RickChappell

MNBob, I don't disagree with you one bit. I was there once too. I learned about planning programs because I got tired of the results of not planning. Planning is not an arcane art, it can be taught learned in a relatively short time. For some it may take a few minutes, others may take considerably longer and need to practice, but it's just not that hard. Sure, when you are talking to others, a lot of folks may assume you know more than you do - but if they assumed you knew less, you might be unhappy as well. But that is no different than anything we do. When we start a new job, we

Scoutfish, What I was really asking, is the boy just sitting there in the meetings? Is he not doing the activities that are going on? If so, why is he there. I guess my suggestion is that we don't need to tell the boys what reqs they're working on, just do fun activities. As long as the boy attends and participates, he will advance some. While I know that boys are competitive, advancement is only one of the methods. I know boys who never accomplish much in the way of Scouting advancement, but they love Scouting, and participate in everything that comes up. If advancement is all you have to

I was looking back over the comments on this thread, and there's a couple of items I don't understand. 1) Where does the assumption that it's either themes or advancement? It's not an either/or situation. The themes provide a context and advancement provides a framework. You do the reqs, but in context with the theme - my req goes along with the theme. 2) On a similar vein, where does it say Boy Scouts shouldn't do MBs? The Program Features are generally based on a MB or group of MBs. You fulfill many of the reqs during meetings and outings. There's always parts the boy has to do on

Here's what I'm struggling with on the slacker BIL example. Son doesn't want to work on req's with DL since he'll do them with Dad - what are they doing in the den meetings? With any planning at all, the activities fulfill reqs and everybody is doing them because that's what you are doing. You log the results in books and records, and advancement happens. The DL should be able to see exactly at any moment where every boy is, and can adjust weekly activities based on the den's needs. I don't need a BSA pre-planned program for that. You just ned someone to spend about 15 minutes with

It's not just a choice of finding the perfect person or settling for anyone who can't say no. The program is so not difficult. The folks who are challenged are generally those who don't get trained. The "extensive" training is pretty minimal. About 5 hours plus going to Roundtables each month has an amazing impact. Then, of course, there is the commissioner who can provide resources for the brand new leader. It seems to me the changes requiring training to be a leader that are being piloted now will have a stronger impact than this Cub Scouts Lite, I mean Cub Scouts 2010.

The Packs I've been in have always used themes, although not always the ones in the Program Helps or in the order suggested. The point was always "here's some ideas..." They're great for new leaders and units, but after some experience it's easy to develop your own. But the Helps always provided ideas and themes to fill out the year. The best part of the themes in my experience is how it provided a working format for den advancement and some cehesion for a program. The "fun" parts of the meeting were based on the themes - songs, cheers, advancement ceremonies. It provided a structure an

I do think it's interesting that in the FAQs for Cub Scouts 2010, they specifically mention the councils involved in the pilot can't show an increase in retention because the pilot sets were too small. What I can't understand is this concept that advancement shouldn't happen in the den. That has never been the Scoutng program. Advancement has always been a mix of den and home work. During the Top Hands video, the speaker comments thatadvancement was left to the parents and the boys glued cotton balls on a plate. If that was the types of programs he was familiar with, then no wonder they l

Gern, I don't take your comments with any malice whatsoever. The challenge is that the segregate implies an action. Your comment "I think segregating your troop by your faith" implies an action that LDS units take. That's the question. I'm suggestion that they don't. As a matter of fact, I may be wrong, but I don't believe a unit can legitimately exclude a boy because his beliefs are different than the CO. I suggested this earlier, and Trevorum made the point as well. They are segregated not due to action, but by circumstances. You won't generally see an LDS unit go out of their way to

Gern, To address your "million dollar question" post. >Do you think religiously segregated troops are good for scouting? Maybe it's semantics, but I'm not sure that segregation is negative in the sense you're making it. Look back at the desegregation movement. After awhile, the courts abandoned it because it was sending kids way out of their neighborhood do they could attend a school with kids of other color. The real issue was that the poor schools (typically black in this case) weren't as good as the richer schools (typically white in this case), not that the kids need to be m

Gern, I wanted to give you a few more details. You read on the LDS website that the Boy Scouting program and the LDS Priesthood program works together, but that doesn't mean they exclude either non-LDS Scouts or Scouters. They do insist that Scouters meet the same moral/ethical standards that LDS Scouters must meet. For example, a man who is living with someone out of wedlock would probably not be able to serve in a position. The same would apply if he were LDS (please don't spin this off to a discussion of values of marriage - it's an example). Keep in mind, though, that the desire

SR540Beaver, Actually, various religions have special Scouting classes. Philmont hosts numerous workshops and conferences, like "Scouting in the Jewish Community," "United Methodist Scouters' Workshop," "Scouting in the Catholic Church" and a generic "Scouting in the Church's Ministry." National Capital Area COuncil's Jewish Committee on Scouting sponsors their own events (like Merit Badge fairs and Pinewood Derbies). Various Catholic Diocese offer specialized training in implementing Scouting. As a matter of fact, in our area there is a great concern to address the needs of Spani

