11 year old primary children's transition

I can not find anywhere in the new material how 11 year old primary children are supposed to transition with the new schedule starting in 2019.

Take an 11 year old that turns 12 in June...

Under our current schedule in 2018, they attend the Sunday school class for 11 year olds all year long. Last hour, they attend primary (singing/sharing time) until they turn 12 in June at which time they go to YM/YW.

Under the 2019 schedule, that same youth that turns 12 in June...

The youth will attend Primary each Sunday until they turn 12 in June (50 minutes which will consist of lesson time and singing time).

When they turn 12 in June, the 2nd and 4th Sundays they will go to YM/YW and start attending Mutual mid-week.

What about the 1st and 3rd Sundays after they turn 12?? I can not find any guideline for them.
Do they advance to the 12 year old Sunday school class half way through the year and basically repeat that same 12 year old class the upcoming year?
Do they just stay in Primary the whole year? (doing lesson time with their primary class and singing time with them as well).
Do they attend their usual primary Sunday school class the first 20 minutes then go interrupt/join the 12 year old class during singing time in primary? (that seems unlikely)

I also don't see recommendations on if they should still participate in the primary program.

My wife is stake primary president in our stake. She discussed this question with a member of our stake presidency earlier this week - our stake is seeing further direction. I believe all our wards will have combined 12-13 classes so everyone will repeat at least 1 year anyway. The lessons will change from year to year so it won't be like they are taking the same thing over.

Others may differ, but in her nearly 30 years experience in primary and cub scouts in many areas in the country, my wife told me that 12 year olds have never participated in the primary program. If they turn 12 after the primary program, they are still in primary and participate.

Taking a "legalistic" approach to the instructions:

Handbook 2: 11.4.3 under "Children Age 12" indicates that children are to go to Aaronic Priesthood/Young Women class during "Sharing time". However, under the new schedule "Sharing Time" only appears in the sentence "The Outline for Sharing Time will be discontinued." Everything else in the new schedule refers to "singing time and classes". So, it appears the requirement that 12 year old children attend with the older age groups for at least some of the time is gone.

Handbook 2: 11.4.3 also says "During Primary class time, new 12-year-olds normally attend their Valiant 11 Primary class until the end of the year. However, the bishop and the presidents of the Primary, Young Men, Young Women, and Sunday School may counsel together to determine if these 12-year-olds would benefit more from attending the Sunday School class for 12- and 13-year-olds. As these leaders counsel together, they consider the needs of the children and the times of the year when individual children will reach age 12. Their decision applies to all young men and women who reach age 12 that year."

My personal interpretation is that by default the 12 year olds stay with Primary until the end of the year, but local leaders may decide to advance them. But there's no reason to bounce them back and forth depending on the week.

russellhltn wrote:Handbook 2: 11.4.3 under "Children Age 12" indicates that children are to go to Aaronic Priesthood/Young Women class during "Sharing time". However, under the new schedule "Sharing Time" only appears in the sentence "The Outline for Sharing Time will be discontinued." Everything else in the new schedule refers to "singing time and classes". So, it appears the requirement that 12 year old children attend with the older age groups for at least some of the time is gone.

If we're being legalistic, then Handbook 2: 8.11 says "priesthood holders attend their quorum meetings." So I don't think you can just say that if there is no sharing time then they don't attend their quorum meetings. There is a similar statement in Handbook 2: 10.6.2 for the YW.

Fundamentally, there is no obvious single way to adapt the new schedule to the new 12 year olds. Somehow this area seems to have been missed, at least the directions we've been given so far. I'm assuming some direction will be forthcoming.

Personally, I think attending priesthood quorum meeting and YW classes is important for new 12 year olds so that they can be fellowshipped into their new organization. Without that they won't really feel part of the youth organizations. I really, really doubt they will continue to attend primary on the 2nd and 4th weeks. I'm guessing they will start attending the 12 year old Sunday School classes on the 1st and 3rd weeks and will stay there until the January following their 13th birthday. But I could be wrong. They might alternate between primary and YM/YW.

