Jump to content

The Latin Scot

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by The Latin Scot

  1. Well, I tried ordering it there but they said they couldn't process the order and ... that I had to go online. And our council office is a long drive from here; my local Scout Shop isn't attached to any official offices. I suppose I'll just have to bring it up at our district meeting tomorrow night, or see if they can at least call the office to verify the validity of my request. Oh, the bureaucracy! 😰

  2. Here's my question - my district earned Gold for 2019, but the local Scout Shops don't carry the district Gold JTE patch (nor any district/council-level patches), and I can't order one online without 'requisite paperwork.' So how on Earth am I supposed to get a hold of one? 

  3. 1 hour ago, Jameson76 said:

    Clearly alleges that the LDS Church and Elders actively covered up the issues.

    (my emphasis)

    3 hours ago, mrkstvns said:

    What I'm referring to is the allegations of institutional-level cover-up...


    That doesn't change the crux of what's supposedly been happening...

    I am grateful for the wording of these posts; thank you gentlemen. Frankly, these are all accusations without any proof, and frankly, our faith has been attacked on far more serious and yet equally untrue allegations before. I am, to be frank, utterly unconcerned by these reports. For whatever reason, our faith has always been targeted by opposition, to the point that we as a people have generally learned to let such theories roll like water off a duck's back. So I am confident the truth will out on its own; these kind of wild accusations flare up now and then, but without a basis in fact, they blow over soon enough. 

    2 hours ago, mashmaster said:

     especially in the case of The Church of Latter Day Saints (I am not sure I got that right but I am trying)

    Thank you for trying! It's very appreciated. But you left out the MOST IMPORTANT part of the name. It's The Church OF JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints. If you leave that part out, it becomes easy to see why some misguided entities don't realize we are, above all things, a Christian religion. 

  4. 7 hours ago, MattR said:

    Looks to me like you've already decided and the part you're struggling with is how to say no. I think it's an important skill to have. As others have said - keep it fun.

    I think this is probably the case; I'm usually eager to accept any opportunity that comes my way, but this position just doesn't interest me. And I usually have no qualms about saying no when the need arises ... I should talk to my mom about it. She's GREAT at saying NO. :rolleyes:

  5. Last week I was at a meeting with a few of my district's commissioner team, and I was surprised when our RT Commissioner asked me take his place as the District Roundtable Commissioner next year (2021). I have mixed feelings about it.

    I stepped in as the Cub Scout RT Commissioner a few months ago when my predecessor was poached by a neighboring district offering him a "better" position. I had been coming in as a guest instructor for the Cub Scout break-out sessions for a while, so it was a natural role for me to take on in a pinch. I am also the Unit Commissioner for a new, large and hectic new troop being formed from the vestiges of all the past LDS units in South Orange County, a troop that will have more than 60 boys right from the start (not to mention dozens of families that need to be re-trained as to how Scouting is supposed to work)

    It's not that I'm particularly pressed for time; after all I'm a single guy in my 30's with plenty of time to share - I would be sacrificing another activity I enjoy once a month however, which would be tricky at times. But this really isn't a position I was ever aiming toward, nor had I even considered it really. I actually joined the district commissioner team hoping to focus my service as a trainer for Cub Scout leaders, which is why I've stuck to helping run the Cub break-out sessions. With this new position, I wouldn't be doing that any more, about the which I have mixed feelings. Running the whole shebang sounds like it might have its perks, but it's quite my cup of tea if you know what I mean. We have a large, thriving district, and attendance at Roundtable is pretty good, but it's not a niche towards which I feel naturally inclined. Not only that, but the person they recommended to me as an assistant this year and a replacement the next has, frankly, not impressed me. He's too quick to tout his pack's 'lofty' popcorn sales numbers and his 'success' as a cubmaster (few things agitate me, but a show-off with little to show is sometimes one of them); he can be rather acerbic and impersonal; most concerning to me, he still doesn't seem to understand the program at a level that will make him a reliable resource for new or hesitant Cub leaders coming to Roundtable for support and encouragement. 

    However, they asked me to take on the role, and I know they really do need somebody - that I understand. And I think I would do a fair job with it. Yet it's simply not a position I'm particularly eager to assume. I want to have a firm answer within a month or two so that they have as much time as possible to explore other options if needed, but ... how do I gracefully decline the request? Should I even do so, or should I just bite the bullet and take on the job that's asked of me? And what's the best way to explain my concerns about the individual they're eyeing? As always, comments and suggestions are most appreciated. Thanks all!

