FormerCubmaster

From the LDS standpoint—I don’t know that I’d phrase it *quite* that way. The LDS stayed in the BSA when it was announced that it would admit LGBTQ boys; it was when it announced that it would admit LGBTQ leaders that the church drew the line. Even then, I think this was less of a “red line” in and of itself than a straw that broke the camel’s back after a number of perceived problems and slights including: —perceived shabby treatment by the BSA national leadership, which had apparently promised the LDS that certain agenda items would *not* be brought up at board meetings that the LDS d

I should think it depends on whether joint and several liability is deemed to apply, which would differ by state. At the risk of grossly over-simplifying: If “pure joint and several liability” applies, then it’s easy peasy—the defendant who can pay (the church) pays the entire sum of damages, and the defendant who bankrupted out (BSA) walks away cleanly. If it doesn’t, the the jury has to allocate proportion of fault between each defendant; the award is allocated amongst the defendants in equal proportions, the church pays its portion and the bankrupt walks away with the plaintiff a haircut

Sort of. It’s had the same formal name since 1837-ish (“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”). The issue has always been that the full name is kind of a mouthful and lends itself to shortening; and there’s been some back-and-forth from the church leadership over the years about whether “Mormon” was an appropriate short form since the term as an appellation both was coined by detractors of the church and tends to distract from what we see as our commitment to Jesus. About every twenty or thirty years we get direction from church leaders saying “please, lay off the ‘Mormon’ thing”

Yeah, I’ve frankly never seen it outside of discussions of the BSA bankruptcy. But, when in Rome . . . 🙂

Yes. There is a single corporation sole out of Salt Lake City that holds the deed to every LDS meetinghouse [actually two or three, but they are all indisputably under the control of the church’s central governing body]. All member donations are forwarded to Salt Lake City each week, and the central church leadership then turns around and funds each congregation’s annual operating budget on a per capita basis. All congregational bishops, too, are individually formally approved by Salt Lake prior to their ordination. (That’s how it works in the LDS Church within the USA, anyways. Other

I think Kosnoff has suggested at times that the LDS church was the “power behind the throne” with the BSA and should be jointly and severally liable on every single claim against the BSA. If he has evidence of that, then I suppose it will come out through the legal system in due course. But the specific instances cited in the new article have to do with very narrow circumstances in which perpetrators made a confession to an ecclesiastical leader which, depending on the legal jurisdiction where it occurred, may have been subject to legal privilege; and it sounds like the church’s legal ad

Indeed; and the LDS have ample resources to address this sort of thing. If they bail, does that have any ramifications for other CORs? My understanding was that early on, there was talk that the LDS offer was seen as a sort of benchmark that other CORs would be expected to meet (and kind of a high one, at that). Does their absence create a space for the other CORs to renegotiate their own liability?

There’s little reason for them to participate now. The judge appeared to characterize “pure scouting” claims as scenarios where non-LDS kids participate in LDS units and are victimized by LDS unit leaders. This would likely be an infinitesimal percentage of claimants—the vast majority of claims involving LDS units will be “mixed claims”, because nearly all adult LDS males (including, sadly, the dirtbags who perpetrate SA) are ordained into the faith’s lay clergy. There’s simply no reason for the LDS church to help the BSA pay off the BSA’s obligation to LDS victims who are just going

At least in my state, CPS won’t investigate child-on-child verbal bullying unless there is an element of physicality to it or unless the victim and perp live together. (Threats of physical violence would be referred to law enforcement, not CPS.)

It seems to me that via manuals, charter agreements, etc. BSA has been telling the units sotto voce for a while that “all your toys REALLY belong to us”. The warnings/reminders seem to be getting increasingly intense, and are starting to smack of demands. It seems clear to me that with traditional chartering/sponsoring civic organizations—churches, Lions/Rotary clubs, Masonic lodges, etc—on the decline, and with the high startup costs for new units of an outdoors-based program like the BSA, BSA isn’t going to be able to attain its stated goal of better serving underprivileged kids unles

1. I suppose it depends on how carefully the distinction between the scouting unit and the CO is maintained. The old LDS paradigm, of course, was that the chartering org (church congregation) sponsored the unit with the intent and expectation that the unit would *be* the church youth program for the sons of the families in that particular congregation. Additional visitors who wanted to participate in that experience were welcome to join (just as they would be welcome to join Sunday worship services); but Scouting as a program was always subordinate the overall interests and needs and object

Yeah, that sounds accurate; but with the clarification that (at least when I was going through the program as a youth after the age of 12) there was basically no distinction, for practical purposes, between “weekly church night” and “weekly Scout meetings”. Any suggestion that there was a quid pro quo, “if you want to come to our Scouts meeting on Tuesday you must also come to our church youth group meeting on Wednesday”, doesn’t really capture the dynamic that was at play—the two were one and the same meeting.

For what it’s worth, when I was a cubmaster in an LDS congregation (and when I previously worked with 11 year olds in a different LDS congregation) (and when I grew up as a scout in yet another LDS congregation), church membership wasn’t a prerequisite for troop or pack membership. Non-LDS kids generally weren’t interested in our units precisely because of our religious affiliation; but the one or two who *did* show interest and didn’t mind being seen in the company of a bunch of Mormons were welcomed. We saw it as an outreach/fellowshipping opportunity. I suppose if a particular non-LDS ki

Or a “People who wouldn’t touch the clowns and grifters in National Leadership with a ten foot pole” group?

BSA was only supposed to be apolitical when its membership leaned rightward. As the organization’s demographics evolve, it will naturally be expected to take a greater role in social activism.