posted
Bev, I said the same thing in an earlier post.
AJ, I certainly don't think the church is trying to control anyone like a 3-year-old. There really is not that sense inside the church. If that's the opinion of many who have other beliefs, then it's being perpetuated by people who have other beliefs. There is a perception of the church leadership as being very dominating and controlling. That is simply not true; the teachings of the church also do not advocate that kind of treatment. If it happens, it is on an individual basis and does not reflect the overall values of the church or its membership.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
No, you didn't mention Hitler Youth even once. But you were parelleling LDS involvement in the BSA to similar activities done by other, unsavory and bad groups in the past.
Anyone who has heard about the Hitler Youth, I'm sure they knew at least one of the unsavory groups you were talking about. I expect that's what Jacare meant. And I think it's what YOU meant-drawing a comparison between practices.
--------
I empathize with you. Someone who regards the sanctity of personal choice in choosing a religion is *bound* to be upset, even offended, at practices that smack of blunting that choice. And, you know, raising children in one's religious beliefs-even if it's just bringing them with you to church-has that affect. Even if it's very, very carefully and honestly done without intent to take away the choice and make it the ONLY thing, the natural thing.
If I ever have children, I think I will try (and fail) to walk the same razor-thin, wavering line between raising my child(ren) in what I think is right, and making sure that they choose the right thing to do for themselves. Not only for religious reasons-I think God likes it much, much more for people to do that for themselves than because it's expected, but because I'm a half-baked humanist who thinks people are happier and better that way without religion than if they do the right thing because it's expected BY religion.
But assume that parents fail in that task, whether they chose to attempt it or not. Their children choose to hold to their parents' religion because they lacked any other choices. Someday, the children will grow up and be adults making their own decision. They will have the emotional, spiritual, and financial power to say, "To hell with this!" if they want to. If they don't, I think it's fair to assume that their religion has become their choice-even if it's an unhappy choice they make more out of obligation than out of genuine freedom.
LDS emphasis on not being of the world has a spiritual and a practical aspect to it, as do most religious issues. I think part of the practical aspect is to prevent temptation, and another way of describing that is to say limiting choices. It's something I'm not comfortable with; I suppose that's why I'm not a very good Mormon-I still watch rated-R movies, for example, and I hang around with people who drink and smoke, but I don't do those two things myself. *shrug*
Anyway, I'm rambling. Just wanted to say I understand your concern and your wariness. And Olivia, that's terrible and very frightening. I think the choice you talked about was the ONLY good choice; what parent would've sent their child into BSA after hearing THAT?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
They may not be Trying, to control people like 3-year olds. But the impresssion that I have gotten from Hatrack, time and time again, is that the LDS people who actually Do think for themselves often get treated like three year olds by the culture (which is very tied to the religion and hard to extricate dispite all of the claims of how it's working in other countries) for doing so. Now this is my impression of their experiences so I could be wrong but I'm just sharing observations here.
posted
As a Latter-day Saint who thinks for himself, I can say that I've never felt like the Church was trying to control me. I think most fellow LDS Hatrackers would agree.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
afr, sorry if I said something you had already said--I didn't mean to run-over something you said.
I agree with afr in that I don't think the church endorses such behavior, but I do think it happens. Human nature and all.
Edit: True, Jon Boy and AJ, I think in "thinking for themselves" we are to read "disagrees with mainstream LDS thought". If you have not openly disagreed with mainstream LDS thought, then you wouldn't have experienced it.
posted
Banna: I agree with that, although I also have to admit it is like all the editorials complaining that they were the only ones who dared to mention something disparaging about Reagan during the Week of Yougooglizing. There did seem to be quite a few, and no one got smacked down.
posted
Banna, I'm saying that you keep talking about all these "people" who feel this way, and yet I've never noticed that anyone feels that way. Actually, I feel like you're being somewhat vague (probably in the interest of not naming names, like "I've noticed that Jon Boy feels repressed").
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I guess it depends on your definition of maturity with respect to raising children.
Would you be happy and proud if you raised yours children to think on their own and come to independent conclusions that might differ from yours? Or would you consider a child disagreeing from a thoughtful rationale as disrespectful and in need of a good *thwappping*? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Banna- am I right that you have no kids? Because to a parent this remark is completely unrealisitic. It is? Imagine my surprise, having raised two great kids to think on their own and come to their own conclusions...
They both definitely have minds of their own, often don't agree with me and their dad, and many here can testify to the fact that they really are great kids.
Ela- I think you may have misunderstood me and I in turn may have misunderstood Banna.
Here is what I was trying to say: I often run across the idea that parents shouldn't "indoctrinate" their children and should let them "choose for themselves".
