- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Last Sunday, in second hour, we were all supposed to attend a video from the FP about primary and children etc. I can’t stand these things. I know it was for everyone over seven or eight, but I don’t have any children, and I never get a thing out of these talks. I ended up walking out. Another ward member, who is a grandfather, walked out as well, and told me he was bored by it. He said that some of the things that the church wants to do with children these days are akin to brainwashing. I pointed out that I never liked it when children under five or six give their testimony while it is whispered in their ear. He agreed saying “that’s not a real testimony”. I appreciate there have to be rules for child protection – I’m all for that – but why do I have to know about the children’s curriculum when a) I’m not a child, b) don’t have any, and c) don’t have any involvement with children at church?
I suppose your talking about the program to replace scouts, activity days, faith in God, YW medallion. I was flabbergasted that they wanted all kids 8 and up to attend the meeting. It seems to me that those administering the program would have a training first before we have 8 year olds sit through training videos. After having seen the video and how vague it was (due in part to the flexible and adaptive nature of the new program) I can’t imagine that the 8 year olds got much out of it. As has been said elsewhere the video gave some broad outlines and then indicated that more information would be released in November.
I’m well over eight (and under eighty) but I just tuned out and walked out five minutes later. It’s hard to target a specific audience for something like this. It may be relevant for members that don’t have children because they could end up with a calling in Primary or YM/YW someday. That said, there wasn’t much information in the 50 minute video. It could have been handled in an email that took 2 minutes to read. I think it ended up being a 50 minute video because the leaders are excited, they want to get general membership exited for something “new,” and the cynical me says that the video didn’t need to be 50 minutes but ended up being 50 minutes because the 2nd hour at church is 50 minutes. It was a time filler.
Our scoutmasters son is autistic and recently turned 8 years old. He said yesterday that church was really hard on him and that he wished he could have sent his son to primary instead of trying to get him to remain quiet during the video. I wish this man would have felt empowered to remove his son to an environment that better fit their needs. People always matter more than programs.
(somewhat ironically, the new “program” seems to be adaptable to fit individuals needs. The video presenting the new program certainly was not.)
nibbler wrote:
It’s hard to target a specific audience for something like this. It may be relevant for members that don’t have children because they could end up with a calling in Primary or YM/YW someday.
Not in this case. I doubt I will have children, but I don’t intend to ever take a primary calling.
Good to know… I’ve been invited to attend this meeting on Sunday. I wasn’t planning on going, and now I know what I’m missing. Also, at some point I need to take the anti-abuse training because technically I guess I’m still listed as a member of the RS presidency even though I just write the newsletters. But I support the fact that they offer a training, so I’ll get around to it. Daughter1 wrote:
Good to know… I’ve been invited to attend this meeting on Sunday. I wasn’t planning on going, and now I know what I’m missing. Also, at some point I need to take the anti-abuse training because technically I guess I’m still listed as a member of the RS presidency even though I just write the newsletters. But I support the fact that they offer a training, so I’ll get around to it.
Anti-abuse training is a good thing but if this was supposed to be it, it was padded out. But I did feel sorry for the children who had to sit through it. Even though it was pitched at them partly, it was not done very well. I found it dry as an adult. Who knows what a child would think…
SamBee wrote:
Anti-abuse training is a good thing but if this was supposed to be it, it was padded out. But I did feel sorry for the children who had to sit through it. Even though it was pitched at them partly, it was not done very well. I found it dry as an adult. Who knows what a child would think…
At the Time:My developmentally atypical daughter made very specific comments about how she did not want to work on her spiritual development and did not want to follow anyone or anyone’s expectations (especially leaders) in response to how it was presented. She also reverted to requesting attending R.S. with me, and trying to discuss the options of not going to church at all (while I was trying to listen to the program being rolled out). This was before, during, and after trying to tangle herself in my arms and quasi-discretely sit on my lap. I was able to distract her into making a list of things that she would like to to do (not goals – just activities).
So yes, count me not impressed about their roll-out video. But, in their defense, their main point of introducing the program en masse by definition would not be presented in a form that was easier for my daughter – and that is a gray area as to whether it should have been, or whether they should have posted something ahead of time as a heads up or in a shorter format or something to let the parents know to expect sitting for 45 minutes and prepare accordingly. I am impressed that the program they are designing is built to support what I would have done anyways – so it makes it easier (in theory) going forward.
Later:I was talking to the Primary President awhile afterwards about how I was confused about how the scope of the Youth Leaders were changing (it’s not staying the same because the program is different). Her comments focused on the upcoming Face-to-Face, the flexibility of the new program to tailor to the needs of the youth (and highlighted our smaller branch had already been doing that). I mentioned how I thought it was changing into an extended Big Brother-Big Sister program (with the older girls and young women leaders being the “big sisters”) – she gave me the weirdest look and said nothing. I don’t think that I am wrong – and that looking at lists that those communities supply for those activities for ideas is not a bad thing. However, I may have spent social currency comparing a changing divine institution with a well-known non-divine community institution.
Honestly, AmyJ I feel for your daughter. If middle aged me found that hard to sit through, I dread to think how anyone below the age of twenty would put up with it! If they’re trying to set up a system where older kids look out for younger ones – and I didn’t last that long – I think in general that is probably a good thing. And not just in terms of church stuff, but helping them grow up and get through the challenges.
My high school had a system where we would look after children who were a few years younger than us. I think it usually worked. I actually managed to sort out one or two bullying problems. The bullies were older than my charges but younger than me. I made it clear to the bullies that I wouldn’t put up with it and so they soon stopped. I think they listened to me more than they would with a teacher. I could also tell the younger boys about school life so they were more prepared.
I am not remembering anything about big brother – big sister type roles. From my memory, there are just the goals that the kids set themselves. It appears that it is supposed to be primarily driven by the child and then supported by the family and the ward in that order. DW was telling me that maybe we would take the kids to ice cream at Dairy Queen when they finish with a goal – which is what we do anyway. The pamphlet that was handed out said that wards could give out rings or jewelry for completion of significant goals if that was what was wanted, but that is up to the individual unit. I am worried that our YW will end up playing basketball every Wednesday
I remember coming away with a similar idea, that YW would have mentors. The mentor idea didn’t come from the hour long video introducing a future announcement related to the 2020 curriculum, it came from the Women’s session during conference. I skimmed Bonnie H. Cordon’s talk to jog my memory and it does mention mentoring. She mentioned adults mentoring the YM group presidencies in their role as a president. So more leaders mentoring other leaders than adults mentoring each and every YW at a more general/personal level.
AmyJ wrote:
I mentioned how I thought it was changing into an extended Big Brother-Big Sister program (with the older girls and young women leaders being the “big sisters”) – she gave me the weirdest look and said nothing. I don’t think that I am wrong – and that looking at lists that those communities supply for those activities for ideas is not a bad thing. However, I may have spent social currency comparing a changing divine institution with a well-known non-divine community institution.When I read your story I got the impression that her reaction wasn’t due to your comparison between a church program to a secular program but a reaction related to reaching a completely different conclusion as to what the new program would be about.
There are lots of people that are confused about the new programs. It sounds similar to ministering, more hands off. If ministering was any indication, we’ll spend the next 8 months worth of lessons trying to define the program… tinkering until the new program looks a lot like the old one.
Thank you for the warning about this video. We haven’t seen it yet. When it comes to our ward, I will be in my car or home. Minyan Man wrote:
Thank you for the warning about this video. We haven’t seen it yet. When it comes to our ward, I will be in my car or home.
Sounds like your ward has gone rogue.
😈
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.