I wanted to join the Girl Scouts when I was a kid in the '80s. My best friend was in the group and I thought it sounded like fun. Plus, I really liked the rule, "Be kind to animals."
I asked my mom why I couldn't join and she said TSCC frowns upon this. Is this some unofficial, unspoken rule? Is it because it teaches girls how to be self-sufficient, more or less?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/18/2010 12:56PM by itzpapalotl.

My wife worked for the Utah Girl Scout Council when we lived in Sandy, UT (left in '97). The general impression she gave was that the Mo's wouldn't accept Girl Scouts unless they could change the program (like they have done with Boy Scouts). Girl Scouts stuck to their guns and the Mo's went their own way with YW, etc.

GSA does not require a belief in God and has not allowing sponsoring organizations to adapt the program to fit the sponsor's religious agenda. The troop my sister was in has been sponsored by a local Presbyterian Church for 50+ years. They do not bend the program or use it to proselytize or as a combination scouts-church youth program.

Personally, I feel GSA teachers girls way too much self-reliance for LDS Inc's level of comfort. Next thing you know, those Young Women will be coming up with their own ideas, which might challenge or pose a threat to Priesthood Leaders.

My LDS best friend's sisters were in Browns and Junior Girl Scouts, which were sponsored by the above-mentioned church. However, they did this on their own and without LDS support. In this family's case, they were two blocks from the ward meetinghouse and three blocks from the Presbyterian Church, so logistically things were easy for them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/18/2010 04:31PM by PtLoma.

As with many things in mormonism, it all depends on local leadership.

My ex was a GS leader for many years, and the bishops were very supportive of it. (Of course, it was required that the troop have a few mormon girls in it.) They were able to use the church for activities, and the bishop even considered my wife's involvement in GS as a "calling" so she received less of the mormon-type callings. There were no other mormon caveats applied.

But of course, others mileage will vary.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/18/2010 01:05PM by jpt.

The CHI says that non-church groups are not to use facilities, not even outdoor athletic facilities (some chapels in warmer areas have outdoor basketball facilities, etc.) due to insurance liability reasons. I would take that to mean that TSCC is self insured and would have to use church funds to pay a nonmember who sued for injury or damages.

You must have had a nice bishop who looked the other way and let GSA use your ward buildings. I don't know how long the ban has been in the CHI, but currently only church groups (including BSA) are supposed to use church facilities.

I can't speak for recently... but the meeting house was used for lots of community events -- school concerts, PAL basketball, blood donating, individual recitals, family reunions, etc. I don't recall there being any restriction in the old CHI.... but I don't know about the recent one.

However, back then (the late 80s) in our small town our building was frequently the only suitable facility. So maybe it was used "as a community missionary tool" with the lawyers cringing at each instance.

I used to work with a very, conservative, very outspoken TBM. My office mate at the time was a woman who'd immigrated from Chzekoslavakia (sp?) as a child. She'd talk to the TBM every once in a while to try to figure out his wacky views.

One day she asked him why the mormon church doesn't encourage Girl Scouts. He told her, "There's no way I'd allow my daughters to be Girl Scouts - they encourage independent thinking in women!"

I don't know what the official position is. But this guy definitely made an impression.

Our girls are in Girl Scouts. Last year we desperately needed a place to meet for two months but the Bishop wouldn't allow us to use the culttural hall b/c "the church doesn't like Girl Scouts". I asked "why"? He answered, "I have no idea".

Possibly the church dislikes Girl Scouts b/c it teaches young girls and young women self-esteem, the value of education, and how to make their own decisions, etc.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/18/2010 01:21PM by truthseeker.

The Girl Scouts teach girls to be independent and self-reliant, and in the past (in the 1990s), that was explained to me as "being against the precepts of the 'Gospel,'" or some such bullshit.

There was one Mormon girl in my troop through her senior year in HS (she was a year ahead of me). Local leadership had no problems with it.

Here's a strange one - a Mo-mommy was the leader of the LDS Boy Scout troop in my town. The only time I've heard of a woman leading a Mormon Boy Scout troop. Not a good thing in this troop's case - her boy's Eagle project was cutting out a Nativity scene from plywood and spray painting it grey. My brother coordinated planting 300 trees for his Eagle project, and after it was all done, the troop committee didn't award him his Eagle.

