YSA Wards/Branches and the Activities Committee

Some discussions just don't fit into a well defined box. Use this forum to discuss general topics and issues revolving around the Church and the technology offerings we use and share.
idjeeper2
Member
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 9:39 pm
Location: Boise, Idaho, USA

YSA Wards/Branches and the Activities Committee

Postby idjeeper2 » Fri Nov 19, 2010 6:02 pm

[font="]I've been hesitant to post this because I fear for what may happen in a thread like this. I have two ground rules for any that reply:

This is not a discussion of the wisdom of the church policy as stated by Elder Cook and contained in the new handbooks. If the thread heads in that direction I expect the moderators to delete it.

I'm hoping for some honest and useful input. Criticism and condemnation of a particular unit/individual's thoughts is not useful. If a suggestion runs counter to policy, we can rely on our own personal revelation to tell us that. Again, if attacks start to happen I expect the moderators to delete the thread.


So ...

I can see that the policy will be easy to apply in a unit that only has a few activities per year. Working through the Ward Council and assigning auxiliaries and individuals to plan those would be relatively painless and indeed could bring much needed focus on the things that are most important in unit cohesion and the main missions of the Church.

At my YSA branch, our President has been out of town so the discussion hasn't really started other than to look at each other with that deer-in-the-headlights expression. My approach is to prayerfully read and re-read the training and the handbooks, look for information, and seek the spirit to suggest how we might proceed. Our Stake President's only comment was "I'm sure you guys will figure that out". He has a lot of faith in us.

My interest is in how those of you who serve in activity-heavy units, particularly YSAs, are approaching this; what has come up in your discussions; and what kinds of options are you considering?
[/font]

kisaac
Community Moderators
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 5:04 am
Location: Utah, united states

Postby kisaac » Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:03 pm

idjeeper wrote:[font="]

This is not a discussion of the wisdom of the church policy as stated by Elder Cook and contained in the new handbooks...

I'm hoping for some honest and useful input....


My interest is in how those of you who serve in activity-heavy units, particularly YSAs, are approaching this; what has come up in your discussions; and what kinds of options are you considering?[/font]


Yes, we won't discuss the CHI or church policy!
But, could it be seen as simply moving the point of delegation to free the bishopric to minister rather than administer?

In other words, the old activities committee reported to the bishopric, thus taking bishopric time and oversight, and a chair at council. Does ward council time need to be devoted to discussing who will set up tables?

By moving this oversight responsibility to a quorum or organization, it "frees" the bishopric. The point of delegation moves to the head of said organization, who has been given keys and authority, and may then delegate further to a committee or person. The presidency meeting and committee meetings could become the planning and delegation point, (who will set up the tables?) with a return and report to the bishopric by the organization head at council.

Does this simply mean asking an organization in your ward to appoint one or several activities committees? That is a good start of your discussion!

kisaac
Community Moderators
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 5:04 am
Location: Utah, united states

Postby kisaac » Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:09 pm

idjeeper wrote:[font="]

This is not a discussion of the wisdom of the church policy as stated by Elder Cook and contained in the new handbooks...

I'm hoping for some honest and useful input....


My interest is in how those of you who serve in activity-heavy units, particularly YSAs, are approaching this; what has come up in your discussions; and what kinds of options are you considering?[/font]


Yes, we won't discuss the CHI or church policy!
But, could it be seen as simply moving the point of delegation to free the bishopric to minister rather than administer?

In other words, the old activities committee reported to the bishopric, thus taking bishopric time and oversight, and a chair at council. Does ward council time need to be devoted to discussing who will set up tables?

By moving this oversight responsibility to a quorum or organization, it "frees" the bishopric. The point of delegation moves to the head of said organization, who has been given keys and authority, and may then delegate further to a committee or person. The presidency meeting and committee meetings could become the planning and delegation point, (who will set up the tables?) with a return and report to the bishopric by the organization head at council.

Does this simply mean asking an organization in your ward to appoint one or several activities committees? That is a good start of your discussion!

rpyne
Member
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:13 pm
Location: Provo, Utah, USA

Postby rpyne » Fri Nov 19, 2010 9:11 pm

Take a look at section 16.3.4 and 16.3.5. I would think that a YSA branch would qualify as a ward (branch) with a significant number of young single adults. The YSA Committee could be a perfect place for a point of delegation for activities.

