|leave a comment|||RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback|
|Boy oh BSA|
Oct. 22nd, 2012 at 10:41 pm
I am an admittedly less active member of the bloggernaccle these days, but I know a common enough sentiment around here is that the LDS Church should get a divorce from BSA. Whether for monetary, feminist or egalitarian, or simplicity reasons, lots of us can jump on that bandwagon. Some of us just don’t want to be a den leader. Ever. To my knowledge, whenever such a sentiment is hinted at, some cosmic balancing force comments that that will NEVER happen under President Monson or that it will be a long long time or that BSA would die without us or whatever. Really, it always goes like this.
So I fully expected a post last Thursday along the lines of “here is 30 years of perversion papers from the BSA–let’s get a lawyer and get divorced!” The files released last week apparently show how, in case after case, someone at BSA chose to protect an adult over a child. Perhaps it doesn’t happen now. Maybe two-deep leadership fixed those problems. Some might say that parents who allowed their boys to sleep at a leaders house were the negligent ones. I have to admit that I am one of those bloggernacclers who eagerly anticipates at least a sepperation between the Church and BSA (wherein, interested families might participate in scouts and sponser and run the troop, which may meet in our buildings, but which would NOT recieve support from wards in the form of money or callings of leaders), so I am wont to say hey, this looks terrible! Let’s bail! Let’s do it FOR the kids.
Our stake just participated in the Childrens’ Sabbath wherein we all did our Primary Programs on the same Sunday. At the behest of my Stake President, I re-read Elder Oak’s recent General Conference address and while I can’t say I agree with every inch of it, I can of course support the thesis of it: that children are a valuable and vulnerable population who need protection. And, here’s the kicker– we must provide it.
So I am an easy target for this BSA problem. I have no great attachment to the organization, and could easily cut ties at this evidence of institutional illness. I’m there. But I wonder about others–are there defenders? Do any of you feel that these perversion papers are sufficinetly old or out-moded? That we cannot condemn this organization? That the good elements outweigh the (very) bad?
I’d love to hear what you and your troops have thought about this.