clwnuke

As a father of two girls two years apart in age, unless you're the offspring of an owl and an octopus, handling multiple small children at once is not a one-person job regardless of gender.  You need someone in the overwatch position while the close contact person is distracted by one of the kids.

Years ago my wife and I were in the nursery.  One Sunday the bishop came to me with a father who was very upset.
"How did my daughter get a bruise on her head.  She didn't have one when she went into the nursery."
 
I told them that I had no idea.  As far as I knew, nothing happened in the nursery, she did not cry out in pain, etc.
The father gave me a very nasty look.  It could have been very ugly, but I'm sure that since my wife was also there, the whole incident stopped there.

But researchers estimate that less than 1% of adult men are potentially pedophiles, with the actual number likely being much less than 0.5% when you only consider children's age groups less than 14 years-old. So 99.5% of men are not a threat but that justifies singling men out? Would it not be wise to make sure ALL situations are safe?
 
My wife does a lot of babysitting at night to earn extra money. At times there are more jobs than she can handle so she often asks clients if our older daughters can help. I have also been volunteered several times, but my wife says clients freak out when she says I'm a man. The funny thing is that they trust her child care because she's a woman, but don't trust mine because I'm a man. However, the relevant facts are: 
 
1. I was raised changing sibling's diapers and babysitting kids in the ward, but my wife was a single child and didn't.
2. When we had our first child, my wife was overwhelmed and didn't know what to do. I did everything other than breastfeed - even getting up at night until they were toddlers.
3. We had six kids and I did just as much if not more diaper changing and caring for them.
4. My wife has always acknowledged my ability to relate to kids and turned to me when things got tough. 
 
So I find it funny that her clients "think" that they will be putting their children in harms way if they have me babysit.

In Handbook 2: Administering the Church section 11.8.1 Men Serving in Primary it states: 
 
"When men are assigned to teach children, at least two responsible adults should be present at all times. The two adults could be two men, a husband and wife, or two members of the same family. In small branches, if it is not practical to have two teachers in a classroom, a member of the Primary presidency frequently visits and monitors each class that a man teaches alone."
 
This change was made a few years ago, and I understand the concerns related to it, but something I did not like was singling out men rather than focusing on two-deep leadership for all teaching situations. It makes me feel as if I'm considered a suspected pedophile just because I'm a man.
 
Having been raised in a large family, and having raised four daughters and two sons of my own, and having worked in Scouting for 25 years I fully support the two-deep leadership principles of the Scouting Program. But they apply equally to men and women.
 
Would you support changing this policy title to Adults Serving in Primary and having the text changed to:
 
"At least two responsible adults should be present at all times when teaching Primary. The two adults can be two men, or two women, a husband and wife, or two members of the same family. In small branches, if it is not practical to have two teachers in a classroom, a member of the Primary presidency frequently visits and monitors each class that is taught alone."?

f1lbr, I believe that beating down LDS and non-lds men is the key to Satan's plan to destroy the family. If I wanted to create a game plan to make Priesthood power ineffective on the earth I would focus my time and efforts on young men and fathers.
 
Pornography is one of the weapons employed to destroy trust in relationships, and while I can fully appreciate the Stake President's counsel you quote above, the advice does nothing to foster trust, love, or improve the behavior of Priesthood holders. It will however frustrate the men who are asked the question and decrease their chances of ever finding a worthy companion because they are asking about personal sins and becoming judge and jury.
 
Now I'm sure most of the good women who might read this post will think that the question "When was the last time you looked at pornography?" to be a perfectly legitimate question in this day and age for a women who is dating, but let me generally illustrate how it may feel to a man to be asked that question and then end this post with a spiritual warning based on my own experience.
 
From a scientific point of view, the brain patterns of a woman (or a man) desiring and eating chocolate are indistinguishable from a man (or a woman) desiring and viewing pornography, or an addict seeing drugs, desiring drugs, and using drugs. And the evidence is clear that many women have a weight problem, many men have a pornography problem, and many people have addiction problems. In each case, the problems are made worse by the ready availability of the consumed product.
 
