When's a young man not a young man?

We have two 18 year old young men that graduated from high school last year (June 2015). Their birthdays are in March and July, respectively, so one of them will be 19 in two months and the other will be 19 in six months. The definition of a prospective elder is age 19 or older (unless they're married) (HB2 7.6). For reporting purposes, the quarterly report asks for "Young men attending priesthood meetings" and has a link to the list of young men. The list includes these two 18 year olds. If these guys are attending elders quorum (because they feel too mature to attend priests quorum with high schoolers), and have been doing so since graduating from high school seven months ago, are they still considered young men?

The answer appears to be "yes", given that they show up on the YM list in the quarterly report. So this presents a bit of a quandary for ward clerks when it comes time for the quarterly report. To get the complete attendance for "Young men attending priesthood meetings", you have to talk to the YM presidency and the EQ presidency *and* make sure the EQ doesn't include the YM in their attendance numbers. Granted, if that happens, it's only a difference of a few people, but that could affect the budget. The youth are a large percentage of our budget allocation and that allocation is based on attendance.

This doesn't seem to be an issue for young women. HB2 9.1.4 says "A young woman normally advances into Relief Society on her 18th birthday or in the coming year. By age 19, each young woman should be fully participating in Relief Society." We have two 18 year old young women that do *not* show up on the "Young women attending Sunday Young Women meetings" list for the quarterly report. They're on the "Women attending Relief Society, Young Women, or Primary meetings" list.

I guess the difference is if you notice the wording in the quarterly report question between YM and YW.

• Young men attending priesthood meetings
• Young women attending Sunday Young Women meetings

For YW, it's "Young Women meetings". For YM, it's "priesthood meetings", not "Young Men meetings", so they can attend either priests quorum or elders quorum.

Anyway, this was a bit of a ramble. I just found it interesting that a young man is sometimes not a young man.

sasgrw wrote:If these guys are attending elders quorum (because they feel too mature to attend priests quorum with high schoolers), and have been doing so since graduating from high school seven months ago, are they still considered young men?

No, they are prospective elders. The problem is that MLS does not know that. So once an 18-year-old YM begins attending the elders quorum as a prospective elder, he should be moved in MLS to that quorum.

This is just the opposite of Young Women. MLS moves them to Relief Society when they turn 18. But if a YW is still attending the Laurel Class, she should be moved back to YW in MLS until she makes the transition to Relief Society.

MLS just does the default. A YW moves to RS at age 18. A YM moves to elders quorum at age 19, unless he is ordained an elder sooner.

If, in the real world, an 18-year-old YM or YW is not in the default organization, MLS needs to be told.

lajackson wrote:If, in the real world, an 18-year-old YM or YW is not in the default organization, MLS needs to be told.

For most wards and branches, this is now accomplished by telling LCR.

lajackson wrote:No, they are prospective elders.

Not according to handbook 2 section 7.6 - "A prospective elder is a male Church member age 19 or older who does not hold the Melchizedek Priesthood."

sasgrw wrote:

lajackson wrote:No, they are prospective elders.

Not according to handbook 2 section 7.6 - "A prospective elder is a male Church member age 19 or older who does not hold the Melchizedek Priesthood."

Regardless, the quarterly report will treat 18 year who have not been ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood and who are assigned to the Elders or HP quorum to be prospective elders. That may not match the handbook but it does take the situation you describe into account and treat them as makes sense.

sasgrw wrote:

lajackson wrote:No, they are prospective elders.

Not according to handbook 2 section 7.6 - "A prospective elder is a male Church member age 19 or older who does not hold the Melchizedek Priesthood."

You are correct. I was thinking in terms of the transition of 18-year-olds from priests quorum to elders quorum. I guess if they are ordained elders before they turn 19, they are elders, not prospective elders.

But some bishops have priests who have graduated from high school begin meeting with the elders quorum before they are ordained elders and before they are 19, to keep them with their peer group as they prepare to be ordained elders. Perhaps it would pay to look at that situation again. The bishop is still responsible for them, and he is the priests quorum president.

lajackson wrote:But some bishops have priests who have graduated from high school begin meeting with the elders quorum before they are ordained elders and before they are 19, to keep them with their peer group as they prepare to be ordained elders.

While that seems only natural, I'm not seeing support for that in the Handbook. Which raises some interesting thoughts.

