- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I really like the changes announced in the General Women’s Session and earlier by Elder Cook. Here is a summary of the YW changes: The highlights:
1) The theme has been revised. “I” instead of “we”; “Heavenly Parents” instead of “Heavenly Father”; and eliminating the values completely. (Yes, you read that correctly.) The new theme is in the article above.
2) Eliminating the group names entirely (no more Beehives, Mia Maids, and Laurels) and allowing all units to have as many groups as necessary (from 1 to whatever).
3) A renewed emphasis on having the youth presidencies lead, including having a Youth Ward Council rather than a Bishop’s Youth Council.
I love these changes, especially referencing Heavenly Parents and eliminating the values.
Here is a summary of the YM changes:
1) No more ward YM presidencies. The youth will be the presidencies.
2) Stake YM-YW committees.
3) Elimination of the term “Mutual”.
4) “Auxiliaries” changed to “Organizations” and leaders at all levels called “officers”.
5) Equal budgets, per capital, for YW and YW. (Hallelujah!!)
Some of these changes are minor, but some are massive.
I guess. I think the YW changes are good. For the YM changes, my understanding is the Bishop and his Counsellors are now directly responsible for each quorum in the Aaronic Priesthood, with the Bishop continuing as President of the Aaronic Priesthood. I thought I heard YM Advisors are still called, but they are no longer the presidency.
What bothers me about this part is that the Bishoprics are already too busy. They haven’t offloaded enough off the Bishop and his counselors to other parts of the organization. They still have a whole ward to manage. Some Bishops aren’t good youth Bishops. Yes, YW leaders can counsel YW teenagers, so that is some burden taken off the Bishop, but a lot of time is spent on Ward Welfare, which absorb a lot of Bishops’ time. So, although the new YM structure sends an organizational message about what is important in the YM program, it has the potential to dilute the attention on youth due to the Bpric having too many responsibilities, along with marginalized youth advisors, assuming I heard they are still in place.
Bishoprics have TOO MUCH. That needs to be fixed.
I like it that we don’t have auxiliaries, but simply organizations. Not in favor of Ward Officers for all people as that is too corporate. Ward leaders is better.
Also, counseling isn’t that great in the church. Counselors (paid ones, with degrees) vary widely in their counseling abilities as it is — making some untrained person who might be good at heart a counselor. I believe expansion of professional counseling is in order.
I will confess, my family has seen several counselors over the years. It takes research to figure out who is going to actually help you and who isn’t. Normally, I find if the counselor has been trained in and uses a specific approach — an approach which provides them with specific tools and techniques — is normally more effective than if they use an “eclectic blend of all they have learned”. Volunteer counselors are even worse; and you can’t get at LDS Social Services if you need them around here. I pay big bucks for secular counselors.
I also think it’s time to get with it on the name of the church. In today’s digital age, the term “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” is way too long. I think a simple revelation indicating that in the latter days, the church may have a vernacular such as the Church of Jesus Christ, or some other name that is shorter and doesn’t create legal problems would be welcome.
Miss on that one.
But back to the YW and YM changes, which were the point of this thread, sorry for the derail. But I have no investment in it anymore. So it’s easy to accept. I also work for a large organization too, and have all my life. That beats the ideation out of you as most decisions are top-down.
I personally liked the shift of stake Sunday School and Young Men responsibilities to High Council members (I’ve always felt those callings at the stake level could easily be done by the High Council body). I see nothing wrong with any of the changes to Young Men’s and Young Women’s organization. I thought it interesting that they said they were retiring the word “Mutual.” I know some of the older generation still refer to it as such but I thought that label had been eliminated long ago. However, I don’t really have a pony in this race any more. My youngest daughter will be out of Young Women’s in a few months. That said, having had five children move through the youth programs in multiple wards, I do have some opinions. The biggest red flag to me: placing more responsibility on youth presidencies.
From Elder Cook:
Quote:Each of the adjustments is an integral part of an interlocking pattern to bless the Saints and prepare them to meet God. One part of the pattern relates to the rising generation. Our youth are being asked to take more individual responsibility at younger ages — without parents and leaders taking over what youth can do for themselves.
A terrific principle but it will not happen without appropriate training for bishops and other youth advisors. And by training I mean actual training and not talks about how “wonderful our youth are” and “how they have been reserved for this day.” Both of my daughters were presidents in their Young Women’s groups at different times. Both started out with excitement and interest in actually “leading” the group and “making decisions.” By the time they were done, both had lost interest in their calling. One daughter, while president of the MIA Maids, tried to make suggestions regarding activities which were quickly shot down by her leaders. Another daughter, while president of the Beehives. was actually criticized publicly by one of the leaders for “not doing her job.” Neither felt much engagement with Young Women’s afterwards. The leaders were generally well-intentioned but some of them really didn’t know what they were doing.
