New Primary Policy - Church-wide?

[Silver Girl]

Sadly, showing up to teach primary with a tiny baby was less irritating and frustrating than having to find a sub to teach it for me. In hindsight, it seems like the least a ward could do to support a woman who just gave birth was taking care of lining up the subs, but what do I know? I guess I'd been the person left holding the bag so many times when someone just didn't show for primary and I had to deal with covering for them that I didn't want to do that to anyone else.

I had the same sense of obligation or responsibility in my callings, but (thank goodness) I was never called to primary or the nursery. I knew I could not do those callings, and I sometimes thought through what I might say if they told me "God" wanted me to be in one of those groups. Otherwise, though, I picked up the slack when someone didn't do their part of whatever I was doing, I pitched in everywhere I could, and was über dedicated.

In one calling, I was part of a team that had a PH guy called at the stake level who was supposed to do certain things. He did not like that calling; he had been on the HC just prior to that and he considered it a demotion, and he made it very clear he put himself above the calling. He was supposed to stage training several times a year (for people from several stakes) and would cancel things at the last minute but not notify people. For about a year, I picked up the slack and scrambled to make certain the training happened (I was qualified to give it), but I also did my own busy calling. My anger built up during that year & I felt so used. But, I kept doing it!

Finally, they released him and called me to the position he'd had (which was fine with me, since I was already doing it), and one of the stake leaders actually told me they'd "been aware" for quite a while that a change was needed. Although I appreciated the tipoff that it wasn't my imagination, it also made me even more angry, because I wondered why that had not acted sooner. I suspect they "didn't want to hurt his feelings" or some such "protect the men" bull-crap.

Overall, the type of "leadership" I saw in the church would never cut it in private-sector business. Non-performers and those who just plain never show up would not be kept around very long.

[glass shelf]

Silvergirl-
I definitely had an overly zealous sense of responsibility for callings, and people knew that I wouldn't be the person to let it fall apart. We moved a lot, and 90% of the time, my first calling was in primary! Yay?!? Exactly where a young mom with little kids wants to be put when moving into a new ward.

Once, we lived in a branch that was composed of retirees and military families. I was the Primary President. We didn't have enough adults to staff anything. Retirees didn't want to serve in the primary. At one point, I had no chorister, no pianist, and one counselor for about 25 primary kids. I did have a completely inppropriate, but well-intentioned nursery leader for the additional 10 nursery kids we had. I would plan out all of sharing time, create a CD of the songs were were going to sing, lead the music, and teach one of the classes etc. My counselor didn't feel comfortable doing many of those things, but she would teach one class. I also had a little boy with severe autism whose parents really needed a break, but I could not deal with his needs on top of the rest, and there wasn't anyone else to help with him. I feel badly about how many times I had to get his parents to come and sit with him, but no one else would do it. (On a happy note there, some empty nesters eventually moved into the branch, and they insisted on helping in the primary each week even though he was the HPGL and had been a former mission president. I don't think I'd ever been so grateful.)

At one point, the stake primary presidency came to visit, and I thought, "Thank goodness! Someone's going to see how bad this is and help us get some more staffing! instead of having a complete RSP, SS presidency, EQ, etc." Nope, they didn't even stay to help with the kids, and I got a phone call later that week to talk about why my February bulletin board was still showing the prior year's theme information. Ironically, I remember thinking that if that branch experience didn't drive me away from the church nothing would. Little did I know.

[alas]

On the other hand, if this is really pushed, the wards may be forced to bump primary up from the bottom of the priority list. They may have to actually LOOK at the problem of why so many members turn down primary callings. They may have to start thinking of who can teach primary before the YW and RS are staffed.

Well, I can tell you why the retired people won't do primary. We are old enough that we do not have the energy or stamina to keep up with a class of small children. But if we were just asked to sit in the class, maybe next to the most unruly kid, and there were three adults in the room, ya I could handle that. I might even try it if there was always another adult. But 15 kids by myself, go jump in the lake. I can't run a marathon and I can't handle 15 kids by myself. I just don't have the energy. I also know why young mothers hate primary. They are with small children all week and they need adult company and they need a break from children to regain their own sanity. Primary isolates the primary teachers from the rest of the ward.

So, that leaves the young single or childless sisters and the men, am I right? Why not put the young fathers in primary? Oh, they are all staffing the bishopric and elders quorums. But why is the most important characteristic of bishop that he can be a buddy and big brother to the YM? Why not get someone who can be the wise grandfather to the YM. I don't know what the answer is, but staffing primary has been a nightmare since we went on the block schedual and primary got moved to Sunday. When we had the old schedual, the primary workers were not isolated from the rest of the ward. I was primary president back in the dark ages and it actually worked better. Then we moved to the block and staffing primary became a nightmare. It is too long, for the teachers and the kids and on Sunday, it is not "appropriate" to take your class out for a run in the parking lot. The teachers find it exhausting and the kids cannot sit that long.

[AdmiralHoldo]

Our ward announced this change at the beginning of our fifth-Sunday lesson, the theme of which was 'accept the callings we give you or God will get you.' Hey, I was happily serving in Primary until I was put out to pasture, presumably for talking about things like seer stones and polygamy...

