BDPT00

My hunch (if it's a Scouting patch) is Northeast District. 

So many sites?  Just use the insignia guide. 

I had no idea about this, so I finally asked my husband, who went through lds scouts.  He confirmed that this is true.  When he turned 14, he changed his red epaulets for orange epaulets.  Everything else in his scouting, remained the same.  That is how it is in my son's troop as well, though there is only one, active 14 year old scout.  (The program is slowly improving, which meant they lost most boys that are older than 14.)  

This is a good example of why I think it's a farce.  The rigidity of this LDS unit makes it totally dysfunctional for the 14 year old.  Why not leave him in the troop, and get something out of the leadership opportunities.  It would help him, as well as the younger Scouts.  Pulling him out leaves the younger Scouts to flounder in a program which sounds more like older Webelos (no youth leadership).  He may as well be a Lone Scout.

I visited AHG's HQ last weekend.  In a presentation, one youth lady said that they create the perfect environment for failure.  I thought that was a very clever statement, and it says a lot.  In a good Scouting unit, a Scout feels safe trying something and failing without ridicule, so he can try it again.  We as parents (and Scout leaders) are afraid to allow our kids to fail.  We can fix that if we keep our eyes on the big picture instead of every little detail that can go wrong at the moment. 

That is like stating that because BSA requests you not drink alcohol  or smoke on an outing then you can not have a drop of alcohol or smoke when not at a scouting event sitting in your own home.

That's fine, however I feel that posting said activities on Facebook is very wrong and immature.  I see it all the time where I live, and I fail to see how posting a picture of some sort of brew is anywhere close to setting a good example for our Scouts (or the Scouters we train). 

Giving her a suspension sounds appropriate, but I wouldn't involve the committee.  Just do it, and the committee can talk about it later.  The end result of this might be good for the troop.  If the Scout's behavior was poor, it might be indicative of actions by other Scouts (I wouldn't pretend to guess that here), and this provides an opportunity to address how Scouts should behave.  It also provides an opportunity to discuss among the adults how they are expected to behave.  There's almost always an opportunity to make something positive come out of a negative experience.  Find ways to make that happen. 

Do what you've always done for all of the Scout . . . provide opportunities.  If they take advantage of them, great.  If they don't, too bad.  Scouts who have this game figured out will take advantage of opportunities that come their way.  They'll also create their own, and share them with others.

I don't think there are any standards, no.  The smallest council I'm aware of is Marin County, but they're also the richest.  I doubt there will ever be a merger involving them.  The huge councils are North Dakota and Montana.  Not enough people to split them up.  Camps and roundtables could easily call for an overnighter. 

Sounds like a wise idea to me, just based upon numbers.  They're both pretty small.

He's in a political position, and his move might (just might) have something to do with that.  He claims that he's doing for others, and he looks pretty sincere when he says it.  Not sure at all about the motivation.

If they can't hire you for who you are, why would you want to work for them?  Tell 'em who you are.

Sergeant at arms?  Newbie?

Staying and 'turning the troop on its ear' doesn't sound like a wise idea.  What is it you want?  Do you want to destroy the troop, or do you want your son to have a good Scouting experience?  I don't think you can do both.  Is your mission to help your son, or to punish a few guys who don't get it?  Pick one.

Grant's Tomb?  Nobody.  Grant & wife are entombed (not buried).

As suggested a few weeks back, there's a video available on line that might help both troops to understand these kids, and how to be an effective leader. Check it out: http://training.northernstarbsa.org/info/UnitTrainingResources.aspx

Funny ... sounded like a leader speaking. 

Precisely.  And whatever happens this round won't be enough.  There's blood in the water.

Thank you.  What I was trying to say was that only one side of this particular 'battle' is willing to compromise.  The problem is that what's being compromised is values.  We clearly have disagreements about those values, but one side in this issue is trying to save a national institution based on values.  The other has a 'take no prisoners' approach, and it's working. 

Your argument has two opposing forces.  One wins.  The other loses.  Is that victory?  Is that compromise? 

The lead or follow question was rhetorical.  Scouting prides itself on teaching and demonstrating leadership. To me, the moral high ground gave in to social media.  That's not leadership, and the line in the sand continues to move. 

And therein lies the problem.  This movement reminds me of the "The Blob."  No matter its speed, it just keeps on moving.  As long as one is willing to compromise (as we have done, and will do again), the Blob will keep coming until it destroys whatever is in its path.  I don't believe that that movement's intentions are to improve Scouting (which has also been known as a movement, but now seems to have lost its direction). 

Where are we headed?  Are we going to lead, or are we going to follow? 

The definitions above need to include the rest of the LGBTQIA ... XYZ (leaving room for an ever-growing definition) menu.  Let's spell it all out, and then ask ourselves if this is the role model we are seeking for our young boys.  Pedophilia has nothing to do with this argument (although there's room for a P in the menu if it somehow becomes a misunderstood and persecuted minority).  As they say in Shark Tank ... "I'm out."   

As for half the membership leaving, don't think so.   I have said this so many times but I don't think the majority of BSA members ever agreed with the membership policies.  It was forced on the organization by a conservative executive board.

You've got to be kidding.  If the executive board were more conservative, the membership policies would not have changed.  And now look where we are.

Regarding the 'influx' . . . I believe there will be none.  I think the door will only open in one direction (the one that says EXIT).  The now common position for most social media influenced opinions is that, "It's going to happen eventually anyway."  I hate that perspective, and I think it has a huge influence on the preverbal silent majority.  I think our society is a lot more conservative than we think, but along with that is the desire to not make waves.  The loud minority opinions are pretty pushy, and people go along just to get along.  I'm tired of it.  The squeaky wheel does indeed get the grease (That one's for you, Bad Wolf;  another Leslie Nielsen opportunity).

Then you're right where you belong.  It's a personal decision, and lots of people have different opinions.  The only opinion that matters is your own.  I think many made it clear that there are some bad apples out there, and what they wear on their shirts doesn't make any difference.  Some think it does.  Some don't.  And I'd have to think that most people just don't care.  We all have a tendency to judge people for whatever reason, and some think that knots on a shirt should have an influence on how we measure others.  Is that wise?  Is it not?  Do you care?