Gern, OK. I can't refute that as I don't have access to the ploicies prior to then. I do know there has been a lot of confusion over the years as to whether a non-LDS Scout can serve as a SPL. Current documentation states that a non-LDS Scout may serve as a SPL. But while we may disagree with that, that is not a program difference. Many troops have different criteria for who can become a SPL. I know troops that don't allow anyone under a Life Scout to be SPL. That would be tough on a new Scout troop, but I understand why they do it. Your example does point out the same type of Jr Leade

Backpacker, I'll agree that lack of adult committment to scouting and the constant turnover of leadership is a problem. But it's not an LDS problem. That same problem exists everywhere in Scouting. As I've posted here before, the difference is that an LDS unit survives through turnover or uncommitted leaders while a non-LDS troop doesn't. That may be good or bad depending upon your point-of-view. Case in point, I live across the street from an elementary school that used to have a pack. I'm not sure who the official CO was, but they were suffering from lack of leadership, turnover and

No, there are no specific LDS requirements for advancement in Scouting. And the issue of blacks holding the priesthood is unrelated. Specifically, priesthood positions and leadership are not related. Scouts who are not members of the LDS Church can participate in LDS units and may hold any of the same leadership positions (during my last stint as a Scoutmaster 2 years ago, we had more non-LDS Scouts than LDS Scouts). As a matter of fact, the priesthood leadership manuals have specifcally provided suggestions to ensure that non-LDS Scouts in leadership positions in the troop are able to partici

Glen, I'll respectfully disagree. As a matter of fact, your comment "The fact that BSA condones the LDS to make changes to the program, sometimes dramatic changes..." is a key point. You have made an allegation that I believe to be false, and you have provided no justification for it. I've been on a council program commitee, spent 10 years as a district trainer, served as a Unit and Assistant District Commissioner several times, as well as a Scoutmaster or Committee Member for 20 years. What program changes are you speaking of? The only change in the program that I'm aware of is the re

OldGreyEagle, I don't think there's any question of that axe being ground. I gave up a while back realizing that this thread has very little to do with safety. Safety is an excuse. Sababth day observance, mission service and even underwear has all been under attack. After all, there's obviously a great conspiracy with the BSA. It seems to me that we like to pick and choose those elements of the Scout Oath and Law that we like, and sort of ignore the rest.

Jay, I'm not sure why you're spending time reading and posting on a Scouting forum if you dislike Scouting so much. Some notes so you have a little more info. 1 - Leave No Trace has been around a lot longer than 2002. As a matter of fact, the principles (I can't say they were called Leave No Trace) were taught when I attended the Scoutmaster Fundamentals course in 1984. I remember being shown the soft paths video while I still lived in New Mexico (I was stationed out of Newm Mexico in 1991). 2 - Many Scouting units of any any religion (or non-religious based units) offer opening an

shanve, I think you're painting with a pretty broad brush. Obviously, as you were comfortable working with your MALE LDS District Executive, it was pretty obviously an individual(s) problem. Which, BTW, are common to people in general, not just LDS Scouters. I just finished as the Program Director of an all LDS Scout Camp, and sure enough, I had a troop with some leadership issues. OTOH, the other troops were generally good to work with. Not much different than when I've done non-LDS camps. My point is, that I believe there is a mischaracterization going on. One, I don't believe there

Again, no one is being "forced." While I do realize the difference in motivation, I do not agree that motivation makes for a quality Scouter. That is only one of the attributes of a good leader. But, just because someone wants to be a leader, doesn't mean their motivation is right on target. People want to be leaders for a lot of reasons. While the majority may be along the aims of BSA, many times there are personal motivations involved. Then, there are those who may be motivated, but just don't have the skills or other personal attributes. Sometimes training won't fix that. There are lead

LDS Units do not "conscript" their leadership. They are asked to serve in a position, and they may very well turn it down. It is not substantially differant than the process shown in the BSA literature/videos on selecting leadership - remember the old Committee BBQ video? "In most troops, leadership is voluntary and long term." I have to disagree with this one. I've lived and served in 4 Councils and Districts (New Mexico, Texas, Maryland and Arizona), and my experience has been that long-term scout leaders is the minority in the units. Those troops that do have a history of long-term lead

Hunt, I'd have to agree with your statement. The biggest difference may be that the disinterested LDS boys will come for 4-5 years. The shame is that there's no reason for a boy to be disinterested. With ~130 merit badges, there's got to be some for everyone. I one time had a scout who seemed to hate scouting. After months of this, I had a chat with him one day about this. He was in a leadership position, and I was able to get him to see that it was his program, and he could help drive the program. While miracles didn't happen, he did catch the idea and participated much more in p

I've read through the posts, and feel the need to respond. First off, I am speaking my own opinion, and not speaking for the LDS Church. I am a member, and have been a leader in Cubs and Boy Scouts in and out of the Church for 20 years. I've held District and Council positions and have served on the District Training Committee for years. Currently I'm in the Stake Young Men's Presidency and serve as an Assistant District Commissioner. I'm not trying to toot my horn, just give an understanding of the experience from which I speak. First, the number of deaths is very anecdotal, and without r