We discussed this wIth our ward council (another way of saying, nothing official here) and concluded that the choice should reside with the child first, with the parents' guidance. If that means sometimes in primary and sometimes not, so be it.

The vast majority of the time, we expect the child will just want to move up to the youth programs. I can see maybe one child in our ward in the next 6 years that might be hesitant to move up immediately. We will cross that bridge when we get there, and rely heavily on the parents to help develop the strategy.

The only hole we have in the strategy is a shrinking valiant 11 class.not much of an issue for us, though, since our valiant 11's meet are joined with the valiant 12's. That's a scenario we would discuss how to handle based on the children in the class, their maturity, and the spacing of birthdays.

This is an area where I don't think a proscribed policy is anywhere near as useful as a discussion of philosophies

eblood66 wrote:If we're being legalistic, then Handbook 2: 8.11 says "priesthood holders attend their quorum meetings."

Yes, it does. But that only applies to ordained deacons. I don't see anything that would apply to "prospective deacons". That verbiage (as well as 10.6.2 for the YW) is found in the context of the YM/YW program as whole, not in how 12 year olds should be dealt with.

As for ordaining 12 yo to deacon, the Handbook says "may" I don't see any sense of urgency in doing so. So, it strikes me as odd to ordain him if he's not attending the quorum.

eblood66 wrote:Fundamentally, there is no obvious single way to adapt the new schedule to the new 12 year olds.

I stand by the personal opinion that with the demise of a defined "sharing time" the automatic move to YM/YW has disappeared (pending further light and knowledge). But local leaders have the option to decide as long as it applies to all 12 year olds for the year.

As for which way it should go, I see issues both ways. I find the idea of them being advanced from Primary, given a certificate of recognition and then still attend Primary as if nothing changed (as called out by the Handbook) to be a bit odd.

On the other hand, what I'd think what would be less disruptive to the child is to remain with Primary and advance in January with their peers - just like they've always done. Also, if you advance the children on the 12th birthday, you're going to have a pretty empty Valiant 11 by the end of the year.

nutterb wrote:We discussed this wIth our ward council (another way of saying, nothing official here) and concluded that the choice should reside with the child first, with the parents' guidance.

That seems like an interesting interpretation of the handbook where "Their decision applies to all young men and women who reach age 12 that year."

eblood66 wrote:Fundamentally, there is no obvious single way to adapt the new schedule to the new 12 year olds. Somehow this area seems to have been missed, at least [in] the directions we've been given so far. I'm assuming some direction will be forthcoming.

I have reason to believe that you assume correctly. I have spoken with several other stake Primary presidents who have communicated with Church headquarters, and I know that headquarters is aware of the need for clarification.

This is a big enough issue that I would not be surprised if additional instructions are being prepared, and I expect that they will come out before the end of the year, since everyone knows they will be needed beginning in January. I think we will have them by then, although I admit that it is difficult to be patient long enough for them to arrive.

January will be a busy month for those who will be turning 12 during the coming year. The First Presidency has released a letter dated today (December 14, 2018) that outlines the transition process for those turning 11. The letter is to be read in sacrament meeting.

To answer the specific question that was asked here, the Valiant 11 class will be discontinued. Primary children will move to the YM/YW programs in January of the year they will turn 12, beginning next month.

There are a number of other significant changes as well. Because this is a letter from the First Presidency to leaders down to and including ward and branch councils, I will not say more here for the moment. I will leave it to the bishops to make those announcements by reading the letter in sacrament meeting. I expect that the news media, particularly the Church News, will publish articles shortly.

This is a big change. There is a new prophet in Israel.

lajackson wrote:Because this is a letter from the First Presidency to leaders down to and including ward and branch councils, I will not say more here for the moment. I will leave it to the bishops to make those announcements by reading the letter in sacrament meeting. I expect that the news media, particularly the Church News, will publish articles shortly.

Nevermind. An email has been sent to every member of the Church announcing the change.