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 20781
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Fri Nov 19, 2010 9:37 pm

Unfortunately, I neither have access to Handbook 1, or had much time to read Handbook 2, but the first question I have is are activity committees prohibited or simply no longer what I call "minimum requirements" for a ward? If it's only the latter, then I'd say it's the leader's prerogative as to how or if he wants to organize a committee.

But I have to say that the first thought that crossed my mind was not that there would be fewer activities, but only that there would no longer be a ongoing activities committee. In other words, an ad hoc committee would be created for each event. No one person would have to be burned with the organization each time (but I do suspect it would tend to fall to the same group). All in all, I kind of expected the outcome to be the same as it is now, it's just that no one would have the calling to plan events.

I have read the section for Single Members, and it's quite clear that they will be planning events. So it's not like there will never be another committee to plan an event. ;)
Have you searched the Wiki?
Try using a Google search by adding "site:tech.lds.org/wiki" to the search criteria.

User avatar
mkmurray
Senior Member
Posts: 3241
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:56 pm
Location: Utah
Contact:

Postby mkmurray » Fri Nov 19, 2010 10:10 pm

It could just be as simple as the Brethren don't want planning activities to be the only calling a member has. Perhaps they want members to serve in other capacities on a normal basis, and just help out with activity planning as-needed (or rotate through to other people, so no one person does it full-time). Perhaps when all you do is full-time plan activities, you're missing opportunities to take part in the activities as a participant, and maybe more importantly invite and fellowship others who normally wouldn't come to such activities.

Just a few highly speculative thoughts, and that shows how much they are worth too (not much). I do agree with other comments that I don't necessarily think that activities themselves are the target of the new policy.
Many questions are already answered on the LDSTech wiki. Check it out!

Aczlan
Member
Posts: 351
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 4:29 pm
Location: Upstate, NY, USA

Postby Aczlan » Fri Nov 19, 2010 10:43 pm

mkmurray wrote:Perhaps when all you do is full-time plan activities, you're missing opportunities to take part in the activities as a participant, and maybe more importantly invite and fellowship others who normally wouldn't come to such activities.

As someone who normally helps plan/setup/run the tech stuff for most activities, I can certainly agree with that as a possible reason for this change.

It is nice to go to an activity and be able to enjoy it (rather than having to ride herd on some critical thing for the whole time). My wife also appreciates it when we can both go and spend time together at such activities.

Aaron Z

crislapi
Senior Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: USA

Postby crislapi » Fri Nov 19, 2010 11:15 pm

I know of at least 4 stake conference type meetings being held this Sunday by General Authorities in the Salt Lake area this weekend (Lehi, Sandy, Salt Lake and University of Utah campus housing). Supposedly the main topic will be along the lines of your question - how to implement the changes addressed in the World Wide Leadership Training meeting. I imagine most of the focus will be on PEC and Ward Council, but at least one of these meetings is in a Singles Stake. Hopefully these types of meetings continue outside the Salt Lake area or, at the least, members in those areas come here and post some of the discussion items.

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 20781
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Sat Nov 20, 2010 1:00 am

mkmurray wrote:It could just be as simple as the Brethren don't want planning activities to be the only calling a member has.


On the flip side, perhaps they don't want someone to feel that the only way to magnify their calling is to hold more and/or grander activities.

This broadcast isn't the first time I've heard the brethren warn against church activities interfering with family. Having members whose calling is to do activities would tend to work against that directive.
Have you searched the Wiki?

Try using a Google search by adding "site:tech.lds.org/wiki" to the search criteria.

TinMan
Member
Posts: 472
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 8:08 am
Location: Bountiful, UT, USA

Postby TinMan » Sat Nov 20, 2010 3:37 am

From the newsroom announcement of the new handbook:

"Church leaders have emphasized that while the handbook is an essential guide in a large church with a lay ministry, it is not scripture, and individual leaders are expected to seek inspiration and use judgment when administering their church duties."

It seems to me that might apply here?


Return to “General Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest