Once upon a time, LDS young women were organized into three classes for instruction and activities: Beehives, MIA Maids, and Laurels. In late 2019, the Church announced that these names were no longer to be used. I’ve heard there were problems using these titles in different languages, and that seems reasonable. Even untranslated, they seem a little hard to explain. Since 2019, without titles, I guess they have just been referred to as “the twelve and thirteen year olds” or “they used to be Beehives” and similar for the other age groups.
After what was apparently a seven-year effort to find new names for the classes, the LDS Newsroom (itself a victim of a name change!) has posted the following: “New Young Women Age-Group Names Emphasize Faith, Hope, and Light.” Here are the full names for each age group:
- Builders of Faith
- Messengers of Hope
- Gatherers of Light
There’s also a blurb and a scripture attached to each. For the formerly MIA Maids, these are: “A Messenger of Hope carries Christ’s message of hope to the weary, speaking peace, sharing comfort, and lifting hearts through the power of the Spirit (see Mosiah 18:8–9).”
I’m not here to criticize. Could you have done any better? I’m reminded of the story about Steve Jobs when an Apple development team presented its new assistant feature to him, named “Siri.” Jobs didn’t like the name. After a few days he got back to the team, saying he couldn’t think of anything better so Siri it is.
Read the whole article for the various practical details. For a ward or branch with few Young Women, they can be combined for Sunday classes. But deep down, they are still Builders, Messengers, or Gatherers.
Let’s ponderize.
- Could you have done any better? Were you happier with the original Beehive, MIA Maids, and Laurels names?
- As long as we’re changing names, what about “the Relief Society”? That name is rooted in 19th-century improvement societies and sounds a little odd in the 21st century. Any suggestions? Matriarchs of Truth?
- What about “Primary”? It’s usually an adjective, so it’s odd to use it as a noun, as in “the Primary.” The primary what?
- The harder you look, the stranger most LDS names appear. We call teenagers “Elders.”
- There are a few gaps in the nomenclature system. How about LDS men who, for whatever reason, are not ordained? They were once called “prospective elders,” but we can do better. Rejectors of Righteousness? The Maybe Next Year Club?
.

If I did not know better, I would suggest that this announcement came out about 19 days later than it was supposed to (April 1, right?).
Some (of the legion of) obvious problems with these labels:
* They sound like a poorly written YA fantasy series
* They could easily be new levels in the Scientology hierarchy
* Nobody–except maybe the most virtue-signaling, want-to-be-seen-as-extra-righteous members will use them in their entirety
* The vast majority of YW will recoil at these class names
* Deseret Book will make an absolute fortune selling new label-related swag (e.g. shirts for girls’ camp)
* The typical YM will have a field day making sarcastic comments about them (e.g. every 12-13 year-old girl will be called “Bob”…)
* They will be shortened to Builders, Messengers, and Gatherers within three weeks…then Bs, Ms, Gs after a couple of months
* Using these class names are more of a victory for Satan than using Mormon
If it were up to me, I would just go with Younger, Middle, and Older. So no, I can’t do any better. These are at least better than the old ones.
I agree with Sociopath that they will quickly be shortened to Builders, Messengers, and Gatherers. However, that’s as far as it will go. Nobody uses Ds, Ts, and Ps for the YM; why would they use Bs, Ms, and (especially) Gs for the YW?
I think the adjective “inartful” fits here.
Rather than deciding on these names in secret by a small committee, I think much better results might have been found if we crowd-sourced this among the church’s young women.
And who says we need a single church-wide answer? How about letting different areas use different names to better fit their cultures? Maybe standardization could occur over time.
Yeah, they might be abbreviated as Builders, Messengers, and Guides – that would be better than BOFs, MOHs, and GOLs.