging active ministering to those in the ward who aren't currently engaged. We certainly saw that with our boys. Our teachers quorum president was singlehandedly responsible for bringing about a dozen boys into activity once he realised that was how he could stop having activities that consisted of just him, his quorum adviser, and the assigned bishopric member.

We were told 'no exceptions, ever'. 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

Duty is to the boys.  Boys = all the boys under my jurisdiction (like me having all the wolves), regardless of what their home ward is, they are 'my' boy to take care of.  I do my thing, and I'll let you do yours.  If you want to do something together or ask for help, then I'm there for you, but else I'll let you run your show with me being peanut gallery.  

I don't understand this in reference to my question.  Could you explain more please?

[Rain]

58 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

When I was a newly called Young Men president 12 years ago, a member of the Young Men General Presidency came and did training with us. He told us that under no circumstances should wards be combining for the purpose of activities for a couple of reasons.

First, leadership and responsibility get muddled. Who, for example, presides over an activity that involves boys from two wards? Can a teachers quorum president in Ward A preside over the boys in Ward B? No, they have their own president. This is the express reason, he said, why activities need to be held at the level of the quorum (where the quorum president presides), at the level of the ward (where the bishopric presides) or at the level of the stake (where stake leaders can preside). A person whose calling is within a ward simply cannot function across multiple wards.

Second, combining wards to boost numbers merely hides the real problem of low numbers, discouraging active ministering to those in the ward who aren't currently engaged. We certainly saw that with our boys. Our teachers quorum president was singlehandedly responsible for bringing about a dozen boys into activity once he realised that was how he could stop having activities that consisted of just him, his quorum adviser, and the assigned bishopric member.

We were told 'no exceptions, ever'. 

I get what he was saying, but I've never heard of it from anyone else. Besides, we are already combined.

I really don't know what we would do if not combined.  Now with new youth protection training in scouts, not only do we have to have 2 deep, we have to have both who have gone through the training. So, no longer can the primary president, or my friend or whoever help when one of the other leaders are gone. I know this den leader was the 8th person called before someone accepted the calling. I know it's been similar in my ward. 

It is also tough for the boys to play a sports game (one of the requirements) and other things when they are the only boy in the ward. 

If we were doing activity days instead of scouts there would be a lot of things I would do differently.

So IF you were combined, how would you handle things in the months when there were no boys of age within your ward?

 

[Jane_Doe]

28 minutes ago, Rain said:

I don't understand this in reference to my question.  Could you explain more please?

In our combined situation, ward A is in charge of the wolves, ward B in charge of the bears, etc.  Ward A (wolves) provides the wolf leadership, arrange activities, etc for all wolves, regardless of that boy's home ward.  The only time the leadership from ward B gets involved with the wolves are:

1) When we're going a combined event like an awards night, or

2) if Ward B have a new boy who'll be a wolf, they'll meet with the Ward A wolf leaders and tell them about that kid, give contact info, etc.  

3) If for some reason they ask for help.

Otherwise the wolf leaders run the wolves without any involvement from the other groups.  Like the wolf leader will even decide to meet at different days/times/buildings than the other groups, based on what works for them.

14 minutes ago, Rain said:

So IF you were combined, how would you handle things in the months when there were no boys of age within your ward?

Our wards are combined because of low numbers too.  This isn't because people are inactive, but because we just don't have many boy scouts-- even pooling multiple wards most dens are only ~2 boys.  Now, if you wanted to talk nursery: we have over 30 kids in nursery in our ward alone.  That's just the demographics of my area.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

When I was a newly called Young Men president 12 years ago, a member of the Young Men General Presidency came and did training with us. He told us that under no circumstances should wards be combining for the purpose of activities for a couple of reasons.

First, leadership and responsibility get muddled. Who, for example, presides over an activity that involves boys from two wards? Can a teachers quorum president in Ward A preside over the boys in Ward B? No, they have their own president. This is the express reason, he said, why activities need to be held at the level of the quorum (where the quorum president presides), at the level of the ward (where the bishopric presides) or at the level of the stake (where stake leaders can preside). A person whose calling is within a ward simply cannot function across multiple wards.

Second, combining wards to boost numbers merely hides the real problem of low numbers, discouraging active ministering to those in the ward who aren't currently engaged. We certainly saw that with our boys. Our teachers quorum president was singlehandedly responsible for bringing about a dozen boys into activity once he realised that was how he could stop having activities that consisted of just him, his quorum adviser, and the assigned bishopric member.

