New names for Young Women’s age groups.

[bsjkki]

I think it good to have ‘names’ again but this is an irritant of mine. They have renamed youth organizations too often. It’s annoying. The primary groups are particularly annoying. 

Edit to add newsroom link. New Young Women Age‑Group Names Emphasize Faith, Hope, and Light

Edited April 20 by bsjkki

[bluebell]

Yay!  I hated how they didn't have official names and were just called their age group.

[Senator]

9 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I think it good to have ‘names’ again but this is an irritant of mine. They have renamed youth organizations too often. It’s annoying. The primary groups are particularly annoying. 

Comes across a bit kitschy. 

But whatever

 

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, Senator said:

Comes across a bit kitschy. 

But whatever

 

I don't know if it's possible to give the groups names and not have it feel kitschy at first.  Beehives, Miamaids, and Laurels were so ingrained in the culture that no one thought twice but if we were hit with those names today everyone would think it was extremely weird.

I did appreciate Pres. Freeman's explanation of where the names came from:

Quote

Young Women General President Emily Belle Freeman said the spiritual significance of the names became especially clear to her during a recent visit with young women in Tahiti. “As the girls sang, I was inspired to think of these covenant-keeping young women whose purpose and mission would be to build faith, share hope, and gather and reflect light around the world,” President Freeman said. “My eyes teared up as I realized the Spirit had been leading this process all along, inspiring names of faith, hope, and light that would help God’s daughters live as disciples of Christ and prepare them to enter a lifelong sisterhood of charity—the Relief Society.”

I'm betting that the names get shortened to Builders, Messengers, and Gatherers when people are referring to them, and I think it's going to take a few years before the labels don't feel awkward.  But hopefully less awkward that talking about the Deacons and the 11-13 year olds or the Priests and the 15-18 year olds.  

[Nofear]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm betting that the names get shortened to Builders, Messengers, and Gatherers when people are referring to them, and I think it's going to take a few years before the labels don't feel awkward.  But hopefully less awkward that talking about the Deacons and the 11-13 year olds or the Priests and the 15-18 year olds.  

Perhaps some places will shorten it even further to Bs, Ms, and Gs. (B hearkening back to Beehive, M to Mia Maids, and G ... well nothing there).

[Senator]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't know if it's possible to give the groups names and not have it feel kitschy at first.  Beehives, Miamaids, and Laurels were so ingrained in the culture that no one thought twice but if we were hit with those names today everyone would think it was extremely weird.

I did appreciate Pres. Freeman's explanation of where the names came from:

I'm betting that the names get shortened to Builders, Messengers, and Gatherers when people are referring to them, and I think it's going to take a few years before the labels don't feel awkward.  But hopefully less awkward that talking about the Deacons and the 11-13 year olds or the Priests and the 15-18 year olds.  

I agree, out of mere speaking convenience, groups do need names. And you will never please everyone.  I do hope they get shortened, because those phrases are awkward.

[JAHS]

I guess the new longer names goes along with the long name of the Church. One word names would be much easier to remember and use.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

'm betting that the names get shortened to Builders, Messengers, and Gatherers when people are referring to them

That was what I was going to say.  

They have a purpose inherently attached to them that hopefully will get taken seriously in teaching young women their value to the Church since imo that is currently missing.  

Edited April 20 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

Good. 

[Que]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

Perhaps some places will shorten it even further to Bs, Ms, and Gs. (B hearkening back to Beehive, M to Mia Maids, and G ... well nothing there).

Gleaners. It's... Gleaners. You are obviously too young.

[longview]

3 hours ago, Que said:

Gleaners. It's... Gleaners. You are obviously too young.

Yes. As in the beloved Ruth of Moab who so tenderly entreated of Naomi and eventually married the honorable Boaz who was the forerunner of the Messiah.

To glean is to seek for nuggets of truth and wisdom and faithfulness. Here a little, there a little. Precept upon precept.

[Peacefully]

Having served as Young Women’s president during that 'nameless' period, I’m finding the new titles a bit of a jump. They seem to be trying quite hard to be profound, and I’m still deciding if they actually land well.

Edited April 20 by Peacefully

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

They seem to be trying quite hard to be profound,

Profound or meaningful in purpose…I am waffling.  Profound needs to come naturally and it doesn’t feel like that in this case.  It also doesn’t feel quite there, not particularly insightful for example.

I hope they tested them out on actual young women and made it explicit they wanted sincere answers even if they hated them.  They are the ones that matter.

The names are quite proactive, doing something in assertive ways.  I like that a lot.

Edited April 21 by Calm

[The Nehor]

Too long. Putting the same on Young Men? Deacons of Faith, Teachers of Hope, and Priests of Light? Yuck.

I thought leaving them nameless was a bad idea but make it succinct.

