KublaiKen

Are we in the same Troop?

This. I am sure sentiment varies widely among Scouts, among adults, and among areas of the country, perhaps, but I only know of only one Scout for whom it is a draw (not my Troop or even Chapter). For many it is met with disbelief and disapproval.

Frankly, it also hurts recruitment of trained leaders: many people don't sign up for something blind. The all-natural intoxicant called "wood smoke" has sealed many a deal.

I do not mean this as an insult, but there is nothing in my own personal experience with Scouting (I joined in 1975) that leads me to believe that BSA is the right organization to handle a sensitive issue like this successfully. I mean that from National to local. I don't doubt that some professionals and volunteers could navigate this minefield successfully, but, again, my own personal experience leads me to disbelieve that such success would be across the board. I know National can't do it, and inconsistent results across councils or districts, or among different MBCs, will just cause BSA

That was the essence of my responses to the survey. Any potential positive to the inclusion of NA elements is spitting into a tidal wave of the negative.

Is a non-theist the same as an atheist? (I mean theologically, not linguistically.)

@Mrjeff, the AoL Den is what used to be called Webelos II. BSA rightly recognized that every other Den was named for the rank they were working on achieving, and changed Webelos II (or 2?) to Arrow of Light accordingly.

I was thinking about this a little more, and I think if I could send @RichardB one (long) message from this it would be: This forum, while hardly a complete cross-section of Scouting, seems to have a pretty good selection from different councils and different programs. It skews to more experienced Scouters, I'd say. The group is not homogeneous in thought by any stretch. Though some of the members are clearly wrong on many things (😁), not one poster here has ever come across to me as anything other than well-reasoned and well-meaning. If the members of this group didn't understand BS

It is gaslighting to change things and then pretend that they were always that way. It is Orwellian to whitewash history and pretend that what is falsely claimed to have been is what really was. I don't believe that I just had to explain that to you, by the way. Pretending that isn't what is happening right here in real-time is insulting.

Oh, and more and more campgrounds around here are two-night only for much of the year, so this rule hurts Scouting.

Anyone else get a vague sense that we might have just hosed Webelos out of two-nighters?

Oh, the gaslighting is by BSA. It is weird how an organization that promotes honesty uses this level of deceit and disingenuous practice. In this very thread we have now seen a rule change, not a clarificarion, while being told it has always been this way.

More gaslighting.

Just to make sure I understand how to keep kids safe: BSA maintains that it is safe to camp two nights in groups smaller than a Pack (i.e., a Den), and larger than the Pack (e.g., a Council camp), but at the exact size* of a Pack a second night presents an inherent level of danger so great that it cannot be mitigated and such events must be banned. And to be clear, camping is allowed in all of these individual circumstances, but the second night is the huge risk, the safety violation. Is this right? * - How big is a Pack?

@Protoclete is correct as relates to the Roman Catholic Church. His use of episcopal is lower case in this instance by design.

An encounter like they had might be a determining factor if they go on to a Troop, and in what they say when recounting their experience in Scouting. For $4 a head? I would like to think I would have handled it like @MattR.

I understand that organizations change their rules. I understand that organizations clarify their rules in ways that seem like changes to those who didn't understand the original intent. I will never understand why BSA systemically gaslights its members and volunteers by pretending a rule was always the way it was. This is an example, as is pretending AOL was always a rank and not an award presented for going above and beyond during Webelos.

Right? Now we find that a Council serving nearly 60,000 youth has not understood (and therefore has not been training or enforcing) an element of the GSS for the past four years. Any bets on whether they are alone, since none of us knew it either?

And to give an idea of how bad at this BSA is, or at least how dysfunctional the relationship between National and Councils is, read that C10 memo again: C10 did not have the heads up this was coming so they could already have that product developed and on the shelf waiting, which would have benefited both the Scouts they serve and their own bottom line. Like us, and contrary to what he have been told, C10 had no idea what any of this meant and also believes this policy to be new. Read their language (emphasis added): The Circle Ten Council has been reviewing this new informat

Ah. So they ban something as unsafe, but permit it if you buy from them.

Now there's a stupid thing BSA does.

We use the same Scout Oath and Law that allowed BSA to permit racial segregation until 1974, meaning for over half of its existence, so I would be careful how you use the word "guarantee." It is also worth noting that inclusion involves more than just allowing membership.

Based on conversations I've had with Scouts and their parents, I don't see a "situation" or have any reason to believe it isn't being counseled (not taught) properly.

As of 9/1, you are not compliant if you bring that MBC, as they are specifically excluded from the list of registrations required to accompany a unit camping.

It works until the Camping MBC actually wants to see a Scout in action. Registering all your MBCs into Troop positions is kind of the antithesis of one of the stated purposes of the MB program, isn't it? Too many of our MBCs are already ASMs.