quote:Actually, my brother was in a Catholic troop. It sounds somewhat similar to LDS troups. There may have been non-Catholics in my brother's troop but I don't know for sure. I never thought anything about it until we went to an Eagle scout ceremony. The bishop was there, there was this big ceremony in the cathedral, and they made it sound like becoming an eagle scout was practically sacred and that these boys were on the path to great things. Religious greatness was hinted at. I was pretty annoyed at the time. I was probably 18. I am not sure if I was annoyed because they made such a big deal out of such fine, upstanding young Catholic men who might even grow up to be priests, or because they didn't have anything similar for women, or what. But it was a very religious ceremony, considering religion was never really brought up during scouting meetings or activities, so far as I know.
*nods* I really think this is more normal than otherwise. From the perspective of the national office, I can say that it is the assumption.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just poking my big fat nose in. I had no idea that Mormons were so heavily involved in scouting. I don't think that tends to happen around here (Kentuckiana). We tend to get more Christian troops. Operaetta is joining American Heritage Girls this fall, which is a Christian-based organization. However, they welcome people of all faiths and as a troop leader told me "it's not Sunday school on Monday night."
quote:And as a Boy Scout myself, I'm more upset about that than I would be if they were, for example, appointing leaders to 4-H.
Run! 'Dem cows done been mormanized!
Dagonee *Tom, this isn't aimed at you, and I don't think it's what your saying. It's more inspired by AJ's recollections.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lol and to collaborate with Tom's comment on the subject 4-H was considered the "safe" (theologically speaking) alternative to Boy Scouts though since we were in a city, most of the boys found the crafting activities way too girly.
posted
TD:"I'm upset that they're raising their kids in LDS clumps, in organizations locally devoted to LDS principles"
This really does sound like you object to religious people raising their kids in their religion.
TD:"(to the point that the LDS will embrace and extend to swallow an organization that might otherwise appeal to their kids, just to make it more LDS)"
How so? Just because the ward sponsors the troop? Who else is going to do it? In many of our communities, there are no other troops available. Besides, as I and others have said, it is very, very common for religious groups to sponsor troops. We are not the only ones that do it. And we do not "make it more LDS." We follow the BSA program.
TD:"and rigorously scheduling their weekly activities -- so that the first time they encounter non-LDS societies in any real way, they're deliberately isolated as missionaries"
I don't know where you get this. Do you think we all send our kids to Church-run schools, or home-school? Do you think we don't have neighbors with children not of our faith? Do yoou think we don't send our kids to sports teams, lessons, clubs, etc?
TD:"(while escorted in order to ensure their non-participation in that larger society)."
That's not the reason for missionaries to work in pairs, and I think you know it.
TD:"And once they return, they marry the LDS girl they met four months before they left and start the cycle over."
This is very upsetting, bordering on slanderous. It's definitely inflammatory. Again, I think you know better.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think one of Tom's alternatives to setting up your own largely separate troops would be to instead send your kids to any existing troops that may exist in your area.
Now, this may be done already, but from what I've read in the thread here, it doesn't seem all that common, and certainly not a default.
posted
U of U, if this ever becomes a place where Tom D (who has been around here far longer than you or me) can't express his honest opinions on a subject, I'm leaving Hatrack.
posted
Tom, you don't like it that the church is so heavily involved in scouting, but once the church pulls out of scouting, it will be because we don't support gay scout leaders. Either way, we're in the wrong. *sigh* Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And if this ever becomes a place where we don't expect everyone to treat others with respect, I'm leaving Hatrack.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
AJ:"U of U, if this ever becomes a place where Tom D (who has been around here far longer than you or me) can't express his honest opinions on a subject, I'm leaving Hatrack."
So would I.
Tom (like everyone else)is free to express his honest opinions in any way he likes. However, he (like everyone else) doesn't get off scott-free when his expression is deliberately inflammatory.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Theca, the Eagle ceremony is different everywhere. Every one I've ever been to has been really different.
The most bizzare part of all of this to me is that the ward has so much to do with picking the leadership of the troop. I don't like that. Its an okay idea that it be rotated every 2-3 years, but I don't like someone outside of the troop picking it. I don't like the idea that the priest/minister whatever tells you that this is your calling. The leadership of the troop can make or break it. It determines, to a large extent the type of activities and their number. I don't like the inplications that 1 person is picking it. (I also have issues with the picking part, but not to the same extent.)
Also, in my experience, in southwestern PA anyway, the sponsoring organization doesn't have all that much to do with the actual running of the troops. The amount varies from troop to troop but they definatively don't pick the leadership.
Religion is only as much of an issue in the troop as the troop chooses to make it. I've seem troops that make a big deal, and troop that don't ever mention it at all. So that issue isn't a problem for me. The bigger concern is how non LDS members are treated, but if what is said is true they that isn't an across the board problem.
(This is HollowEarth, the password to that account is at home. Hence the new one. Did Hatrack always want address and phone number? Or is that a new thing?)
Posts: 2 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not that anyone ever reads my posts, but I also said earlier that I joined a Methodist troop for a time, and that my LDS congregation's troop (when it was active) welcomed boys regardless of faith.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: In many of our communities, there are no other troops available....And we do not "make it more LDS." We follow the BSA program.
Would there be a troop available if the church did NOT sponsor it? If you don't think so, let me point out then that clearly the church -- as a church -- considers the troop more valuable than the community as a whole. The second-largest sponsor of BSA troops is the public-school system; why do no public schools in Utah sponsor troops?
Let me also point out that people here have said that the LDS church -- the single biggest organizational sponsor of the BSA -- would abandon the BSA if it because less LDS in nature. I would imagine that, given the BSA's funding issues, this exerts some influence on its behavior.
quote: Do you think we all send our kids to Church-run schools, or home-school? Do you think we don't have neighbors with children not of our faith? Do yoou think we don't send our kids to sports teams, lessons, clubs, etc?
A significant percentage of Mormon children wind up going to Mormon colleges. Mormon children are also expected to attend church-sponsored events, and many Utah schools permit an hour (as I understand it) of religious indoctrination per day.
quote: That's not the reason for missionaries to work in pairs, and I think you know it.
Honestly, I think that's part of it (although I'll freely admit it's not the only reason); I sincerely believe that the LDS church deliberately isolates its missionaries from the larger culture to make them feel more a part of the religion they're serving.
quote:"And once they return, they marry the LDS girl they met four months before they left and start the cycle over."
This is very upsetting, bordering on slanderous. It's definitely inflammatory. Again, I think you know better.
On this board alone, which has maybe thirty or forty regulars and perhaps only twenty Mormon regulars, this sort of thing has happened three times over the last three years. It's also common enough to be a standing joke in Mormon culture, and is a pretty frequent dig in the Sugar Beet. If it's an unfair cultural stereotype, I'm sorry; I have, however, noticed that it's a cultural stereotype.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
AJ:"And *slanderous* does blatantly imply to me he shouldn't be allowed to say it"
That's not what I meant by "slanderous." I meant that he was making false and objectionable allegations about the way we expect returned LDS missionaries to act. He is free to make such allegations, but my esteem for him is not raised by his doing so. I think it is a dishonest tactic, and one that is not worthy of him.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
afr, you're who I was thinking of. I remembered it as Scott. Sorry.
quote:Also, in my experience, in southwestern PA anyway, the sponsoring organization doesn't have all that much to do with the actual running of the troops. The amount varies from troop to troop but they definatively don't pick the leadership.
That's totally up to local organization. Hence the local school district analogy - the good thing is that what other troops are doing doesn't affect your own.
---
Hmm...I'm learning towards local control (as opposed to national proscription) being a better way to do it, actually. *mental balance tilts toward BSA model*
posted
I understand that they welcome kids regardless of their faith. And theoretically no "conversion" should be going on if a kid joined of a different faith. Yet with a leadership's structure directly nominated by the local LDS church (and members are still only human) can't you see where the potential for proselytizing comes in and becomes a much greater possiblilty?
posted
You're the lawyer U of U, maybe I have my words wrong but it has always been the impression to me whenever "slander" is brought up one foot is already in the courtroom and litigation procedings are underway, which is probably why I had such a strong reaction to the word.
posted
Here it goes one more time: The famous Hatrack "Can't you Mormons see that you offend me by living your religion?" debate.