Also if Gatherers means Gleaners they are talking about hose who followed the harvesters and picked up the bits of grain the harvesters missed. In Israel it was something only the impoverished would do and was a form of welfare. Making young women gleaning the light from the remains of what the harvesters already got in abundance can make for some unflattering chauvinist symbolism. A kind of: You can laboriously collect and treasure the Light the harvesters (usually men) leave for you after they get the bulk of it. Not exactly a good bit to symbolism in that sense. I would leave it as Gatherers which still has the weird Hunter Gatherer bit hinted at.

10 hours ago, longview said:

Yes. As in the beloved Ruth of Moab who so tenderly entreated of Naomi and eventually married the honorable Boaz who was the forerunner of the Messiah.

Tender entreaties? What book were you reading? The only steamier Bible stories I can think of are the Song of Solomon/Songs and Esther.

Ruth is a story of erotic seduction and two desperate women plotting said seduction.

Ruth and Naomi are impoverished and come home during the harvest. Ruth goes out to glean and luckily ends up with Naomi’s close relative. Boaz shows some interest and tells the young men working his field to leave her alone (she was at serious risk of sexual assault) and that she can drink from their water instead of fetching her own. Ruth plays it coy and insists she is a stranger and doesn’t deserve this. Clever girl. Boaz says he knows her story and asks God to shelter her beneath his wings/robes. Ruth abases herself as a slave and praises Boaz for treating her so well even though she is not even his slave.

Boaz then instructs the workers to subtly give her extra food. She brings back an impressive haul and has to thresh it. There is a euphemism in there but I won’t elaborate.

Naomi sees this as a big chance for both of them and gets Ruth ready for the seduction in her best clothes and instructs him to wait for Boaz to get drunk and tired and pass out on the floor and to uncover his “feet”. The feet are a common euphemism in the Bible for genitalia. So Ruth waits till Boaz is done threshing out the harvest for the day and he drinks a lot and passes out on the floor. She sneaks in and “uncovers” him. Suddenly he wakes up afraid. Why afraid? What else was going on that would make him afraid? Fill in your own reason here. He looks at his “feet” and sees a beautiful woman there.

Shocked he asks who she is and she coyly gives her name, calls herself his slave, reminds him of his relation to Naomi and that he has an obligation to marry her under levirate law and then teases him about his earlier comment asking God to cover her in his wings/robes now asking him to cover her in his skirt which very much has more than one meaning. I think you can draw your own picture here. ‘Come on big boy, you know you want to’. So it is an erotic enticement and a marriage proposal and a reminder of his duty to raise children in her deceased husband’s name.

Ruth put herself in an incredibly vulnerable situation. She gave him every opportunity at this point to throw her to the social wolves and discredit her as a loose woman. Ruth (and Naomi) aren’t idiots. They are hoping he will do the right thing on one hand but they are also making this as erotic and sexy as possible. Vulnerability is incredibly erotic. She give him absolute control of her destiny and basically dares him to discredit her but with the caveat that if he does they won’t be together. Ruth is GOOD at this.

Boaz then says everyone knows she is a virtuous woman. No, Ruth showed up at the beginning of the harvest and no one knows her but this is really a promise not to expose her. He says there is one kinsman closer that must forfeit his right before he can marry her but he will seek to remove this obstacle and swears an oath by Adonai that if the kinsman relents he will marry her. Then she spends the whole night at his “feet”. Maybe they talked. Maybe they discussed the harvest. Maybe they talked about the difficulties inherent in interracial marriage. Maybe they got an early start and got some extra threshing 😘done. Then she lets her sneak out to avoid a scandal and gives her a large supply of food. A gift? Payment? Kind of vague.

Ruth goes back to Naomi with her prize and Naomi assures her Boaz will not be able to rest until he resolves this matter. Good girl Ruth. You got him desperate for more to the point he can’t do or think of anything or rest until he works this out. Ruth has game.

Boaz then gets together a group of witnesses and meets with the nearer kinsman and asks him to redeem the property of Naomi. The guy jumps at this offer. FREE LAND!!!!! If Naomi and Ruth were there (probably) this would have been a bit of a downer but also might have been part of the plan. By forcing Boaz into action they were bound to end up with someone who could support them. They would probably prefer Boaz but the other guy was at least a meal ticket.

Then Boaz pulls the rug out from under this guy and says that if he claims the land he also has to marry Ruth and give their relative children. This other guy then panics. When it was free land that was great. When it comes with a wife that would seriously complicate his inheritance. He probably already has sons and if Ruth bears him another one they have to split the land even more. Plus would his wife be happy if he brought home another wife. Also Ruth was a Moabite, a filthy foreigner born of that dirty incest story about Lot. That might lower his prestige. So he begs off and Boaz marries her.

Then everyone rejoices and praises Ruth and compares her to Leah and Rachel bearing the children of Israel. And then, just in case you start wondering if you were just reading all this sexy stuff into what was actually an entirely prim and proper story they compare Ruth to Tamar. Yeah, that Tamar. Tamar the daughter-in-law of Judah who disguised herself as a prostitute and seduced her father-in-law and got pregnant with his child in order to manipulate him into giving her what she rightfully deserved. Yeah, the parallels are pretty obvious. It is women using forbidden seduction to get what they are entitled to but the men who are responsible for it are slow in delivering.