We were told 'no exceptions, ever'. 

Is that in the general handbook of instructions?  I have never heard that instruction before.  Unless that is in the handbook as general instruction to the whole church, it can only be taken as instruction specifically for your ward only.  Neither has our stake president, obviously. Combining has worked wonders in our stake, and in reactivating many boys who are more interested in attending activities where it is not 3-4 leaders and 1-2 boys (sometimes autistic).  We see a much better turn out for activities, campouts, etc.  things work so much better.  Many doubted that it would work, but they are all singing a different tune now.  It has been a major success in our stake.

Edited August 22, 2018 by pogi

[Jane_Doe]

46 minutes ago, pogi said:

Is that in the general handbook of instructions?  I have never heard that instruction before.  Unless that is in the handbook as general instruction to the whole church, it can only be taken as instruction specifically for your ward only.  Neither has our stake president, obviously. Combining has worked wonders in our stake, and in reactivating many boys who are more interested in attending activities where it is not 3-4 leaders and 1-2 boys (sometimes autistic).  We see a much better turn out for activities, campouts, etc.  things work so much better.  Many doubted that it would work, but they are all singing a different tune now.  It has been a major success in our stake.

I have seen this as well.  Kids need fellowship, just like adults.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

So IF you were combined, how would you handle things in the months when there were no boys of age within your ward?

If I'm in a ward calling and my ward is not participating, then I would be absent. If people want me to have keys to serve boys in another ward, they need to give me a stake calling. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Is that in the general handbook of instructions?

The principle is certainly in the Handbook:

Quote

Most Church activities are held at the ward level. However, local leaders are encouraged to hold periodic stake and multistake activities when these activities are better able to accomplish the purposes outlined in 13.1 ...

Stake and multistake activities are particularly beneficial for youth, young single adults, and women, especially in areas where there are few members or where members seldom associate in large groups. Well-planned stake and multistake activities can give members confidence in their Church membership and a wider circle of friendships.

The leaders who begin the process of planning stake and multistake activities are generally the stake Young Men, Young Women, and Relief Society presidencies.

Note that you have three options: activities at the ward level, periodic activities at the stake level, and periodic activities at the multistake level. That leadership and oversight needs to match the level is made even clearer in subsequent paragraphs:

Quote

All stake activities must be approved by the stake presidency and are coordinated in stake council meetings. Stake leaders ... ensure that stake activities supplement ward activities rather than compete with them.

If stake presidents feel that a multistake activity would benefit the members of their stakes, they may request permission from a member of the Presidency of the Seventy or the Area Presidency.

Ward leaders have the keys to hold ward activities. Stake leaders have the keys to hold stake activities. The area presidency have the keys to hold multistake activities. Literally no one has the keys to hold multiward activities that are not stake activities.

My understanding is that you hold regular stake activities? Do you have a stake calling? Are these stake activities coordinated in stake council meetings? I think that is where the issue starts to get complicated. If you have an all-stake deacons quorum camp, for example, which deacons quorum presidency plans and presides over it? And if the answer doesn't include a deacons quorum presidency, where exactly are these young men exercising their keys and learning to lead/plan/act? What do their ministry efforts in their ward look like?

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Unless that is in the handbook as general instruction to the whole church, it can only be taken as instruction specifically for your ward only.

For what it's worth, the instruction was given in a regional training meeting for all stake presidency members, bishopric members, and ward and stake Young Men presidency members. And we were told in advance that we were going to be corrected because we were doing things in ways that are out of harmony with priesthood keys.

Edited August 22, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Rain]

2 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

In our combined situation, ward A is in charge of the wolves, ward B in charge of the bears, etc.  Ward A (wolves) provides the wolf leadership, arrange activities, etc for all wolves, regardless of that boy's home ward.  The only time the leadership from ward B gets involved with the wolves are:

1) When we're going a combined event like an awards night, or

2) if Ward B have a new boy who'll be a wolf, they'll meet with the Ward A wolf leaders and tell them about that kid, give contact info, etc.  

3) If for some reason they ask for help.

Otherwise the wolf leaders run the wolves without any involvement from the other groups.  Like the wolf leader will even decide to meet at different days/times/buildings than the other groups, based on what works for them.

Our wards are combined because of low numbers too.  This isn't because people are inactive, but because we just don't have many boy scouts-- even pooling multiple wards most dens are only ~2 boys.  Now, if you wanted to talk nursery: we have over 30 kids in nursery in our ward alone.  That's just the demographics of my area.

