11-Year-Old Deacons and Beehives

Idon’t know DA. My TBM friends and associates (as well as those I try to avoid) seem to mostly be on board with everything that’s happening, maybe if only because of “follow the prophet.”

Sure, it seems like there will always be some TBMs like that that will typically follow the prophet no matter what. I’m not saying that all or even most TBMs will lose their testimony over all the changes Nelson is making, only that I have no doubt that some of these changes have added weight to the shelf for many TBMs and I suspect it will be the final straw for at least some of them that probably would have been able to continue believing under another Church President more like Monson or Hinckley.

On a semi-related note, I wonder what it would take to change the D&C revelation that kids be baptized at age 8. If I were in charge, I’d bump up the age of accountability to 16.

I’d like to see baptismal age bumped to age of majority, to make all equal in the eyes of the church.

To quote Elder Christofferson on the Exclusion Policy.

And so with the other ordinances on through baptism and so on, there’s time for that if, when a child reaches majority, he or she feels like that’s what they want and they can make an informed and conscious decision about that. Nothing is lost to them in the end if that’s the direction they want to go.

Reflexzero, that is exactly the central issue I have with the exclusion policy.

“If I was a TBM, I wouldn’t think or react like a TBM.”

DId I get it right this time? 😆 :thumbup: 😈

No, and to be honest I don’t see what is so funny about it; I think this comes across as flippant. I get that I am obviously not a TBM now but that doesn’t mean that I don’t remember what it was like to believe in the Church. Also, I get that there are many TBMs that will never lose their testimony and that will say how great all this is but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t also many current TBMs that will in fact start to seriously question the Church and end up losing their testimony in a way that is similar to what I experienced. When I was a TBM, I specifically remember wondering why God would allow the racial priesthood ban to continue as long as it did instead of stepping in and correcting this sooner. I had a hard time with polygamy and Bruce R. McConkie’s comments in Mormon Doctrine as well. But that, by itself wasn’t enough to destroy my testimony and I still went on a mission and paid tithing after that honesty believing that’s what I should do.

It would have been much easier for me to stop believing in the Church when I was 18 than after I was married to another Mormon. When I heard about Gordon B. Hinckley acting like it was so important for women to only wear one pair of earrings I definitely didn’t think, “wow what an inspired prophet we have”, I honestly thought it sounded more like something my grandpa would say than anything I would ever expect to come from Jesus and it was yet another crack in my shelf. What I see happening now is similar to what I experienced except that it seems like some of the things that are hard to reconcile are coming up much more often and becoming increasingly difficult to ignore anymore. For one person it could be the Church trying to stop the medical marijuana bill that passed and for another it could be the excommunication of Sam Young. Even my wife that never cared about Church history has heard all kinds of stuff to make her question the Church recently simply through the local news, Facebook, etc.

I get that there are many TBMs that will never lose their testimony and that will say how great all this is but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t also many current TBMs that will in fact start to seriously question the Church and end up losing their testimony in a way that is similar to what I experienced.

I think this is partly why there is a ~60% inactivity rate in the US, and ~70% worldwide. But most active members have a way of reframing events to maintain their current beliefs. They can even maintain multiple contradictory beliefs without experiencing the discomfort of cognitive dissonance (most people can, with what’s most important to them). Plus, one of our main selling points is that we have a living prophet who recieves revelation specifically for our day. Revelation must continually flow. ANY revelation. Even revelation as seemingly menial as “A ‘real lady’ does not go out in public, to the market, or to shops with her hair curlers” (1970s FTSOY), is necessary to maintain the prophetic mantle. I have no doubt Church faith and membership will be strengthened by President Nelsons’ revelations.

I think that this is a generally good change. It puts me and my 11 year old son in a slightly awkward situation simply because the change was so sudden and I thought we would have an entire year to prepare for priesthood ordination and now we have a few weeks.

As a semi-active non-tithe payer getting permission to perform ordinances is never a sure thing.

OTOH – my particular discomfort with the change should only affect people for the year that the change is made. Next year everyone will have had time to plan for the primary to youth transition. I generally like that the class groups are kept together. There are many changes that I would like to see in the church, I cannot complain when a generally good change happens at a time that is inconvenient for me personally.

