The Latin Scot

Hmm. An interesting proposition? I think Family Life is still essential for any boy, but I do think Scouting Heritage needs to be required, especially with all the new kids that will be coming in. They need to know what Scouting was, versus what Scouting has become.

Ah, that's what everybody is talking about. Thanks!

Simply put:

1. It's not a doctrinal questions, but a policy question. And the answer is that after December 31st, 2019, no, individual LDS units will NOT be authorized to sponsor Scouting units. We will have our own program to implement that will replace Scouting, and so to act as the CO of Scouting units will be redundant after that date. There will be no more LDS-sponsored Scouting units after next year.

2. LDS units can absolutely include both non-member youth and leadership in its Scouting units! On the Church's official webpage on Scouting, it states "worthy adults, whether members of the Church or not, may be called to serve as Scouting leaders." It also states "Young men and boys of other faiths who agree to abide by Church standards should be welcomed and encouraged to participate in Scouting activitites. Expenses for their participation are pain in the same manner as for other youth. Voluntary contributions from their families may be accepted and handled according to Church policy."

I went to Scouts with a couple of young men who were not LDS, but they were good kids who eventually earned their Eagles right alongside us. There was never an issue with their not being members of the Church, and as far as we were concerned they were as much members of the group as any one of us who were in the Church. That will be the same policy with the new program; while it will be a Church-run, LDS-centered program, it will of course be open to anybody who it not a member of our faith.

ALSO: moderators, how do I get rid of this darn quote box below? 

On 5/25/2018 at 8:03 PM, ParkMan said:

I just was watching the video with Bryan and Anthony Berger (sp?).  What was the deal with the neckercheifs they were wearing?  Did I miss a topic somewhere?

What video? Where is all this information coming from? I would like to follow if I can!

So, the new manuals are in my local Scout Shop, and I spent a long time going though all of them. I actually think that, sans the explicit inclusion of girls in much of the new imagery, they are much better than the past edition - more pictures, simpler writing, more activity and less rambling ... I like them. I am not a fan of the spiral bound books though and it seems they aren't even bothering to produce perfect-bound copies now, which is frustrating as they were cheaper and lasted longer. But these new ones are bright, colorful, engaging and streamlined, so I have little to complain about concerning the changes themselves.

Now my primary concern is that they will come out with the Spanish editions quickly so that I don't have to translate all my parent materials off the cuff; most of my families are either Spanish or Chinese speakers, so having materials in at least one of those languages makes things a lot easier. Hurry hurry BSA translation department!

On the contrary, I can understand @Chris1's concerns in light of my previous remark; I am happy to address it. 

I went through my Ordeal 21 years ago when I was 14. I didn't understand what I was getting into, I didn't understand the OA, and I didn't care much for it when I finished my youth Scouting career not much later. I knew it was a good organization that taught good things, but nobody ever taught me what the greater significance was, and I was never once afterwards invited to an OA event, told about an OA activity, nor informed about OA service projects. For all I knew, the Ordeal was the entirety of the Order.

Two years ago I was thrown back into the world of Scouting when I was called on to serve as a Webelos Den Leader. I jumped in full throttle, and made it my mission to learn everything there was to know about the BSA and Scouting in general. This led me to rediscover the OA, and in my research, to realize what a large, important, and life-changing organization it could be in the lives of the boys under my care. I wanted the boys in my Pack to strive to live the ideals the OA espouses. I wanted the boys in our Troop to honor the OA and participate in its programs. And I wanted to advance my role by receiving my Brotherhood honor. 

Naturally, I knew I needed to earn it. I renewed my dues, became active in my local chapter, and started promoting the OA in our Troop. We hadn't had an election in over a decade. So it took a lot of work, a lot of influencing, and a lot of effort, but we have finally started having elections, our boys are starting to take an active role in our chapter, and this weekend, 20 years overdue, I am finally receiving my Brotherhood honor, and I will be proud to contribute all of my talents and energies to the Order for the next 18 months, before my Church moves on to a new program that will require me to shift my focus and energies.