Thanks.  That makes much more sense to me.  In our group, each den has one leader from each ward.

[bsjkki]

We are having combined 11 year old scouts and we run into your same problem. I feel if both wards are contributing a leader they need to be there whether boys attend from their ward or not. Two deep is required. The leaders tend to not like having to be there when their are no boys from there ward. 

I can’t wait for all scouting to end next year. I agree with Hamda Tuhan that combing can lead to problems but this is how it has been done for years and both Bishoprics approved the move. The problem is low numbers and it is still not working well.

Running the program with the flexibility of activity days will solve most of these problems. 

 

Edited August 22, 2018 by bsjkki

[Rain]

13 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

The principle is certainly in the Handbook:

Note that you have three options: activities at the ward level, periodic activities at the stake level, and periodic activities at the multistake level. That leadership and oversight needs to match the level is made even clearer in subsequent paragraphs:

Ward leaders have the keys to hold ward activities. Stake leaders have the keys to hold stake activities. The area presidency have the keys to hold multistake activities. Literally no one has the keys to hold multiward activities that are not stake activities.

My understanding is that you hold regular stake activities? Do you have a stake calling? Are these stake activities coordinated in stake council meetings? I think that is where the issue starts to get complicated? If you have an all-stake deacons quorum camp, for example, which deacons quorum presidency plans and presides over it? And if the answer doesn't include a deacons quorum presidency, where exactly are these young men exercising their keys and learning to lead/plan/act? What do their ministry efforts in their ward look like?

Perhaps that is some of our differences. I, nor the boys, have keys in cub scouts. Cub scouts is set up very differently than YM.

The only stake activity we have had was day camp and in the last 2 years I have never seen a member of the stake presidency there or at any planning meeting - no one with keys. We have only had the stake primary counselor over cub scouting since she was called one year ago and 2 scouting men - I just looked it up and one is a high counselor. The other is a technology specialist. So who presides? I don't know if it is the stake primary counselor or the high counselor or someone else? 

If you have 2 den leaders from the same ward who presides there?

We have asked for just 1 stake pack, but were told no.

There are no stake council meetings in our stake. I know, because when I had a stake calling and was supposed to go to them, I asked. Now that we have a brand new stake presidency, maybe that will change.

Thank you for letting me know you wouldn't show up. I was just trying to see if my thinking was unusual or if most people would plan on coming. It would just never occur to me, when I am working with these boys every week together with the other leaders and planning what to do with the boys (totally different with an 8yo wolf den than with a deacon's quorem) that I would have a break for a month or 2 when my ward's boys age out before the new ones come in.  It really surprised me.

[Rain]

10 hours ago, bsjkki said:

We are having combined 11 year old scouts and we run into your same problem. I feel if both wards are contributing a leader they need to be there whether boys attend from their ward or not. Two deep is required. The leaders tend to not like having to be there when their are no boys from their ward. 

I can’t wait for all scouting to end next year. I agree with Hamda Tuhan that combing can lead to problems but this is how it has been done for years and both Bishoprics approved the move. The problem is low numbers and it is still not working well.

Running the program with the flexibility of activity days will solve most of these problems. 

 

Thank you. So it isn't unusual to think that way then.  

When we first started I thought it was great. My co-den leader and I worked so well together. Then she was released because of health problems in her family. This is my third partner from that ward and I have only been in 2 years.

I also look forward to whatever is planned. I think the basic idea behind scouts is really good and I try to emphasize the scout law and oath, but trying to run it can be a real headache. 

Edited August 22, 2018 by Rain

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

If I'm in a ward calling and my ward is not participating, then I would be absent. If people want me to have keys to serve boys in another ward, they need to give me a stake calling. 

I see your point, but Scout leaders have no keys, except maybe to the storage room. 😎

Sometimes I wonder about the territorial dealings of wards and stakes when it comes to activities. Of course the priesthood quorums follow the directions of D&C 107, but Scouts and Young Women?  Would I rather be in a troop of 20 boys divided into 3 or 4 patrols, or in a troop with just me and the scoutmaster? Let me think about that for a minute. I pick the big group.

After decades of scouting experience,  I have come to believe the stake should be the troop and the wards should be patrols....it’s for the good of the boys, not the convenience of the leaders.

An integral part of the purposes and joys of scouting (and hopefully of whatever we have to replace it) is to run with a den, a pack, a patrol, a troop, not a couple of adults. Most boys are pack animals. A den, pack, patrol, or troop of one or two boys is unfair to the boys. It cannot give him that experience.

