Boy Scouting and the Mormon Church

[_DonBradley]

PE, at least in my home state, is a legal requirement for students through the seventh grade. Personally, I agree with that requirement and feel physical activity is important for students. But participating in something as encompassing as Scouts should be an option, not a requirement. What business does a religion have requiring boys to be in scouts? I know of few other religions that have the audacity to force people to do things like Mormonism does. That's one of the many reasons I consider Mormonism a cult.

They're not forced--not nearly as much as kids are to do anything in school. They're expected to participate in scouts; urged to; and, if they don't attend, told things like "we missed you at Scouts...". But I've certainly known LDS boys who opted out. And the idea that social groups are wrong to have default expectations of people is just silly. Such expectations are generally quite healthy. We live in an age when everything is supposed to be chosen without any social norms or expectations to guide us, and this is distinctly unhealthy, especially for young people. (Again, see The Paradox of Choice.)

Don

[_silentkid]

Kids in school are "pressured" in PE to perform at sports they may not like or be any good at--I was!

I agree. There were some sports I was good at and some I wasn't good at. The goal of PE is promote activity and exercise, which is important. I have no complaints about the activity and exercise inherent in scouting. But LDS parents don't view PE as a god-inspired program, supported by their church. Part of being an LDS boy is being a scout. There are no other options (church-ball doesn't count).

Institutions have their own norms and default programs. I see nothing wrong with that. Part of the cost of community life is that one doesn't simply choose everything oneself.

I agree with this as well. Outside of the church, scouting is just another of many programs that young boys can be involved in. Within Mormonism, it is the program that boys should be involved with. That's where my issue lies.

[_silentkid]

And the idea that social groups are wrong to have default expectations of people is just silly. Such expectations are generally quite healthy.

Why does the church have to make scouting their "inspired" program? Wouldn't it be better if they suggested it as an option among others? Why the insistence on scouting above all?

[_KimberlyAnn]

PE, at least in my home state, is a legal requirement for students through the seventh grade. Personally, I agree with that requirement and feel physical activity is important for students. But participating in something as encompassing as Scouts should be an option, not a requirement. What business does a religion have requiring boys to be in scouts? I know of few other religions that have the audacity to force people to do things like Mormonism does. That's one of the many reasons I consider Mormonism a cult.

They're not forced--not nearly as much as kids are to do anything in school. They're expected to participate in scouts; urged to; and, if they don't attend, told things like "we missed you at Scouts...". But I've certainly known LDS boys who opted out. And the idea that social groups are wrong to have default expectations of people is just silly. Such expectations are generally quite healthy. We live in an age when everything is supposed to be chosen without any social norms or expectations to guide us, and this is distinctly unhealthy, especially for young people. (Again, see The Paradox of Choice.)

Don

Yes, they're forced to be in scouts. Why would anyone be told they were "missed in scouts" if they weren't by default a part of the scouts in the first place?

And yes, social groups can have expectations of people, but a religion (*cult*) forcing boys to be a part of yet another organization that was co-opted by the religion (*cult*) in the first place is ridiculous. Why isn't there another choice for boys who don't want to be in scouts? Why not have Young Men's, the same way they have Young Women's, and let the boys determine for themselves whether or not to be in a scouting program?

And we do not live in a society without social norms. Well, maybe you do, but I don't. A limited range of appropriate choices is good for children, but the Mormon church isn't historically concerned with what is truly good for people, why should they be now? They talk a lot about free agency but don't care to allow any for their own membership, unless "it's our way or the highway" is what Mormonism really means by free agency.

KA

[_KimberlyAnn]

And the idea that social groups are wrong to have default expectations of people is just silly. Such expectations are generally quite healthy.

Why does the church have to make scouting their "inspired" program? Wouldn't it be better if they suggested it as an option among others? Why the insistence on scouting above all?

It's all about image, Silentkid. Mormonism was, in it's early years, viewed (rightly) as anti-American. What better way to turn that image around than forcing all boys to be a part of the Boy Scouts? See? Mormonism is patriotic after all and as American as baseball and apple pie!

Don't get me wrong: I think Scouting is great for boys. If I had sons, I would encourage them to join the Boy Scouts. But being placed in scouting by default as a part of religious tradition is plain silly.

KA

[_Dr. Shades]

What business does a religion have requiring boys to be in scouts?

Exactly! You're making a lot of sense, KimberlyAnn.