Then Ruth has a son who becomes the grandfather of King David which means his great grandmother was a Moabite….oh no……

WAIT!!!!!! HOLD EVERYTHING!!!! THE LAW IS CLEAR!!!!!

"No Ammonite or Moabite shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord. Even to the tenth generation, none of their descendants shall be admitted..." (Deuteronomy 23:3)

Uh-oh, David is seven generations too early to be allowed to join the people of Israel. Oh wait, the sages have convened and decided that prohibition only to descendants of Moabite men. Moabite women and other women of prohibited ethnicities are now fine. The day is saved! HOORAY!!!

And no, this reading of the Book of Ruth is not eccentric at all.

 

 

Oh, and want to know the more modern queer reading of the Book of Ruth. Well, you see, Ruth liked Israel’s god but she was really into Naomi. They used her husband as a beard to hide their relationship. When he died Naomi begged her sapphic lover to return to her people but Ruth loved her too much to leave her. In some versions Orpah was part of their polycule too but she chose the route of safety rather than devotion to Sapphos…cough…I mean Adonai, definitely Adonai. Then they hatched a plan to get the younger half of the couple married to Boaz so they could survive and stay together so they could thresh grain together and ((((((((CENSORED)))))))))))))

This reading of Ruth is eccentric. VERY eccentric. But it makes me laugh.

Edited April 21 by The Nehor

[bsjkki]

My husband came home from work and scrolled on his phone and ranted for 10 minutes about how dumb these names are. 😳

[The Nehor]

Also if they were going for the whole triad thing from the Bible and Book of Mormon shouldn’t it be Faith, Hope, and Charity instead of putting Light at the end?

[Amulek]

21 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm betting that the names get shortened to Builders, Messengers, and Gatherers when people are referring to them, and I think it's going to take a few years before the labels don't feel awkward.  But hopefully less awkward that talking about the Deacons and the 11-13 year olds or the Priests and the 15-18 year olds.  

Yeah, the official names are a bit clunky. They need to be pared down to something shorter and/or something that can be conjugated better in normal speech. There really should have been a focus on coming up with solid, 1-word names. Builders is serviceable from a language perspective, and quite possibly a net positive identity-wise; Messengers, I think, is solid; but I'm really leaning toward Radiants over Gatherers. 

 

[Rain]

Does "deacon" have a meaning? Or "priest"?  Teacher does.  I go back and forth of whether priest does, mostly because the meaning I have in my mind seems to fit better outside the church than in. But then very little of what teachers in the church do today is teach. So it kind of feels like the YW titles are reminders of how they should act, but AP are job titles.

[the narrator]

Aren't these subtitles in a YA fantasy series?

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Aren't these subtitles in a YA fantasy series?

My 11 year old daughter's first reaction was that the sound like book titles in a YA series. 

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

My 11 year old daughter's first reaction was that the sound like book titles in a YA series. 

My daughter’s was from a fantasy role playing ham.

[InCognitus]

On 4/20/2026 at 10:24 AM, Nofear said:

Perhaps some places will shorten it even further to Bs, Ms, and Gs. (B hearkening back to Beehive, M to Mia Maids, and G ... well nothing there).

The G should be "L" for light.  B, M, and L.

[smac97]

23 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't know if it's possible to give the groups names and not have it feel kitschy at first.  Beehives, Miamaids, and Laurels were so ingrained in the culture that no one thought twice but if we were hit with those names today everyone would think it was extremely weird.

I did appreciate Pres. Freeman's explanation of where the names came from:

I'm betting that the names get shortened to Builders, Messengers, and Gatherers when people are referring to them, and I think it's going to take a few years before the labels don't feel awkward.  But hopefully less awkward that talking about the Deacons and the 11-13 year olds or the Priests and the 15-18 year olds.  

My initial and kneejerk response was similar to Senator's ("Comes across a bit kitschy"), but for me I wonder if that reaction stems more from anticipating de facto cynicism and sarcasm and sneering and ridicule that is fairly prevalent online.  If so, that can't be good.  Cynicism and sarcasm ruin pretty much everything.  And add the online component, these behaviors become way too indiscriminate.

As per usual, I'm going to give the leaders of the Church a lot of leeway as to their discretionary decisions.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

My initial and kneejerk response was similar to Senator's ("Comes across a bit kitschy"), but for me I wonder if that reaction stems more from anticipating de facto cynicism and sarcasm and sneering and ridicule that is fairly prevalent online.  If so, that can't be good.  Cynicism and sarcasm ruin pretty much everything.  And add the online component, these behaviors become way too indiscriminate.

As per usual, I'm going to give the leaders of the Church a lot of leeway as to their discretionary decisions.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think there is some truth to what you’re saying. We also are no longer a society that labels groups and organizations like we used to, so any group name that harkens back to that era will sound odd to us I think.  It’s kind of an antiquated idea in general.

[The Nehor]

I would have thought she had aged out of being a Messenger of Hope but: