bacchus

Congrats!

Congrats! Hoot...

Once again the old argument: Check off requirements the first time they're done vs. when the requirement is mastered to the point that they can provide training on the subject in a college level course in a large auditorium. My fellow leaders have come to the decision that when the scouts complete the requirement they get it signed off. We will then continue to have the scouts perform the requirement, and re-teach to the younger scouts many times after that.

SP, Am I somehow reading that backward?

Abel, Isn't that the Youth Protection standard? Peregrin, I agree with your sentiment regarding Abel's friend and her troop. Shortridge, The religious instruction from scouting for the most part is applying the scout oath and law in the boys' lives. In addition, the boys learn to work with peers in their quorum, or 2-year age range (12-13, 14-15, 16+); much like team-building for that smaller group. Note that they also get some religious instruction in the Duty To God program, which is separate from the scouts but applies to the same age group 12+ (or the Faith in God pro

Shortridge, I was told by a church leader to seek out the best scoutmaster available, whether church member or not. At one time we had a Catholic serving in scouts and he was a great example and leader for the youth. I think we have a couple guys on this forum that fit into that category too. A non-member training boys to be good future priesthood holders, or rather to grow up as Christian men, is not really that much of a stretch. I run into good Christian scouters all the time. I think it surprises both the church members and the non-members that there is so much common ground once

DeanRX: "As a lawyer, you have to see the irony of a "private" organization that allows for one set of adjusted standards (LDS units), yet refuses to allow for an opposing set of standards in the same manner. All the while seeking (and getting) both public and private donations to fund its activities" It sounds like you are proposing allowing one set of adjusted standards (practicing gays and atheists), yet refusing to allow for an opposing set of standards in the same manner. All the while seeking (and getting) both public and private donations (including the bulk of the donations from

OGE, I'm not sure, just have to say my piece so as to dispel the myths.

Moose, our Ward was like that just a few short years ago. One guy made an effort to get some guys trained, and we had 6 fully-trained scouters at the next WB. We've become the flagship scouting program among the LDS units in our Stake. I hope your group turns their program into something like that.

Moose: "3) Although some LDS units are well run, many are not.. This never would even get the boy a chance to get over the fact it is manditory by discovering that it is a fun program. Adults [find a] way to suck all the fun out of the program. That goes for poorly run non-LDS units as well as LDS units, thing is with non-LDS the boys have the right to vote with their feet.." I pretty much agree with a caveat. When the LDS boys would have voted with their feet, they end up leaving scouts. It's not good either way. Really the only good way to avoid this is to keep the OUTing in Scouting

From another thread: "LDS rarely does go to roundtables or camporees. They choose to group all their units together and go to summer camp as a block, and just take the camp over for a week so they aren't with other types of units.. They really don't even want to do training with other types of units.. Then they do have their own different ways of running the program.. If it happened I don't think the LDS or the rest of the units would notice any difference at all.." The units in my Ward go to roundtables. We attend camporees when there are no scheduling conflicts, but then leave Satu

In other words, if somebody in the Church hierarchy said 17 years ago that the Church would drop scouting in a certain scenario, that doesn't necessarily take a "revelation" to change the stance. I'm not saying it would happen.

From another thread: "It's possible they might have a new revelation on the issue 17 years later, but I doubt it." I don't think scouting policies in the LDS Church are at the level of "revelation" you imply.

From another thread, "So no female scout leaders in LDS packs or troops." The reality: LDS Packs have many female scouters in them at all levels, Den, Pack, Cmte. Chair, Commissioner, RT Commissioner. LDS Troops "Women do not serve as leaders for young men of Aaronic Priesthood age [12+ years old] but may chair or serve on Scouting committees." 11-year-olds [New Scout Patrol] "Women leaders do not participate in overnight camping with these boys." But women are sometimes asked to be the leader. In cases where the 11-year-olds have a woman leader, a qualified male adult is inv

I haven't seen so much intolerance and spreading of myth in a while. All in one thread too! Reading through these I really see that there is need for some education and training. I'll try to bring up some topics in other threads; this one is just a bit too nasty right now.

OP: "I suspect that we may be challenged by some folk about BSA's recent re-statement of their discriminatory membership policy." No response is necessary; they came looking for a fight. You, as a representative of scouting should be courteous and avoid their drama like it was Smallpox.

#RejectedScoutBadges is now trending on Twitter. No idea why.

One of my scouts had a project repairing some trails in a national park. It took over 700 hours. I believe that's the record in my council. That's the exception though. My son's was ~120 (and he probably missed accounting for another 25-50). I usually see ~100 hours.

In my experience with the troops I have been involved in, those young men who earn Eagle stay in scouting until the 'fumes pull them away. Not a whole lot different from those who don't earn Eagle. I understand the frustration though, as I have heard comments from young men in other troops that they don't do scouts anymore because either 1) I'm already an Eagle, or 2) My friends are Eagle and don't go so there's nobody there for me to hang out with. Hopefully our own programs match the first paragraph.

I said that is the SM's worry, not that it is true. For example, if a young man earns Eagle at 17 1/2 and then you don't see him again that's a little different than if he earns Eagle at 14 and you never see him again. So of course scouters worry that a boy gets Eagle "too soon" and then disappears. But that's their worry, not mine. I just think it's a selfish reason to put one of your troop-based roadblocks in front of a young man who is working on rank advancement. It doesn't make much difference to me as I work with the Venturers and don't really lose them until they move out from

"The SM can really determine what is or is not important to the Scouts. This is a good example. If a SM concentrates on a "goal" of becoming Eagle, he shouldn't be surprised when his Scouts disappear after getting Eagle." -bnelon44 I think Bnelon hit the nail on the head. And isn't this everybody's worry? When you have a boy scout get Eagle and then they leave the program, that is an indictment of your program, that it's weak. It shows your program is somewhat imbalanced more toward one method over the rest.

OGE, That's like the old question as to what they call the guy who graduates medical school with the lowest GPA? Doctor.

Has he earned Eagle? yes. The better question is: Did you have to accept him into your Troop?

Seattle, "4) Two people will be selected to vote for US President in the Electoral College should Republicans win the state by a majority (unlikely)." It wouldn't surprise me. Romney is polling ahead in a number of states that the President won last time. This is shaping up to be worse than a Reagan landslide over Carter.

John, "I suspect it's a bigger issue that you think....especially in the South and the Midwest." They call that the ABR (anyone but Romney) vote. Actually they already came around; they had their choice to vote ABR during the primary to get it out of their system. With the good president trying to distract from the economy and make this a social issues campaign (such as this very thread) the republicans are getting behind Romney. The most recent fallout from the SSM announcement was a 8% lead in the polls for Romney.