There is no scientific difference in the weakness or lack of resolve shown by women who overeat, men who view pornography, or addicts who use drugs. The difference is in how we view the behaviors. We have normalized being overweight, despite strong spiritual counsel to take care of our temples. However, we have not normalized viewing sexual content or drug addiction. The result is that we shame and guilt the latter two groups endlessly, while bringing chocolate to church and feeding the problem of the first group - but the weaknesses in sinning and the brain areas stimulated can not readily be distinguished between the three. None of them should be normalized behaviors.
 
You do not even need a product to have this problem. Experiments show the same addictive behavior will develop in people with electrodes implanted into the pleasure centers of the brain. The novelty soon turned into an insatiable appetite to press the electrode button, sometimes 1500 times an hour, resulting in callouses on their thumbs, and ultimately to depression and frustration. It's not the product, it's the behavior. Chocolate, pornography, drugs, or electrodes, they can all result in the same damaging behaviors.
 
Now then, how would it be if a Stake President were to counsel men to ask "When is the last time you exceeded your ideal BMI and overate?"? And more importantly, how would women feel if the question were considered legitimate by the majority of men in the church? The advice would do nothing to foster trust, love, or improve the behavior of women. Sound familiar? Men who are struggling with the same desire to feed the pleasure centers of the brain feel just as degraded when asked about pornography. Women especially need to realize this.
 
As an alternative I might suggest asking the question differently once the relationship has matured to an appropriate point. How about something like this "I believe that you and I are growing quite fond of each other, and if we are to move forward it could involve a marriage where we begin to struggle to understand and overcome our weaknesses in order to keep the commandments and our temple covenants. Many men struggle with pornography because Satan wants to destroy them. I want to build you into a great Priesthood holder full of the Spirit of God to bless our family. Are you comfortable trusting and talking to me about this very intimate subject?"  I think the results would be very different.
 
Here is my warning: Please do not ask people to "confess" their past sins to you. If a man or woman has fully repented of their sins, they no longer own the sins. The sin is owned by our loving Savior. He bought them with a price and took possession. If we probe into those sins we are not probing the person in front of us, we are probing the Savior. I once made the mistake of bringing up a past sin of my spouse in a moment of frustration. The Spirit swiftly condemned me with unmistakable power and clarity. I can think of no time in my life where I felt the Lord's condemnation more strongly and I have never wanted to feel that darkness again. I know personally that the Lord takes his role as Redeemer and Judge very seriously. Allow His forgiveness and mercy to flow freely to all, especially those you love most.
 
We need each other. We need to help each other in love and kindness. Satan is working to reduce our love, reduce our trust, reduce our willingness to help each other, and his ultimate goal is to destroy the family and frustrate the Lord's work. He will not be victorious in the end, but until that time even many of the elect will abandon love and hate their own. In this time of war men and women need to help each other be faithful more than ever. I believe that the Balm of Gilead is forgiveness, compassion, and understanding. That is the only path to the true Hope we can rely upon IMHO.

I agree wholeheartedly.
 
 
 
Alas I confess that I am a science and math geek. But even those who enjoy it must confess that repeating Calc 101 for eternity might be slightly less than exciting?? :)

Having been in that situation I can honestly say I did not freak out. I simply testified to my child about the blessings that I saw come from numerous confessions and church courts. I offered to assist if and when my child decided to approach the Bishop and left the matter alone until they were ready. I did not pry into details either.  Eventually my child made the decision to speak to the Bishop (who was a wonderful brother) and asked for my support and help. It took some time, but the process was a blessing.
 
Years later I think it surprised the Bishop when he learned that I did not know everything that had happened, nor did I feel the need to know. These days I really don't care what people's sins are, I just care about them.
 