Is the Boy Scouts of America, in and of itself, "of God?" If it's actually another secular organization, then why do Mormon bishops call men, "by prophecy and by the laying on of hands," to be Scoutmasters?

Sounds pretty skewed to me.

[_DonBradley]

Yes, they're forced to be in scouts. Why would anyone be told they were "missed in scouts" if they weren't by default a part of the scouts in the first place?

I believe that a child's parents still have to fill out forms to sign them up, so they wouldn't be "forced" to be part of the organization--except perhaps by their own parents. And even belonging to the organization wouldn't "force" them to participate.

Also, why should boys who don't want to be Scouts be offered some other, parallel program? And why shouldn't a religious community have "temporal" expectations of its people? All religious groups have "temporal," behavioral expectations of their people; and the choice to opt out of the default program should be quite enough, without all kinds of programs being tailored to personal taste.

by the way, you may not understand the nature of Boy Scout ranks very well. They involve abundant choice in the requirements to be pursued. A scout can choose to meet most merit-badge requirements through athletic, scientific, service-oriented, and many other means; and how much or little a scout pursues this at all is largely up to individual initiative.

the Mormon church isn't historically concerned with what is truly good for people, why should they be now?

Rather than asserting this, why don't you argue it?

The Mormon church hasn't been concerned with its people's health, education, healthy family life, communal bonds, freedom from economic want, etc.? What Mormon church are you talking about? I don't believe I'm familiar with this one.

They talk a lot about free agency but don't care to allow any for their own membership, unless "it's our way or the highway" is what Mormonism really means by free agency.

I've never been a fan of the authoritarianism of the LDS church, and am still decidedly not. I think it's silly to get to the level of telling people which varieties of pop are acceptable, how many piercings they should have in an ear, and what they can do in the bedroom. But over the past few years of nonparticipation in the LDS community, participation in the broader "world," and reading in the social sciences, I've come to appreciate more than I ever did in the past the positive aspects of LDS community and social norms. I'm not aware of any other community that does more to promote its members' health, freedom from poverty, education, goal-orientation, and close family life. The norms and default expectations of the LDS community are healthy and helpful to its participants in all these areas.

The real objection to boys being "forced" or "pressured" into Boy Scouts is, so far as I can see, an objection to the having of a norm or default expectation at all: the individual choice of teenage boys should be maximized; they should be given options of which program to join. This is just another way of saying there should be no norm or expectation at all. Norms are not sets of options. They are guidelines prompting people to go in a particular direction and not another. And the idea that individual choice needs to be maximized, particularly for young people, while part of the ubiquitous cultural religion of our time, is simple nonsense. The dizzying amount of choice already available in our world is greatly decreasing people's satisfaction with the options they select, and making it more difficult for people, especially young people, to make choices and commitments at all. While these facts are little known, and very much against the cultural grain, they are established facts nonetheless.

That the LDS church should offer a menu of different programs for its youth to choose from, as many colleges now offer a menu of different general ed requirements, is psychologically uninformed individualist claptrap.

Don

[_DonBradley]

What business does a religion have requiring boys to be in scouts?

Exactly! You're making a lot of sense, KimberlyAnn.

Is the Boy Scouts of America, in and of itself, "of God?" If it's actually another secular organization, then why do Mormon bishops call men, "by prophecy and by the laying on of hands," to be Scoutmasters?

Sounds pretty skewed to me.

WHY? Why should a religious community concern itself only with the spiritual development of its youth, and not with their mental, emotional, social, and physical development? What's wrong with identifying a nonreligious program that aids in these ends, and coopting it? Where is the magical boundary between what a religious community "should" do in the temporal sphere and what it "shouldn't"? And, for that matter, how is not moral and spiritual to get teenagers into constructive pursuits? Are these the kinds of pursuits teenagers typically encounter the most on their own? Such pursuits keep them out of trouble, help them grown as individuals, and build self-discipline--all things a religious group has every reason to encourage in its youth. Drawing arbitrary boundaries isn't going to change this.

Don

[Guest]

WHY? Why should a religious community concern itself only with the spiritual development of its youth, and not with their mental, emotional, social, and physical development? What's wrong with identifying a nonreligious program that aids in these ends, and coopting it?

