nope. and pg movies are not inherently good. like queuno said, it’s all a matter of content. someone showed up with dane cook’s latest movie and we were SHOCKED at what happened in just the first three minutes (it was turned off then). “glory,” on the other hand. a kosher r-movie in this house.

Of they’re not, by definition, bad. Now you know the parents of some of the YM in your group are unbalanced tee-totalers. Just do the activity with a PG movie and still aim for the male bonding, there has to be some PG movies that will do the trick. After all, it’s the kids you’re shooting for, not their psycho out-of-touch parents. Consider it a lesson learned about their parents. (Just provide lots of Coke, Dr. Pepper and Pepsi to drink while you all enjoy the PG movie, I suspect the parents will object, but it will be too late by the time they find out.)

I did a quick poll in my ward today and the consensus was that the politically-connected family shouldn’t let the door hit ‘em where the good Lord split ‘em, that their sons could find something else to do while the movie is going on.

Ah … ward politics.

Of course there are very junkie PG-13 and PG and G movies and some R movies that are very worthwhile. Personally, my barometer for what I watch is “worth my time: yes or no.”

But choosing movies for groups of Church members is hard because of the various standards used, but more importantly, because many people teach that movies that don’t meet their personal standards are “evil” and therefore their youth may interpret people who watch them as being “evil.” No one wants an evil YW leader.

At a Stake activity a while ago (before my time), they showed Remember the Titans (rated PG). Someone complained. Loudly. After the fact. The next time there was a chance to show a movie, no one dared suggest anything that was not animated. Fortunately, there are some good animated ones, but I would hate to be a 17 year old in a group that could only watch cartoons for fear of offending someone.

I wish people didn’t get up in arms so easily. I also think that few films or associated activities are so worthwhile that they warrant alienating people from youth activities. When in doubt, show older movies. Would those parents have objected to watching the Indiana Jones trilogy or Star Wars?

Now we know why our youth are leaving the Church in droves. If I were a young man and the leaders told me the Lord of the Rings trilogy was evil and so they were pulling the activity, I might walk out right there and not come back.

When we were first married, my wife and I were in charge of activities for our married BYU student ward. We arranged an outing at Sundance, as a part of which we showed Young Frankenstein. It had been a while since I had seen it, and of course I never viewed it with persnickety LDS in mind. So as we’re watching the movie there were scenes that came on that I had forgotten about, and a couple of couples actually stood up and walked out. Oops! But our bishop was a good sport about it.

All movies are bad. Force the youth to read their scriptures on Saturday nights. Beat them with a ruler if they don’t comply.

The same thing happened when we were going to watch Boogie Nights as a priest’s quorum activity. What a crock.

Often heard excuse to watch “bad movies” is that they have a good message. But sometimes “good movies” have a bad message.
So, I’m with Aaron Brown and DKL.
Use the ruler!

I’m not quite capturing how a woman might choose to incorporate a movie theme into her home decoration. The Umbrellas of Cherbourg is all that comes to mind. If that’s the decoration theme that was picked, then I approve and would enjoy a visit.

Oh yes–I also wanted a clarification on the movie decor. I hope we get one.

OK,

I am going to flesh this out some more for the doubters on showing a movie on a YM activity. We are spending a few nights in a cabin on a bayou in far east texas. We will be doing tons of outdoor activities. We were planning on watching the movie at night after a fireside.

The movie that turned into home decor is Twilight.

I’s suprised the issue arose in the context of an activity. The Church expressly (twice in the handbooks, I believe) bars showing commercial films at Church events without buying a license. Because the license is probably movie-specific, units have to address the question about a particular movie when budgeting for the activity and getting a check to cover the license fee. Frankly, I’ve never heard of a Church unit buying a license for a film that was even rated PG.

“Within reasonable limits”. SilverRain hits the nail on the head, the real question here is what is reasonable.

I personally know several LDS families who have taken a strong position against the Harry Potter books and movies because they deal with sorcery and witchcraft. They also object to Halloween, which means that their kids don’t participate in Primary trunk or treat during the last week of October.