[slavereeno]

ANYWAY - word on the street is that the policy changes will be a requirement for two adult teachers in any class with 18 and younger children in it. Which is kind of dumb, because that’s just common sense, what kind of an organization had to finally figure out in 2018 leaving children alone with an adult unsupervised is a bad idea? I mean, it’s been the policy in Primary for a while, but it should have been the policy everywhere all the time. God is pretty damn careless with his members’ children.

So is this just in my ward, just in my stake, or is this Church-wide? And what could possibly have inspired such a policy? And why in the name of all that is holy haven’t they figured out they need to fix their “worthiness interview” problem too while they are at it?

This policy was distributed via email by our primary president about 3 weeks ago. It was an official church document in PDF form. If anyone give a **** I can post it here.

[TestimonyLost]

I'm a bit confused with some of the replies. There seems to be opposition to the two adults in a class with kids policy? I thought with all the news lately and the march for the kids, there would be pretty much unanimous support for this change (with the obvious glaring omission of bishop interviews). What am I missing?

[RubinHighlander]

Part of the problem with staffing Primary is that it ties up a large fraction of the ward for two hours in a situation that few people honestly enjoy doing.

Here's the problem with that problem for the COB - The big investment in primary is indoctrinating future generations of tithing payers. If the COB tapirs back on investing in the young ones it could lose a lot of future revenue.

[alas]

I'm a bit confused with some of the replies. There seems to be opposition to the two adults in a class with kids policy? I thought with all the news lately and the march for the kids, there would be pretty much unanimous support for this change (with the obvious glaring omission of bishop interviews). What am I missing?

Yes, this is a good change----but kind of too little too late. The church always seems to be too little too late.

I think we are complaining because this solution is going to be up to local wards to get the necessary staffing. The headquarters once again is dumping on the little people to solve the problems it creates. Yes, two teachers in every class is a necessity. But finding that many people for two hours of primary, when two hours with small children is a nightmare, is going to be a constant problem. I could not keep primary staffed with one teacher per class, and then it was scraping the bottom of the barrel with the teachers I did get.

So, basically, one of the gripes is that local leadership needs to change its attitude that the priorities go (1) bishopric (2) YM 's program (3) priesthood quorums (4) ward mission leaders (5) auxillery heads/organists (6) Relief Society teachers/quorum teachers/Sunday School teachers (7) all misc other church callings (8) primary teachers. If they are going to staff two deep, they need people who actually show up. They need teachers who come prepared not open the book in sacrament meeting, because with another teacher in the room observing them, they will be ashamed if they are totally unprepared, and quit. Now, if they are totally unprepared, they just play games and the kids love it and nobody knows. With two deep teaching, they will be ratted out. Also, with two deep, NOMs and liberals will not want to teach because with another teacher in the room, any variation from corollated can be reported. It isn't only pedophiles who can't do what they please with another teacher in the room. So, they just narrowed down the group who will say yes to primary and it was already small.

So, church wide, something needs to change to make (1) primary teachers not isolated away from other adults. (2) stop putting the mothers with four toddlers in primary (3) make the total time with the kids less. In other words, they need to restructure the block. then they need to figure out how to make teaching more fun, so people will want to teach primary. The same old same old is boring to everyone.

So, this solution solves one problem, but not the rest of the problems.





And NOMs just have to whine and complain.

[TestimonyLost]

Thank you for taking the time to respond!

And NOMs just have to whine and complain.

I don't post much but I'm guessing I have a silly high percentage of whiny posts. So I'm not here to judge.

Yes, this is a good change----but kind of too little too late. The church always seems to be too little too late.

Agreed. The church lags society's growth to a ridiculous degree. However, to me, this seems like an area where any positive change at any time is good. Just need more of it.

I think we are complaining because this solution is going to be up to local wards to get the necessary staffing. The headquarters once again is dumping on the little people to solve the problems it creates. Yes, two teachers in every class is a necessity. But finding that many people for two hours of primary, when two hours with small children is a nightmare, is going to be a constant problem.

And I think that's what I was missing. It's a good policy but near unworkable in a practical sense. I agree with that. Our ward is quite large and active so we will probably manage (though it will still be tight) but I can see how big a problem it will be for smaller wards.

So, church wide, something needs to change to make (1) primary teachers not isolated away from other adults. (2) stop putting the mothers with four toddlers in primary (3) make the total time with the kids less. In other words, they need to restructure the block. then they need to figure out how to make teaching more fun, so people will want to teach primary. The same old same old is boring to everyone.

I'm really not sure how they ease the burden of meeting this new requirement. I think we could come up with ideas but would they be acceptable to the leadership or even the TBM members?

[glass shelf]

I think it's a great policy. Definitely. I just wish them luck as I don't think I ever served in a fully staffed functional primary.

[wtfluff]

I'm a bit confused with some of the replies. There seems to be opposition to the two adults in a class with kids policy? I thought with all the news lately and the march for the kids, there would be pretty much unanimous support for this change (with the obvious glaring omission of bishop interviews). What am I missing?