Feel free to be offended by my calling it that.
Maybe y'all can save the hurt feelings and just link to the proxy baptism thread or Mormon temple thread and pretend like everyone expressed the same feelings as they expressed in those threads.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jacare, how immune from criticism do you expect someone's religion to make them? At what point does the fact that something is a principle of some religion exempt it from being discussed?
I'm NOT a big fan of the Mormon trifecta: convert, isolate, and dominate. I think it's unhealthy, and probably contributes quite a bit to the otherwise unfair "cult" accusations. It's a useful tactic when in a minority population, but quickly becomes creepy and ultimately diseased when practiced by a majority. This BSA thing, to me, is just another symptom.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jacare: Don't forget "Mormons as individuals are the some of the best people, but as a group you're intolerable."
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did the whole beavers/cubs/scouts thing back in Nova Scotia. There was one in my home town, and a few others in surrounding towns and one exclusively Mormon one that pooled people from several communities. Not that we weren't free to join the Mormon ones, just that no Mormons joined the ones that were already in their community.
I cannot, for the life of me, remember God being mentioned at any scouting event. Not on the local level or the provincial level (I never did any on a national level). Except for the one LDS scout event I went to. It totally wigged me out. All I wanted to do was go tobagganing, why exactly were we praying?
posted
"So when did Mormonism become the majority religion?"
*points back to the Utah comment*
Consider that I'm doing you a favor; if I can slow down recruiting so that you never become the majority culture anywhere else, you can continue to be offended by this kind of unjust criticism as long as it only applies to people born in a small geographic corridor.
posted
Tom's point is apparently that when people try to live their lives the way they want to, rather than in a Tom Approved Fashion (tm), it is "chilling" and "horrifying". Tom reserves the right to belittle people having beliefs that are divergent from his, and this is no way Intolerant.
Tom, in another thread you said you were not aware of any LDS Hatrack members leaving because of things you've said. Well, I'm one. I left because you are unwilling to give people with different opinions the benefit of the doubt, and when you combine that immediate hostility with you voluminous posting ability, I felt that this was not an envrironment inclusive enough for me. I still lurk on occasion, but running across your arguments is still off-putting.
I no longer believe that it's me. It's you, and I'm calling you on it. There have been several people that have also called you on it, and you are defending your behavior rather than apologizing. You seem to be more concerned with your argument than the people you are arguing with. Hatrack truly *is* a place where some beliefs are not treated respectfully.
posted
Bok: Yes, I started in the LDS troop, but this was in Duluth, MN, not Utah. My congregation offered scouting, and was the only one I knew of. And other kids I knew were also in the troop. I likely would have joined another troop if I knew people in it. But my troop was active at the time, had our church meetinghouse gym to meet in, and went on fabulous week-long canoeing trips in the Boundary Waters every year.
The Methodist troop I later joined met a long way away from where I lived, but again, it was the only active troop I knew of. I wanted to advance in rank, and I wanted to be in a troop that actually worked on merit badges.
Edit: And you know, the Methodist troop was a lot more overtly religious than the LDS troop ever was. We had campfire Bible study.
[ June 25, 2004, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: advice for robots ]
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Tom's point is apparently that when people try to live their lives the way they want to..."
Nope. My point is that when people try to make their children live the lives they want them to....
I think religious fundamentalism and group-think of all kinds is the single biggest threat to the stability of our culture. Hands-down. There is NO challenge that, in the long-term, is more dangerous. And so anything that produces homogenous religious culture is, by its very nature, deeply unnerving.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Jacare, how immune from criticism do you expect someone's religion to make them? At what point does the fact that something is a principle of some religion exempt it from being discussed?
Not immune at all. However, what you are complaining about comes across to me at least as "I can't believe that you Mormons are raising your kids to be Mormon!" along with the obligatory references to Hitler youth, herds of sheep, mindless minions marching in lockstep etc.