One of my daughters served on a stake youth committee with two other boys planning some component of a stake activity. The high councilman (to his credit) actually did try to place the decision-making responsibility on the group but the boys’ attendance at the group was sporadic (plus they tended to mess around when they did attend) and in the end it was just my daughter and the high councilman making decisions. It speaks to another challenge: taking on responsibilities in a youth organization is not very instinctive for teen-aged boys. This is not to say that there aren’t level-headed, responsible young men out there but I think they’re the exception not the rule.
Working with the youth is TOUGH! You have to strike the right balance between “being the authority figure” and “being the buddy.” I don’t think many people do it naturally (I know I dont!) There’s a reason the Baptists have “youth ministers.” They recognize that working with youth takes a unique set of skills. I’ll say it once more: I truly believe that without proper and effective training of leaders none of these changes will make any difference in the end.
The YW theme change is good, but leaves me a little concerned (I tend to overthink the “what-if” too much). Heavenly Parents….I like it.
BUT, since our scriptures also teaches polygamy (I in the camp of it not being doctrine), does that open the door for later discussion of Heavenly Father having bunches of wives…and maybe we all have a different mother?
So, I like it, but worry at the same time.
Asking youth to turn to adult leaders for counsel is dangerous. Period.
We are talking about youth leaders who, for the most part, are good people.
But they are struggling themselves with how to “life” in general. They won’t make the best counselors, and those who are overzealous will do more damage than good.
In one of my old wards, our YMP was grooming the young men. Like, seriously grooming them (fit the definition to a T). If HE suddenly had permission to counsel his YM, that would be like granting permission for him to be alone with them more and more.
And by the way, how can a YWP or a YMP counsel youth without another adult present?
Maybe that needs to be stated clearly up front?
One of my YW leaders offered to cover for me if I ever wanted to be alone with my boyfriend. She offered to hire me to “babysit” while I took my boyfriend up to the spare bedroom. I never took her up on the offer, but what the heck? She also routinely took the YW out of church during third hour to get snacks at the gas station down the street.
It’s leaders like the ones I just outlined that will cause major damage to our youth.
As for what the bishops have to do…I don’t see it as much different than what they are already doing now.
The bishop is already the PQ president.
The youth will still plan activities.
The current YMP can still be called back in as an “advisor,” so I don’t see this change as being more work for the bishop.
My husband is a bishop and he’s not stressed about it.
I’m not a fan of, “As I strive to qualifyfor exaltation…” in the theme. I get the meaning but I don’t think it’s a spiritually healthy way of viewing our journeys. Not referring to the weekday meeting as “mutual?” The purpose of language is to communicate. If someone says “mutual” everyone at church will know what you’re talking about. I don’t see the big deal in using the word.
“Officers.” I’ll start referring to the prophet as CEO, the presiding bishop as CIO, etc.
As I have mulled this over, my biggest worry is what others have said about the bishop already being too busy. I do recognize there has been a concerted effort in preparation for these changes to take as much work from the bishop as possible. But it’s not enough. At the same time I understand why and I also understand that the cultural shift concerning what bishops do is far from complete. The general membership, especially the more “needy” variety, need to understand what his role is. I have no skin in the game, my baby is 21 and I don’t have a calling directly related to youth (although with new high council responsibilities I suppose I could). I do have a bishop though, and as a result of sitting on the high council I have heard this emphasis on bishops and youth for the last few years. My own bishop is absolutely horrible at relating and everybody, including him, knows it. He only started to go to priests quorum meetings last year (the fourth year of his tenure) at the insistence of the stake president. He actively avoids most interaction with the young men and young women and I’m not exaggerating that point. I cannot see him taking the role I perceive this vision to be about. On the other hand, I know my guy is not the ordinary, and mileage will vary greatly. This is another aspect of culture change that will take some time, and in my own ward a new bishop (likely in the next few months since this is now the fifth year of his tenure).
Are the young men still going to have camping experiences? Who would be in charge of making this happen? To be fair, maybe camping is one of those things that the church doesn’t need to be responsible for. As if to say, “You want camping? Do it as a family or join a BSA troop. Camping is outside of the LDS mission statement.”
Quote:I do have a bishop though, and as a result of sitting on the high council I have heard this emphasis on bishops and youth for the last few years. My own bishop is absolutely horrible at relating and everybody, including him, knows it.
This is where lay leadership and ward boundaries fail.
In all other faiths, if your Pastor or the local church program isn’t a match, no one cares if you move home churches. You can drive 2 states away if it meets your need. Here you lose on both accounts. Yes, some people get to find a better ward or make an arrangement, but it’s not the norm. So some youth gets the lame Bishop, and is stuck. If I were the parent, I would stop sending my kids.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.