I have not always been able to say that. The Lord had to help open my eyes to the depth and breadth of His Love and Atonement before I could understand that my limited role involved mostly working on my own abundant weaknesses and gently succoring His children when appropriate.

There are people that may think the Celestial Kingdom (heaven) is a choice of this life - I am not sure why someone would actually teach such a thing.  It does not matter what you choose or what you do in this life the reality is that the only way we get to the Celestial Kingdom is through the atonement of Christ.
 
I do not remember the critic - but a famous critic of Christians once said that Christians are a strange breed that spend their whole life thinking they want to go to heaven and have no idea what heaven is really like.
 
It is like the kid that ask a college professor - "If you are such an expert in economics - why aren't you wealthy?"
 
I like the method of Jesus - rather than telling everybody what to do to get to heaven he said - "Follow me!"
 
I am not going to make it -- I have tried and done just about everything I can think of - but I am convinced that I always fall short.  I think those that think exaltation is a choice - good luck with than.  My question is - "If you know what to do and have it figured out - Why are you still here?
 
My plan is to beg and plead mercy - realizing I'm not good enough.

I'm personally more worried about having a desire to be celestial. From my standpoint on earth i've noticed traits, flaws, desires, in myself and others that I suspect wouldn't be welcome in the celestial kingdom (even if the goal is the celestial), that often times people don't seem willing to let go for something greater.

If you have the will to sacrifice the lessor for the greater of the celestial, I think you'll be alright.

When I was young (and arguably less mature in the Gospel), I would worry quite a bit. I think the worrying started to turn around after reading articles like Stephen Robinson's "Believing Christ" https://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/04/believing-christ?lang=eng As I studied and better understood the atonement and grace and faith and repentance, I became less worried.
 
I do not think I will ever reach the point of "assurance of salvation" that I see and hear many Evangelical's talk about. I sometimes wonder if the more antinomian among them make it easier to interpret the "sola fide" theology as one where one can pray a sinner's prayer and never worry again. Since I do not believe in "sola fide" -- especially when it comes out as being very antinomian -- I find that there is always "some" worry. Such as, "what if I change my mind about this whole religion thing" in the future?" All I can do is my best in the here and now to demonstrate faith, practice repentance, exercise obedience, and continue learning and growing in the Gospel -- trying to immunize myself against future trials of my character.

Those who sit around worrying that they won't "make it" don't have a clue what they are even worrying about. The worry itself does not make sense. (That is one reason I hate the "make it" terminology; sounds like you're trying to meet the minimum requirements for SEAL training or something.)

Depends on the day. I think most days I'm like omega--I just don't think about whether I'll "make" it or not--I'm just focusing on trying to do my best to be like Jesus.
 
Some days, I am more spiritually thoughtful and try to determine if I'm "celestial material." But, then I think to myself that I certainly can't judge myself since I'm not God and don't have His knowledge.
 
What I am certain of is that as long as I try my best to follow the commandments and stay true to my covenants, I will be saved in a kingdom and will be happy. 

I don't dwell on it, I try my best every day. I try to overcome my weaknesses and focus on the positive in life. I believe in a forgiving God and fully participate in the atonement of Christ (I need it). 
 
The chips will fall where they will, but I will have put forth my best effort.

Having been in that situation I can honestly say I did not freak out. I simply testified to my child about the blessings that I saw come from numerous confessions and church courts. I offered to assist if and when my child decided to approach the Bishop and left the matter alone until they were ready. I did not pry into details either.  Eventually my child made the decision to speak to the Bishop (who was a wonderful brother) and asked for my support and help. It took some time, but the process was a blessing.
 
Years later I think it surprised the Bishop when he learned that I did not know everything that had happened, nor did I feel the need to know. These days I really don't care what people's sins are, I just care about them.
 
I have not always been able to say that. The Lord had to help open my eyes to the depth and breadth of His Love and Atonement before I could understand that my limited role involved mostly working on my own abundant weaknesses and gently succoring His children when appropriate.

