EAST IDAHO NEWS: LDS Church severing all ties with Boy Scouts of America


Nate Sunderland, EastIdahoNews.com


  Published at  | Updated at

IDAHO FALLS — The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is ending its longtime relationship with the Boy Scouts of America.

In a joint statement with the Boy Scouts of America, the church announced that effective Dec. 31, 2019, its relationship as a chartered organization with all scouting programs around the world would end, according to a church news release.

“Until then, the intention of the Church is to remain a fully engaged partner in Scouting for boys and young men ages 8–13. All youth, families and leaders are encouraged to continue their active participation and financial support of scouting until that date,” the church said.

RELATED | Grand Teton BSA CEO invites all youth to continue with Scouts after 2019

Last May, the church announced it was partially ending its relationship with the Boy Scouts. At that time LDS Church eliminated the program for 14 to 18 year olds in lieu of creating its own youth program.

Last week, the Boy Scouts of America announced it would be dropping “boy” from its title, becoming Scouts BSA.

The LDS Church has historically been biggest sponsor of the program in the United States.

Continue reading “EAST IDAHO NEWS: LDS Church severing all ties with Boy Scouts of America”

POLL: Is the Emasculation of Boy Scouts a Good Idea?

BSA Inc Political Jargon: What the hell is “youth” ? ? ?

Never use the language of the Enemy. Our boys are boys. They are not “youth.”

If you’ve subjected yourself to reading anything produced by the BSA Inc since ~ 2010 you are dumbfounded by the strange, cult-like vocabulary deployed.

Chief among this is the curious, strange, even perverted use of “youth.”

@BSAChief Cuck Michael Surbaugh blabbered to us last week,

“That is why it is important that the name for our Scouting program for older youth remain consistent with the single name approach used for the Cub Scouts.”

Historically, “youth” is a noun used to describe a period of someone’s lifetime, “in my youth.” It also refers to the older children of a nation, “the youth of America” but while it is not specifically masculine, it was almost always intended to mean a nation’s older boys and young men poised to assume their rightful place in society.

The BSA Inc uses “youth” to lie. It is a politically correct way to avoid saying “boys” and everyone knows it.

To me, it’s a simple way to discover the BSA Inc’s covert “political officers” among a group of dads. No man in his right mind calls his own son a “youth” and no parent ever smiles and brags of helping raise “youth” to “adulthood.”

No, fathers are proud of their boys and work, sometimes die, to see them into manhood.

Never use the language of the Enemy. Our boys are boys. They are not “youth.”  Saying “youth” instead of “boys” is a sneaky means of normalizing girls in the Boy Scouts. It is exactly the same as call abortion “choice.”

Let our boys be boys. Literally.

RUSSIA TODAY Mocks BSA Chief Michael Surbaugh for Removing Boys from Boy Scouts

Leave it to the Ruskies. Under command authority of Russian tasr Valdimir Putin, english-language state broadcaster RT (Russia Today) mocks the Boy Scouts of America (@boyscouts) for giving in to thrid wave gender feminism and deleting boys from the Boy Scouts.

Twitter meltdown after Boy Scouts announces ‘gender neutral’ name change

Twitter meltdown after Boy Scouts announces ‘gender neutral’ name change

With girls soon to be allowed to join the organization, the Boy Scouts will officially become known as Scouts BSA in 2019 to reflect the “inclusive” nature of the century-old club. The group’s board of directors unanimously voted to accept all children, regardless of gender, in October – a decision that may have been spurred, at least in part, by dropping enrollment in the club. There are currently around 2.3 million scouts in the United States – down nearly 30 percent since 2000.

“As we enter a new era for our organization, it is important that all youth can see themselves in Scouting in every way possible,” Boy Scouts of America chief executive Michael Surbaugh said in a statement. “That is why it is important that the name for our Scouting program for older youth remain consistent with the single name approach used for the Cub Scouts.” The Cub Scouts are for younger children aged 7-10.

But the name change may have been a gender-inclusive bridge too far, with some conservatives now tweeting eulogies to US manhood.

“R.I.P. Boy Scouts, 1910-2018. Yet another institution has come under siege by Political Correctness. Liberalism is slowly decaying everything that was once good in our society,” Lucian B. Wintrich, the DC Bureau Chief for the conservative Gateway Pundit, tweeted.

“This is the culture war we face. The goal of the left is to convert men into weak, feckless, cupcakes,” Allen West, a political commentator and former US congressman, wrote.

Another former congressman, Joe Walsh, shared a similar sentiment: “We’re doing our best to raise a generation of boys who will not be able to defend themselves, their families, or their country,” Walsh wrote.

Many in the Twitterati blamed the name change on “political correctness” and “feminists,” with some suggesting the club rename itself “Soy Scouts.”

Others responded to the news by creating images of the gender-neutral dystopia that soon awaits America’s youth:

Critics also described the name change as hypocritical, with one Twitter user writing: “Everywhere we look, exclusively male spaces are being invaded and neutralized. At the same time, exclusively female spaces thrive and grow. This hypocrisy is unsustainable.”