I think that we should respect the decisions families make, but I also think families ought to be cautious about demanding that the ward conform to their (sometimes unreasonable) standards.

JrL (24) – you’re correct. The handbook prohibits the showing of commercial films to church groups, even in someone’s home, without purchasing a license. My guess is that the rule is more of a CYA for when the church gets sued by the MPAA. I’ve never heard of someone being released for not following that instruction.

That being said, I think it unfortunate that some kids in the group would be excluded from a youth activity because they don’t feel comfortable with it. Within reasonable limits, it seems wisest to simply substitute the activity for one that all kids can enjoy, rather than enforcing a line based on principle.

By this reasoning, the church would do away with Boy Scouts and basketball. “All kids” will never enjoy the same activities. “You can please some people all the time…” comes to mind here.

Bbell, I say forgo the movies when you’re at the cabin and whip out the Ouija board.

I’ll also say that it is obvious that my suggestion of substituting a more acceptable movie would not always apply when taken to the extreme. That is why I bothered to include “within reasonable limits” in my comment.

“Were the Book of Mormon translated directly to film it would likely be NC-17.”

There are a lot of ways of filming violence. Beating someone unconscious can be done like an old rock’em, sock’em western, or in sickenlying realistic detail. Beheadings in the movies usually turn the camera away before the blade strikes. When we read that Nephi beheaded Laban or that Alma and Amulek’s converts were burnt alive, how much of the gory aspects of those awful events is the reader required to keep before his mind? The text is often fairly spare, no blood or charred flesh or lingering details.

Regarding Lord of the Rings, I would support young men viewing it. It has no problems at all with language or sexual matters, which is a too rare quality. There is a lot of war movie-type violence on a par with the old Star Wars movies, no gore that I can remember. I wouldn’t want younger children to watch them because the sensory overload is too much.

SilverRain,

I am relieved that you didn’t take offense. Again, I wasn’t in any way responding you what you had written and didn’t mean it as an attack on you, though I can see how you could take it as one in the context that it appeared.

I would argue that the MPAA isn’t a secular disinterested party. I would also argue that sometimes less than wholesome material is required to tell a worthwhile story, though often it is simply included for its own sake.

I admit there are holes in the BoM example but it would be difficult to do the text justice without some pretty shocking scenes. Ever try reading the illustrated BoM to a small child? I have to skip entire pages because the illustrations are too graphic. Given that you seem to reject the BoM hypothetical out of hand though, how about something more concrete?

Is there anyone here that would claim that The Lamb of God would get anything other than a PG-13 rating were it to be submitted to the ratings board? If it went on for 90 minutes rather than less than 30 and were filled with more of the same it would probably qualify for an R.

I’m a little surprised at my own feelings toward this. I, personally, don’t pay much attention to ratings, and I think its stupid for parents to not allow their teenage children to watch the Lord of the Rings movies.

HOWEVER, I do very much support the rights of parents to make rules for their children and not have those rules come into conflict with planned church activities.

So while I think its ridiculous that parents won’t allow their children to see PG-13 movies, I don’t feel its ridiculous enough to be something that a youth leader challenges.

I really really don’t like the idea of youth leaders subverting parental rules, and it puts kids in an uncomfortable position between having to be ridiculed for following their parents rules, or choosing to break their parents rules. That’s just not a place where I’d want to put a teenager.

Yeah, I still pretty much stand by what I said, with a clarification, because I don’t agree that what I think means that parents get to enforce their standards on a wider church community.

I think parents have a right to make rules, and so long as those rules are fairly reasonable, not have them come into direct conflict with church activities. Parents don’t have right to have their strict rules supported and enforced, just respected.

That doesn’t necessarily mean that their rules will be enforced for other kids at activities, but that their children will not be put in uncomfortable positions for following their parents’ rules at church activities.