But I have given this years of thought, and I think it would be a profound personal loss if I didn't complete this part of my OA path by receiving my Brotherhood honor and ensuring that my boys devote 18 months of the finest service possible while we are still a part of this fine organization. I intend to "go out with a bang, not with a whimper," as the vogue LDS mantra seems to be lately. So upon deep and long reflection, I am deeply grateful that I will be able to achieve my Brotherhood honor and still have time to make a meaningful contribution before we move on to other things. I am sorry if my earlier post trivialized my perspective; I hope this helps clarify my point of view.

When I first started as a WDL a few years back, I didn't have much to go on either. But it was clear from the Scouting Adventure adventure requirements (curse that redundant name!) that I needed to understand the difference between how a den works vs. how a patrol works, so I did as much research as I could. That was actually one of the reasons I first joined this website, which helped tremendously (thanks everybody!). I also read the Patrol Leader's Handbook and the Senior Patrol Leader's Handbook, and every general Scout Handbook from 2911 to today's. They all helped a lot. I also read every edition of the Scoutmaster's handbook and did a lot of online studying so that when my Webelos come to the time when we practice the Patrol Method, we practice the patrol method. I give them a whole month of preparation, first by visiting a Scout Troop so they can see what the Patrol Method looks like, then letting them know that I won't be getting involved, instructing them on how the method will look, getting our Den Chief and other visiting Scouts to come and talk about the method, teaching them how thier month-long Patrol Leader will need to step up their duties, et cetera. Then for a month I sit back and let them run it! Does it go perfectly? Of course not! BUT DO THEY GET IT? - mercy yes they do! 

The difficulty is making sure their new Scoutmasters and ASMs keep up the work once the boys leave my group and enter theirs. 

Yes sir!

I would get defensive if this wasn't so darn accurate.  

4 hours ago, SSF said:

Resorting to pettiness,...nice, sure fire sign that you have no real, valid arguments...thanks for validating that

Now, that's my final word on this

I suppose this was meant in jest. Let's look at the pettiness then: 

1 hour ago, SSF said:

The only people throwing around vitriol are you and your pals.

I'm not using all caps or bolding my words..getting a bit miffed are we...? 

Like typical liberals and leftists, you and others here can't seem to accept facts or reality, and you choose to attack anyone who does not agree with you.

et cetera

So, when you say something is your "final word," you seem to mean "until I get the last word." Is that fair? Now I will say, calling me a "liberal and a leftist" is downright hysterical. You do know I am a right-wing, conservative Latter-day Saint with an aggresive pro-family, traditional-values, Christian worldview that goes against everything liberals and leftists stand for, do you not? And that I have been one of the most vocal opponents of girls in Scouting on these forums? But my my, you do seem upset, so I suppose resorting to senseless epithets must comfort you somehow. But I happen to like bolding my words. It makes them big and cheerful and easy to read. And I am happy to accept both facts and reality. I thought you were too, but you seem to be incapable of giving a "final" thought when somebody suddenly presents an idea that doesn't fit you worldview, and you can't resist stepping in to correct them. I wonder how many times more you will give us your last thoughts, only to jump in again when somebody presents a point counter to yours.

Fortunately I can enjoy Star Wars without caring two figs whether you want to call me a liberal, a leftist, or a lunatic. So I actually WILL make this my last thought on this thread, because I am perfectly content knowing you are simply some person on the internet who makes assumptions he cannot support with facts, and that what I feel is perfectly legitimate. Have fun when you inevitably come back! 

Quote

I am fairly certain that LatinScot is NOT a “liberal.”  Not only have I read his posts, I never see him at any of the meetings.

I hide in the back spying on you all with my binoculars. I'm keeping the giftbasket though.

13 minutes ago, SSF said:

Did you not see the one headline I shared...that was from the Hollywood Reporter. There are lots of others from other trades and outlets that say the same exact thing.

I rest my case there. 

Sorry you're upset. Do get together with Latin Scot and  Chadmus and make plans to see Solo again a few dozen times, if that makes you feel better.