I just waited until the Bishop approached us about it. I hung back and sure enough, my son must have shown up on a list. So the Bishop asked the parents if it was Ok to ordain him and if I was Ok with doing it. I said fine and it was done.

There’s a chance that if leaders see you as inactive, but an eager beaver for ordination of your son, he’ll use that to motivate you. If you just hang back, their desire to advance people through the priesthood, make good reports, and provide a spiritual experience for the family might take over. And you might get an invitation.

I question if a PH leader would chase the family to ordain the son, and then use that to shut the father out of an ordination.

Anyway, I think this is a good change. Just glad I wasn’t blindsided by it. Boys are no more ready to accept teh responsibility of the priesthood at 12 than they are at 11, in my view, on average.

I think that this is a generally good change. It puts me and my 11 year old son in a slightly awkward situation simply because the change was so sudden and I thought we would have an entire year to prepare for priesthood ordination and now we have a few weeks.

As a semi-active non-tithe payer getting permission to perform ordinances is never a sure thing.

OTOH – my particular discomfort with the change should only affect people for the year that the change is made. Next year everyone will have had time to plan for the primary to youth transition. I generally like that the class groups are kept together. There are many changes that I would like to see in the church, I cannot complain when a generally good change happens at a time that is inconvenient for me personally.

I’m not saying you are inclined to do this nor that you should, although I did it at one point. You can turn the tables and say that you won’t give permission for your son to be ordained until you are able to do it. Leadership roulette still plays a role, but this appeals to a different sense on the part of the leader and in some cases increases the likelihood of him wanting the kid ordained so badly he’ll acquiesce to a bit of leniency toward the “not totally worthy but close” father. (Side note from a numbers point of view: there is a stat for YM being ordained to the priesthood office appropriate to his age, there is no stat about whether his father did the ordination. So it looks better on the quarterly report when more boys are ordained vs. not. Just another aspect of leadership roulette that does come under consideration for some in these instances.)

DJ — I’m afraid this approach I put in bold above would be considered defiant. And it would look as though the church caved on its values if the Bishop had previously said the father couldn’t ordain due to less activity. If the Bishop hadn’t yet indicated the father couldn’t ordain, an ultimatum like that would just put the Bishop in a bad mood.

I know that when I’ve been in similar situations I’m more likely to dig in my heels when someone with lesser authority tries to force me to do something, even if I might have done it without the threat.

I like the idea of just hanging back and see if they ask. Play dumb about the 11 year old rule, and wait a year before you toddle in an ask for the ordination — when he’s twelve.

The part in italics is powerful incentive for the leader to approach the family and boy about the ordination. Let it work to your advantage — parental jujitsu!

We’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this one DA. I seriously doubt any mass exodus or increase in faith crises over these things. People who have shelves are gonna have shelves and people whose shelves are gonna fall will fall.

I never said or intentionally implied that there would be a mass exodus anytime soon. What I am suggesting is simply an up-tick or increase in the rate of questioning and cognitive dissonance experienced by many members as a direct result of some of these changes under Nelson as Church President. It is a matter of degrees. Suppose for the sake of argument that member retention decreases from 35% to 32% with Nelson as Church President (purely hypothetical); that would still be a difference of something like 480 thousand members overall. In that case, we could both end up being right at the same time because it could be that some of the changes actually did influence even more members to leave but that doesn’t necessarily mean you will see a noticeable difference simply by looking at your own LDS family members and associates.

Basically I see what is happening now as similar to my own experience only amplified because for me the real challenges to my testimony were few and far between and easier to ignore or shrug off than what we are seeing now. Now maybe you still disagree with even that much, which is fine, but I wanted to be clear that I do not expect to see a mass exodus anytime soon; I expect a fairly slow decline at this rate. And sure you could argue that many of the same people will probably end up losing faith in the Church eventually regardless of what any one Church President does (I.E. some are just more prone to question than others) but even if that is true I would still argue that it could make a huge difference for the Church if these same members leave or become less committed earlier than they would have otherwise because if they go on a mission and convert some people that stay and/or if they marry another active member and raise their children in the Church then it can still be a net positive for the Church to keep them around longer whereas if if they leave at 18-30 then it can easily have much more of a compounded effect for the Church.