11-Year-Old Deacons and Beehives

That’s super interesting. Growing up, I always thought that the age for getting the priesthood, and advancing in the offices, was tied to unchanging, doctrinal revelation. Turns out, it is just policy that can be changed whenever “those in charge” see fit. This change does make quite a lot more sense.

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 think we are seeing more and more that very little is so set in stone as if it was restored from the beginning with clear rules and clear cut organization. I liked that feeling from Rough Stone Rolling book…church was figuring things out as they went along.

Very little, in my opinion, is set and cannot be changed. Women and the priesthood, ages of things like baptism or missionaries, quorums and class names and offices like patriarchs or evangelists…so many things in our tradition that became so ingrained in our church experience we think it was always like that since the days of Adam.

But very little is. They are still figuring it out as they go.

I wouldn’t hold my breath for a change that raises the baptism age. Too much working against it:

1) There is actual doctrine. D&C 68:27 – “And their children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old, and receive the laying on of the hands.”

When changes are made I think leaders return to canon to make sure the change squares with a very literal interpretation of what is written. I think this was the rationale for Nelson to focus on the name of the church, “For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” (D&C 115:4)

The ages of each office in the AP aren’t canonized, there’s wiggle room, but I think it would take something serious, new section in the D&C serious, to change the baptism age.

2) What’s the incentive? What would drive that change?

My gut says that leaders are already concerned with activity rates and the solution thus far feels like getting people to check every box along the “covenant path” at regular, predefined intervals. We know if people are where they “should” be by which boxes have and haven’t been checked for their age.

On top of that, can you imagine what would happen if the baptism age were raised to 18? If some statistics are to be believed, something like 50% of the youth go inactive within a year of leaving the home. Transpose that stat over to the yearly children of record baptism stat. It would fall from roughly 100K to 50K per year. And leaders would choose this?

If you’re running your church like a business, it’s easier to retain customers than to get new ones. It’s probably easier to retain people who are already members because they got baptized at 8 than it would be to convince 18 year olds that have experienced a lifetime of our meetings to get baptized. :angel:

On top of that, can you imagine what would happen if the baptism age were raised to 18? If some statistics are to be believed, something like 50% of the youth go inactive within a year of leaving the home. Transpose that stat over to the yearly children of record baptism stat. It would fall from roughly 100K to 50K per year. And leaders would choose this?

I think that’s the #1 reason why the Church should change the baptismal age to 16 or 18. Because those kids going inactive after leaving home probably wouldn’t have decided to be baptised without parental pressure. But would the Church leaders change this? Of course not. We’re very proud of our membership stat; the continual growth is a testament to the divinity of the Church… (even though most people go inactive, and conversion rates are way down despite having more missionaries than ever before).

If you’re running your church like a business, it’s easier to retain customers than to get new ones. It’s probably easier to retain people who are already members because they got baptized at 8 than it would be to convince 18 year olds that have experienced a lifetime of our meetings to get baptized. :angel:

Very true! And also part of why I’m partially against the official baby blessings. Not that they are bad in themselves… but it makes the kid a “record member” (“child of record”), whether or not they get baptized, for life. It’s stupidly exploitative, IMHO, because it looks so innocent on the outside. Who could resist your active grand-dad begging you to give your baby a blessing in the Mormon Church?

I can’t think of a single change instituted since Nelson became President that is shocking or angering enough for typical, active, believing members to cause any of them to leave. Instead, they perceive an exciting forward movement due to steady change.

I mostly agree with this. For example, I think it is interesting that people are happy with the discontinuation of scouts for different reasons. Some old stalwarts feel that scouts is betraying their identity by allowing gay leaders, gay members, girls, etc. Others just get frustrated with jumping through scout program hoops and the high cost of continued participation. For different reasons almost everybody seems to be in favor of the change.

Ministering and 2 hour church are similar. If you love church these are marketed as part of a higher law in preparation for the winding up scene. If you do not love church then the church demands on your time have been reduced. This is a win-win.

Kids file off to YM/YW earlier

Another benefit! My family had participated in other Christian church activities in part because the ward offered pretty much nothing for girls below 12 and boys below cub scout age. My impression is that the youth get more investment. Getting that investment earlier is a good thing.

