Vort

Reaction to change

Recommended Posts

Guest
1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

Well, it was a big deal to me...because I was the one that spent three hours making sure I had the lists right about who goes into what class, what interviews we need, and which callings are being vacated...

Forgive me if this sounds too critical.  But it sounds like it is a big deal because it causes a minor inconvenience to you.

I understand minor inconveniences are something we'd rather do without.  But to call that a "big deal" isn't what I had in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Forgive me if this sounds too critical.  But it sounds like it is a big deal because it causes a minor inconvenience to you.

I understand minor inconveniences are something we'd rather do without.  But to call that a "big deal" isn't what I had in mind.

"MINOR INCONVENIENCE"!!!  That was THREE whole hours I didn't play video games!

Yeah, that's exactly my complaint.  It seemed like a big deal because it put me in a rush to get all the information organized before I leave on vacation.  It's trivial, and silly, and won't seem like a big deal and six months.  But the response is also human. 

And no, that isn't too critical...that was kind of my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

And this is where experience on the frontlines makes all the difference.  I have been in the quorum every week and over the years have noticed the general dropoff in activity during their time as priests. Its a literal fact. If they are going to fall away it will be most likely be in their time as a priest versus teacher or deacon. In our stake alone, only one in ten are going on to serve missions. There are many factors and whereas it isnt my main goal to send them all on jissions, it is my goal to strengthen each one and help them become converted disciples of Christ. Without unity in the quorum it just doesnt happen. I have seen it over and over again. With changes to quorum being on Jan 1 it allows the training and placement of new quorum presedencies to be more regular and allow more members of the quorum to serve in a leadership role. All these factors build the unity the priests desperatley need. They will still all leave priests at the same time but all of them will be in an organized quorum for longer than before. The Lord works in simple yet marvelous ways. There is nothing negative this does, only positive to strengthen the youth and better prepare them for the world. Overall, young men from start to finish will be in organized quorums longer and move together in groups from quorum to quorum strengthening quorums even more.

No, they don't "leave Priests at the same time".  They leave when they turn 18 or when they graduate High School whichever comes later.  They don't all leave in December.

If you have a good Young Men's quorum, you wouldn't have kids dropping off at Priest age.  They don't just drop off because they became Priests.  They drop off because they didn't connect with the program as Deacons and Teachers.

The staggered entry into the quorums does not make the quorum less cohesive.  It only becomes so if your entire Young Men have walls between quorums.  This is my husband's gripe with the way Scouts is run in the Church.  He is constantly demanding that the Quorums break down their walls that causes Priests to not do anything with the Teachers and Deacons, Teachers not doing anything with Priests and Deacons, and Deacons not doing anything with Priests and Teachers.  It breaks the Leadership path (as so brilliantly set by the principles of the BSA Scouting Program) where Deacons look up to Teachers and Teachers look up to Priests making Priests have the responsibility of setting the tone for the rest of the Young Men.  In our ward, the entire Young Men work towards helping each Deacon achieve the requirements for Eagle even as the Church made a policy that Teachers and Priests don't need to be in Scouts anymore.  Priests will honor their Priesthood if they have the Leadership responsibility for all Young Men (and the entire ward by extension) and not just because they got called to some Presidency in their quorum.  My husband is currently serving as a Scoutmaster.  As the Scout Program is ending and my last son got his Eagle, my husband ordered a plaque to be made with every single Scout that has gotten their Eagle in our ward since the ward was created (mid 80's).  As he researched all the past members of the Young Men program in our ward, it became apparent that ever since he changed the Scouting program in our ward (over 10 years now, maybe closer to 15, he was in the YM Presidency when he did this), following this leadership cycle that he absolutely believes in, the number of young men that achieved an Eagle award rose drastically and the number of missionaries from our ward rose in the same manner.

 

 

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

And this is where experience on the frontlines makes all the difference.  I have been in the quorum every week and over the years have noticed the general dropoff in activity during their time as priests. Its a literal fact. If they are going to fall away it will be most likely be in their time as a priest versus teacher or deacon. In our stake alone, only one in ten are going on to serve missions. There are many factors and whereas it isnt my main goal to send them all on jissions, it is my goal to strengthen each one and help them become converted disciples of Christ. Without unity in the quorum it just doesnt happen. I have seen it over and over again. With changes to quorum being on Jan 1 it allows the training and placement of new quorum presedencies to be more regular and allow more members of the quorum to serve in a leadership role. All these factors build the unity the priests desperatley need. They will still all leave priests at the same time but all of them will be in an organized quorum for longer than before. The Lord works in simple yet marvelous ways. There is nothing negative this does, only positive to strengthen the youth and better prepare them for the world. Overall, young men from start to finish will be in organized quorums longer and move together in groups from quorum to quorum strengthening quorums even more.

No. Sorry.  This is a gross over generalization.  This may be accurate for your priests.  But it is not going to be accurate for all priests.  "Experience on the frontlines" will not change that.