I think that this idea is absurd because of the very nature of raising children. Children see what their parents do. They see what their parents value, what they believe and how they spend their time. Even if parents never gave a single lecture to their kids the children would inevitably be "indoctrinated" with their parents values. But what's more, good parents want very badly for their children to be good people. To this end parents teach their children to share and "don't hit your sister" and "say please" and so on. But children are very inquisitive and they want to know why they shouldn't hit their sisters and why they should share. Eventually the parents must arrive in their explanations to the ultimate rationale- the foundation of their code of ethics. This may be taught by diffusion simply by living example or it may be in words, but I think it fair to say in every case the children will sooner or later come to understand that mom and dad think that the gospel of Christ is the most important thing in the world and the foundation of everything they teach, or maybe the founding philosophy is humanism and progress or whatever it may be. Whatever the philosophy the truth is that the children will find it out whether consciously or no and the children will try to emulate the parents and the parents will almost always be pleased by this.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Why can't we judge the quality of LDS culture based on the people who live the teachings while surrounded by differing cultures and beliefs?"
My answer to this is that the best judge of any organization or philosophy's merit is the way it behaves when in power and able to put its theories into mass practice.
That said, I think Rak's managed to boil it down for me: I can't imagine anything more personal or more deserving of absolute, complete non-interference than religion, and since I think of values as being something independent of faith, I don't necessarily see that the passing of one is contingent upon the promotion of the other. Ergo, it creeps me out.
There's another part of it, too, the socially traditionalist/conformist part, that bothers me on another level, but I might move discussion of that to a second thread because, at heart, it has nothing to do with religion OR scouting.
posted
Exactly Jon Boy, I don't really want to start pointing fingers at individuals. Like I said, it is a personal interpretation of what those people have said at various times as well. I'm pretty darn certain though that all of them genuinely believe LDS theology.
posted
UofUlawguy, I'll post a better explaination later, but AJ is basically right. They volunteer. They are approved by the troop council, and they get the job. When no one volunteers, that troop slows way down until someone does, or it folds all together. When there are too many volunteers, you either have too many people or someone gets told no.
Seriously what do you folks do for a living? I don't post much in the threads that actually interest me because I can't ever keeep up with the discussion.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just want to give a little different perspective on LDS culture.
The Mormon church is not a Utah church. It is not an American church. There are more LDS members worldwide outside of the United States than inside of it. In America, there are more members outside of Utah than in it. There are more Mormons in California than in Utah.
The majority of LDS kids grow up outside of large LDS communities. The majority of LDS kids do not attend church-sponsored Universities.
But Utah has the largest concentration of Mormons acting as a single bloc, which is why they are such a prominent example. When people argue around here, they always use the most visible singular visible example. When people argue Islam here on Hatrack and everywhere else, the Middle East and its inhabitants are used most prominently as the example. There happen to be more Muslims outside of the Middle East than inside, but this is rarely pointed out, if ever. The Baptist church has more members outside of the influence of the Southern Baptist Convention, and even now (after the SBC has split from the worldwide organizations) the SBC is most often used as the example of the Baptist church. When both liberals and conservatives are judged by their opposition on this forum and others, they are judged by the extremes of belief on almost every occasion.
The truth is, Utah Mormons and culture are, to non-LDS, the biggest example of the LDS church in s single, concentrated form. The heads of the church reside in Utah, and the most prominent LDS-sanctioned schools are in Utah. There exists no larger single concentration of Mormons than in Utah. As much as it may annoy many LDS, Utah is simply the quickest, easiest, loudest, and most visible example of the LDS church that exists, for better or worse.
If non-Utah Mormons really are that concerned about this image, has there been any concerns of this sort addressed to the church itself, or any public attempt made to differentiate between Utah Mormons and all the rest?
Posts: 72 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The truth is, Utah Mormons and culture are, to non-LDS, the biggest example of the LDS church in s single, concentrated form.
Her point was that that perception is incomplete.
And yes, there has been. How else do you we think we know those statistics Annie tossed out?
quote:As much as it may annoy many LDS, Utah is simply the quickest, easiest, loudest, and most visible example of the LDS church that exists, for better or worse.
So, basically, "The truth is hard and stereotypes are easy, so deal."
posted
Nice to hear there are statistics, but whatis being done about them?
quote:So, basically, "The truth is hard and stereotypes are easy, so deal."
No, the truth is that groups are always characterized by their loudest and most prominent members, and it seems the LDS here want to only be judged by the best sections, while pointing out the largest singular clumps is considered inflammatory and untrue. As far as I've seen here, no such outrage is made every time such characterizations are made outside of the LDS culture. Instead, it's only unfair when it is done with the single largest group affiliation here on Hatrack. Or, can you show examples to show otherwise? I am willing to be convinced, but since being here, that's all I've seen (along with overt moderation removal of statements made by non-LDS about LDS matters on more than one occasion).