When I rule the universe, LDS ward and stake boys (and girls) will be encouraged to combine numbers to get the critical mass needed to for real fellowship, friendship, camaraderie, buddyhood, competition, and fun when the situation requires it for the good of the kids. Scouting or no scouting. We can easily figure out the details and lines of authority. It don’t make no sense otherwise. 

Edited August 22, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Hamba Tuhan]

27 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I see your point, but Scout leaders have no keys, except maybe to the storage room.

Sorry, I didn't mean specifically priesthood keys, but I clearly should have followed the example of Elder Oaks and written 'priesthood authority':

Quote

Whoever functions in an office or calling received from one who holds priesthood keys exercises priesthood authority in performing her or his assigned duties.

I'll restate: If people want me to have authority to serve boys in another ward, they need to give me a stake calling.

Edited August 22, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

This is my third partner from that ward and I have only been in 2 years.

And whom are you supposed to raise this concern with? The other ward's bishop -- a man who has no responsibility over or to you?

This perfectly illustrates the problem that was pointed out to us in our priesthood training about combined ward things. It violates the entire structure of the Church and leaves people inadequately shepherded.

Edited August 22, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

Thank you. So it isn't unusable to think that way then.  

When we first started I thought it was great. My co-den leader and I worked so well together. Then she was released because of health problems in her family. This is my third partner from that ward and I have only been in 2 years.

I also look forward to whatever is planned. I think the basic idea behind scouts is really good and I try to emphasize the scout law and oath, but trying to run it can be a real headache. 

Bless you for taking it seriously. Lucky boys!

 

12 hours ago, Rain said:

So I'm curious.  If you were combined with another ward for lack of members in your ward,  would you feel it is still your responsibility when none of the youth are of age or would you feel you had a break? 

Or just never occurred to me to think like my Co den leader and I'm wondering if that is how others feel about it too.

If there were no boys from the other ward, IMO, that leader should be released and you should have an assistant called from your ward. If the time comes when there are boys from both wards attending, each ward should provide a leader.

[Bernard Gui]

16 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Sorry, I didn't mean specifically priesthood keys, but I clearly should have followed the example of Elder Oaks and written 'priesthood authority':

I'll restate: If people want me to have authority to serve boys in another ward, they need to give me a stake calling.

Simple. Make all scout callings stake callings.

[Bernard Gui]

16 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

And whom are you supposed to raise this concern with? The other ward's bishop -- a man who has no responsibility over or to you?

This perfectly illustrates the problem that was pointed out to us in our priesthood training about combined ward things. It violates the entire structure of the Church and leaves people inadequately shepherded.

I think those issues could easily be resolved. Bishops have telephones. Or they can walk over to each other’s office for a chat.

Edited August 22, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Hamba Tuhan]

40 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Simple. Make all scout callings stake callings.

 

38 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I think those issues could easily be resolved. Bishops have telephones. Or they can walk over to each other’s office for a chat.

I don't have an inherent issue with making something a stake calling if it's genuinely occurring at a stake level, but then it's not about one bishop chatting with a fellow bishop. It's about the stake taking responsibility for the matter, and that works since a stake president is not a bishop's peer. Bishops don't get to tell other bishops what to do ... or what they're doing wrong. The concept of stewardship is really important in the Church for a reason.

Edited August 22, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Bernard Gui]

47 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

I don't have an inherent issue with making something a stake calling if it's genuinely occurring at a stake level, but then it's not about one bishop chatting with a fellow bishop. It's about the stake taking responsibility for the matter, and that works since a stake president is not a bishop's peer. Bishops don't get to tell other bishops what to do ... or what they're doing wrong. The concept of stewardship is really important in the Church for a reason.

I understand stewardship and lines of authority very well. I had plenty of conversations with other bishops to iron out wrinkles, fix things that needed fixing, and solve problems without involving the SP,  but I never had the experience of one telling me what to do or not to do or me directing them in that way. 

In this case, if the wards are running a combined Scouting program, the bishops could easily decide what to do when there are no boys attending. It wouldn’t be a matter of pulling rank or abusing the lines of authority, but a simple matter of cooperation. I don’t see the problem.

Another example of unwarranted territoriality...our stake wanted to have seminary at a building in another stake that was adjacent to the high school. They asked the president for permission to use a room, but were denied because that would supposedly create stewardship problems. I don’t see the problem.

 

Edited August 22, 2018 by Bernard Gui