Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
CricketEagle

Path To Save Bsa?

Recommended Posts

I think you missed the part where I said we had a former IRS tax auditor

 

Actually, I wasn't responding directly to your point at all. I was just commenting on the general topic and I meant to suggest that people are welcome to go look at the actual decisions themselves and see how they'd like to craft their own legal policies on this topic, and I was stating what we have done in our unit.

 

Edited because new posts were put up while I was creating my post:

 

But since I am now responding directly to you, I'll take a quick look at your specifics. I am not a lawyer, nor a former auditor, but based on my reading of the decisions, I'd say that your legal counsel has done a fine job if all of the Scout accounts are given equal funding and not in direct proportion to the participation.

 

In the link I posted, the IRS lists what that particular organization is doing wrong. "You do not jointly fundraise for the organization and then allocate to all equally or based on need or merit. The benefit from the fundraising activity is allocated in direct proportion to the participation".  It also gives an example of a case where the judge stated "even though the club did not distribute cash to member parents, the arrangement resulted in inurement to them".

 

If your system has none of these problematic issues, then you should be okay.  I think that the "direct proportion to the participation" is the big issue.

Edited by Oak Tree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I understand it, the LDS church is re-evaluating their participation in bsa regarding the way the vote was taken (when bsa knew they'd be out on vacation), rather than the outcome of the vote.

 

The LDS members in general can't wait till the church pulls out of BSA and I think it has nothing to do with bsa allowing gay leaders and everything to do with the way the program is being run on the local church level in addition to the inequality between programs for boys and girls in the church.  The girls from 8-18 get a wholly spiritual program, while the boys are told to do religious stuff at home.  The girls are given almost no recognition and very few awards, while the boys are lavished with awards for everything they do.  The boys get 5 times the budget the girls get, since scouting is so much more expensive than running a church program.   Many lds parents would welcome the boys having a spiritual church-only program, rather than having to participate in Boy scouts.  

 

The ultra conservative lds homeschoolers, however, are concerned about their boys being in the vicinity of openly gay leaders while at scout camp.  I have a hunch that all the parents of boys, who attend public school and participate in sports and other activities, realize their kids have probably already been exposed to openly gay people, as well as what's even worse- drugs, drinking, and open sexual acts.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christine, I'll say this as delicately as possible, and it's not a criticism of your church or its leaders, and its certainly not a criticism of you. And I should mention that I really have no knowledge about the LDS Church. I only know what I see, hear and read. But here's what I think:

 

I find it really difficult to believe that an organization that is as powerful and influential within the BSA as the LDS Church was not able to get a vote postponed. It doesn't make sense to me. I have to wonder whether there is something else going on behind the scenes that you are not being told about. And that the church is not mentioning in its press releases. Maybe a miscommunication between LDS and BSA? Maybe someone in the church hierarchy agreed to something and the other leaders would not back him up? Stranger things have happened in the world.

 

Your second paragraph makes me wonder about something else. Mention is made in this forum, from time to time, about LDS young men being required to be Scouts whether they want to or not. Now your post makes it sound like a lot of the parents don't really want them to be Scouts either, and that it isn't really about the membership issues. So if the Scouts don't want to be Scouts... and the Scouts' parents don't want them to be Scouts... who DOES want them to be Scouts?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think BSA has made a conscious decision to ditch the conservative religious COs.

 

If they lose half of the churches, but get back into half of the schools; BSA comes out ahead.  And many of the units who lose their church CO will probably try to get another CO that's not a church.

 

I'm enjoying my time on the curb.

Edited by JoeBob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think BSA has made a conscious decision to ditch the conservative religious COs.

I think it is just the opposite; they are trying desperately to keep them. Otherwise there would be no local option, they simply would have changed the policy and that's it. And, otherwise, they would not have just added a discussion of Duty to God as a requirement for every rank. Give one local option, take away another. Now, at least in theory, every Scout and every SM, everywhere, will be discussing God as part of every rank advancement. Who do you think asked for that? Was it part of a "deal"? I don't know, but the timing sure is interesting.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christine, I'll say this as delicately as possible, and it's not a criticism of your church or its leaders, and its certainly not a criticism of you. And I should mention that I really have no knowledge about the LDS Church. I only know what I see, hear and read. But here's what I think:

 

I find it really difficult to believe that an organization that is as powerful and influential within the BSA as the LDS Church was not able to get a vote postponed. It doesn't make sense to me. I have to wonder whether there is something else going on behind the scenes that you are not being told about. And that the church is not mentioning in its press releases. Maybe a miscommunication between LDS and BSA? Maybe someone in the church hierarchy agreed to something and the other leaders would not back him up? Stranger things have happened in the world.

 

Your second paragraph makes me wonder about something else. Mention is made in this forum, from time to time, about LDS young men being required to be Scouts whether they want to or not. Now your post makes it sound like a lot of the parents don't really want them to be Scouts either, and that it isn't really about the membership issues. So if the Scouts don't want to be Scouts... and the Scouts' parents don't want them to be Scouts... who DOES want them to be Scouts?