I'm not opposed to this new supposed policy. My beef with it is: As far as I can tell, this policy has been in place for a long time when it comes to "two male adults" teaching classes. I have personally never seen this policy actually enforced.

So... What will change with this "new" policy? Will it actually be enforced? I highly doubt it. I suspect nothing will change. Same crap, different "policy".

[Not Buying It]

I'm a bit confused with some of the replies. There seems to be opposition to the two adults in a class with kids policy? I thought with all the news lately and the march for the kids, there would be pretty much unanimous support for this change (with the obvious glaring omission of bishop interviews). What am I missing?

I'm not opposed to this new supposed policy. My beef with it is: As far as I can tell, this policy has been in place for a long time when it comes to "two male adults" teaching classes. I have personally never seen this policy actually enforced.

So... What will change with this "new" policy? Will it actually be enforced? I highly doubt it. I suspect nothing will change. Same crap, different "policy".

I have taught Primary for most of the past 8 years, and for most of that time they have paired me with another male teacher who couldn't be there a lot of weeks. Consistently. For example, my current teacher partner is a really nice guy, but has to miss more than half of Sundays because of work. SO WHY THE HELL ARE THEY CALLING A GUY TO TEAM TEACH WHO CAN'T BE THERE HALF THE TIME?!?!?!? Sorry to shout, but it really upsets me, I have to try and find someone to fill in half the time because my team teacher can't be there. If that is the case for most teaching partners, then there are plenty of opportunities for pedophiles to get around this policy. It's frustrating to me - and ultimately dangerous for the children.

It's been my experience they really don't take two deep all that seriously in Primary. And it really, really pisses me off.

[wtfluff]

I'm a bit confused with some of the replies. There seems to be opposition to the two adults in a class with kids policy? I thought with all the news lately and the march for the kids, there would be pretty much unanimous support for this change (with the obvious glaring omission of bishop interviews). What am I missing?

I'm not opposed to this new supposed policy. My beef with it is: As far as I can tell, this policy has been in place for a long time when it comes to "two male adults" teaching classes. I have personally never seen this policy actually enforced.

So... What will change with this "new" policy? Will it actually be enforced? I highly doubt it. I suspect nothing will change. Same crap, different "policy".

I have taught Primary for most of the past 8 years, and for most of that time they have paired me with another male teacher who couldn't be there a lot of weeks. Consistently. For example, my current teacher partner is a really nice guy, but has to miss more than half of Sundays because of work. SO WHY THE HELL ARE THEY CALLING A GUY TO TEAM TEACH WHO CAN'T BE THERE HALF THE TIME?!?!?!? Sorry to shout, but it really upsets me, I have to try and find someone to fill in half the time because my team teacher can't be there. If that is the case for most teaching partners, then there are plenty of opportunities for pedophiles to get around this policy. It's frustrating to me - and ultimately dangerous for the children.

It's been my experience they really don't take two deep all that seriously in Primary. And it really, really pisses me off.

Pretty much my experience too. Toward the end of my "calling accepting" sentence, I was in Sunday School. They guy I team-taught with was fairly reliable, until they "called" him to one of those stupid temple classes, and he decided that meant he had been released. So I spent months being the only teacher, and bugging the SS presidency to get me some help.

At least that lead to me finally basically demanding a "change" which lead to me being released, and my eventual bowing out of Sunday attendance.

[TestimonyLost]

It's been my experience they really don't take two deep all that seriously in Primary. And it really, really pisses me off.

In my ward, they take the two guys rule very seriously but there's no concern with a single woman. It will be interesting to see how it changes with the new policy.

Recently, I was late to Sunday School and ran into a member of the presidency frantically running around looking for a guy to be a second in one of the classes. I'm happy to do that kind of duty so I gladly helped out. I get to the tiny classroom, the door is open, the other guy is in there with 4-5 kids, and there are three classrooms of people within earshot. The odds of there being an abuse issue there are pretty damn small. In a conversation with my wife, I brought up this incident and contrasted it with the one on one interviews with sexually explicit questions just a follow up away and she just shrugged her shoulders. It's just an okay exception to the TBM mind.

[wtfluff]

It's been my experience they really don't take two deep all that seriously in Primary. And it really, really pisses me off.

In my ward, they take the two guys rule very seriously but there's no concern with a single woman. It will be interesting to see how it changes with the new policy.

Recently, I was late to Sunday School and ran into a member of the presidency frantically running around looking for a guy to be a second in one of the classes. I'm happy to do that kind of duty so I gladly helped out. I get to the tiny classroom, the door is open, the other guy is in there with 4-5 kids, and there are three classrooms of people within earshot. The odds of there being an abuse issue there are pretty damn small. In a conversation with my wife, I brought up this incident and contrasted it with the one on one interviews with sexually explicit questions just a follow up away and she just shrugged her shoulders. It's just an okay exception to the TBM mind.

When I would end up with out a tag-team partner, I would attempt to leave the door open, but the kids had been trained to close the door once class started, so I don't remember being successful with any sort of open-door policy.