Talk:Young Women (organization)

Age Range
BUT-- YMO and YWO serve young adults through age 17, until their eighteenth birthday. If we say "18", we imply they participate during their 18th year. Accurate information is reflected in the body of both articles, so the introduction is contradictory. Official web site or not -- I would say the article should reflect the program guidelines. Best .......WBardwin 09:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The article explicitly states that a young woman who is 18 will remain in the program if she is, for example, still in high school. It is designed for 12 to 18 year olds. It is not an automatic exit at age 18, and church manuals make this clear, as does the official website. Besides, who are we to change the official goals and purposes of the organization? If they say their goals and purpose are also to help 18 year olds, their goals and purposes are to help 18 year olds! Incidentally, "their 18th year" would mean they are 17 years old, so I'm not sure what you're getting at with that usage. -SESmith 10:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Lower in the article:
 * Beehive (ages 12 and 13)
 * Mia Maid (ages 14 and 15)
 * Laurel (ages 16 and 17)
 * No mention of age 18. This copies the priesthood age groups -- age 18 for boys gives them the opportunity to be ordained an elder.  18th birthday in both genders is considered the end of "mutual," with a few exceptions usually based on the end of a school year or in cases of mental competency.  We should be consistent within both of the articles.  WBardwin 00:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Then I would suggest changing the Laurel class (and the priest class) to include age 18. It's fairly clear that 18 year olds attend and both organizations see it as part of their mission to assist those who are 18. Few priests are become elders on their 18th birthday. I don't think there is a bright line between the two; it's more of a progression that takes place when the time is right. -SESmith 02:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason the articles are "inconsistent" in this respect is because the church materials are "inconsistent". The applicable manual (Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 2: Priesthood and Auxiliary Leaders (1998)) sets out the YW age groups on p. 213 in the way they are set out in the article. On p. 214, the manual then states, "Young women ordinarily move into the Relief Society when they reach their 18th birthday. However, because of special circumstances, such as individual maturity, desire to continue with peer group assoiciates, school graduation, and college attendance, a young woman may move to Relief Society earlier or remain in Young Women longer." This is consistent with the official stated goal of YW including assisting 18 year old women as well as 12-17 year olds, and yet the "official" age group of the Laurel class remains 16-17 year olds. There is no "inconsistency" in the article if we are merely reporting how the organization works, both in theory and reality. The same considerations apply to the YMO with 18-year-old priests. If you'd like to include a note by the Laurel class ages that 18 year olds often attend also, that might be a solution.-SESmith 02:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move
I can't find any source where this organization is actually referred to as the Young Women Organization (large-O). In the LDS Church it seems to be simply referred to as "Young Women", the "Young Women auxiliary", or the "Young Women organization" (small-o). I propose a move, with several possibilities:
 * Young Women auxiliary
 * Young Women organization
 * Young Women (organization)
 * Young Women (LDS Church)

Young Women should probably be avoided due to its ambiguity.

I would lean towards Young Women auxiliary or Young Women (organization), but before I performed the move or added a specific tag I wanted to hear if others had any thoughts. Ubi Terrarum 05:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Young Women (organization) is the best of these. "Auxiliary" is probably too arcane a term to be used as a disambiguation. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal Progress
I noticed that there was no metion of the Young Women's Medillion in the Personal Progress section or any were else in this article. I think it should be added in, it is almost every Young Woman's goal to try and get theirs. 68.114.29.24 21:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Sliver_Kitsune
 * There is now a dedicated Personal Progress article which covers this.DavidBailey (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Virtue as a young women value?
I don't deny that Virtue could have been added to the Young Women Theme as an 8th value, but where's the source? The fact that this change is unsourced and added by a user with only an IP address does make me a little suspicious, but on the other hand, some of the finest editors I've worked with here work under only an IP address. Thoughts on this issue? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I wondered about that too. I've added a "citation needed" tag. I suggest we can probably leave it for a little while, but if no sources turn up over the next few days or weeks, it should be deleted. It could be real, or it could be a hoax. I'm not adverse to waiting for some sort of announcement by the church itself which could still be filtering down to the various units of the church. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Something additional to think about: I looked at the official Church Website lds.org for more information about this so-called change, and found nothing in either of the major news sections or in the Young Women Web Site. Offhand, I'd say this change was either premature, a hoax, a mistake, or outright vandalism. Since I don't know which, I'm willing to give this user the good-faith benefit of the doubt. I propose we give him exactly one week to verify this information. If no verification is provided, I propose this be deleted. Thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that would be fine. I'm not adverse to removing it even after a few days if nothing turns up on the website from your investigations. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This has been verified as of today. See the following resources, which can be sourced in the article content. With many thanks to the editor who originally put this into the article, here is the link verifying this fact:

'Virtue' added to Young Women theme


 * Hope this information is helpful to you. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice work. I've added your citation into the text. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help with this. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Young Women Symbols
The Symbol for the Beehives is a beehive and not a girl bowing her head in prayer. 17adavis7 (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Confusion?
I can see where people coming here from the outside would be confused by all the organization names. Is it possible for some handy person to create an organizational graphic showing how all the various groups and subgroups mentioned relate to each other? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Activities
There are lists of purpose statements and goals for each division mentioned, but I don't see anything about the actual activities the girls participate in. Do they pray for 60-90 minutes as the article implies? No. When I was a kid, MIA for girls was really boring. We had a sashes like Girl Scouts did, but the badges were earned for cooking, home-making, and the like, nothing exciting like dancing or astronomy. I hope things have changed. Wordreader (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty much left up to the local members what activities are done, so it varies from place-to-place and certainly from country-to-country. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Recommend merging Aaronic Priesthood MIA Young Women into the history section of this article as significant overlap and multiple individual articles gives undue weight. Deaddebate (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup—shouldn't be a separate article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)