I think if a leader finds out that parents of a youth do not allow for their children to play video games, the leaders should make an effort to make sure that alternate activities are available when a church activity involves video games, so that the child in question can still participate in the activity. I don’t think that video games have to be banned altogether because some parents object, just that a reasonable effort should be made to make sure that the kids can follow rules and still participate fully in an activity.

Beehive and Mia Maid leaders shouldn’t just do “make-up nights” but instead have “skin-care” so that the girls who can’t wear makeup can still participate.

I’m not sure how Harry Potter fits into a church activity…

For dress standards, parents can enforce their own children’s dress code – that’s simple enough. They don’t have a right to try to enforce the dress code for other kids.

Now, for the examples you’ve listed, the only one I consider fairly unreasonable is Halloween, because Halloween celebrations are, far and wide, church sanctioned events, and the parents have to know that they are far outside of the norm on that one. Also, the Bishop who banned Halloween always bugged me.

Maybe I just draw a really conservative line here, but I was totally a teenager who would have made fun of the kids who couldn’t watch PG-13 movies because their parents were weird, and I just don’t think youth need more ammunition to make fun of kids from those types of families.

(Oh, and the modifier on your comment about makeup and the YW made me laugh. In my not-very-strict household, I wasn’t allowed to wear makeup until age 14, although I found out around age 16 that my mom had no intention of enforcing that rule. I had just never questioned it.)

I’m having a difficult time with some of the comments about how parent’s rules should be “reasonable” so they don’t conflict with or cause trouble with the broader rules applicable at youth activities, and not because I’m particularly strict with my children.There have been an increasing number of Worldwide Leadership Training Conferences that emphasize the role of the parents and importance of the home in providing Gospel instruction and that Church activities should be for the purpose of supporting the instruction in the home. With that in mind, is a YM or YW leader overstepping his boundary by supplanting the parents’ principles for what he or she deems is a “reasonable” common standard?Personally, I feel if a young man or woman is being counseled by a parent to avoid a certain activity because it is not up to their family’s standards, or if a boy chooses not to be involved with an activity he is not comfortable with for any reason, the ward leadership should support that rather than greet it with derision or take offense.

Russel (42),

I agree that ultimately parents are entitled to decide what their kids do, that’s especially true when the planned activity conflicts with their moral compass. Setting aside those few activities that might be objectionable to parents on principle, in my experience, parents often over coddle their kids. “If Johnny doesn’t “like” what’s happening at the activity, Johnny doesn’t have to go.”

As an adult who spends hours upon hours of my very limited personal time planning and helping youth plan and implement a fun and fulfilling youth program, I find this attitude extremely rude and more than a bit demoralizing.

Having the right to let Johnny choose based on Johnny’s “likes”, doesn’t make it any less rude.

Youth and adults have taken the time to plan and implement an activity for the kids in the quorum. Sometimes it’s going to be something they “like” and sometimes it will serve the needs of others in the quorum. Whatever happened to exposing kids to things outside their comfort zone?

If my purpose was to just plan things that everyone “liked” we’d probably just play video games every week, but that’s not the purpose of youth activities.

Ok. Rant over.

danithew – Locker room scenes, maybe? Racial slurs? I don’t remember anything too horrible in it, but kids-in-mind.com mentions these as well as a scene where one boy kisses another. I could see parents objecting to any or all of these. Depending on how bad they are, I’d probably object to some myself, especially when used as part of a Church activity.

MCQ,

I totally agree with your #47. All you end up doing with over the top rules is alienating teenagers… often long term well into adulthood.

“Why would you knowingly or intentionally subvert their attempts to raise their daughter? I assume you have teenage children as well. How would you feel if one your teenagers was at a neighbor’s house where an R rated movie was shown or really crappy rap music was played (redundant I know)?”

I’m not subverting their attempts at anything rbc, I’m just living my life. My daughter is best friends with their daughter and because of that their daughter is at my house constantly (funny how they never seem to hang out at their house. I wonder why?) Just as their rules apply in their house, my rules apply in my house and I see no need for me to change my life to suit their rules just because their daughter happens to be in my house.