Yes, the ONE healine you shared, from such a reputable newssource no less. How very compelling. But it is wise of you to rest your case there, as there isn't much further you could take it without much hyperbole and vitriol. I did find the following article much more reasonable, however. I am more inclined to follow this line of thinking than yours, despite a few places where I disagree. And it is no better nor worse a source than yours, though I find its argument much more logical and sensible than the fear-mongering many seem to be slathering about:

https://www.polygon.com/platform/amp/2018/5/28/17402484/solo-star-wars-box-office-reviews-cameo-death

Now, had you presented your thoughts along  these lines, I may have been pursuaded. But your thoughts just sound ... dare I say, envious. You sound like you are jealous that we like the new movies, but you can't. How very unfortunate that you choose to feel this way (and I say choose very carefully since I realize nobody can MAKE you feel one way or the other). 

What's funny is that I read more than a dozen articles on Star Wars every day, yet I have never once encountered the phrase "Force is Female." I feel like you've made it up. But I see now why you are bitter. You treat Han, Luke and Leia like sacred characters. But they aren't; they're made up, but to give them life, to make them feel real, they have to act in ways that we can understand, and sometimes that means not everybody lives happily ever after. That's clearly what you wanted. But the way they mature and grow as characters is far more realistic, more believable, and more compelling than your desired outcomes, and to say that they were "disrespected and desecrated" is byperbole and exaggeration. Han was given a wonderful role in VII, but Harrison Ford has wanted out of the SW universe for years, so they wouldn't have kept him longer than they did. Leia was given full, meaningful roles in both VII and VIII, but sadly Carrie Fisher passed away before IX, which was to have been her biggest role. And I think Skywalker's arc tells a tragic, but hopeful story that makes sense of his times and his world, and that ends with a beautiful message (not to mention one of the most powerful manifestations of the Force in any SW movie to date).  

I cannot see where you get the idea that the Force is "Female" - it certainly isn't in the movie, so you must be getting it from your own strained interpretations. Just because you call it "the reality" doesn't make it so. You seem to hope that we will believe that you speak for a large body of Star Wars fans, but having a broad and close relationship with that fanbase myself, whether through the 501st and Rebel Legion, the various fan connection sites, or from the most recent comic-cons and other large events, it seems to me that fan response is over-whelmingly positive. You'll have to demonstrate that all the feedback I am getting from these sources is misleading before I can believe that they are in some kind of minority.

Well, I will be receiving my Brotherhood Honor this weekend. Looks like I will be getting it just in time too, before leaving Scouting. Just in time indeed. 

26 minutes ago, mashmaster said:

I am sorry to see you go, we are all richer from your posts and poorer knowing we won't see them.   I hope the moderators realize the reticulations of their actions.

The reticulations or the ramifications? 

I too express my gratitude for all your contributions over the past few years, and my farewell to you as you move on to find greener pastures. May your road be blessed and your way be clear. 

I don't doubt some LDS families will continue their Scouting journey in other non-LDS troops. The difficulty is that we have used Scouting as our activities program for young men; now that we will have our own activity program, Scouting would end up costing that family double the time, with two programs designed for the same purpose. Scouting will likely become redudant for our families because the goals Scouting is meant to accomplish will be met by the new programs as well.

Somebody mentioned that the "lucky" LDS members only have to go to 3 hours of meetings. Yet I pity those who only get three hours a week to share time with their fellow Latter-day Saints; for me there isn't enough time in the world to be with those you love. 

6 hours ago, Chadamus said:

@The Latin Scot do you foresee personal emotional struggles and conflicts over the course of the next 18 months as you deliver the program to your unit? I ask because as of right now your church has decided it will part ways with said program because of decisions the BSA has already made, as opposed to any decisions the BSA could make in the next 18 months. Personally, I would find it hard to be "all in" for a program that my church has already deemed unfit. What will keep you going?

First of all, I am always 100% behind every decision the Church makes, because I sincerely believe that whatever decision our leaders make, comes from the Lord. So, that said, I am excited to see what the future will bring after these next 18 months are over, because I know that Providence never takes anything away without given us something better in return.

So what keeps me all in? Simple.

The boys.

These kids have 18 months left in Scouting. At that age, it seems like a MUCH longer time than it seems to us. And it's my duty, my opportunity to see that the last 18 months of Scouting in the Church are the most memorable, the most exciting, the most affecting months they have ever had. I want them to think back with fondness and gratitude to the years of Scouting they had, to the adventures they shared, and the lessons they learned. I want them to accomplish great things, and when they are old and gray, I want Scouting to be one of the dearest memories of their youth. 

