FormerCubmaster

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.

Or . . . maintain a 24-hour hotline that can connect them with jurisdiction-specific legal advice in almost-real time? I mean—if the BSA had contemporaneously, immediately referred every staffer who heard an abuse allegation to an actual lawyer who could advise the staff member of their legal obligations to report (as opposed to just falling back on policy and years-old trainings)—would the BSA be in the pickle it’s in? If any of the less-than-1/5 of states with “immediate” reporting requirements has an issue with the Church’s practice, they certainly have the information and resources

Hmm. That gets trickier in the case of Mormonism, since we have a lay clergy at the congregational level whose institutional training is almost nil and who are holding down day jobs while putting an additional 20-30+ hours per week into their ecclesiastical responsibilities. And again, as I pointed out above—there are practicing lawyers who get this stuff wrong unless or until they have a chance to do additions research and/or get advice from a colleague. I’m not sure it’s realistic or fair to hold some poor schcmuck who had the misfortune to be assigned the job of a Mormon bishop, to a hig

I’m not sure obeying a cop who is demanding you pull over right now, and a layman’s knowing the ins and outs of mandatory reporter statutes, are quite in the same category. I routinely interact professionally with people (including lawyers) who don’t know the reporting requirements in my own jurisdiction. Im not really “advocating” anything, just offering explanations for why the LDS church does things the way that they do. As I noted earlier—making a report of information received during a clerical confession when one is legally bound to keep it silent (as is the case in some jurisd

Sure; but to obey the law, a person first needs to know what the law is. Where a church stands liable for any failure of its functionaries to obey the law, it makes sense for the church to ensure that its functionaries have a means of learning the law—hence the hotline; which (as I think I pointed out earlier) takes pains to NOT actually receive “reports” of abuse in any meaningful way.

That’s probably why the LDS Church’s form explicitly tells the hotline worker *not* to take any personally identifying info as to the perp or victims. It’s not technically a report, it’s simply a person seeking legal guidance as to whether they are obligated to make a report (or, conversely, whether they are obligated to remain silent). At the end of that call, the church’s honchos still have no idea exactly where, to whom, or by whom the abuse was perpetrated.

If I may add some perspective here (I am a practicing Mormon and also a government attorney representing DCFS in my state): The reason the LDS legal hotline exists is that penitent-priest privilege laws differ by state. The Church was recently sued, for example, by a woman whose husband’s ecclesiastical leader *did* make a report to the authorities; she claimed he had violated the privilege and since he went to jail the wife demanded several million dollars in lost income, loss of consortium, ad nauseum. The attorneys staffing the legal hotline give church leaders the resources they nee