This is why I said on the other thread that if you are going to be a psychotic about the WoW or any other lifestyle choice, you better only eat at home, because you can’t expect other people to follow your silly rules. The same theory applies here: if you have psycho rules for your kids, don’t let them come to my house, because I’m not in the business of enforcing your stupid rules. That’s not my responsibility. In fact, the only way I know about their stupid rules at all is that my daughter has complained about them on the rare occasions when she has visited their house.

If my daughter is at some friend’s house where something inappropriate was going on, I hope I have prepared her enough for that eventuality and that she would just politely decline to participate and leave. If my neighbors had prepared their daughter to believe in their rules, then she would not be hanging out at my house, because, yes, we stay up past 9:00, listen to rock music, allow our kids to date at 16, drink cola, watch PG-13 movies, allow makeup in jr. high, etc. etc. But so does practically everyone else I know, so their kids really have no place to go except home and I’m sure the parents know this. So what is my responsibility here? I think I have none. I know my daughter’s friend is lying to her parents about some things, and I have debated about whether I’m complicit in those lies, but I can’t really see ratting her out to them. I think it’s their responsibility to know what she’s doing and honestly, they don’t seem that interested. Their rules are not about real parenting. Their rules are all about plausible deniablity.

Honestly, I don’t care if a leader thinks it’s rude that my child doesn’t attend some activity that’s been planned but violates my family rules or that my children can’t participate in for some other reason.

1. Leaders have the latitude to plan elective activities for the youth under their stewardship.

2. Parents have the latitude to decide what is acceptable.

3. At the end of the day, leaders can’t worry too much about parents trying to invent standards that the Church does not impose. Said Leaders have to go with their plan.

4. But at the same time, don’t be offended if you find out that my *family* standards don’t mesh, if you’ve never bothered to ask me what my family finds objectionable.

5. I’m actually offended that a high adventure trip allows for personal electronics. Shame.

6. As has been said above (or in so many words), the YM/YW/BSA/Cub Scouts/Activity Days programs as implemented by the Church are to serve the family, not the other way around.

7. If your child is at my house, and I know a priori that you have certain objections, we’ll do our best to accommodate. But my children already know that it’s OK to play acceptable video games (and they know the difference), watch acceptable video games (and they know the difference) and drink a Coke, because the Church thinks that they are fine.

re: 52 and para 7, where is this list of video games the Church says or “thinks” is fine to play or watch? Source please? This would settle a lot of disagreements; not all, but many.

“where is this list of video games the Church says or “thinks” is fine to play or watch? Source please? This would settle a lot of disagreements; not all, but many.”

There is none. So sorry, but you have to actually exercise your free agency and your brain. Both my have atrophed. Start slowly.

I personally have set a standard for myself that I won’t watch PG-13 movies, and I’ve never seen one, but I don’t think you’re a bad person if you watch them. Sometimes it’s a big bummer because it looks like all the cool movies are PG-13 (Batman, Lord of the Rings, some Harry Potter, etc.). But I’ve realized it’s not that big of a deal because, when I come to think about it, I can’t think of very many movies that I was really glad I spent my time watching it. Sure, movies are great entertainment, but it’s not like they really do that much benefit for me, with the exception of the few that are particularly spiritual or inspiring. For the Strength of Youth, which I personally believe applies to everyone regardless of their age, says, “Do not attend, view, or participate in entertainment that is vulgar, immoral, violent, or pornographic in any way. Do not participate in entertainment that in any way presents immorality or violent behavior as acceptable.” According to the prophets, if a PG-13 movie in question includes some of the mentioned content, then, yes, it’s a bad movie. And usually if a movie is rated PG-13 or R it has some of this kind of content. But I guess if the movie doesn’t have any of this content, it’s ok to watch regardless of its rating. I think it’s important to realize that ratings are based on the world and its standards, which is probably why I can’t find any quotes from Church authorities that say “don’t watch PG-13 movies”. I think they want us to think and decide for ourselves what the Savior would deem appropriate and inappropriate.