That means I have no right, no time, no reason to selfishly indulge in whatever I may be tempted to feel regarding the sadness or nostalgia of this loss. It isn't about me. These boys have so much to learn and gain from my time with them, and to taint it with my personal sentiments would be unfair to them and a diservice to myself - they are not the only ones who have a lot to gain from this last leg of the journey. I myself learn from them daily; they are a part of my own growth and learning, and if I let myself be distracted by what-ifs and if-onlys, I too would lose valuable opportunities and blessings. 

Our last prophet President Thomas S. Monson, himself one of Scouting's greatest champions, loved to recite the following quote:

"For all sad words of tongue and pen, The saddest are these, 'It might have been.'" - John Greenleaf Whittier

My job is to deliver the fullest, the happiest, the most complete, the BEST program I can down to the last minute of our involvement. And all it takes to feel the motivation, to feel the desire, to feel the joy of the adventure, is to look into the faces of these fine young men and to love them. I can do anything if it's based on that love. It's not a personal stuggle. It's a personal opportunity, and I am thankful for every last minute of it.  

Ha! This is funny. So, I have all my special stuff in pouches all around my belt (the boys call it my Jedi Belt). I've got one for my multitool, my compass, my binoculars, my cellphone (water-tight), and for outdoor activities, a first-aid kit and flashlight. All are small and not bulky at all, but the system keeps everything easy to reach and to have in-hand at a moment's notice. I've found it works nicely!

Let's not forget that The Last Jedi made over a billion dollars. A BILLION DOLLARS!!! Did it make as much as The Force Awakens? Of course not, that was the first new Star Wars film since the prequals. But mercy, TLJ still made a TON of money - so much that they have now announced:

The obvious Episode IX

A live action TV series

Two entirely new Star Wars trilogies

An animated TV series

The continuation of their Forces of Destiny shorts

An entire Star Wars theme park at both Disneyland and Disneyworld

Not to mention the likely stand-alones of Boba Fett, Obi-Wan Kenobi, and likely more Solo films. 

Quote

Yes, artistic differences are subjective and can be open to interpretation, but box office returns, budgets and financial figures are matters of fact.

Yes indeed they are. And a BILLION DOLLARS generated from The Last Jedi tells me that, much as you may have hated it, that thing made MONEY, and LOTS OF IT. Star Wars is not slowing down at all; it's just going to get bigger and bigger. I am just grateful I have enjoyed everything they put out tremendously!

I think it would be far more instructive if there were three parts to the requirement.

a. Explain the role and importance of the Father in the family.

b. Explain the role and importance of the Mother in the family.

c.Explain how they are different, and how both together contribute to building stronger family ties.

Whether the Scout is a boy or a girl, from a healthy family or a broken home, these questions are important, and will help develop stronger families in the future as the Scouts learn to understand the vital nature of each parental role in their families, whether present or future.

Wait ... what? You are comapring to utterly different things; I can see which dots you are trying to connect, but you are ending up with the wrong picture and forcing some ideas that I do not believe a relevant. For you to claim that Solo is seeing less success (mind you, it's nothing near a flop - it's still making millions, just not as many as other Star Wars films) - because movie-goers are "voting with their wallets" "not to support Disney and Ms. Kennedy's progressive take on the Star Wars universe" I would find laughable if it wasn't so erroneous. I still don't know where fans are getting these "social justice themes" in TLJ, and honestly what's wrong with getting a few more female characters (= Rose and Holdo. 2. Big deal)? Honestly, Star Wars fans are the HARDEST to please and the MOST obnoxious in their reviews (well, with the exception of Trekkies, lol).