Having been in that situation I can honestly say I did not freak out. I simply testified to my child about the blessings that I saw come from numerous confessions and church courts. I offered to assist if and when my child decided to approach the Bishop and left the matter alone until they were ready. I did not pry into details either.  Eventually my child made the decision to speak to the Bishop (who was a wonderful brother) and asked for my support and help. It took some time, but the process was a blessing.
 
Years later I think it surprised the Bishop when he learned that I did not know everything that had happened, nor did I feel the need to know. These days I really don't care what people's sins are, I just care about them.
 
I have not always been able to say that. The Lord had to help open my eyes to the depth and breadth of His Love and Atonement before I could understand that my limited role involved mostly working on my own abundant weaknesses and gently succoring His children when appropriate.

f1lbr, I believe that beating down LDS and non-lds men is the key to Satan's plan to destroy the family. If I wanted to create a game plan to make Priesthood power ineffective on the earth I would focus my time and efforts on young men and fathers.
 
Pornography is one of the weapons employed to destroy trust in relationships, and while I can fully appreciate the Stake President's counsel you quote above, the advice does nothing to foster trust, love, or improve the behavior of Priesthood holders. It will however frustrate the men who are asked the question and decrease their chances of ever finding a worthy companion because they are asking about personal sins and becoming judge and jury.
 
Now I'm sure most of the good women who might read this post will think that the question "When was the last time you looked at pornography?" to be a perfectly legitimate question in this day and age for a women who is dating, but let me generally illustrate how it may feel to a man to be asked that question and then end this post with a spiritual warning based on my own experience.
 
From a scientific point of view, the brain patterns of a woman (or a man) desiring and eating chocolate are indistinguishable from a man (or a woman) desiring and viewing pornography, or an addict seeing drugs, desiring drugs, and using drugs. And the evidence is clear that many women have a weight problem, many men have a pornography problem, and many people have addiction problems. In each case, the problems are made worse by the ready availability of the consumed product.
 
There is no scientific difference in the weakness or lack of resolve shown by women who overeat, men who view pornography, or addicts who use drugs. The difference is in how we view the behaviors. We have normalized being overweight, despite strong spiritual counsel to take care of our temples. However, we have not normalized viewing sexual content or drug addiction. The result is that we shame and guilt the latter two groups endlessly, while bringing chocolate to church and feeding the problem of the first group - but the weaknesses in sinning and the brain areas stimulated can not readily be distinguished between the three. None of them should be normalized behaviors.
 
You do not even need a product to have this problem. Experiments show the same addictive behavior will develop in people with electrodes implanted into the pleasure centers of the brain. The novelty soon turned into an insatiable appetite to press the electrode button, sometimes 1500 times an hour, resulting in callouses on their thumbs, and ultimately to depression and frustration. It's not the product, it's the behavior. Chocolate, pornography, drugs, or electrodes, they can all result in the same damaging behaviors.
 
Now then, how would it be if a Stake President were to counsel men to ask "When is the last time you exceeded your ideal BMI and overate?"? And more importantly, how would women feel if the question were considered legitimate by the majority of men in the church? The advice would do nothing to foster trust, love, or improve the behavior of women. Sound familiar? Men who are struggling with the same desire to feed the pleasure centers of the brain feel just as degraded when asked about pornography. Women especially need to realize this.
 
As an alternative I might suggest asking the question differently once the relationship has matured to an appropriate point. How about something like this "I believe that you and I are growing quite fond of each other, and if we are to move forward it could involve a marriage where we begin to struggle to understand and overcome our weaknesses in order to keep the commandments and our temple covenants. Many men struggle with pornography because Satan wants to destroy them. I want to build you into a great Priesthood holder full of the Spirit of God to bless our family. Are you comfortable trusting and talking to me about this very intimate subject?"  I think the results would be very different.
 
Here is my warning: Please do not ask people to "confess" their past sins to you. If a man or woman has fully repented of their sins, they no longer own the sins. The sin is owned by our loving Savior. He bought them with a price and took possession. If we probe into those sins we are not probing the person in front of us, we are probing the Savior. I once made the mistake of bringing up a past sin of my spouse in a moment of frustration. The Spirit swiftly condemned me with unmistakable power and clarity. I can think of no time in my life where I felt the Lord's condemnation more strongly and I have never wanted to feel that darkness again. I know personally that the Lord takes his role as Redeemer and Judge very seriously. Allow His forgiveness and mercy to flow freely to all, especially those you love most.
 
We need each other. We need to help each other in love and kindness. Satan is working to reduce our love, reduce our trust, reduce our willingness to help each other, and his ultimate goal is to destroy the family and frustrate the Lord's work. He will not be victorious in the end, but until that time even many of the elect will abandon love and hate their own. In this time of war men and women need to help each other be faithful more than ever. I believe that the Balm of Gilead is forgiveness, compassion, and understanding. That is the only path to the true Hope we can rely upon IMHO.

My vote? Go on your mission. An alternative definition for a "broken heart" is to break away from all the things that the world seems to offer us and serve Him. I say go, serve, and you will come to know the truth of all things.

But at least you don't have to worry about whether your white (and it had better be white!) shirt is inappropriately dingy, threadbare, or wrinkly. 
 
Incidentally:  Last week I went to a wedding at an Episcopalian church, and the majority of the female attendees under 30 were dressed like--I'm sorry for the comparison, but I've seen call girls dress much more modestly.  So at the moment, I'm disinclined to complain about what Mormon women wear to church.

f1lbr, I believe that beating down LDS and non-lds men is the key to Satan's plan to destroy the family. If I wanted to create a game plan to make Priesthood power ineffective on the earth I would focus my time and efforts on young men and fathers.
 
Pornography is one of the weapons employed to destroy trust in relationships, and while I can fully appreciate the Stake President's counsel you quote above, the advice does nothing to foster trust, love, or improve the behavior of Priesthood holders. It will however frustrate the men who are asked the question and decrease their chances of ever finding a worthy companion because they are asking about personal sins and becoming judge and jury.
 
Now I'm sure most of the good women who might read this post will think that the question "When was the last time you looked at pornography?" to be a perfectly legitimate question in this day and age for a women who is dating, but let me generally illustrate how it may feel to a man to be asked that question and then end this post with a spiritual warning based on my own experience.
 
From a scientific point of view, the brain patterns of a woman (or a man) desiring and eating chocolate are indistinguishable from a man (or a woman) desiring and viewing pornography, or an addict seeing drugs, desiring drugs, and using drugs. And the evidence is clear that many women have a weight problem, many men have a pornography problem, and many people have addiction problems. In each case, the problems are made worse by the ready availability of the consumed product.
 
There is no scientific difference in the weakness or lack of resolve shown by women who overeat, men who view pornography, or addicts who use drugs. The difference is in how we view the behaviors. We have normalized being overweight, despite strong spiritual counsel to take care of our temples. However, we have not normalized viewing sexual content or drug addiction. The result is that we shame and guilt the latter two groups endlessly, while bringing chocolate to church and feeding the problem of the first group - but the weaknesses in sinning and the brain areas stimulated can not readily be distinguished between the three. None of them should be normalized behaviors.
 
You do not even need a product to have this problem. Experiments show the same addictive behavior will develop in people with electrodes implanted into the pleasure centers of the brain. The novelty soon turned into an insatiable appetite to press the electrode button, sometimes 1500 times an hour, resulting in callouses on their thumbs, and ultimately to depression and frustration. It's not the product, it's the behavior. Chocolate, pornography, drugs, or electrodes, they can all result in the same damaging behaviors.
 