There are a lot of edges that will create a lot of edge cases.  This will serve many well, some it will serve extraordinarily well, and some it will serve poorly.  That is true of the existing system, and would be true of any system of advancement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

No, they don't "leave Priests at the same time".  They leave when they turn 18 or when they graduate High School whichever comes later.  They don't all leave in December.

If you have a good Young Men's quorum, you wouldn't have kids dropping off at Priest age.  They don't just drop off because they became Priests.  They drop off because they didn't connect with the program as Deacons and Teachers.

The staggered entry into the quorums does not make the quorum less cohesive.  It only becomes so if your entire Young Men have walls between quorums.  This is my husband's gripe with the way Scouts is run in the Church.  He is constantly demanding that the Quorums break down their walls that causes Priests to not do anything with the Teachers and Deacons, Teachers not doing anything with Priests and Deacons, and Deacons not doing anything with Priests and Teachers.  It breaks the Leadership path (as so brilliantly set by the principles of the BSA Scouting Program) where Deacons look up to Teachers and Teachers look up to Priests making Priests have the responsibility of setting the tone for the rest of the Young Men.  In our ward, the entire Young Men work towards helping each Deacon achieve the requirements for Eagle even as the Church made a policy that Teachers and Priests don't need to be in Scouts anymore.  Priests will honor their Priesthood if they have the Leadership responsibility for all Young Men (and the entire ward by extension) and not just because they got called to some Presidency in their quorum.  My husband is currently serving as a Scoutmaster.  As the Scout Program is ending and my last son got his Eagle, my husband ordered a plaque to be made with every single Scout that has gotten their Eagle in our ward since the ward was created (mid 80's).  As he researched all the past members of the Young Men program in our ward, it became apparent that ever since he changed the Scouting program in our ward (over 10 years now, maybe closer to 15, he was in the YM Presidency when he did this), following this leadership cycle that he absolutely believes in, the number of young men that achieved an Eagle award rose drastically and the number of missionaries from our ward rose in the same manner.

I agree we need less walls for greater unity. It's the number one reason in my program we all meet an additional Tuesday (besides the combined YM YW activity)together and do a combined YM activity every month.

 

 

I actually believe we have a lot of the same philosophy just that communication gets in the way. And I don't always communicate the best. 

What I meant by them leaving at the same time was that nothing changed there. They will still leave like you said.

By kids dropping off I am meaning that they are more likely to lose interest or fall away if they are going to when they are of priest age. We don't generally see an active 11 year old go inactive when they are a deacon or teacher. Ever wonder why the priest quorum president is the Bishop and that if a bishop is doing his calling correctly his main focus on the ward is in the priests quorum? It's because priests are vulnerable or more prone to fall into bad habits of sin and fall away into inactivity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I am very good at math.  

Taking the policy to its extreme examples:

Those born on January 1 will be Priests for 2 years.

Those born in December 31 will be Priests for 3 years.

That's one year difference.

Unification is not where your error is.  Your error is in the claim that staying longer in the Priest quorum makes you a better missionary implying that those born on December 31 will be better prepared for a mission than those who are born on January 1.

We have this exact scenario in our ward. One boy turns 15 this week, and another turns 15 in 3 weeks. The first will be eligible to become a Priest in January, but the other will not turn 16 until 2020, so he has to wait out the rest of the year. Even though they are only 1 month apart in age, 1 boy will get an extra 11 months of being a Priest than the other (assuming they both receive the Melchizedek Priesthood at the same time). It may seem unfair to some, but there are different lessons that can be taught to all boys and girls that will end up in different classes and have different responsibilities. Obtaining the Priesthood is not a race. Those who are eligible with early birthdays will not necessarily be given the priesthood or limited-use recommends early...that will still depend on personal worthiness and preparation. Rather than thinking that some of our youth are being shortchanged, we should see that some are being given a great opportunity for growth, and everyone now has an additional opportunity to pray and receive a confirmation from the spirit that they are being placed in situations meant for their personal progression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, scottyg said:

We have this exact scenario in our ward. One boy turns 15 this week, and another turns 15 in 3 weeks. The first will be eligible to become a Priest in January, but the other will not turn 16 until 2020, so he has to wait out the rest of the year. Even though they are only 1 month apart in age, 1 boy will get an extra 11 months of being a Priest than the other (assuming they both receive the Melchizedek Priesthood at the same time). It may seem unfair to some, but there are different lessons that can be taught to all boys and girls that will end up in different classes and have different responsibilities. Obtaining the Priesthood is not a race. Those who are eligible with early birthdays will not necessarily be given the priesthood or limited-use recommends early...that will still depend on personal worthiness and preparation. Rather than thinking that some of our youth are being shortchanged, we should see that some are being given a great opportunity for growth, and everyone now has an additional opportunity to pray and receive a confirmation from the spirit that they are being placed in situations meant for their personal progression.