Change takes place in January of the year a young man or woman turns 12, 14, or 16. The year they turn 12 they move to YM or YW in January and the Young Men may be ordained to the Aaronic Priesthood at that time, based on worthiness interviews, sustaining in sacrament meeting and the following of the current process. YM and YW transition to their Miamaid classes and teachers quorums in January of the year they turn 14, and again YM may be ordained teachers at that point, based on following the current process of interviewing, sustaining, etc. The same occurs in January of the year youth turn 16.

Of interest, although youth transition in January of the year they turn 16, the First Presidency has pointed out that they should not date until they actually turn 16 years of age.

I can't say that I'm a real fan of the way things have been phrased. The Handbook is written as "age on January 1", while the new advancement policy says "the year the child turns". So, what happens to a child born on January 1? On their 10th birthday, they'd attend Valiant 10. On their 11th, there is no Valiant 11, but they don't turn 12 until next year. (Leave it to a programmer to point out corner cases.)

And here is the link to the letter and FAQ

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/multimed ... y-2019.pdf

russellhltn wrote:I can't say that I'm a real fan of the way things have been phrased. The Handbook is written as "age on January 1", while the new advancement policy says "the year the child turns". So, what happens to a child born on January 1? On their 10th birthday, they'd attend Valiant 10. On their 11th, there is no Valiant 11, but they don't turn 12 until next year. (Leave it to a programmer to point out corner cases.)

I think it's more clear to say "the year the child turns" than "age on January 1". "Age on January 1" technically could be different depending on the time of day, but with "year the child turns", it doesn't matter what time or day they were born. Also, I intuitively think "next year I'll be turning __" more readily than "next year I'll be __ on January 1".

sbradshaw wrote:I think it's more clear to say "the year the child turns" than "age on January 1".

I understand the point, but you've got an additional complication. Currently, a child joins Valiant 10 when they are 10 on January 1st. But to adopt the new phrasing, it now becomes "The year the child turns 11, they join Valiant 10".

sbradshaw wrote:"Age on January 1" technically could be different depending on the time of day, but with "year the child turns", it doesn't matter what time or day they were born.

I see that as less of a concern. I think traditionally, most people celebrate their birthday based on the day, not the hour. As far as I'm aware, a birthday is a birthday, even if it was a 11:59 PM delivery. If there's any doubt, you go by their legal date of birth - which is just that: a date. Not a date/time. (On most any document I've seen other than the birth certificate.) So, unless we're going to overhaul all the class names to remove numbers (ugh), I'd think the traditional "age on January 1" is preferable.

Ah, if only we got to help write the Handbook.

A child who is 10 years old on January 1 is still in the Valiant 10 class. The traditional "age on January 1" stays the same.

The children born on January 1 are in a weird situation. They will be in the Valiant 10 class for two years (from their 10th birthday until the day before their 12th birthday). We (and the presiding councils who make these decisions) are aware of that issue. For now, it is what it is.

scgallafent wrote:The children born on January 1 are in a weird situation. They will be in the Valiant 10 class for two years (from their 10th birthday until the day before their 12th birthday). We (and the presiding councils who make these decisions) are aware of that issue. For now, it is what it is.

In that situation, I suspect this line from the FAQ will come into play:

Some children or youth may not move between organizations, classes, or quorums according to the typical schedule due to personal circumstances. The bishop and parents counsel together to decide what is in the best interest of each child or youth.

I'm amused at this:

7. Must the transition date for age-group progression always be January?
No. In areas of the world where January is not a natural transition date, areas may implement these changes based on the local transition date now followed.

I think this is intended for places that use a different calendar such that January 1 doesn't have the same meaning. (Example: Chinese New Year)
However, I wonder how many leaders in the US will rationalize to say the school year is the "natural transition date". (It certainly is for youth transitioning to EQ/RS.)

Although parents and bishops may decide they want to take a different approach, that will not affect the rules for temple recommends or Aaronic Priesthood ordinations A youth who turns 11 on January 1, 2019, will be eligible for a temple recommend and priesthood ordination on January 1, 2020, even if the parents and bishop decide to have that youth attend the deacons quorum or beehive class.

scgallafent wrote:Although parents and bishops may decide they want to take a different approach, that will not affect the rules for temple recommends or Aaronic Priesthood ordinations A youth who turns 11 on January 1, 2019, will be eligible for a temple recommend and priesthood ordination on January 1, 2020, even if the parents and bishop decide to have that youth attend the deacons quorum or beehive class.

Yes, I see that in the FAQ. But given that "Generally, youth in a class or quorum may enjoy the privileges that are appropriate for that class or quorum." as well as "All Mia Maids and teachers may be invited to participate in ministering and may have ministering assignments. They need not wait for their 14th birthdays.", I predict we'll see future posts here caused by premature ordinations. No doubt, LCR will reject such ordinations, but I suspect by then the deed has been done. I do hope that the presiding councils find a way to prevent the rule gap for Jan 1 birthdays.

russellhltn wrote:In that situation, I suspect this line from the FAQ will come into play:

Some children or youth may not move between organizations, classes, or quorums according to the typical schedule due to personal circumstances. The bishop and parents counsel together to decide what is in the best interest of each child or youth.

I see the provision of that FAQ to allow for the delayed movement of a young person to YM/YW. I can see where the parents and bishop of a child who has a birthday toward the end of the year may feel it better to wait until the next year to advance the child.

And in effect, the new rules force a transition delay for someone born on January 1st.

This reminds me of the time many years ago when I was in the Old Testament class in Sunday School three years in a row.

lajackson wrote:I see the provision of that FAQ to allow for the delayed movement of a young person to YM/YW.

Good eye. I didn't see that "delayed" part. Once pointed out, it's there, but could be easily overlooked.

lajackson wrote:This reminds me of the time many years ago when I was in the Old Testament class in Sunday School three years in a row.

Class got stuck in Isaiah?

russellhltn wrote:

lajackson wrote:This reminds me of the time many years ago when I was in the Old Testament class in Sunday School three years in a row.

Class got stuck in Isaiah?

Ha! It was a time of transition similar to this one, in a small ward where classes were combined because there were few youth and each class studied a different topic. Interestingly, the ward was willing to call a teacher just for me, and asked me if I would like for them to do that.

My answer was that I would rather stay with my friends, which is one of the main reasons for this latest change announced yesterday by the First Presidency. Some things never change.

As an off-topic aside, I really came to love those Old Testament stories. And as a personnal note, if anyone really does get stuck in Isaiah, I have two suggestions. One, read the interpretation in the Book of Mormon. Two, read Isaiah for Dummies by John Bytheway.

russellhltn wrote:I predict we'll see future posts here caused by premature ordinations. No doubt, LCR will reject such ordinations, but I suspect by then the deed has been done.

The bishop will then have two options. He can request that the First Presidency ratify the out-of-policy ordination or it can be redone correctly. Neither is an option I would like to experience.

scgallafent wrote:

russellhltn wrote:I predict we'll see future posts here caused by premature ordinations. No doubt, LCR will reject such ordinations, but I suspect by then the deed has been done.

The bishop will then have two options. He can request that the First Presidency ratify the out-of-policy ordination or it can be redone correctly. Neither is an option I would like to experience.

Based on my reading of Handbook 1: 16.1.10 under "Ordinances That Were Performed before the Appropriate Age", I tend to doubt if ratification by the First Presidency is an option.

russellhltn wrote:Based on my reading of Handbook 1: 16.1.10 under "Ordinances That Were Performed before the Appropriate Age", I tend to doubt if ratification by the First Presidency is an option.

Oh, you would be surprised. But as scgallafent said, this is not an option I would like to experience, either.

I know this is a premature question, and one for which there may be no answer. But hey, it's worth a shot.

Do any of the Church employees know if LCR is already configured to allow limited-use recommends to be issued to the 11 year old going into Young Men or Young Women? We have three youth in this category for whom I've been instructed to issue a recommend "as soon as possible," with some of those families eyeing the stake temple day on January 19th.