Maybe it’s more the case that people don’t feel comfortable vocalizing dissent, but there was rejoicing in the streets when 2 hour church was announced, which to me is telling. We’ve got a bigger problem than “church is too long” when even the most loyal and devoted members are celebrating less of it.

Our church has a model of 1) Extraordinary truth claims and 2) a call to duty and sacrifice on the strength of our testimony to those claims. This is similar to the JW’s. People do not join the JW’s because they have fun meetings. Even if you believe the sacrifice is good for you, most people rejoice upon hearing that the sacrifice is no longer required.

On top of that, can you imagine what would happen if the baptism age were raised to 18? If some statistics are to be believed, something like 50% of the youth go inactive within a year of leaving the home. Transpose that stat over to the yearly children of record baptism stat. It would fall from roughly 100K to 50K per year. And leaders would choose this?

I think that’s the #1 reason why the Church should change the baptismal age to 16 or 18. Because those kids going inactive after leaving home probably wouldn’t have decided to be baptised without parental pressure.

I think it would be kind of smart to keep baptism at age 8, but not do the confirmation until they are 11 or 12 (or even 14).

Confirmations could be exactly that…confirming they want to live the mormon lifestyle to be a member of the church after they’ve learned about it some and show they want to be ready to do seminary and YM/YW and stuff. (of course…just one other way to swing it…it likely doesn’t change things one way or another…20 ways to skin a cat, right?)

Maybe it is kind of a chicken and egg thing. Do you baptism and teach them young so they know the blessings of being in that lifestyle by living it… only to see some will choose to reject it and leave feeling they were pressured into it, or do you let them figure out what they want and then they can choose later in life to join… only to see many not know what they are missing and wished someone told them sooner?

– Try it you’ll grow to like it;

or

– If you like it, then you will try it?

(and also…where did “20 ways to skin a cat” come from? That’s really an awful expression)

To address some of what DevilsAdvocate has said, I think that from OUR perspective, it makes a lot of sense that this would or should be viewed with significant skepticism. Our biased spin on this is that the Prophet doesn’t actually get this stuff from God. So, every time the prophet speaks, it’s a reminder of what’s wrong with the assumption that he does. Every time he makes big changes, it’s easy for US to see all the issues. Why didn’t this happen long ago? Is this really the restoration at work or just policy changes? To us it’s obvious, but then, because it’s obvious to us, we project that perspective onto others. I mean, hey, like DA, that’s how I see it too, so why doesn’t everybody see it that way?

I doubt many who haven’t been already questioning will start to do so now, but I get the point that there will likely be some who might start to ask questions. I have to admit, I’ve seen right here over the years people express the straw that broke their back and I think, “huh? Why that one?” and the reason is simply that for me it wasn’t an issue, but it could be big for someone else (in my case, many of the things that sent me off the deep end wound up being resolved later, but I am still on the other side).

What I hope comes out of this is a bit different. I don’t know if it will happen. But what I hope happens is that people start to see this stuff as people in the Church doing the best they can on policies that aren’t of any concern to God. I remember well when the Church went to 18 month missions for the men and then 2.75 years later reversed it. There was a clear understanding among the members that this was a decision not a revelation, and decisions can be rescinded when they don’t work out. I would love for that to be the way the Church operates.

But so far all the changes have felt like they are making church less burdensome, which is welcome.

This is the way I felt, like the church was making a change to fit better with the times. Yet many in my ward felt like they were being asked to do more, and they welcomed the challenge.

We had the “roll out” of the “area vision” this past Sunday in each ward in the stake. They were led by the bishops. In the beginning our bishop said something that caught my attention (and is not necessarily in keeping with the “vision”). He said something to the effect of all the changes are pointing toward the end of what he called “casual membership.” Interestingly enough, I think the exact opposite – I think the changes are, as has been point out, less burdensome and more conducive to casual membership. I have heard people in my ward talk about ministering as harder than home teaching was. Again, I think it’s way easier because there’s no requirement for a monthly visit/lesson that I didn’t do anyway. I guess it’s all a matter of point of view.