“Now that the Boy Scouts no longer exist and must accept girls, how is it possible Girl Scouts still exist, but don’t accept boys?” wrote American actor James Woods in response to the news.

Businessman and former US presidential candidate Herman Cain mourned the end of “Boy Scouts” – but warned other conservatives to avoid blowing the name change out of proportion.

“Farewell, ‘Boy Scouts,’ 108 years is a good run. Welcome, future ‘Scouts.’ …And remember, being conservative doesn’t mean you have to freak out about everything. That’s a horrible way to live. Leave it to the left,” Cain wrote.

The Girl Scouts of America has not directly commented on the name change. But the exclusively girls’ club criticized the Boy Scouts’ October decision to admit girls, telling ABC News in a statement that: “Instead of addressing systemic issues of continuing sexual assault, financial mismanagement and deficient programming, BSA’s senior management wants to add an accelerant to the house fire by recruiting girls.”

More than 3,000 girls are already enrolled in the BSA’s Early Adopter Program, allowing them to participate in the Cub Scouts ahead of the formal policy change.

CONSERVATIVE PAPERS: Boy Scouts Nix the Word ‘Boy,’ Showing They No Longer Believe in Masculinity


Boy Scouts Nix the Word ‘Boy,’ Showing They No Longer Believe in Masculinity – The Conservative Papers

Kal El

It seems the Boy Scouts of America would prefer not to exist.

On Wednesday, the Boy Scouts announced that their signature program known simply as the “Boy Scouts”—which serves ages 10 to 17—will no longer bear the word “boy.” Beginning in February, it will be known as Scouts BSA.

This change comes only months after the Boy Scouts announced girls would be allowed into the program. Chief Scout Executive Mike Surbaugh said they wanted to choose a name that “evokes the past but also conveys the inclusive nature of the program going forward.”

This name change, and the “inclusive” policy change that preceded it, indicates a fundamental shift away from the mindset that first gave rise to the Boy Scouts in the early 20th century. One can’t shake the impression that if the Boy Scouts were starting from scratch, they’d ditch even the acronym “BSA” and go completely gender-neutral.

It’s worth probing that fundamental shift in mindset.

The very existence of Boy Scouts, as separate from Girl Scouts, suggests a belief that boys and girls are fundamentally different, and that some good could be achieved by separating them for certain purposes. Otherwise, we would have simply had the “Scouts.”

The Boy Scouts emerged out of a culture that valued boyhood and girlhood as distinct realities, rooted in maleness and femaleness. Each gender had its own unique set of virtues that our culture sought to cultivate in the next generation.

Those virtues are captured in the Boy Scouts’ 1916 congressional charter, which read:

The purpose of this corporation shall be to promote, through organization and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in Scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods which are now in common use by Boy Scouts.

Courage. Self-reliance. Virtues accessible to all, no doubt, yet which were considered integral to the masculine ideal.

The Girl Scouts came into being just two years after the Boy Scouts. Their motto was even more explicitly tailored to a single gender: to train girls “first as good women, then as good citizens, wives, and mothers.”

If the founders of these organizations believed men and women are essentially the same, and that the same ends could be achieved by mixing Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts together, then again, we would simply have inherited the “Scouts of America.”

But instead, two years after the Boy Scouts were founded, Juliette Gordon Low founded the organization that became the Girl Scouts. Though she took inspiration from Sir Robert Baden-Powell, who founded the Boy Scouts, she wanted to start a different organization.

So the legacy we have is two separate institutions premised on the idea that masculine and feminine identities actually matter—that they are unique, special, each worthy of celebration in their own right, and worth cultivating in the next generation.

Yet today, the Boy Scouts organization is perpetually at war with itself—at war with the very premise of its own existence.

The Boy Scouts rightly recognize that male and female are inherently equal. But equal doesn’t mean the same. The Boy Scouts seem to have conflated the two. If boys and girls are essentially the same, what’s to be gained from keeping them separate? That would be arbitrary and perhaps even wrong.

But if boys and girls are in fact different, and generally oriented toward their own unique masculine and feminine virtues, then it makes perfect sense to nurture them in separated settings—at least for discrete activities like scouting.

Yet the Boy Scouts have jettisoned that thinking in favor of radical inclusion. They may have achieved greater inclusivity, but at what cost? Their very definition is exclusive, just as so many other groups are exclusive (think of AARP, the NAACP, or the National Organization for Women). The Boy Scouts have sacrificed their identity to the left’s absolutist vision of inclusion.

That vision will be the death of any group that seeks to define itself by any unique trait.

Definitions are by necessity exclusionary, and any group that defines itself as A and not B will face pressure from the left to embrace B as well.

Except then, there’s no point to having a group at all. We’ll all just be absorbed into the left’s all-consuming impulse to “include” everyone. The left’s crusade for inclusion will redefine and un-define every group it touches.

Ironically, such radical inclusion is the death of any real diversity, because without real difference, there can be no diversity.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Source material can be found at this site.