So feel free to discuss it if you like, I just can't see any logical reason to believe that anyone who believes in a particular philosophy wouldn't try their best to teach their kids that way too.
quote: I'm NOT a big fan of the Mormon trifecta: convert, isolate, and dominate.
See, no Mormon in existence would agree with you that such is our philosophy. Convert, sure, just as any "meme" seeks to propagate itself. But isolate? Dominate? where do you come up with those?
quote: I think it's unhealthy, and probably contributes quite a bit to the otherwise unfair "cult" accusations. It's a useful tactic when in a minority population, but quickly becomes creepy and ultimately diseased when practiced by a majority. This BSA thing, to me, is just another symptom.
So what you are basically objecting to here is what? That the church has youth programs? That the church youth programs are related to *gasp* church teachings?
Cleary the BSA was DESIGNED to adapt itself to the supporting organizations, not the other way around.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know, I guess I don't think there is anything wrong with being inflammatory occasionally. There is mean-spirited inflammatory and non-meanspirited inflammatory.
I know a great many people who have EXACTLY the same opinion as Tom about the LDS involvment with the Boy Scouts and that actually present their views far more vehemently.
Why can't we discuss that this is something that very much squicks non mormons out? How are you Mormons ever going to be able to understand the perspective to try to convert us if nothing else?
posted
TD:"Would there be a troop available if the church did NOT sponsor it?"
In some cases, yes. In many others, no.
TD:"why do no public schools in Utah sponsor troops?"
Certainly part of the reason is because there are already so many troops that the need is not so great. However, it is also because Utah schools are some of the most underfunded in the country. They have no money for this kind of sponsorship.
TD:"would abandon the BSA if it because less LDS in nature."
This is an unnecessarily cynical way of putting it. I assure you that we don't think of the BSA as being "LDS in nature," nor are we worried about it becoming "less LDS in nature."
TD:"A significant percentage of Mormon children wind up going to Mormon colleges."
How many LDS colleges are there? (Hint: I know of four.) How many students can attend these colleges? How many LDS college-aged kids are there? What do you consider a "significant percentage?"
TD:"I sincerely believe that the LDS church deliberately isolates its missionaries from the larger culture to make them feel more a part of the religion they're serving."
I think the very nature of LDS missionary service refutes this. It is, rather, a kind of immersion into a larger culture. But this could get way, way off topic so I'll stop there.
TD:"this sort of thing has happened three times over the last three years."
How close would the situation have to be to the one you described in order to qualify as "this sort of thing?"
I probably get more upset about this particular issue than I should, because of personal experiences of my own. Suffice it to say that 1) I find the stereotype false, and usually used in an antagonistic way, 2) I don't find the jokes funny, 3) I find your version of the joke/stereotype inaccurate even with respect to the joke/stereotype, and 4) many of the real-life examples of this kind of marriage really bother me (and it is true that the joke/stereotype is based on reality, but it reflects a problem within the LDS Church, not a principle of the Church.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jacare, if I were being snarky, I'd say it's simply turnabout for the LDS saying, "You non-LDS people offend us, so we're going to send missionaries out an about to make you see the light."
But I'm not snarky, and I don't believe that. I think it says more about you that you think this is another "Oh, the big, bad LDS offends me!" thread.
You know, it wasn't THAT many years ago that a thread like this would get confrontational, but no residue of it would continue on.
It's interesting that an ostensibly ecumenical organization is part of a religious practice... The lines seem kinda blurred here to me.
posted
Personally, I think it would be best for all the organizations involved if the LDS church didn't use the Boy Scout program as the basis for its Young Men's activities.
Do I have a problem with religious organizations sponsoring local Boy Scouting troops? No. Do I have a problem with the BoA allowing gay troop leaders? No. Do I have a problem with the LDS church using the youth's weekly activities to teach more about the church? No.
While I don't necessarily agree with all of Tom's concerns, I think that they have merit. I guess at the core of it, I don't like how the two large organizations can get entangled - I don't think it is good for either of them. I think that the Boy Scouts is a great organization, I just don't think that it's necessarily the right program to use in the Young Men's program of the LDS Church.