  6. On 1/5/2020 at 9:00 AM, skeptic said:

    There is no point in posting, again, the reasons behind the LDS change of direction, the details that were shared directly from their highest levels.  Some simply cannot accept the simple truth and have to add their own interpretation.  That is not to say that there are not tangential reasons to the core decision "by the world LDS church".  But the basic reasons cannot have been spelled out more clearly, or at least I do not see how.  You can find them on this forum and also in other similar ones.  As far as this thread goes, can we simply back off and live by the simple twelveth point of the Law?


  7. 49 minutes ago, mds3d said:

    Even if we believe that other religions may be leading people away from eternal salvation?

    Yes. Even to those whose beliefs differ from our own, even to those who are unkind or even abrasive, even to those from whom we need to step away because of their choices, we should be kind and respectful. I have not seen anybody here deride Catholics, Baptists, Jews, Muslims ... the list goes on and on. So to see such antipathy towards this one particular faith is uncharacteristic of the general tone of these forums, and yes, I am surprised the moderators have allowed it to continue for so long. Isn't this a Scouting forum?

  8. 1 hour ago, Saltface said:

    I'm 99% certain that adding girls to Cubs and Boy Scouts BSA had nothing to do with the Church's decision to leave BSA. On the other hand, I see it reasonably likely that the LDS Church leaving BSA was at least part of the reason girls were added to the program. There are currently three LDS Church leaders on the National Executive Board and the vote to admit girls was reportedly unanimous. 

    This I very much appreciate. Thank you for this comment. 

  9. 1 hour ago, le Voyageur said:

    During my time (the David O McKay era....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_O._McKay) men would go to Priesthood, and women to the ward's kitchen to make sandwiches and kool aid and tend the children ....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_women    Everyone knew, and had their place and the lines were never crossed....

    You make it sound like raising children is somehow a "lesser responsibility" than holding the priesthood, when the two are equally important and are, in fact, shared by both sexes. Also, this is a MASSIVE generalization of an era that my parents also grew up in, and their picture of the times is very different from yours. This kind of depiction is one-sided and derogatory towards the religion of a number of members here. If you have qualms about the faith that is your right and privilege, but it's un-Scoutlike to express such demeaning and biased portrayals here. This is a forum about Scouting, not the culture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Let's stay on topic.

  10. 16 hours ago, ParkMan said:

    Yep - guess the BSA just got caught up in that new fangled idea of the worth of the individual.  I'm quite comfortable that the BSA left the LDS church because the restrictions it placed on the BSA were causing too many other issues.  I'm glad the BSA for once stopped pandering and chasing membership.

    I do not appreciate the suggestion that the BSA  "got caught up in that new fangled idea of the worth of the individual," and that, by default, our church somehow doesn't believe in the same. This is, frankly, utterly false calumny that reflects a shocking and extremely unkind attitude towards our beliefs. It's both un-Scoutlike and uncharitible to make such a sideways accusation, especially towards a religion that embraces the supreme and eternal doctrine of divine worth and personal value. I hope these kind of comments cease, but I suppose this has become a time for anybody with misconceptions about our religion to take their shots while the climate is against us. 

    No matter; I'll stand up for our beliefs as long as I have to because, frankly, I love all the people I've come to know here, and I would hate to see false information spread on these good forums. I will also defend ANY OTHER FAITH that comes under condemnation. To put down the faith of another is totally un-American, even if it's done in a subtle or indirect way. Aren't we better than this?

  11. 15 hours ago, ParkMan said:

    I thought the LDS church only allowed men to hold the priesthood.  Seems like that's a pretty big symbol. to me.

    You seem to put this fact (not symbol) forward as though it was something wrong or evil that our church was doing. I assure you, this incomplete generalization glosses over many other doctrines to which we hold that explain this fact, and again, demonstrates a misunderstanding of our beliefs and doctrines. 

  12. 2 hours ago, swilliams said:

    The LDS Church has revised it's stand on same sex couples being apostates.  They've also said that they understand that being gay isn't a choice, and that if a member is gay, that as long as they are not sexually active (with someone of the same sex, of course), that they can be members of the church.