I'd suggest his next move be coordinating the planting of 300 more trees, on the leader's front yard (provided it's small enough to make that very amusing). :)

Ah, revenge. Not always a good idea to carry out, but healthy to dream of.

I was a GS for 8 years (got as high as the Silver Leadership award, second highest pin at the time). BUT I joined my troop 2 years before we moved to the ultra-Mormon town (amusingly, I recently found my town's facebook page, and one of the things mentioned in "you know you're from ** when..." is "9 of the 10 people you know are Mormon").

When it came time for my little brother to join the Boy Scouts, we had already moved there. We went to the local sign-up day and every table but ONE belonged to a ward (how they squeezed that many Mormon churches into one small town would be surprising if you didn't know the concentration).

Even as far back as the 80's, I still remember that the leaders at the Mormon tables made it very clear that Mormon teachings would be very much a part of their groups' activities.

It was a shame, too, because, prior to this transformation by the right wing and Mormon contingent, the Boy Scouts were so good for young men. Such good character building. Old-fashioned girls of any political/religious leaning often wanted to marry an Eagle Scout, because they were thought to be very upstanding young men who would do right by their families (I'm sure mileage varied on that one, but that was the perception on the whole).

I do disagree with some of the ways the Girl Scouts have gone, such as promoting more "career women" instead of teaching girls that they have a choice between a career outside the home, or one in the home, as they did in my day. Unfortunately, they don't seem to promote this choice as an option, and thus don't teach young women how to care for their homes and families, so, when it comes time to make that decision, they have to learn the skills I did as a Girl Scout for this choice, much later. What my grandmothers didn't teach me about homemaking, the Girl Scouts did, and I will be eternally grateful to all three.

While I'd still put any daughter I had into the Girl Scouts, even volunteer as a leader, I'd never, EVER put any son of mine into the Boy Scouts as they are today.

TO: Nevermob-
Get real!!! Unless you are Martha Stewart you will not be able to support your kids by cooking and cleaning, making quilts, and one more mouth to feed. You better believe real women support the Girl Scouts for producing career, income producing women who will never be dependent on a low life, adulterous man who will use you up and walk off for you to fend for yourself and your kids. Grateful to be a nurse practitioner so I don't have to beg for his help!!!

npangel,

I'm sorry you feel that way.

I personally had a great career (family situation forced me to have to work prior to 'settling down'), but also held out and waited for a man who wanted the type of family I did, and was willing to work hard to have that, one wherein the man worked, and the woman took care of the family (easier to do in some Western European countries, but we chose a region in the US wherein we can do that). And we chose to live in a part of the country where that's possible. We don't have a huge house or many fancy cars, but we have our family, such as it is, and a home neither too big nor too small.

I personally feel that feminism ought to give women the choice. It's about choice. There are upsides and downsides to choosing the life of a homemaker, and there are upsides and downsides to choosing a career path. In my heart, I respect that you want a career outside the home, but I wish that you would respect that I want the life of a homemaker. The fact that I had grandmothers willing to teach me about the life that I wanted, and the Girl Scouts to do that as well, has me glad that I had the choice.

In times past, we told little girls that their only option was to stay home, take care of a home and family, and have babies, that their worth was only dependent on the quality of housewife they were. Now, many tell little girls that their only choice is to work outside of the home, that their worth may only be dependent on their income and/or career choice. I'd personally like my girls (if I have any) to be taught about both, and make their own decision, without putting down either.

The path I chose doesn't always go well, but neither does the career path.

I agree that girls need education in both areas and so do boys! Feminism is about choices! If you choose to be a SAHM, I think you're amazing, just as I think career women are amazing.

It's always good to have a safety net, however, since no one knows what tomorrow brings.

and be very happy and fulfilled doing so. Some people are not motivated by the need to consume more goods.

I think that a lot of dual income homes feel they must have 2 incomes to keep up with their wants rather than providing their needs.

You know, that's what I saw in my sister. She and her husband both had very good jobs. BUT, they were working 12-14 hour days, every day.