Except now you'll have all those people wondering why Little Johnny did not advance in January with his peers.

Clarification:  To be clear.  I don't really care who advances when.  I only care when my son advances when.  I just know there is a lot of that in the Church.  "Why he didn't take the sacrament"  "Why he came home early from his mission", etc. etc.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I guess I'm ahead of the curve.  I just don't see the big deal about this change.  I figure, just accept it and move on.

If nothing else this will make it a lot simpler for the Bishops. Now they can just schedule all the interviews for one night at the end of December or the beginning of January. I am reminded that Mormon received his call as the prophet when he was 10 years old and may have been ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
12 hours ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

If nothing else this will make it a lot simpler for the Bishops. Now they can just schedule all the interviews for one night at the end of December or the beginning of January. I am reminded that Mormon received his call as the prophet when he was 10 years old and may have been ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood at the same time.

Actually, I was wondering about that.  Isn't that going to be "cram at the end of the year"?  There must be 50 or 60 youth in our ward.  Do all those, and do tithing settlement, and EOY reports, and... it seems like the bishopric as a whole will have a lot of stuff to do in Nov/Dec every year, and a lot less throughout the rest of the year.  And they'll have to do this when a lot of people are on vacation. 

I don't know how they'll do this.  But it's something that will need to be figured out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Actually, I was wondering about that.  Isn't that going to be "cram at the end of the year"?  There must be 50 or 60 youth in our ward.  Do all those, and do tithing settlement, and EOY reports, and... it seems like the bishopric as a whole will have a lot of stuff to do in Nov/Dec every year, and a lot less throughout the rest of the year.  And they'll have to do this when a lot of people are on vacation. 

I don't know how they'll do this.  But it's something that will need to be figured out.

With any luck, tithing settlement will be restructured.  That will help a lot.

End of year reports aren't that big of an issue.  All of those can be handled by the clerk, are very nearly automated, and there's really only two reports that have any immediacy.  The tithing settlement report is due to the stake president by the 15th of January, and tax statements are to be distributed by 31 January.  The annual audit happens in February. The ward history is supposed to be submitted by the end of March.  Those are the only real end of year reports, none of which require any major time commitment from the bishop.

So as long as we can kill off tithing settlement (or at least the absurd way we do it now), and replace that crunch with youth interviews starting in October, it should be manageable, even with 60 youth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

I believe they can leave as late as age 26.  It might be 25.  I'm too lazy to look up the exact number.

 

19 hours ago, Vort said:

I think the cutoff age for men is 25 or 26. I don't believe there is a cutoff age for women; I've talked to several female RMs who have mentioned having a companion in her 30s or 40s. I'm sure someone on this list can give you an authoritative answer.

 

18 hours ago, Midwest LDS said:

@Vort was correct the cutoff is 26 for men. On my mission my companion told me about his brother, who turned 26 in the MTC. He slid in right under the wire. Sisters don't have a specific age cutoff, although if they are over 40 they typically are assigned to a non proselytizing mission.

This shows how English language can be quite confusing. I would have said the age for cut off is 25 because the moment you turn 26, then it is less likely you can go.

Also, there are exceptions for converts to the Church. I know of a missionary who was 28 when he served because he joined the Church in his mid twenties and desired to serve a mission. I believe the date is solid though for members who were raised in the Church of 25.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

"MINOR INCONVENIENCE"!!!  That was THREE whole hours I didn't play video games [Fortnite]!

MINOR CORRECTION!!! Its OK don't be ashamed of it, embrace it! 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

 

 

This shows how English language can be quite confusing. I would have said the age for cut off is 25 because the moment you turn 26, then it is less likely you can go.

Also, there are exceptions for converts to the Church. I know of a missionary who was 28 when he served because he joined the Church in his mid twenties and desired to serve a mission. I believe the date is solid though for members who were raised in the Church of 25.

:)

Come now, English isn't confusing. It's just a mongrel tongue that has 10 exceptions for every rule, and a wide range of regional colloquisms. Not to mention those of us like me who pick and choose which rules to follow, based on whim and ignorance. What could possibly be confusing about that?😁

Edited by Midwest LDS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

With any luck, tithing settlement will be restructured. 

This year our Bishop told me that if the members do not come in for settlement he just submits what they have as accurate and that is it. I could see the Prophet announcing that settlements will now be done online if members want to meet with the Bishop then they can, but it will no longer be necessary. Or the responsibility could be spread to the whole bishopric, this would then free up the Bishop's time to work with the youth, his primary responsibility anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

Come now, English isn't confusing. It's just a mongrel tongue that has 10 exceptions for every rule, and a wide range of regional colloquisms. Not to mention those of us like me who pick and choose which rules to follow, based on whim and ignorance. What could possibly be confusing about that?😁

English is the pure Adamic language and is finally returning. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now