I appreciate everyone's ideas on this. I like to think of the handbooks as sort of scripture since they are inspired documents and are what we refer to when we have questions. We follow them as much as possible but not every situation is covered in the handbooks and thus inspiration comes in. I think this is one of those cases. For one young man, he might be better served by continuing to meet with the PQ. For another, it might be better to be in EQ. That's probably why the quarterly report asks for young men attending "priesthood meetings" and not "young men meetings".

In the case where the YM should attend EQ, lajackson's suggestion of updating the class assignment is a good one. It's too late to test if that works but I'll try it next quarter. As soon as 2016 is available from the quarterly report dropdown, I can try changing one of the young men's class status to see if the quarterly report's list of YM excludes this individual. (I can't test this for 15Q4 because making a class change now results in a change in January and won't affect December stats. I'll have to try this before the end of March.)

My understanding is that the "base" of the quarterly reports is a snap shot taken at the start of the quarter. So there's never a time when you can make a change and immediately see it's effect on the report. You'll have to make the change and see if it changes in the next report.

See this post.

Bummer. I wonder when the snapshot is taken (or if there's a way to find out). If it's done at the beginning of the quarter, I might have already missed it for this quarter, meaning I'd have to wait until 2nd quarter, which isn't due until July 15, 2016.

The snapshot is taken early on the first day of the new quarter. If you've made the change now, it will be reflected in the quarterly report snapshot taken early on the morning of April 1.

Do you know how soon after that snapshot that "2" will be available from the quarter dropdown list? For example, right now, the snapshot for 16Q1 was taken early on January 1st but I can't see a quarter "1" for 2016 in the dropdown list yet, understandably so because it's not time to do the first quarter report yet.

The snapshot for 2016Q1 has not been taken yet. It will be taken shortly after midnight on April 1, 2016.

scgallafent wrote:The snapshot for 2016Q1 has not been taken yet. It will be taken shortly after midnight on April 1, 2016.

His question is when can he see the results of that snapshot. For example, he can't see the 1Q snapshot, even though the snapshot has already been taken. (I'm guessing it's the 3rd month - sometime in March.)

Typo? "The snapshot for 2016Q1 has not been taken yet". Should that be 2016Q2? Your earlier post said the snapshot would be "taken early on the first day of the new quarter". If your snapshot is "shortly after midnight on April 1, 2016", that's for the second quarter, isn't it?

sasgrw wrote:Typo? "The snapshot for 2016Q1 has not been taken yet". Should that be 2016Q2? Your earlier post said the snapshot would be "taken early on the first day of the new quarter". If your snapshot is "shortly after midnight on April 1, 2016", that's for the second quarter, isn't it?

The snapshot taken on the first day of the new quarter is the snapshot for the previous quarter.

russellhltn wrote:

scgallafent wrote:The snapshot for 2016Q1 has not been taken yet. It will be taken shortly after midnight on April 1, 2016.

His question is when can he see the results of that snapshot. For example, he can't see the 1Q snapshot, even though the snapshot has already been taken. (I'm guessing it's the 3rd month - sometime in March.)

No. The 2015Q4 snapshot was taken on January 1st. The 1Q snapshot won't be taken until April 1st. Snapshots are essentially taken just barely past the end of the quarter.

OK, I was sure move-outs were factored in somehow - if the snapshot is just after the quarter, that makes sense.

scgallafent wrote:The snapshot is taken early on the first day of the new quarter.

eblood66 wrote: Snapshots are essentially taken just barely past the end of the quarter.

I think I mis-read scgallafent's earlier posting. I think they're saying the same thing but that's not how I initially read it. It sounded like the snapshot was taken barely into the current quarter, "the first day of the new quarter". But I think they were trying to say that the snapshot is taken on the first day of the next quarter, which is how I read eblood66's comment.

The mud is starting to clear...

And I apologize that I sort of morphed my original question into a new question without starting a new thread. This thread now talks about how to handle an 18 year old young man *and* the time of quarterly report snapshots.

sasgrw wrote:

scgallafent wrote:The snapshot is taken early on the first day of the new quarter.

eblood66 wrote: Snapshots are essentially taken just barely past the end of the quarter.

I think I mis-read scgallafent's earlier posting. I think they're saying the same thing but that's not how I initially read it. It sounded like the snapshot was taken barely into the current quarter, "the first day of the new quarter". But I think they were trying to say that the snapshot is taken on the first day of the next quarter, which is how I read eblood66's comment.

The mud is starting to clear...

My post could have been more clear. I think the confusion has been resolved.

I imagine that it's the last day of that months quarter. This would make the time period consistent each time!