It wasn't to pay for basic needs, though. They could have done so working half that. It was to pay for the constant vacations, eating out (several times a week with 2 children and often friends) and shopping. And the jet skis, and the boats. And the vacation house. Luxury cars. To this day, my sister still soothes herself by spending money. To be fair, so did her husband.

I'm more than happy to cook at home and eat out once in awhile. We take a vacation once a year or so. We make a lot of stuff homemade that most people buy. Many would be surprised that these basic things make it possible to live on one income very comfortably. We're not rich, but our retirement is secure.

You're clearly happy with your life. Your post suggests that you strongly disapprove of hers.

Many women, such as myself, are happy to be career women. Due to where my husband and I live, a two-income family is a requirement to live in a safe neighborhood. To be honest, though - most of my friends who have move elsewhere and chose to be SAHM look down on others who chose careers as unfeminine.

No. We just made a different choice.

And I'm glad the GSA teaches career goals to girls. When I was in the GSA (30 years ago), they were still only teaching the SAHM philosophy, and it was frustrating.

You have to CHOOSE for the worst case scenario, not the best. I have five daughters and raised them as a single mother. They saw how we struggled with me going to college at 40 with so many kids. I made sure they learned from my experience. IT IS NOT YOUR CHOICE TO DECIDE TO BE INCAPABLE OF SUPPORTING YOUR CHILDREN. It is foolishness because you can't look into the future with your crystal ball. You may marry well, someone who agrees with what you want, yada, yada and then, after three kids, he's hit by a drunk driver.

Now how much choice do you have now that you can't support them yourself?

You can always stay home and not use your education, but it's much harder to go back to school when the future throws you a curve ball.

REALITY CHECK: Every person on earth should be equipped to support themselves AND children if they have them.


Anagrammy

IT makes it much harder to paint non-Members with the black brush. It makes it harder to brainwash those girls that "Gentiles" have less light and are less admirable than Mormons. They want to make sure the girl's leaders are all young, pretty women, preferably in their 20's.

Note that they have all MOrmon leaders for the Boy Scouts, but why should they make the same investment in women when women are ruled by the men. It is economy of scale to invest in men only.


Anagrammy

Actually, we choose for the moderate, and plan for the worst. I had a horrible childhood. And no one would ever fault me, knowing my background, if I never trusted a single person, a significant other included. But I chose not to let what happened growing up rule over the rest of my life. I chose not to be a cynic based on what happened to me. They were highly abnormal circumstances that came about due to WWII and severe abuse. If I never open myself up to truly trusting another person, I would spend my life being owned by my childhood.

I'm not terribly comfortable discussing finances, as I was raised to believe it was one of the deadliest of etiquette sins, but we have planned for the worst. I'll go into some detail.

I am highly educated. And my career prior to settling down was very, very good. I'm a little surprised that several have assumed that I chose a lack of education when I chose the life I did. Again, this education was my choice. And I paid for every bit of it (family wouldn't have). I didn't think I'd make a very good wife or mother without a proper education.

As my parents and grandparents did, we have hefty life insurance policies to protect against the loss of the breadwinner. And hefty disability insurance, should our breadwinner be unable to work. My SO doesn't want me to have to work, should he die or become unable to do so, and we are set up accordingly. The majority of his income actually goes to savings and retirement. We live a decent middle-class lifestyle even with that. We COULD have the fancy cars and all the trappings of greed, but we chose early on to save religiously. Further, due to the nature of his work, he'd be unable to just "run off." I cannot go into details, but it's not something he can do. If he chose to be a complete jerk someday (which I doubt), any decent lawyer would be able to make sure I would be cared for, as would any children we would have. Even the Dachshunds will get "fur child" support.

At the end of the day, we are not living this life with no protection for everyone involved.

I went from Brownies through Seniors and had some great opportunities to do some wonderful things and go to some wonderful places. None of my mormon friends were Girl Scouts but that was only because they weren't interested, not because of any mormon influence. However, when my mom and youngest sister moved to Utah, only non-mormons were Girl Scouts. My sister joined up because she hated the Utah Mormons and wanted nothing to do with them.