In other words, you reap what you sow as a group, not as individuals who are connected to a group.
Posts: 72 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:And you think that should be perpetuated and encouraged?
I think that if people are going to point out this problem, they should not play favorites. I offered other examples that occur here often enough, and are never addressed. So, why is it okay for some and not for others? Roll your eyes until your eyes are tired, if you will. But if it's only a problem when the LDS is brought up here, forgive me if I roll my eyes just as much.
Posts: 72 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I offered other examples that occur here often enough, and are never addressed.
I must have missed that....
I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone would approve of this behavior in any direction.
Edit: Ok, found it now. Well, you're right, usually the ones to protest are the members of the group. If there were more Baptists and Islams here, I'm sure we'd be hearing from them about it. And we would all duck our heads and apologize. The children's playing got out of hand.
However, I have met very many SPECIFIC Mormons that I have liked VERY much, beginning with several of the missionaries that visited us for over a year. Of the original pair, one was the nicest person I ever met-- really personable and understanding. The other was a total jerk, of the I'm-right-and-you're-stupid-just-because variety.
But of all the 'home grown' (as opposed to converted) Mormons I've known long enough to get a feel for them, that one jerk was the only one. Now, maybe the Hatrackian element has something to do with the general tolerance that most of the Mormons I have met have had for my very not-Mormon ways, but still.
Maybe certain aspects of Mormon culture suck, but I think that can be said of any relatively insular group. Even 'Jatraqueros'. Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The issue has been objected to when used to describe: liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, Catholics, Jews, Christians, Muslims . . .
And that's in the last month. I think the one being selective here is you.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beverly, check out the Moore threads, pretty much any thread discussing Bush, the recent gun control thread, and whenever there is discussion on the Iraq war and other War on Terror discussions. It happens quite regularly, and often without a peep to point out the mischaracterization.
Posts: 72 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah, but you're stuck listening to me complain about it.
I like listening to you complain. It means us religious folk are still doing something right.
quote:Beverly, check out the Moore threads, pretty much any thread discussing Bush, the recent gun control thread, and whenever there is discussion on the Iraq war and other War on Terror discussions. It happens quite regularly, and often without a peep to point out the mischaracterization.
I can only participate in so many threads.
Dagonee Edit: In other words, if you want to raise a peep about such doings, raise it.
posted
a lot of time scout troops are tied to one church or another. I was in a scout troop based in my Presbyterian Church when I was young...and as far as I know all of the leaders of the troop were members of the church. I think the Methodist church that I am now a member of has a troop as well…though I am not completely sure.
It would not surprise me to find that some Mormon churches are tied to troops as well
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Olivetta, I'm responding to your post way back when:
quote:All five of them (one a former eagle scout) said they had been molested in Scouts. They told her, "Whatever you do, keep little Micheal out of Scouts." So she did.
And really, would Boyscouts seem as attractive an activity to any parent after that story?
I'm a Cub Scout den leader, and the amount of effort that the Scouting organization is now putting into anti-abuse is really something:
*When boys get their Bobcat badge at the very start, they have to work through an anti-abuse booklet with a parent. The booklet is included in every Cub Scout manual. *Once a year, they have a Pack meeting dealing with abuse issues; recognition, prevention, etc. Parents are required to attend with boys. *Two adult Den leaders are required to be at every Cub Scout activity, or it is cancelled.
My recollection is that a criminal background check is also now required of every Cub Scout leader. I could be wrong here, though....
I imagine that the same is true of the Boy Scout organization proper (Cubs is for boys ages 7 or 8 to 11; Boy Scouts is thereafter). Times have changed, and a lot of organizations are taking steps to prevent abuse that wouldn't have been thinkable a generation ago.
Not that this means everything will always be okay, but I wouldn't hold your boy out of Cub Scouts for this reason alone. Make sure they follow the guidelines, and stay alert to anything odd ... but you could say that about a lot of things our kids do. I have 3 young boys, and the older two are having a great time in Cub Scouts. (Okay, we're LDS and in an LDS troop, but still.)
And on the main topic, at least in my experience, while Scouting has a strong religious undercurrent generally, I haven't seen anything I'd consider proselytizing in nature. We say prayers at the beginning and end of meetings. We talk about moral principals generally (required as part of the Cub Scout Achievements). We often meet in church buildings. That's it, as far as I can think of. ...Actually, I've been holding den meetings in my home, but that may change next month when my Wolf Den (currently 6 boys) will have triplets joining us. Wish me luck.
posted
My agressively Catholic family is quite tickled at the following story (it gets retold again and again at family gatherings). It makes me wince.
