I now live in the area where these events took place. Also, in the past, I’ve worked on archaeological sites in the area. These events and the press coverage have given the small towns here a tossing.

If anybody’s interested, I’ve put up my reflections on the artifact trafficking, FBI “Cerberus” sting, so on here:

http://wilderness.motleyvision.org/2009/getting-digs-in-on-the-611-se-utah-artifact-raids/

The CPB isn’t threatening to withhold grants from KBYU or refuse to let KBYU carry programming from recipients of its grants. The government provides all sorts of grants to branches of various faith based organizations to carry out various non-religious purposes – mostly social welfare related activities, notably adoption. That doesn’t constitute a federal establishment of religion either.

But that is all completely beside the point. PBS and the CPB are distinct entities. PBS is just a group of stations that have formed a quasi-monopoly distribution network. PBS isn’t threatening to kick KBYU out because of some federal policy dictat. The PBS board of directors (which is elected by the member stations) simply doesn’t want the PBS brand to be associated with stations that carry religious programming. At some point, that desire is almost certain to be fulfilled, and KBYU and the half a dozen other related stations will either capitulate, leave, or be kicked out of the PBS network.

If you want some sources, start with 47 USC 396, the federal code that governs the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Then look at one of the CPB’s recent annual reports available on the CPB website, as well as the abundance of other information available there. Then read the annual report and audited financial statements of KUED, which are also available online. The PBS website contains considerable information about the structure and policies of PBS as well. Then there are a number of well researched recent news articles on the subject – the above mentioned article, however, is not one of them.

My interest is as an outsider, by the way – I have no direct knowledge of the internal workings of KBYU, KUED, or PBS besides what I have obtained from public sources plus knowledge of the general legal rules that govern non-profit organizations and federal grant operations.

(My inner theologian is asking, but wait, wouldn’t an omnipotent God have ninja skills, too?)

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a creature of the federal government it is true, to the tune of about 400 million dollars a year. It happens to be statutorily prohibited from owning stations and producing its own programming. The CPB spends that funding primarily in two forms – grants to producers of non-commercial television and radio programming and direct community service grants to public radio and television stations. There are no federal rules that say that any of the grantees have to have their programming distributed by PBS.

Hmmm. I admit that I’m not a lawyer nor an expert on these issues (what’s your background on this, btw?). But I don’t see how the fact that funds went from the Federal Government to the CPB absolves any of the subsequent recipients from the prohibition against the Federal Government funding religion.

And I don’t think that the fact that KBYU pays money for the programming necessarily means that the programming is not support for the station. The CPB funds are a subsidy for the system, for programming and for support of the stations, from what you said. If you subsidize the programming, aren’t you also subsidizing those that use that programming? After all, without the subsidy, the stations would have to pay more, wouldn’t they?

There is a certain economy of scale to the BSA, however, and I don’t see the Church doing its own thing unless the leadership intended to dilute the program to the point where there were few if any merit badges, for example.

Then there is the fact that you can hardly avoid driving through wild areas at night, in storms, and in winter. Most of us are a simple car breakdown away from a life-or-death experience in the outdoors, especially sliding off a road in a snowstorm.

That of course is not saying that the Boy Scouts are as effective as they ought to be in teaching those wilderness skills, or in inculcating the ethic of walking lightly on the land (I know a number of Scouts whose idea of great time in the outdoors involves riding a snowmobile or 4-wheeler at maximum speed.). The Scouts ought to teach, first of all, that the forests and deserts are NOT extensions of Disneyland, and that YOU CAN DIE THERE. One would think that, in a state where a major part of the economy is outdoor recreation, including in the dead of winter, learning how to enjoy yourself without killing yourself or others (including avoiding wildfires) ought to be a basic part of one’s education.

Back when the majority of boys grew up on farms, dealing with horses and other animals, a lot of this stuff was part of daily life. Especially now, in the 21st Century, when so many boys spend hours every week staring at TV and computer screens, experiences that anchor them back in reality–hunger, thirst, fatigue, and even a little pain–have an important role in their moral upbringing.

I say this as a Scout who never progressed past Star rank, and whose camping and hiking experiences almost uniformly ended up in some benign disaster through the incompetence of my adult leaders, who had an inflated concept of their own wilderness competence. The cure for poor wilderness skills is better teaching and leadership, not giving up on the project.

Qualifying for merit badges and various awards is all too often a pencil whipping exercise, without real research or study or skill acquisition. Making sure skills are taught rigorously needs to start at the top. Just because Scouting, like the Church itself, is a volunteer organization does not excuse either from a basic need for quality management.

On the other hand, I have had experiences with Scouting activities led by volunteers in units outside the Church, and the basic organizational skills that Mormons take for granted are all too often lacking in many of those efforts.

Failing that, KBYU could purchase programming directly from the producers. CPB production grants do not come with terms that say you can’t obtain funding for your programming from stations that carry sectarian programming. Few if any producers of such programming are going to turn down reasonable offers from any non-commercial broadcaster. Logistics may be a problem, however, especially for time sensitive programming such as news.

PBS is non-profit corporation founded in 1969 that has 168 member “stations”, all of whom are non-commercial. Those stations are each independently owned and operated, much the same way KSL is distinct from NBC. PBS is not a creature of the federal government. There is nothing legally “public” about PBS in any way. The PBS board of directors sets its own policies and is not subject to any specific statutory restrictions.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a creature of the federal government it is true, to the tune of about 400 million dollars a year. It happens to be statutorily prohibited from owning stations and producing its own programming. The CPB spends that funding primarily in two forms – grants to producers of non-commercial television and radio programming and direct community service grants to public radio and television stations. There are no federal rules that say that any of the grantees have to have their programming distributed by PBS.

KBYU-TV receives about 1.5 million dollars in federal community service grants (administered by the CPB) every year. However, CPB policy is not at issue here. CPB is not a network, does not have member stations, and is only bound to promote the production and distribution of innovative non-commercial television programming. KBYU does that, mostly on the distribution side.

In short PBS can adopt just about any policy it wants, as long as it is non-commercial. There is no federal law, rule, or regulation stopping it from distributing sectarian programming, let alone allowing its member stations to carry it. Can you imagine if NBC said to KSL, “sorry we are not going to let you carry General Conference any more, not if you want to be an NBC station”?

Pres. Thomas S. Monson, Priesthood Session, April 1991.

Let’s talk about awesome. Elder Callister takes issue with this word

You might take issue with it, too, had you been in my ward’s Sacrament Meeting yesterday, where an adult — not a youth speaker, an adult — read a Father’s Day “letter” signed by “Dad, the Almighty God” and then went on to speak of His “awesome ninja parenting skilz.” Although “awesome” is probably the least offensive part of this disrespectful discussion of deity, a conscious effort to curb that obiquitous bit of slang in what should be a worshipful setting would have gone a long way toward preventing the rest of it.