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom: To an extent, I agree. Mormon culture does tend to isolate Mormons (and that seems to be your big problem, not the scout thing).
****
I was a counsellor in the young men's presidency in one of my former wards. My objective as a counsellor was to bring the boys closer to Christ by teaching them the rights and responsabilities of the priesthood.
And my main objection to the scouting program within the church is that I have not seen how scouting helps to accomplish this goal.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bok, did no one read what I wrote. The lines are SUPPOSED to be blurred! It's supposed to be adapted by the chartering organization. There are a few guidelines, but in general, the CO can emphasize what they want within them.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
EM/HE:"Also, in my experience, in southwestern PA anyway, the sponsoring organization doesn't have all that much to do with the actual running of the troops. The amount varies from troop to troop but they definatively don't pick the leadership."
Really? How are the leaders chosen, then? I'm genuinely curious.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Jacare, if I were being snarky, I'd say it's simply turnabout for the LDS saying, "You non-LDS people offend us, so we're going to send missionaries out an about to make you see the light."
I applaud your passive aggresivity.
quote:I know a great many people who have EXACTLY the same opinion as Tom about the LDS involvment with the Boy Scouts and that actually present their views far more vehemently.
Why can't we discuss that this is something that very much squicks non mormons out? How are you Mormons ever going to be able to understand the perspective to try to convert us if nothing else?
quote: I think it says more about you that you think this is another "Oh, the big, bad LDS offends me!" thread.
Yes. It says that I recognize the rehashing of the same argument in differenct threads.
quote: It's interesting that an ostensibly ecumenical organization is part of a religious practice... The lines seem kinda blurred here to me.
Yes, heaven forbid that any organization get itself tangled up with religions. It violates True Americanism where we believe in separation of church and everything else.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
AJ:"You're the lawyer U of U, maybe I have my words wrong but it has always been the impression to me whenever "slander" is brought up one foot is already in the courtroom and litigation procedings are underway, which is probably why I had such a strong reaction to the word."
I wondered whether anyone would think that.
While "slander" is a legal concept, I think the word has been adopted in the larger English language and is used in many senses that do not fall under the strict legal definition. That is, many things are called slander that could never qualify as such in a court of law. In fact, I think that the legal version of slander has been shrinking dramatically, to the point that you hardly ever see it anymore. Libel, on the other hand, is alive and kicking.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, I never mentioned the Hitler Youth. Not once.
"Convert, sure, just as any 'meme' seeks to propagate itself. But isolate? Dominate? where do you come up with those?"
Isolate: the Mormon church takes great steps to promote activities within its own circle. Many of these activities are essentially mandatory, and are very time-consuming. Most of its membership feels pressured to spend two years of their lives in an unfamiliar city, accompanied by a core group of fellow members and completely -- and deliberately -- cut off from contact with the surrounding culture, with the intent of doing both good works and learning/spreading doctrine. Its members often believe themselves to be victims of persecution, and speak repeatedly of not being "of the world." In fact, I've seen the word "worldly" used as a cutting insult.
Dominate: the Mormon church identifies activities that are "good" and takes steps to fold those activities into their control. Members are expected to regularly visit other members to discuss religion and, not incidentally, check up on them. Members are routinely assigned tasks by church leadership; these tasks can include additional religious teaching. (As teaching a religion is recognized as one of the most effective ways of reinforcing it, this ensures that most members seriously try to be devoted to their faith and familiar with scripture.) Peer pressure within Mormon communities is fairly heavy and, from what I've seen, Southern-style gossip is almost a sport; this ensures that deviation from the norm is punished almost immediately. In general, the church as a whole works to remain in control of its own assets, and values both secrecy and independence -- not least because its members tend to believe that any secular progam will ultimately fail them.
--------
None of these things are unique to the LDS church. In some form, they're pretty common among ANY rapidly-growing major religion, precisely because these techniques work. But I think the Mormons do 'em better than anybody else.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
That sounds like a slap to some people we know. Bad form. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