MCQ –

You’re not breaking any news. You’re just wrong.

Because of our free agency we can choose to do what we’re supposed to do, or not. That doesn’t make the things that we’ve been directed to do “optional.” It just means that we’re exercising our agency to do something different that what we have been asked to do.

Are there circumstances where someone might miss home teaching, quorum meetings, axillary meetings or activities and such absence is understandable? Sure, but that doesn’t make participation “optional.”

If something is the means to the end, and you never use the means, you never get to the end.

Jota, the part you are missing is that it is not “the” means to an end, but only “a” means to an end. Attending meetings is only one way to help us reach the end of the path, and not the primary one at that. There are several other means that are equally or more important than meeting attendance.

As I said before, your comments can only be justified if 100% attendance at all meetings were required in oreder to get a TR or reach the celestial k. Obviously, it’s not, and you know it. You yourself do not have 100% attendance at all of your meetings, I’m reasonably certain, so get off your high horse.

Again, I’m not advocating missing meetings for no reason, but saying attendance at all meetings is “not optional” is a ridiculous position. Ask your bishop if he has ever given a TR to someone who simply never attends SS or RS. The answer will be yes. Ask him if he has ever given a youth TR for baptisms to a youth who doesn’t participate in scouting. The answer will be yes. these programs are wonderful (well, not so much with scouting, but it’s what we’ve got) but they’re just programs, they’re not the gospel.

Jota,

I just realized you don’t know what the word “optional” actually means. Makes all of this kinda pointless. Apparently english is your second language. Here in the U.S., “optional” means “not mandatory.” “Suggested, but not required.” Most meetings in the church fit snugly within this definition. As my stake president often says: “It takes a darn good meeting to be better than no meeting at all.”

Your straw man regarding playing video games instead of attending meetings is entertaining, but of course no one suggested that was happening except you. Sounds like you have some axe to grind against some terrible person who is allowing their kid to play video games instead of attending your mind-numbing youth meetings. Feel free to go have a chat with that person, but that person ain’t me.

The youth leaders in my ward consider playing video games to be a valid youth activity, as is basketball and watching movies. And yes, I tell my kids that such activities are fine, but optional, and should be attended only if school work is done (when school is in session). Most parents in my ward agree with me, and would probably find you to be a little odd.

You keep accusing me of being rude, but really, you’re just projecting. It sounds rude when someone tells you that what you’re saying is ridiculous, but sometimes it’s just true. You seem to be saying that everything you have ever been counseled to do by the prophets or inspired leaders is mandatory. Great, but that leaves you precious little time for blogging. You certainly have a lot of inspired counsel to be following: praying always, attending some meeting that some inspired person would like you to attend, studying scriptures, pondering, home teaching, getting your food storage, helping the poor, attending to the widows, lifting up the arms that hang down, strengthening the feeble knees…you better get going, there’s way too much mandatory stuff for you to be doing for you to be taking up any time here. Remember, you have no choice, once inspired leaders have suggested it, you must do it! Hurry, don’t waste any time on thought, your leaders have spoken!

BTW, I was in charge of scout committee meeting for years, first as scoutmaster, then as scout committee chairman. Most of our scout committee meetings were attended by exactly one person, me. And that’s ok.

Sunday School is required now? Crap! I had always taken it’s exclusion from the temple rec interview as an indication that it is under optional. I certainly found a commandment that directly requires it.

Most of the programs of the Church are just that: programs. They aren’t ordiances and aren’t required for salvation. They are created to be helpful but if we elevate them above what they are intended to be we are missing the forest for the trees.

MCQ –

I never said what you were saying was ridiculous. I said it was wrong. There’s a difference.

As you know, there are very few acts of disobedience in the Church that result in immediate discipline (losing our temple recommend, for example). I may miss a day saying my prayers. I won’t lose my recommended, but my failure doesn’t make the directive to say my prayers “optional.”

