If the church announced they would use only Scouting or Duty to God

[MikeWaters]

which you would prefer as the sole activity arm for the YM of the church?

[BigFatMeanie]

Duty to God. It's eventually going to happen that way anyway. Scouting programs in other countries are often non-existent or are significantly different than traditional scouting in the U.S./Canda. Over half of the membership of the Church is outside the U.S. The traditional Mormon-style Scouting in the U.S. is dying a slow death and is generally non-existent in the Church outside of North America. I, for one, will only be too happy to see it go (when I say "see it go" I'm referring to the way traditional Mormon scouting has been operated in the U.S.A - not to the B.S.A in general).

Cue all the responses about how great Scouting is and what wonderful experiences were had in Scouts and how it's a shame that Scouting isn't supported like it used to be, etc.... I have no problem with Scouting in general or when the Scout program is properly implemented in an LDS unit. I'm not opposed at all to wards/stakes sponsoring Scout troops. I am oppposed to the traditional method of every ward having their own troop regardless of the lack of boys, lack of leadership, or lack of interest. I am opposed to Scouting being the default YM program in the U.S. It should be used in addition to Duty to God where interest and leadership indicates it would be a good fit but, in my opinion, Duty to God should be the default.

[MikeWaters]

Duty to God should be renamed to "Boring as Hell".

[Venkman]

I voted for Scouting, but I will agree with Meanie that there are some problems with Scouting in the LDS church and he touched on them. Lack of interested adult leaders and boys, lack of youth leadership, too few numbers, lack of money. Here's the changes I'd make if I was in charge.

Adult leaders: if an adult doesn't really like the scouting program, or at least enjoy the outdoors, he shouldn't be called to that position. Period. I had a few assistant scoutmasters who were called (without my input) that hated camping. These guys largely worthless as assistants. I don't know if it should be all volunteer leadership, but Bishops need to do better due dilligence, and not frame the calling as "coming from God", making it tolerable, nay preferable, to turn the calling down if you're not interested. Good scoutmasters shouldn't be rotated out after a year. Five years or more sounds about right to me. Five years is not too long for a scoutmaster if he has a good troop committee, strong assistants, and a supportive bishopric. If adult leadership is a problem at the ward level, then maybe wards need to combine or the troop needs to be at a stake level.

Disinterested boys: I maintain, that if the scoutmaster is enthusiastic and prepared, most boys can find enjoyment in scouting to one degree or another. Besides, even if it's not always enjoyable, it's important. That said, I wouldn't have scouting as the only activity. My activity schedule for the month would consist of two nights or scouting, one outdoor activity, one combined YM/YW activity, and one non-scouting quorum activity.

Lack of youth leadership/too few boys: these go hand in hand. Scouting is supposed to be boy-led utilizing the patrol method. Different patrols for different ages and experience levels. Where the older boys/patrols help the younger boys/patrols. Presided over by a sr. patrol leader. You simply cannot have a troop that provides leadership opportunity with less than 10-15 boys. I also don't like how scouts is basically a deacon thing. By the time a boy has developed the leadership capabilities needed for say a Sr. Patrol leader, he is gone to the teachers quorum.

I would make Varsity scouts a patrol within the troop and have them still coming to troop meetings (just two a month - not a big deal). That is not to say they always have to do the same stuff as the deacon age scouts (that's why we break off into patrols), but at least one meeting a month, it would be good to have them helping out the younger scouts. And they can still do their own high-adventure activities.

I would have eleven year old scouts incorporated into the troop. They can't come to all the campouts but they can still be a part of the troop and do their own thing in their eleven-year old patrol.

IMO, unless you have a regular core of 10-15 deacon age scouts, your troop isn't big enough and it should be combined with another ward, or the troop should be at the stake level.

Lack of money: It takes money to run a good troop. In spite of the tax deductions, I didn't relish dipping into my own funds to supplement the troop. They should allow fundraisers but require a cut off the top to go into a general church scouting fund that is then distributed to poorer troops.

In short, to better the LDS Scout experience, the Church should run it more like non-LDS troops.

Oh, and get away from the Eagle fixation. Advancement is great, but not if it isn't accompanied with learning, development, and leadership. Boards of Review should be more difficult and failing one should be a distinct possibility if you're not prepared.

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by Venkman

I voted for Scouting, but I will agree with Meanie that there are some problems with Scouting in the LDS church and he touched on them. Lack of interested adult leaders and boys, lack of youth leadership, too few numbers, lack of money. Here's the changes I'd make if I was in charge.

Adult leaders: if an adult doesn't really like the scouting program, or at least enjoy the outdoors, he shouldn't be called to that position. Period. I had a few assistant scoutmasters who were called (without my input) that hated camping. These guys largely worthless as assistants. I don't know if it should be all volunteer leadership, but Bishops need to do better due dilligence, and not frame the calling as "coming from God", making it tolerable, nay preferable, to turn the calling down if you're not interested. Good scoutmasters shouldn't be rotated out after a year. Five years or more sounds about right to me. Five years is not too long for a scoutmaster if he has a good troop committee, strong assistants, and a supportive bishopric. If adult leadership is a problem at the ward level, then maybe wards need to combine or the troop needs to be at a stake level.

Disinterested boys: I maintain, that if the scoutmaster is enthusiastic and prepared, most boys can find enjoyment in scouting to one degree or another. Besides, even if it's not always enjoyable, it's important. That said, I wouldn't have scouting as the only activity. My activity schedule for the month would consist of two nights or scouting, one outdoor activity, one combined YM/YW activity, and one non-scouting quorum activity.

Lack of youth leadership/too few boys: these go hand in hand. Scouting is supposed to be boy-led utilizing the patrol method. Different patrols for different ages and experience levels. Where the older boys/patrols help the younger boys/patrols. Presided over by a sr. patrol leader. You simply cannot have a troop that provides leadership opportunity with less than 10-15 boys. I also don't like how scouts is basically a deacon thing. By the time a boy has developed the leadership capabilities needed for say a Sr. Patrol leader, he is gone to the teachers quorum.

I would make Varsity scouts a patrol within the troop and have them still coming to troop meetings (just two a month - not a big deal). That is not to say they always have to do the same stuff as the deacon age scouts (that's why we break off into patrols), but at least one meeting a month, it would be good to have them helping out the younger scouts. And they can still do their own high-adventure activities.

I would have eleven year old scouts incorporated into the troop. They can't come to all the campouts but they can still be a part of the troop and do their own thing in their eleven-year old patrol.

IMO, unless you have a regular core of 10-15 deacon age scouts, your troop isn't big enough and it should be combined with another ward, or the troop should be at the stake level.

Lack of money: It takes money to run a good troop. In spite of the tax deductions, I didn't relish dipping into my own funds to supplement the troop. They should allow fundraisers but require a cut off the top to go into a general church scouting fund that is then distributed to poorer troops.

In short, to better the LDS Scout experience, the Church should run it more like non-LDS troops.

Oh, and get away from the Eagle fixation. Advancement is great, but not if it isn't accompanied with learning, development, and leadership. Boards of Review should be more difficult and failing one should be a distinct possibility if you're not prepared.

I agree with every single thing you wrote. I have no problem with Scouting in general and if the church ran their Scout troops the way you suggest I would be all for it.