 

The church doesn't quite work that way.  The only group that has authority for policy is the first presidency and quorum of the twelve.  They only make decisions when they all agree, so no one is going to go out and say something and then have it not backed up.  Could if be a miscommunication, maybe but not very likely.  Also look up the scouting experience of the president of the church.  His name is Thomas  S. Monson.  Someone that connected is not likely going to be misunderstood.

 

I think this vote is just the final nail in the coffin.  It would be easier and cheaper for the church to just run their own program.  They also would not have to worry about getting sued and not having BSA back them up, which in my opinion is what will happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is just the opposite; they are trying desperately to keep them. Otherwise there would be no local option, they simply would have changed the policy and that's it. And, otherwise, they would not have just added a discussion of Duty to God as a requirement for every rank. Give one local option, take away another. Now, at least in theory, every Scout and every SM, everywhere, will be discussing God as part of every rank advancement. Who do you think asked for that? Was it part of a "deal"? I don't know, but the timing sure is interesting.

I suspect it was part of the deal in 2013 and is just making its way into the requirements now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time for National to do some deep soul searching of their priorities for the program  and its future direction or face the very real threat of the extinction of scouting as we know it. It is truly sad that after a century of a great program National is dealing with a sinking ship of lack of direction and mismanagement.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They also would not have to worry about getting sued and not having BSA back them up, which in my opinion is what will happen.

It seems to me that if they create an independent LDS program, they will have the same vulnerability to lawsuits, and the same constitutional protection from lawsuits, that they do now under the new BSA policy. The one thing that would be different is that the BSA definitely would not back them up if they are not part of the BSA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that if they create an independent LDS program, they will have the same vulnerability to lawsuits, and the same constitutional protection from lawsuits, that they do now under the new BSA policy. The one thing that would be different is that the BSA definitely would not back them up if they are not part of the BSA.

You keep assuming the BSA will back them up.  I highly doubt it.  Yes they say they will, but the leadership seems so PC on this issue I see them buckling under. 

As far as the church itself, it would seem they would have more legal protection by implementing their own program as part of the church then using the BSA program.  That way it is a religious argument and not a private group one. I am not schooled in law though so I could definitely be wrong.  Seems like it would be tough for the BSA to defend it's double standard of allowing religious groups to discriminate while not allowing the non-religious groups that option.  Again though I have no professional basis for that opinion though.  Maybe someone can enlighten me.

 

Finally the church has no need to be defended by the BSA considered it has vastly greater resources then the BSA does. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You keep assuming the BSA will back them up.  I highly doubt it.  Yes they say they will, but the leadership seems so PC on this issue I see them buckling under. 

As far as the church itself, it would seem they would have more legal protection by implementing their own program as part of the church then using the BSA program.  That way it is a religious argument and not a private group one. I am not schooled in law though so I could definitely be wrong.  Seems like it would be tough for the BSA to defend it's double standard of allowing religious groups to discriminate while not allowing the non-religious groups that option.  Again though I have no professional basis for that opinion though.  Maybe someone can enlighten me.

 

Finally the church has no need to be defended by the BSA considered it has vastly greater resources then the BSA does. 

@@jamskinner

 

First of all, welcome to the forum!  I believe you are correct in that the LDS would be less likely to be sued than if they did not stay with the BSA.  No court is going to take on an issue that is exclusively church related.  I have never heard of any church member suing their church because they were upset with their leadership..  However, once connected to the BSA, it opens up the possibility and in this issue, even quite probably.  If the LDS leadership can set up who does and who doesn't lead their units it's nobody's business but their own.  If they are BSA units with certain policies it opens up LDS to a lawsuit.

 

I've been quite surprised the LDS has tolerated the BSA as long as it has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they lose half of the churches, but get back into half of the schools; BSA comes out ahead.

 

They can't.  Public schools can't charter BSA units that don't allow atheists.  Period.

 

And if you're just talking about meeting space, they already have the same access as any other group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time for National to do some deep soul searching of their priorities for the program  and its future direction or face the very real threat of the extinction of scouting as we know it. It is truly sad that after a century of a great program National is dealing with a sinking ship of lack of direction and mismanagement.

I concur, BadenP.   Unfortunately, I don't think National has the will, nor the talent, to do so.   Too many people in key positions at council and above that never really bought in to what made the BSA great for several decades.  

 

"Sinking ship" is the right phrase.   I think National is resigned to sitting back and letting the battle damage reports roll in, hoping against hope that losses won't be too bad.   Hardly an effective plan for long term success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can't.  Public schools can't charter BSA units that don't allow atheists.  Period.

 

And if you're just talking about meeting space, they already have the same access as any other group.

PTAs, etc were the COs around here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This came across my facebook feed today.  It's not just me, saying LDS parents want to ditch the scouting program.  http://utahpolicy.com/index.php/features/today-at-utah-policy/6694-poll-majority-of-utah-mormons-want-lds-church-to-leave-the-boy-scouts

 

My question is: If we ditch bsa on account of the flaky way it's being implemented at the local level, will anything change if the church comes up with some other program?  It will be the same leaders!  

 

The LDS church embraced boy scouts shortly after it came to America- way back in the early 1900s.  I understand things were less regulated back then.  It was a different time.  The ideals of boy scouts do match up with what we want for our young men.  I think problems come with boys and leaders being expected to join, rather than volunteering/joining of their own desire.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×