The fact that I’m not able to be perfect, doesn’t make the directives I’ve received optional, it just makes me need repentance, just like every other human.

It sounds rude when someone tells you that what you’re saying is ridiculous, but sometimes it’s just true.

Is this the same MCQ who deletes comments and wields the ban stick with a heavy hand for saying the same thing on his own blog? Or is this an alter ego?

John,

Fair enough. That wasn’t fair to you, it was aimed at others. I apologize. I won’t mischaracterize your opinion. Please extend to me the same privilege.

I never said that the programs of the Church were required for salvation. I said they were not “optional”, or elective at our whim. As if you can simply pick and choose those things in the church that you “like.” I know that there is a school of thought out there that takes this approach and that that school is hyper-present in the bloggernacle, I just don’t agree with it.

The point of my original comment is that there are lots of parents who give their kids a free pass, with no justification other than “Johnny doesn’t like it,” when it comes to activities that have been prepared at great sacrifice by those who have been called, sustained and set apart to provide those programs. Disregarding those efforts without a valid reason is rude. Nothing that has been said has convinced me otherwise. In fact, no one has actually argued otherwise.

While the programs of the Church may not be required for our salvation, they are designed as a means to bring about that result and they have been implemented, to the extent there are local resources to so implement, to assist us in that endeavor. When programs of the Church are available, well run, and fulfilling their purpose, we have an obligation as members of the Church to do our duty and support them – that’s why we sustain our Sunday school teachers, young men’s presidency, scoutmaster, activities committee chairperson, etc. That’s the point where, while it may not be directly linked to our exaltation, our support and participation is no longer “optional.”

“When programs of the Church are available, well run, and fulfilling their purpose, we have an obligation as members of the Church to do our duty and support them”

That’s a lot of qualifiers, Jota. Who decides if they’re not “well run and fulfilling their purpose?” If parents think those two things are not happening, are the programs then, “optional?”

“MCQ put me in a snarky mood.”

Glad I could be of help.

“Is this the same MCQ who deletes comments and wields the ban stick with a heavy hand for saying the same thing on his own blog? Or is this an alter ego?”

Peter, this is actually a program I created. So far I like how it’s working, although there are still a few bugs to be worked out. MCQ 2.0 comes out this fall, please let me know how you like it. Also, since you are the only person I have ever banned, it’s hardly fair to say that I have a heavy hand, but I guess that’s all a matter of perspective. Maybe you should try saying nasty things about people’s kids on all the blogs and see if the same thing happens elsewhere. You could look at it as an experiment. Good luck!

John asked, rhetorically I presume, “Ever wonder why no matter if SM comes first or last SS is always in the middle on the correlated schedule?”

Indeed.

As for activities and priorities, I agree that circumstances have to be taken into account, but if a parent fails to weigh heavily in favor of participation (given the caveats I mentioned above) they are being inconsiderate to those they’ve promised to sustain.

bbell, I thiunk we should do more service projects not less. The activities I have a hard time getting behind are the ones where there is little or no polanning and zero organization and the YM or YW are just hanging out at the leader’s house or at the church playing a game or watching a movie of some kind. That’s not a worthwhile activity, and when my kid points this out, and says he has better things to do, it puts me in a tough position because I have few good arguments in response.

If leaders have organized a service project, I’ll not only make sure my kid is there, I’ll be there personally to help round up kids and make sure they attend. That’s what the Church is about in my book.

MCQ,

What I am saying is that YM have little interest in planned out service projects or activities. Fully planned out activities often inform them of what is going on and then they can choose if they want to attend. They often will lie about what we are doing to the parents if they do not want to come. What they want to do is eat, play sports, and play Call to Duty. If I announce on Sunday that we are eating BBQ and playing Call to Duty (which I rarely if ever do) they will all come and maybe even bring a friend. If I announce that we are going to an 80 year old sisters house to do yard work and clean out her garage they will not come on Tuesday night and those that do come will watch the leaders work. If I say we are going to mow lawns for 45 monutes and then play Call to Duty they will show up 45 minutes late. Probably with a friend in tow. If I say football and then ice cream they are all over it.