    So... I'm a bit puzzled as to why BSA's acceptance of gay leaders and youth was seen as 'not standing on principle', and why it was an issue for the Church.  If it wasn't the acceptance of gays, then was it the acceptance of girls?  We're to believe the Church doesn't see women as inferior.  The Church also hosts several events where all youth are invited.  So perhaps it wasn't the inclusion of girls after all.  Or was it?

    The main issue, it seems to me, is that the Church was viewing the BSA as part of a priesthood program.  Since women don't hold the priesthood, I can see why the addition of girls would cause a problem, but I also see it as problematic that the Church leaders are saying the BSA abandoned them.  The BSA program was never set up to be the activities arm of the priesthood.  Just my $.02 as a (non-practicing) Mormon.

    Three things. 

    First of all, we believe that sexual relations are ONLY to be had between a man and a woman who are legally married. So whether the individual is gay or straight doesn't make a difference - we still believe in the law of chastity, and we expect our membership to live the commandments related to it, regardless of how they perceive their personal orientation.

    Next, including girls in Scouting isn't about inferiority or inclusion. It's about the fact that boys and girls are fundamentally different. But including girls in Scouting sends a message that boys and girls learn in the same way, and are for all intents and purposes identical. While the sexes are equal to each other in worth and importance, they are still DIFFERENT. So treating them in Scouting as though the learn in exactly the same way isn't quite aligned with the way we understand the divine differences between men and women. 

    Finally, Scouting was not a priesthood program. It was the activity program for young men, and while we certainly and frequently tied the two together, they were still separate. Whether women hold the priesthood or not has nothing to do with it, and the very suggestion demonstrates that many people still have tremendous misunderstandings about our doctrines concerning priesthood, gender relationships, et cetera. But no, the issue was not that the BSA was part of a priesthood program (because it wasn't) - the issue has no 'REAL' cause, or subversive purpose. Quite simply, the church has grown out of Scouting. We have millions of youth all over the world. For people to claim we have made changes "to cater to millenials" or to "align with the times" shows that people in the U.S. really don't grasp how vast and widespread the Church is. We are a truly GLOBAL church, with members in hundreds of nations speaking hundreds of languages. We need to promote unity and cohesiveness amongst our members, and we need a program for children and youth that would serve all of them in the same way. Scouting just can't do that any more. Our exciting and wonderful new program can, so we are moving on from the BSA for the benefit of all our members.

    That is the REAL reason we are changing our relationship with the BSA. Any other claims, suggestions or insinuations are either based on an incomplete knowledge of our beliefs or a misunderstanding of our intent. We love the BSA. We always will. But we need something different now. We should part as friends and will love and tender memories, not tainted resentment based on allegations based on hearsay or rumors. 

  13. On 11/13/2019 at 11:45 AM, le Voyageur said:

    My take (and yes, I endured this production to the end) is this...that their program is an exclusive for members only  in house program that is purposely crafted to insulates and protects  their youth from the real word, as well as to divide the genders into two separate and unequal classes.  The direct opposite of the Scouting USA program for inclusiveness. 

    At least now, I thank I can sit around the campfire in quite discussions and ponder this with my fellow cohorts (but overall,  still somewhat baffled as to this wrong headed direction that I feel the LDS community is tacking into due to the political winds they feel are slewing their sails).

    If you think we perceive men and women as unequal, then you are grossly misinformed as to what we believe about the divine nature of both men and women, and it would do you well to study your words before putting false accusations online. I worry you may have many incorrect perceptions about our faith which I would be happy to discuss at any time. However, this forum is not an appropriate place for you to express your opinions about our doctrines and beliefs.

    • Upvote 1
  14. 14 hours ago, le Voyageur said:

    I'll have to disagree....When it comes to the social agenda, the Mormon Church has never respected separation of church and state. This course of action that the Mormon hierarchy decided to pursue was purely punitive,  their original intent was to force BSA to back down from social changes that they strongly disagreed with. Recall Prop 8, California's Equal Rights amendment where the Mormon church illegally used the pulpit and deceptively named grassroots groups to enlist supporters against the amendment.  It should be obvious that the Mormon church placed the BSA in a no win situation... to either conform to Mormon values to keep the dollars flowing into BSA coffers; or, to adjust the program to current societal changes and loose LDS support.  As I see it, BSA took the right course by standing on principle and refusing to be exhorted by the LDS   