From my personal experience with scouting (and maybe I just had crappy leaders), it in no way helped me achieve any of the ends you described above. I think it is a flawed and out-dated program. The merit badge courses that deal with government, civics, and the environment are better taught in school by trained teachers (not merit badge counselors). The camping and knot-tying and canoeing and small-boat sailing and basket-weaving and wood-carving type merit badges have little real-world value (besides introducing kids to some future hobbies...I still enjoy canoeing and camping). The only merit badge that I found had some real value was First Aid. Sure, there is some socialization in scouting. Some of it is positive, some is negative (boys will be boys). I think the best aspect of scouting is the physical development, for those who have no other source (like sports).

Edited to add: Does the Boy Scout merit badge manual for swimming still refer to Freestyle as "The Crawl"?

[_KimberlyAnn]

Yes, they're forced to be in scouts. Why would anyone be told they were "missed in scouts" if they weren't by default a part of the scouts in the first place?

I believe that a child's parents still have to fill out forms to sign them up, so they wouldn't be "forced" to be part of the organization--except perhaps by their own parents. And even belonging to the organization wouldn't "force" them to participate.

Also, why should boys who don't want to be Scouts be offered some other, parallel program? And why shouldn't a religious community have "temporal" expectations of its people? All religious groups have "temporal," behavioral expectations of their people; and the choice to opt out of the default program should be quite enough, without all kinds of programs being tailored to personal taste.

by the way, you may not understand the nature of Boy Scout ranks very well. They involve abundant choice in the requirements to be pursued. A scout can choose to meet most merit-badge requirements through athletic, scientific, service-oriented, and many other means; and how much or little a scout pursues this at all is largely up to individual initiative.

the Mormon church isn't historically concerned with what is truly good for people, why should they be now?

Rather than asserting this, why don't you argue it?

The Mormon church hasn't been concerned with its people's health, education, healthy family life, communal bonds, freedom from economic want, etc.? What Mormon church are you talking about? I don't believe I'm familiar with this one.

They're interested in controlling those things, Don. And being told what to do in nearly every instance isn't good for people. I believe the Mormon church is ultimately about control, and if it can have members reliant on the church for much, if not most, of their direction, temporal needs, etc., then all the more control it has over their lives, and all the more allegiance it will be owed.

Billions and billions of people have support and direction from other community or religious groups which are much less controlling and damaging than Mormonism. Mormonism, in my opinion, is concerned with power, growth and control, and if getting involved in the minutia of people's lives is conducive to it's ultimate, nefarious goals, then that's what it's going to do.

The real objection to boys being "forced" or "pressured" into Boy Scouts is, so far as I can see, an objection to the having of a norm or default expectation at all: the individual choice of teenage boys should be maximized; they should be given options of which program to join. This is just another way of saying there should be no norm or expectation at all. Norms are not sets of options. They are guidelines prompting people to go in a particular direction and not another. And the idea that individual choice needs to be maximized, particularly for young people, while part of the ubiquitous cultural religion of our time, is simple nonsense. The dizzying amount of choice already available in our world is greatly decreasing people's satisfaction with the options they select, and making it more difficult for people, especially young people, to make choices and commitments at all. While these facts are little known, and very much against the cultural grain, they are established facts nonetheless.

The above statement is claptrap, Don! You must not be able to see very far at all, because the assertion that boys not be forced into scouts is NOT an objection of having a norm or default expectation at all! You know better than that, don't you?

Here's what I think should be held to a norm or default expectation: The Mormon church. I think it should be held to being honest about it's history. I think it should be held to the default expectation of honesty, don't you Don? I think it should be held to the default expectation of respect for it's members by not prying into and attempting to control nearly every aspect of their lives, including whether or not boys should join Scouts. Is it not enough that they're expected to submit to interviews wherein they're asked if they masturbate? Is it not enough that they're expected to spend two years of their lives on missions? Is it not enough that they're expected date and marry only other Mormons? Is it not enough that they're expected to attend church every Sunday for three hours and then go on home teaching assignments with older partners? Just how many norm or default expectations do you support, Don? How many are too many?

That the LDS church should offer a menu of different programs for its youth to choose from, as many colleges now offer a menu of different general ed requirements, is psychologically uninformed individualist claptrap.

Just because you're sold on a particular book and philosophy doesn't mean it's right. And no one said Mormonism needs to offer a plethora of different electives. What don't you understand about "limited range of appropriate choices"? Perhaps that range is only two choices sometimes, but with all the other expectations of Mormonism, do boys not deserve any choice about the scouting program? I say they do. You may think differently. I allow you that choice. :)

KA