And these are kids that attend seminary, bless the sac, and most likely will go on missions and get married in the temple.

YM over 14 are really fickle. Leaders need help from parents to get them to participate.

Coincidentally, my daughter just called me and said she doesn’t want to go to YW tonight. Here’s the situation, you tell me what to do:

Turns out that the activity tonight is a canyon hike and cookout, which has been well planned ahead of time, though this is the first I’ve heard about it. My daughter is the beehive president and has participated in planning the event, but she got a call this morning from a ward member who has an emergency and needs a babysitter for tonight. My daughter has been doing a lot of babysitting this summer to earn money and would like to take the job. She called her YW leader and explained the situation and asked if it would be ok if she missed the activity. The YW leader said she would like my daughter to attend but understands if she thinks she needs to take the babysitting job.

Ok, you’re in my shoes. What should I tell my daughter?

MCQ,

That is really a strange example to me. Usually if a YM cancels he is either just choosing not to come or is working. Guy will most likely not call you. Having a job and learning how to work and save money is a pretty good excuse not to come to YM’s from time to time.

I just thought it was interesting that she called just now.

I’m also ok with her not attending this time and she has called back to say that’s her decision after praying about it. She feels good about this decision and apparently her leader does as well. Not sure if Jota G. would approve, but I think President Hinckley would, so we’ll go with it.

Jota, that’s right because no one was ever saying that except you. You created this totally made up situation to argue against, then got all snarky with everyone and claimed that no meeting, however meaningless, is ever optional. That’s the position I was arguing against and if you’ve now woken up from your fever dream and rejoined the real world then I’m grateful.

ARJ,

Service projects are apparently not great. They do not fit into what kids and parents want to do in ward level YM’s based on the low levels of participation in actual service projects that I have seen for the last 15 years. There is a lot of lip service given towards the idea of ward level service projects but when the project rolls around the kids are absent. The big exception to this is the scouts/deacons. They usually show up cause they are young enough not to object to bad. Stake service projects are usually well attended. Stake service projects involve girls so the older boys will show up to strut and flirt.

I know for sure based on exp that I can get more YM to a fireside then a service project. Why you ask me? Food and girls are present at firesides.

And that’s why you should have food and girls at service projects. No reason why you can’t do that at the ward level. You just have to include the YW in your planning.

MCQ,

I never, ever said that meetings were mandatory. I said they weren’t optional. There is a distinction and a difference.

With respect to my post in 89, to which I believe your post 95 is a reference. It is not inconsistent with what I’ve been saying all along. See, e.g.:

Post 44:

“I agree that ultimately parents are entitled to decide what their kids do, that’s especially true when the planned activity conflicts with their moral compass. Setting aside those few activities that might be objectionable to parents on principle, in my experience, parents often over coddle their kids. ‘If Johnny doesn’t “like” what’s happening at the activity, Johnny doesn’t have to go.’…If my purpose was to just plan things that everyone “liked” we’d probably just play video games every week, but that’s not the purpose of youth activities.”

Post 57:

“If you read my post, you’ll note that I carved out activities that might in some way conflict with a family’s principles. Any parent is justified in keeping their child home from such an activity. It is rude and improper, however, to treat the time and energy of adults who plan activities for your kids with contempt by simply saying, ‘Johnny doesn’t like _______ so he can go hang out with his friends at the mall instead.’”

Post 60:

“Are there circumstances where someone might miss home teaching, quorum meetings, axillary meetings or activities and such absence is understandable? Sure, but that doesn’t make participation ‘optional.’”