Likewise, will LCR handle ordinations of 11 year olds on 1 Jan, or am I going to be clutching paper records in safety deposit boxes (yeah, a little extreme) to make sure I don't lose those records?

nutterb wrote:Do any of the Church employees know if LCR is already configured to allow limited-use recommends to be issued to the 11 year old going into Young Men or Young Women? We have three youth in this category for whom I've been instructed to issue a recommend "as soon as possible," with some of those families eyeing the stake temple day on January 19th.

Yes.

nutterb wrote:Likewise, will LCR handle ordinations of 11 year olds on 1 Jan, or am I going to be clutching paper records in safety deposit boxes (yeah, a little extreme) to make sure I don't lose those records?

Yes.

Thank you. My anxiety level just went down some (from 0.2 to 0.1, on a scale of one to ten).

It probably wouldn't hurt for me to also point out that the usual caveats apply:

• You won't be able to issue a temple recommend to an 11-year-old young man if his ordination has not been recorded
• You won't be able to issue a temple recommend before the youth is eligible - January 1 is the implementation date, anyone who tries to record an ordination or issue a recommend for someone who turns 11 ON January 1 will be able to do that ... on January 1, 2020
• Young men must be interviewed and sustained in sacrament meeting before being ordained

While I'm really excited about these changes, there is one strange quirk to all of this that I find a bit strange.

The Deacon & Beehive classes will have youth aged 11-13, Teachers & Mia Maids will be 13-15, and Priests & Laurels will be 15-18.

But Sunday School classes appear to still be set up according to the age you are at the beginning of the year.
This means the 11 yo class will have youth aged 11-12, the 12-13 yo class will be 12-14, the 14-15 yo class will be 14-16, and the 16-17 yo class will be 16-18.

This means youth will be meeting with others older than them one week and others younger than them the next. Not bad, just completely offset now that we've aligned ordinations and YW progression. Rather than meeting with their quorums during Sunday School, they're meeting with a totally different group. Any thoughts on this?

aldebaraan wrote:This means the 11 yo class will have youth aged 11-12, the 12-13 yo class will be 12-14, the 14-15 yo class will be 14-16, and the 16-17 yo class will be 16-18.

How ages are grouped for SS classes is up to the ward. In our ward we have separate classes for each year (Course 11, Course 12, Course 13, etc.). So for SS they only meet with those the same age.

If your ward chooses to have Course 11, Course 12-13, Course 14-15 and Course 16-17 that is fine. But they could also choose to align the SS classes with the YW/YM classes if they want. It all depends on what the SS Presidency and Bishopric decide. They would likely consider how many youth you have, what their ages are, whether there are members available to call as teachers, whether there are space limitations in the building, etc.

aldebaraan wrote:While I'm really excited about these changes, there is one strange quirk to all of this that I find a bit strange.

The Deacon & Beehive classes will have youth aged 11-13, Teachers & Mia Maids will be 13-15, and Priests & Laurels will be 15-18.

But Sunday School classes appear to still be set up according to the age you are at the beginning of the year.
This means the 11 yo class will have youth aged 11-12, the 12-13 yo class will be 12-14, the 14-15 yo class will be 14-16, and the 16-17 yo class will be 16-18.

This means youth will be meeting with others older than them one week and others younger than them the next. Not bad, just completely offset now that we've aligned ordinations and YW progression. Rather than meeting with their quorums during Sunday School, they're meeting with a totally different group. Any thoughts on this?

This is a result of the way you are grouping your youth into Sunday School classes. If you want them to match the Aaronic Priesthood quorums and Young Women classes, you need to regroup them as Course 11 + 12, Course 13 + 14, and Course 15 + 16 + 17. The decision to do that is up to your bishop. The default configuration is one class per age group.

After reading all this, one thing comes to mind: September 2010 and the rollout of CUBS. There were many, many 'hicups' during that, but eventually we got a much better system than we had before. I am sure that as they realize all the small things they overlooked during the initial roll out, v.1.1 will be better.