    Much of your information is incorrect, and I must take a moment to clarify the false allegations of this post. Clearly you have a vendetta against our people, so I must as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints counter your claims so that the facts can be weighed to the benefit of the members here and the discussion at hand. We have a PROFOUND respect for the separation of church and state - but that idea is not, as some might assume, the right of the state to prohibit religions from taking political stand on issues that have moral and civil ramifications. You need to study what the separation of church and state really means. It does NOT mean that the two exist in separate worlds. Rather, it is a means of living in harmony together. Religions need government - and government needs religion. They cannot be utterly divorced, nor were they meant to be. 

    The concept of freedom of religion, including the right to practice that religion, means that we have to right to our values and principles, and to proclaim them as well. To use our pulpits as platforms to declare our moral positions and effect social change is not, in fact, illegal. Nothing the church did during Prop 8 was illegal - I know, because I was there, and I was a part of it. The freedom of religion as defined in the constitution protects our right to preach our values and to work to effect social change and preserve social values. We participate in civil discourse entirely within the parameters of the law, and for you to make these broad false claims in this forum is both inflammatory - and off-topic. So let's get back to our relationship with the BSA, and leave Prop 8 to a discussion elsewhere, where the true facts can be considered without bias.

    As for our position in the BSA (since that IS what we are discussing here), there was never any "punitive" action taken by the church - we do expect our youth organizations to support our beliefs and standards, and when the BSA started making dramatic changes to its central values and membership standards, we had to make a choice between accepting these changes and being complicit with the fundamental change of moral ideology that would express, or standing by our beliefs and values at the cost of our long and treasured partnership. We held to our beliefs, yet also tried to do whatever we could to save that partnership, because we have loved it and helped millions of boys through it - but we can't cling to something forever when it just doesn't align with our core values anymore.

    The BSA, on the other hand, did not "stand on principle" - the very opposite - it changed and conformed and let itself be swept along by the tide of current social and political ideologies. It didn't "refuse to be exhorted" by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - first of all, because that's not really what the word exhort means (I suppose you mean something else but can't quite ascertain what it might be) - secondly, because in our day The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints needs a global program that adheres to the values and ideals for which we stand and in which we believe - and the BSA no longer fits that description. Our principles have stayed the same. Those of the BSA have been adapted to fit the current climate. If anybody moved, it was they.

    On top of all this, our new program has finally been released in tremendous detail, and it is exciting, inspired, and can be shared by the millions of Latter-day Saint youth all over the world. Youth who wish can use Scouting as part of their own personalized program of goals and learning if they wish, but now they have a whole host of options before them, with a program that will build faith and help them grow physically, spiritually, socially and intellectually. With all this in mind, BSA just doesn't fully serve the needs of our youth anymore, and so we have amicably, and with great love and tenderness, closed our official partnership. But as another one of our church leaders also said, "we have been and will always be friends." If there is resentment, then it is unwarranted. 106 years of partnership was a wonderful thing for BOTH of our organizations, but it cannot have been expected to last forever. Why this is happening no longer merits discussion. It's happening, so let us part ways as friends, and move on with love and kind feelings and hopes that both organizations will continue to thrive and grow in the future. 

    The youth of today deserve to see with these changes faith and goodwill from both parties. Even if you have doubts, or concerns, or even fear or resentment - put on a smile, then look back with fondness, look forward with courage, and press on with hope - for their sakes. In the end we'll all be the better for it.

    • Thanks 2
    • Upvote 2
  15. I think it would be especially appropriate to include this, perhaps one of our nation's greatest sermons on gratitude:


    Washington, D.C.
    October 3, 1863

    By the President of the United States of America.

    A Proclamation.

    The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequalled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.

    In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.

    Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States the Eighty-eighth.

    By the President: Abraham Lincoln

    William H. Seward,
    Secretary of State


    • Thanks 1
  16. I can see how that might be an issue if I had never met the family before, and I appreciate the point you make. Admittedly, my pack operates out of our local church congregation (which I grew up in), and most of the families have been in our pack since Wolves at least. So there haven't been many brand-new families whom I haven't met already at some point before, although those that have been new have been very grateful for the time we took to get to know them. Nonetheless I am grateful for your comments and will certainly take that potential perspective into account in the future.

  • Create New...