Oh, and, Girl Scout camp was alway waaaaay better than church camp.

TG

Interesting observation re: that only non-Mormons were in GSA when you moved to Utah. Growing up in CA, it seemed as if LDS girls were free (not encouraged, and not supported by the church, but free to do so on their own) to be in GSA. It was the cultural norm in CA in the 1960s. Perhaps LDS were underrepresented in GSA, but you saw them here and there in CA.

Just curious - the Girl Scouts you all describe here sounds a little different from what I remember growing up...
I never wanted to be in Girl Scouts because as far as I could tell, all they did was crafty/homemaking projects and sell cookies. I really wished I could be in Boy Scouts - or a girl version of Boy Scouts - the camping, hiking, canoeing, fun stuff. Do they actually do that in Girl Scouts, or does it just depend on your troop? If so, I might look into it for my daughter.

As far as the outdoor stuff goes, it largely depends on the region and the troop these days. Growing up, a lot of troops in my area did both the homemaking things, AND the camping, hiking, etc. The local councils used to be able to answer questions on what troops do what. I'd definitely give them a call and see what is available near you as far as age range and activities.

In my area of California, Girl scouting was scouting for Girls. Thematically, it taught leadership and independence in addition to the activities.

It was NOT relief society for girls.

As the above poster mentioned, check out GS in your area. You may have a choice of troops/leaders where you can pick which is best for your daughter.

Oh, you reminded me to point out!

Though we moved 30 miles from where I joined my troop, we actually chose to stay with my original troop and drive the 30 mins each way, because they did the activities we wanted. The troops in the area we moved to were not terribly good and fizzled after a few years. So, if you are wanting a troop right for you, it *can* sometimes be a small drive. But to me, it was worth it.

To this day, I'm still in touch with my troop (ended up staying with the same one all 8 years). We still have reunions. So driving was absolutely the right choice for us.

We camped, rode bikes, went to cool places, went boating, etc. I went to a 2 week horseback riding camp in Wyoming, and went to Our Cabana in Mexico.

The crafty stuff was done in Primary back when there were the Gaynotes, Firelights and Merrihands - bleh!

But Girl Scouts was always great fun.

TG

I was also a Girl Scout, but in my area, most troops fizzled after Juniors, so I never stayed in to get the higher awards. We did a lot of camping, so it wasn't just crafty stuff all the time. There was also a lot of leadership training, as well as careers, but it was also suggested that someone could make the choice to become a SAHM.

When I was little, in the late 50s, we all joined Girl Scouts. I don't recall the church caring one way or the other so long as we went to Primary.Things may have changed.

the Mormon traditional culture doesn't allow much time for anything else.

I was not LDS growing up. My mother was big on Brownies and Girl Scouts. I had a great time with it.

I did girl scouts very briefly as a young mo growing up. My friends were all in it, and one of my friend's mom was a troop leader. I remember the camp was great--waaaay better than lame YW camp.

I didn't stay for more than a few years--not sure I made it past brownie. If I did, barely--I felt like we did a lot of crafty stuff which I didn't like (just like YW--blah!).

I was the only member in my family and I was in Girls Scouts. No one in my ward ever said anything to me about it one way or the other.

I was never allowed to join Girl Scout's because "they have activities on Sundays" my mom always said. I didn't know any mormon girl scouts except my semi-Jack-mormon friend.

I was disappointed I wasn't allowed to join. I thought it wasn't fair that my brothers got to be Boy Scouts (were forced to).

Maybe its because Girlscout Cookies are too fucking delicious and Morms are afraid that nobody would bake in the church anymore.

My mother tried to stop me takeing the girl guides oath because it said something about god and Mother was adement it meant thair god not the mormon god but from what I read in the book they encoraged every relegion. I took the oath anyway and said it was adjusted for me because of the relegion any adjustments were actualy only in the way it was seen.

Personaly I think its about time scouts gets tought similerly for both even to the point of not separeateing them off anymore. That way boys lern how to take care of a household and do washing and cleaning and girls lern about hykeing and such. That would also give a very clear message to both boys and girls that they are mroe alike than they think even in ability.