Post 63:

“If you’ve chosen as a parent to tell your kids that attending youth activities is ‘optional’ and that they can play video games instead of attending if they don’t like what has been planned by their peers with help from those that have been called, sustained (by you) and set apart to provide a means to the agreed-upon end, then yes, you are rude, inconsiderate and contemptuous. ”

Post 74:

“The point of my original comment is that there are lots of parents who give their kids a free pass, with no justification other than ‘Johnny doesn’t like it,’ when it comes to activities that have been prepared at great sacrifice by those who have been called, sustained and set apart to provide those programs. Disregarding those efforts without a valid reason is rude. Nothing that has been said has convinced me otherwise. In fact, no one has actually argued otherwise.”

As a language geek, this got my attention:

“I never, ever said that meetings were mandatory. I said they weren’t optional. There is a distinction and a difference.”

Common usage of the terms in question – optional and mandatory – places them as antonyms in the English language. This is supported by online reference sources, including http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/optional and http://thesaurus.com/browse/mandatory .

For most English speakers, ‘mandatory’ and ‘not optional’ mean the same thing. The distinction and difference you see are obviously not clear to the rest of us.

Palad,

From Random House Dictionary (2010):

Mandatory – 1 authoritatively ordered; obligatory; compulsory.

Optional – 1 left to one’s choice.

In the context of this gospel discussion, as discussed above, something is mandatory if failure to comply will result in jeopardizing one’s eternal progression. In that context, attending Ward Council while serving as the Ward Music Chairperson, for example, is not “mandatory.”

There are, however, things that we have been directed to do as faithful and obedient latter day saints that will not directly impact our eternal progression. If we have decided that we are going to be faithful and obedient members of the Church, compliance with such instruction is no longer “left to one’s choice,” or optional but it is not mandatory as in the context discussed above. For example, if one is serving as Ward Music Chairperson and one has decided to fulfill one’s calling in accordance with the instruction received from those in authority, then attending Ward Council is no longer left to your choice. It is no longer “optional.”

Certainly using our free agency we can choose to comply or not to comply with any directive and in that sense, everything is “optional” even those things which are “mandatory.” But that’s like the economists’ argument that there is no such thing as “need.”

My use of the word “optional” in the context of this discussion, again as set forth above

I posit that there are certain things that are not “mandatory” but

I think we’re getting bogged down in semantics here, but let me see if I understand.

Are you proposing two different levels of ‘mandatory’ behaviors? One being the ‘eternally’ mandatory, encompassing saving ordinances et al.; the other being ‘administratively’ mandatory, encompassing the day-to-day stuff that keeps the wheels moving but doesn’t necessarily intersect with the other? If we consider the ‘optional’ behaviors as being those that make no difference whatsoever, then do the ‘administratively’ mandatory behaviors fall somewhere between the two extremes (the optional and the ‘eternally’ mandatory)?

But to take another tack: Looking at the definitions you provided, if something is not ‘left to one’s choice’, doesn’t that automatically make it ‘compulsory’? If you are not allowed to choose in a matter, the only other option is that you are being compelled. My original question was with your statement that ‘mandatory’ and ‘not optional’ are different things, but by these definitions it sounds like they are the same. I still feel like we’re missing something on a basic semantic level, but I’m not sure what. On top of that, I think we’re getting way off-topic as well.

And BTW, thanks for the extra work. As Ward Music Chair, I never knew I was supposed to be attending Ward Council. Now I know, and I’m gonna feel guilty every time I skip it. :)

So perhaps for clarity, we should call those things that fall between ‘absolutely mandatory’ and ‘optional’, ‘strongly recommended’. It may not carry the exact tone you’re looking for, but it might make this discussion less confusing.

And now you’re telling me Sunday School, home teaching, and Priesthood Leadership aren’t optional? Stop pointing these things out! I was happy in my laziness!

Everything is optional. You don’t have to go to the Celestial Kingdom if you don’t want to. Heavenly Father and Jesus aren’t going to force anyone.

Bookslinger:

I agree that one could certainly argue that “mandatory” doesn’t exist as long as you’re willing to live with the consequences.

It’s like economists arguing that there is no such thing as “need” only “wants.”

One is free to take that position.