Young Women's Structure

nbblood · #1 (**permalink**) 11-06-2009, 02:52 PM

Why is there absolutely nowhere (that I can find) some page that explains what the young women's program structure is. In other words, one can easily find info that a boy becomes a Deacon at 12, a teacher at 14, and a Priest at 16. Where in the world is the correlating information for Young Women? I have DILIGENTLY SEARCHED LDS.org and can't find a single thing that explains this.

Yes, I know, 12 Beehive, 14 Mia Maid, 16 Laurel, 18 RS. Where is that information so that somebody who doesn't know could possibly find it?

My wife is an investigator and I have a 2 1/2 year old daughter. It sure would be nice to show her the info and that maybe somebody thinks that's important enough to provide on the website.

Ok, so I rant a little. I'm quite frustrated that this info is not readily available to those that may be looking for it. I also realize that this is NOT LDS.org.....blah, blah, blah.

This should be as easy as clicking on the Young Women link, but it isn't. I simply can't find this information anywhere. Am I missing it?

beefche · #2 (**permalink**) 11-06-2009, 03:02 PM

I think that information is in the handbook, which is not published online by the church. However, you can request a review of it from your bishop. You probably cannot make a copy, but you can look at it.

On lds.org, it does say that New Beginnings is for 12 y/o girls entering into YW. I'm not sure if it ever actually says who qualify for Beehives, Mia Maids, etc. online.

nbblood · #3 (**permalink**) 11-06-2009, 03:16 PM

Ok, fine. But my point is that the information should be READILY available. I think it sends a very distinct message about importance of the program when the information is not readily available. I certainly don't think that is the message that is intended.

I know the structure and I can explain how it works. I have access to the Bishop and the materials he has to offer. I can explain to my wife so that she understands. What about the investigator that doesn't have the resources to figure it out on their own? Doesn't this send a message that it wasn't important enough to include?

I think that the structure should be readily available and prominent on the Young Women's page and it most certainly is not.

I've sent a feedback message to LDS.org suggesting an addition to content. It certainly is a fantastic website with an absolute ton of useful resources and information. This, I think, is just something that has been overlooked.

Maybe I'm just frustrated because I literally spent hours looking for it on LDS.org, thinking it absolutely had to be there and simply could not find it. And I'm a little disappointed that nobody thought that was information that was necessary to provide. Maybe there's a reason. I don't know.

Wingnut · #4 (**permalink**) 11-06-2009, 03:25 PM

My opinion as to why it's not readily available is because the age distinctions aren't as important as in the Young Men's program. Deacons, teachers, and priests all have different, distinct, and specific roles within the Aaronic Priesthood that don't readily cross over into the different offices. There isn't really a parallel to that in the Young Women program. Additionally, with the change in the Personal Progress structure a few years ago, there are no level distinctions within that, either. Finally, the Sunday manual used for each level is the same manual -- teachers are to adapt their instruction for the age group they teach.

If your wife would be in Relief Society, and your daughter in Nursery, why is this particular issue irking you so much? (I don't want that to come across as snarky, but genuinely curious, as it doesn't seem to apply to your situation at all.)

beefche · #5 (**permalink**) 11-06-2009, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nbblood

Maybe I'm just frustrated because I literally spent hours looking for it on LDS.org, thinking it absolutely had to be there and simply could not find it. And I'm a little disappointed that nobody thought that was information that was necessary to provide. Maybe there's a reason. I don't know.

Well, look at the bright side...you could have spent hours looking at other, less worthy stuff.

I understand you are just wanting to vent, but I have to go with Wingy on this, not sure why this is bothering you so much.

I've never had investigators have any problems about it not being published. Most churches have some sort of youth program, so they expect teens to be in a youth group at church. Each church is different in the requirements. Once I explain the age requirements to the investigator, they are fine.

nbblood · #6 (**permalink**) 11-06-2009, 03:44 PM

Ok, fair enough. I think it sends a message that the Young Women's Program is not as important as the Young Men's Program. Perhaps that is my perception. I probably am making more of it than it is......ok, I am....to make my point. I appreciate your candid feedback. But.....I may not be the only one........granted, I'm sure people that even notice that are few and far between. But why not post it? Why not make the information available? It would take somebody 5 minutes. They could even copy it out of Wikipedia or mormonwiki.com....which both thought it was important enough to explain.

Again, I realize I'm making more of it than it is. But I think it would be a small thing that would make the site better.

nbblood · #7 (**permalink**) 11-06-2009, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wingnut

My opinion as to why it's not readily available is because the age distinctions aren't as important as in the Young Men's program. Deacons, teachers, and priests all have different, distinct, and specific roles within the Aaronic Priesthood that don't readily cross over into the different offices. There isn't really a parallel to that in the Young Women program. Additionally, with the change in the Personal Progress structure a few years ago, there are no level distinctions within that, either. Finally, the Sunday manual used for each level is the same manual -- teachers are to adapt their instruction for the age group they teach.

See, and I think that this is a slippery slope leading toward saying that women are not as important as men. I believe it can be perceived like that by someone that is seeking the information. I know that is not an intended message, but it certainly can be perceived that way.

If your wife would be in Relief Society, and your daughter in Nursery, why is this particular issue irking you so much? (I don't want that to come across as snarky, but genuinely curious, as it doesn't seem to apply to your situation at all.)

Because it sure would be helpful to explain to my investigator wife, what our daughter's progression would be like through the years and that she would be considered as important as the young men. That is not apparent from the information presented

That, and I'm cranky, of course.

Wingnut · #8 (**permalink**) 11-06-2009, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nbblood

See, and I think that this is a slippery slope leading toward saying that women are not as important as men.

I don't think it gives that impression at all. Looked at in perspective, one has to remember that the Priesthood is part of the Restored Gospel. The Young Men program is a program in the church. The Young Women program is a program in the Church. The Young Women program is not part of the gospel. It's part of the program.

applepansy · #9 (**permalink**) 11-06-2009, 05:08 PM

Introduction to Young Women

I didn't look too closely ...but this might have what you're looking for. It seems to say the program is just as important as the YMs.

nbblood · #10 (**permalink**) 11-06-2009, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by applepansy

Introduction to Young Women

I didn't look too closely ...but this might have what you're looking for. It seems to say the program is just as important as the YMs.

Actually, I saw that, but thanks.

Still people are missing my point. You don't have to convince me about the Young Women's program. And if what I've pointed out is not what you've perceived, that's fine, I understand. But my point is that it very much CAN be perceived that way.

So, why should it not be posted? If somebody would spend 1/10th of the energy we've spent talking about it, it could be done. So why not?

The arguments of, "I already know so it's not important to me," or "anybody that is interested can go elsewhere to look," or "it's not applicable to you so why worry about it," just reflect complacency to me. Why is everybody defending why it's not there, instead of thinking, hmmmm.....maybe it wouldn't hurt anything if it was there? I mean, the primary age groups were important enough to include. I think it may just be an oversight. But then I think I'm missing something. But the aforementioned arguments are not compelling to me.

Ok, now I really, really, am making it more than it's worth. I'll let it go now. Thanks for all the contributions though.