At one of the big annual overnight events supervised by my Uncle (Den master? is that the right word?), some of the boys were whispering after lights out. He woke them all up and got them on their knees, saying "If you're going to be up in the middle of the night talking, you might as well be talking to God." Then he lead them through an hour of Hail Marys, Our Fathers, and the rest of the decades of the rosary.
Those that weren't Catholic still had to say it, even those who had been sound asleep at the time of the talking. Now they all get warned at the start of the retreat that "If you're going to be up in the middle of the night talking, you might as well be talking to God." [read: my God]
It's become a bit of a joke, and my Uncle is delighted to relate that some of his former Scouts come up to him at other gatherings and say it was interesting to learn how to say the "Hail Mary."
(But what else is a polite young 23-yr old supposed to say when he's dragged to the community fishbake by his folks who insist that he "go talk to your old Scout leader, see, Jack's right over there. Go on, it'll mean so much to him.")
Ewwww. I can't imagine what it would like to be a young Jewish man who's made to pray on his knees "Hail Mary, full of grace ... Holy Mary, mother of God." Frankly, it sounds like an outrageous abuse of power. This wouldn't be an issue unless there was a policy of "we welcome non-Catholics, too" -- i.e., if it were a den restricted to Catholics -- but my understanding is that such exclusion would not be allowed. (Is this true, katharina?)
Yes, you are welcome to join with us, non-believers, but you must pray to our God.
posted
Man, that's an EXTREMELY ew story, Doc! Any parent who raised a child who would've told that guy to go to hell did something right, sez me.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting. If God is so welcome at scouts, I don't get what the purpose of the Royal Rangers is?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
The Assemblies of God church I went to as a li'l Storm Saxon (the one you see right off of I-4 in downtown Orlando) had this organization, which to me looks exactly like the scouts, but they are upfront about using it as a ministry for Christ.
I guess my question, now that I think about it, is, is there anything in the Scouts that says you *can't* use them as a pronounced religious organization? Like, all these people in this thread are saying that they would never proselytize, but let's say they did. Would this be o.k. with the Scouts or not? And, again, if it is, I wonder what hte purpose of hte Royal Rangers is?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure it happened, and I'm sure it does happen CT. Does that mean that its how things are expected to work? No. Its the same way with molestation story.
There will always be people like that in volunteer run organizations. I really don't see how to prevent that. However you have two choices when dealing with it. Try to get him removed or his behaviors changed. (There are channels for this very purpose.) Or go to another troop that doesn't have his stupidity. In cases like this it is the responsiblity of the parents to make the stand. No way is this man going to listen to the elementary schoolers in his charge.
One data point does not a statistic make.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I meant nothing in general about the Scouts by telling the story, and I apologize if such was insinuated. It's just another flaming example of the inappropriateness of some members of my family.
quote:One data point does not a statistic make.
What statistical point did you believe I was trying to make? It was just a story.
In fact, I noted that I believe the BSA would not allow religious belief as a tenet for acceptance in a particular troop, and then I asked Kat for clarification.
This wasn't a point about Scouts in general, HE. It was a point about how Scouts was IMO misused by my family member. And, as I am in a crabby mood altogether, I get a particularly nasty tweak from crabbing about my family, some of whom are utter ratfinks (but the distribution has nothing to do with Scouting, BTW).
posted
Okay, I have another thought/question regarding abuse that occurred to me after I posted my response to Olivetta last night (and yes, it was very late, even by my standards). At the time I was just thinking about the potential for abuse by adult leaders, but can anyone speak to the possibility of molestation by other Scouts? I don't see how it could happen in Cub Scouts under normal circumstances (no unsupervised time together). But I guess regular Scouts could be different.
Edited to add: Cub Scout overnight campouts are in fact permitted (you even get an Arrow point for them).
posted
Very disturbing about the molestation, and interesting about the Catholic leading the others in prayer.
I know that at our district-wide Round Table (Cub Scouts) meetings, there is always an invocation offered at the begining along with the flag ceremony and other stuff. Our district leaders tend to not be LDS, but are very active in their own chruches. Sometimes the person leading the prayer is LDS, sometimes not.
I wonder how common prayer is in Boy Scouts in other areas.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Wish me luck.![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I can't imagine what it would like to be a young Jewish man who's made to pray on his knees "Hail Mary, full of grace ... Holy Mary, mother of God." Frankly, it sounds like an outrageous abuse of power. This wouldn't be an issue unless there was a policy of "we welcome non-Catholics, too" -- i.e., if it were a den restricted to Catholics -- but my understanding is that such exclusion would not be allowed. (Is this true, katharina?)