You didn't like The Last Jedi. We get it. I thought it was great, and more fun that I have had in a Star Wars movie in a long time. I say this as somebody who is as big a Star Wars fan, if not far moreso, than almost anybody here. When you speak of the "ardent, longtime Star Wars fans, I am amongst their numbers. But you want to make this political, which isn't the case. Why isn't Solo doing well? Nothing to do with politics I can tell you - it's that nobody really cared about getting a Han Solo movie in the first place! LOL. It's simply a movie nobody asked for, coming too close off the heels of another, bigger Star Wars movie, which, as much as you may have hated TLJ, still made so many billions of dollars that it has generated a greater income than many world nations. Your may resent the changes to your idealized Star Wars childhood all you like, but they are going to continue to be made, and continue to be successful. I have enjoyed them greatly, and I am as conservative as anybody. Star Wars is such a juggernaut that your wishing Solo would flop won't make a ding-dong difference in the numbers.

Sadly, the BSA is in far hotter water than Star Wars is. But experience is proving that those of us who want to preserve the Boy Scouts for what it is - a dynamic organization for boys that protects their right to explore their world without intervention from adults, girls, political agendas, et cetera - are in the minority now. And unlike Star Wars, which is simply a matter of artistic tastes and personal preferences, this is a matter of right and wrong, though too few will fight to protect that. This is why I will bow out of Scouting at the end of next year, but continue to happily enjoy Star Wars probably decades after the BSA is defunct.

Yeah, a lot of the information in this is outdated - is this really the latest edition?

EDIT: The copyright date does indeed say 2015. If there is a new 2018 edition, the files at the link aren't it.

14 hours ago, ParkMan said:

But I thought this forum had established that the BSA decision to go co-ed was because the LDS church had already the BSA leadership it was leaving.

Let's say though that they hadn't.  The BSA created all kinds of special stuff in the program for the LDS church.  I would imagine that the execs would have gladly said that LDS units were exempt from the co-ed program.

How can a few people chatting online "establish" what was ultimately behind the BSA's decision? Alas, we can hypothesize all we want, but we don't really know what went behind the move. 

All I know is that I am against it, and will leave the program with the Church next year. 

Do I believe in Scouting? Yes, with all my heart yes.

Do I believe that the Boy Scouts of America still delivers the quality of Scouting and the purity of the program that it once did? 

No. I don't believe it does anymore. And I can't invest my time in an organization that has lost the vision of its original programming. It breaks my heart, but I have principles that the BSA is moving away from, and my principles come before my passions. 

The only real requirement to be a SPL is: you are a registered Scout in good standing, and the boys elect you. Bam. If the boys pick a kid, that's their choice. He may be 11, he may be a Tenderfoot, he may have awful attendance - makes no difference. The boys pick who they pick, and soon enough they will learn what makes a good leader or not. And they can always oust a leader and choose a new one whenever they feel a change is needed! 

The most important thing is to trust the boys and not interfere. Let them handle it on their own; after all, it's their troop!

53 minutes ago, CalicoPenn said:

The LDS is driving the LDS out of Scouting - not the BSA.  The biggest growth area for the LDS is not in the USA - its overseas.  The LDS has been using the BSA as its youth program for its convenience.  It is no longer convenient for them because larger and larger chunks of their organization cannot access the BSA program so the LDS is creating their own program which will be consistent globally rather than have a BSA centered program in the states and a "separate but equal (??)" program overseas.

 

I am afraid this is not an accurate understanding of our relationship with the BSA. We did not adopt Scouting as a matter of convenience; in fact, implementing it took a great deal of effort, and meant cancelling a youth program we already had in place. 

The need for a unified global program is only one part of the reason for our exit. The other very much is the fact that the BSA is making a broad statement with its recent policy changes - the statement that boys and girls learn in the same way, and that one program can adequately meet the needs of both with no need to differentiate between the sexes. This fundamental ideology, that boys and girls should just share the same program, is a complete turn-around from the roots of Scouting, which was a program specifically tailored to the needs of boys. It also goes against what we believe in the Church - that men and women are fundamentally different, that both serve complimentary but distinct roles in the family and in society, and that our gender is an eternal part of our divine identity. The new BSA ideology no longer matches those beliefs, and so it would be inappropriate for the Church to be associated with a program that now has a distinctly different worldview.

This is not a matter of convenience. It's a matter of principle. We can still support and serve and encourage one another's growth, but we cannot share the same ties that we could when our core beliefs were the same. Had the BSA stuck to its original values, there would not have been such a need for us to take a stand like this.