Now then, how would it be if a Stake President were to counsel men to ask "When is the last time you exceeded your ideal BMI and overate?"? And more importantly, how would women feel if the question were considered legitimate by the majority of men in the church? The advice would do nothing to foster trust, love, or improve the behavior of women. Sound familiar? Men who are struggling with the same desire to feed the pleasure centers of the brain feel just as degraded when asked about pornography. Women especially need to realize this.
 
As an alternative I might suggest asking the question differently once the relationship has matured to an appropriate point. How about something like this "I believe that you and I are growing quite fond of each other, and if we are to move forward it could involve a marriage where we begin to struggle to understand and overcome our weaknesses in order to keep the commandments and our temple covenants. Many men struggle with pornography because Satan wants to destroy them. I want to build you into a great Priesthood holder full of the Spirit of God to bless our family. Are you comfortable trusting and talking to me about this very intimate subject?"  I think the results would be very different.
 
Here is my warning: Please do not ask people to "confess" their past sins to you. If a man or woman has fully repented of their sins, they no longer own the sins. The sin is owned by our loving Savior. He bought them with a price and took possession. If we probe into those sins we are not probing the person in front of us, we are probing the Savior. I once made the mistake of bringing up a past sin of my spouse in a moment of frustration. The Spirit swiftly condemned me with unmistakable power and clarity. I can think of no time in my life where I felt the Lord's condemnation more strongly and I have never wanted to feel that darkness again. I know personally that the Lord takes his role as Redeemer and Judge very seriously. Allow His forgiveness and mercy to flow freely to all, especially those you love most.
 
We need each other. We need to help each other in love and kindness. Satan is working to reduce our love, reduce our trust, reduce our willingness to help each other, and his ultimate goal is to destroy the family and frustrate the Lord's work. He will not be victorious in the end, but until that time even many of the elect will abandon love and hate their own. In this time of war men and women need to help each other be faithful more than ever. I believe that the Balm of Gilead is forgiveness, compassion, and understanding. That is the only path to the true Hope we can rely upon IMHO.

No monetary gifts should be accepted, I suspect that they are in violation of mission rules by accepting money
 
 
Not ok, falls under the same category as money
 
No issue with meals if your father asks them out to eat, I am certain that they are not choosing the venue. Your father likes to eat well, and they get to tag along win for them.
 
 
So the basic rule is that there must be another female present, they are making an exception for your father because he is older possibly? This is a mistake on the sister missionaries part and they should not be doing this.
 
Lastly, as mentioned previously your father is a member already his baptism is still valid. I understand the concern as a child looking out for an aging parent, but unless he is engaging in some sort of weird behavior I would probably ignore the whole thing

I suspect that the sisters think that an elderly invalid man is not a "man" in the sense of they shouldn't be in the home alone with him.   I don't know that their Mission President would agree with them.
 
They can freely accept meals from anyone who is willing to feed them.   And they shouldn't be questioning how much it costs (though if they weren't so young, they would absolutely should pick up on whether the extravagance more than they should accept).
 
While there are no rules about accepting money or gifts, the sisters should know better than to accept more than a very occasional $20 (to pay for a meal), or to accept jewelry.   I think you should report this to their Mission President immediately.
 
Missionaries do not collect any funds for any reason from anybody.   (The church may send teen boys to collect fast offerings used in each locality to help the poor, on the first sunday of each month.   Everyone who appears on the rolls of the church, whether they ever attend church are given the opportunity to contribute to this effort.)
 
Yes, you have a right to be concerned about what these sisters are doing.   It is not typical, and although not expressly prohibited by rule, it is at least somewhat unseemly.   (Though, to be fair, we do not know the whole story and if we did, it might not be that way.)
 
If you google latter day saint mission home and the nearest big city, you should get the direct number.  You might even know the official name of the Mission and get the info that way.  

Whoa pkstpaul
I don't know what your ward is like, or where your missionaries come from, but ours here can't find fancy enough restaurants for us to take them out to.
I'm hard pressed to impress them.  Which is fine with me.
Anyway, op, I love the missionaries and love their company.
We only have males, and I wish we did have some females.
They are polite, good manners, no profanity, talk of spiritual and scriptural matters, and are just good company.
They know about the church, or all about the church, and can answer any questions you have, or, if I stump them on a theological question, I'm pleased to be able to educate them.
Because I learn in the process.
And, due to my age, I'm closer to the end than ever, so I need spiritual help for my preparation.
dc

One reason your father's ward may have more Sisters assigned than Elders, is that many wards have the members housing the missionaries and many members cannot have, or do not want, Elders living in th home. It is easier to find housing for Sisters. My ward now has two sets of sisters and I haven't seen Elders in years.
 
In my opinion, the Sisters may be too embarrassed to say 'no' to your father, or he makes it difficult for them to say no. He may be perceived as wealthy and that the gifts and meals are not extravagant for him. In either case, most missionaries would turn down the money and would not be comfortable eating a fancy meal. Ask your father to be considerate of the missionaries feelings and offer less or embarrass them less. Going out for meals is an ideal way of tackling what you saw as an issue of sisters not being alone with a single male. They should have discussed the matter with their leader and he may have given permission for them to be alone, due to your father's age. I'm sure every case is different and handling the situation is often done "by the Spirit." 
 
I might suggest you join your father in the discussions. This may curtain some of the behavior you are witnessing and will help you in understanding any decision he makes regarding baptism or activity in the Church.

No. Both of my older sons have served missions in the US. You just happen not to have seen any elders yet.  If the sisters have been assigned a certain area, sister missionary companionships will remain there until a different assignment is made. The specific sisters will come and go as the mission president sees fit, but the assignment will remain until the president changes it. Odds are there are male missionaries assigned to adjacent areas. (Note that the male missionaries are typically a year or two younger than the female missionaries.) Can you request men instead of women? Sure. Talk to the missionaries. Look, based on what you have written, I share some of your concerns. But at this point, we aren't talking about Church procedure or anything. Rather, we're talking about you controlling who your father talks to. Is this what you want to do? Is your father so mentally unstable or infirm, in an advanced stage of senility or something, that you need to manage his personal affairs for him? If so, then do what you must. Otherwise, I would encourage you to talk to your dad himself and make your decisions along with him. He's a grown-up and, barring serious dementia, he gets to make his own decisions about who he associates with and how he spends his money, without having to get the approval of his children first. No offense intended. Things just seem to have shifted from concern about inappropriate missionary activities to concern about the choices a father is making. The former concern is appropriate and actionable; the latter is much less so. 
 On the whole, this situation sounds a little weird (especially the part about jewelry), but not off-the-charts bizarre. I might try to keep tabs on things in case they really start getting out of hand, but otherwise I would not worry about it. It doesn't sound all that weird to me. 
 Here is a link to the LDS Missionary Handbook: https://www.lds.org/manual/missionary-handbook?lang=eng  To a large extent, this is set by the individual mission president. You can ask the missionaries themselves about their rules. The missionary handbook I linked to contains the basic rules of pretty much all missions. 
 That would be the missionary handbook. 
 If you felt it necessary, you could contact the local mission home, where the mission president lives. Ask the missionaries for contact information.  
Jenn, I guess my advice/suggestion would be not to get too worked up about this. I suspect this situation has less to do with the LDS Church per se and more to do with a daughter watching her aging father grapple with life issues that he has yet to resolve. I sympathize with this; I have a widowed mother, and it's not always easy to watch her make decisions that I don't necessarily agree with. But just as our parents allowed us to grow up and become the people we chose to be, we need to give them the freedom to live their lives as they see fit.
 
All the best to you and your family.

Hi, Jenn,
 
I will try to answer your questions. Keep in mind that I am not a spokesman for the Church, just a member trying to give some answers. Nothing official here. Also, my reply is too long for a single post, so I'm going to do it in two parts.
 
 No. In general, missionaries do not collect money from anyone for any reason. I could believe there are individual exceptions, for example if the missionary is assigned to act as an agent for collecting tithing in an area of the world where there is no regularly organized stake. But that would be very unusual. Certainly, the missionaries are never paid a dime for teaching or helping people out. On the contrary, the missionaries themselves (or their families) pay the expenses for their missions. In no sense is the mission a for-profit enterprise for the missionary -- quite the opposite. 
 Uh...this is a bit of a gray area. I can count on the fingers of one hand all the times anyone gave me any money, and I will still have all five fingers left over. But one of my sons who just returned from his mission service was given gifts of money (on the order of $20 or so) a couple of times by generous members who wanted to help him. (We know because my son sent back 10% for us to pay for him as tithing.) So it's not unheard of. I would say it is not a usual thing, but not strictly prohibited, as far as I know. Your father's generous act puts the sister missionaries in an awkward position. In my opinion, if this is a regular thing, they might do better to thank your father but tell him they don't accept gifts. But most missionaries live pretty close to the edge financially, and they may be using the money to help out other people they are teaching. You might do well to privately ask the sisters themselves this question. 
 Wow. I have never heard of this before. In my own opinion -- and it's only my opinion -- this strikes me as inappropriate. I am surprised the missionaries would even accept such a gift. If your dad says to a sister  missionary out of the blue, "I have this pair of earrings that aren't doing me any good, and I thought you might like them," then perhaps the missionary is simply touched by the generosity of this person and gratefully accepts the gift as a token of affection and goodwill. But if this is a regular practice, I find that a bit unsettling. In my opinion, such a thing is inappropriate. I guess I already said that. One minor, off-topic point: Your father is not a "potential convert". Unless he actually had his name removed from the rolls of the Church, he is a member -- not an active member, but still a member. The baptism he had as a child is still in full force. In the eyes of the Church and its members, he is one of us already.  Again -- wow. Your father is very generous. It is not unusual for members or even "investigators" (those non-LDS being taught by the missionaries) to make the missionaries a meal. We typically host the missionaries at our house at least monthly, sometimes multiple times per week. It is likewise not unusual for someone to take the missionaries to dinner at a restaurant, though McDonald's or maybe Shari's would be more typical than some superfancy four-star Michelin-rated restaurant. You as if it's "acceptable" behavior. I am not sure how to answer. I don't recall ever having discussed this in missionary training or when I was in the mission field. It just never came up. I think there is a "common sense" point at which you say, "Look, this is so generous of you, but we really can't accept this." Jewelry comes to mind as in this category, and I think meals (especially multiple meals) at an expensive restaurant does, too. But these are 20-year-old young women we're talking about, so they may not have the same perspective. 
 This will vary from mission to mission. By "mission", I mean a certain geographic area administered by a man called a "mission president" and his wife. All missionaries are called to serve in a specific mission, and while they serve in that mission, they are subject to the mission president as their direct leader. Among many other responsibilities, the mission president is tasked with setting the specific rules for his mission, such as by what time missionaries are supposed to be back home. Many mission presidents set rules to prevent too-close interaction of sister missionaries with unmarried men and of "elders" (young male missionaries) with unmarried women. This is primarily for the protection of the missionary, and also to prevent any confusion or misunderstanding with those they teach. In some missions, elders who find an unmarried woman to teach are instructed to hand her off to the sister missionaries to teach. In some circumstances, elders are instructed not to teach a woman or even enter her house or apartment unless there is another adult (sometimes another man) present. Similarly, the sister missionaries are sometimes instructed not to enter the dwelling of a man unless another woman is there. Or they may be told that they can enter the house of an elderly man, but if there is a younger man present, they have to have another woman there or they can't go in. Such rules may sound arbitrary, but they are set by the mission president according to his experience and what he thinks is needed. So it is entirely possible that the sisters were acting according to their specific rules and not just making stuff up as they went along. (Part two to follow.)