yjacket
-
Posts
1743 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by yjacket
-
-
3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:
Snowflake millennials often think the greatest sin is hurting someone else's feelings.
Truth.
-
On 4/18/2017 at 1:18 PM, anatess2 said:
This is the real answer - the definition of LOVE changed over time.
Really good comment. +1.
-
2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:
I think it was fundamentally the testimony of the two victims, who were related to each other. I don't think there was any forensic evidence, because (IIRC) the charge wasn't that he actually had sexual intercourse with them; it was that he reached down their pants while he thought they were sleeping.
I really dislike the he said/she said cases and I also wish that the judge would inform the jury prior to guilty/innocent of what the penalties will be.
It's one thing to say guilty when the penalty is one year in jail it's another when the penalty is a man's life (I know it shouldn't be that way,but that is the way it is). I also always remember the movie "12 angry men". You get 12 random people on the jury that come from all walks of life; you hope they evaluate the facts of the case but I'm learned in life that the facts are most often times justification for the emotional decision that we have already reached.
I have to assume since the jury convicted they made the correct decision-I just really don't like he said/she said. Because what it really comes down to is, "who do you believe more?" and that's a really, really tricky question-especially since people lie. He claims he was innocent they say he isn't someone is lying. Now if the testimony goes like "I woke up with his hands in my pants, I screamed and started hitting him like crazy, I put a long scratch on his face, I immediately told my parents we called the police and oh by the way here is a picture we took at church on Sunday with him and a long scratch-like scab on his face" he better have a really good reason why he has a long scratch on his face or I'm believing the girl and sending the guy to jail. If it's "I woke up with his hands in my pants and was totally silent b/c I was afraid he had a knife, I didn't tell anyone about it for 3 weeks" okay even if you have another story like that how can I convict?
It's my opinion that individuals have to take some measure of responsibility after a crime occurs and during it if at all possible. I have to assume there was more than just his word against hers (at least I hope so) to convict a man and send him to jail for a very long time.
-
13 minutes ago, MormonGator said:
Very glad you can take some good natured razzing my friend. Just to reiterate, I have nothing but respect for you.
Thank you MG. I also have nothing but respect for you too. The same goes for pretty much everyone on this board.
Yes, I do get into with just about everyone from time to time, I get upset, they get upset at me. Sometimes I'm right, sometimes they're right-it's a message board with people from diverse experiences, past, etc. It's gonna happen and IMO it gives life a little bit of spice-so while I get might get ticked I get over it.
But one thing I'm positive of is that just about everyone here has a firm faith in Christ and those who don't are encouraged (in a good way) to obtain one. We've all had our struggles, trials, etc. and for that and their faith, I have deep respect for-even if we disagree on a whole host of other issues.
-
39 minutes ago, zil said:
Really!? @yjacket, which Penmanship do you have, the clear one, or the black one? And what ink are you using in it? And what did you do to the poor thing to make it atrocious?
I'd don't always write, but when I do I use a black pen-stay thirsty my friends!
lol . . .very funny. I love it.
-
3 minutes ago, Eowyn said:
Good grief, guys, don't encourage him.
Yes please don't. I don't need my head to get big, beware pride-personally my biggest sin and issue.
-
my bad- probably not for public consumption . . .it's cool.
-
12 hours ago, Godless said:
I'm also a bit concerned by your apparent disposition to automatically distrust teenagers.
@Godless See above.
A teenager who is duplicitous in posting on an anonymous message board and misrepresenting who they are and goes to such lengths to do so (and did a really good job of it-I'm quite impressed by the language, tone, etc. very good misrepresentation. . . .but you still can't snow the snowman baby!), is absolutely old enough to receive one-on-one personal guidance from a leader.
You don't get to claim on the one hand the leaders were doing something improper when the kid then does an extremely good job of manipulating an entire board into thinking she is the parent. As I said at the beginning she has one version of the truth, the parents have another version of the truth and the leaders have another version. Which one is right? Who knows, but ya dang right I'll trust the leaders over the kid any day of the week!
-
1 hour ago, Lilyflowers88 said:
Y'all caught me. I've been caught. Great job. Maybe I didn't want people judging me as much as all of you have. You have hardly taken into consideration my side of the story, claiming that it was a stupid decision and that I'm dramatic and immature. So I really don't want to post on this account anymore and I don't really appreciate the negative comments. Thank you for the few helpful comments, but I think that I can handle this.
Lilyflowers88,I do mean this in sincerity; had you been honest, upfront and forthright at the beginning, I guarantee you the responses would have been different. I personally tailor my responses to whom I'm speaking to. I encourage you to read my comments several pages back where I directed my comments specifically to you (where I said STE "to the young lady" having in mind that you were the one mostly likely posting this rather than your mother). If you read those comments, my tone, my tenor and how I approach things is different than the rest of my comments.
What I say to an adult is going to be different than what I say to you as a young lady. If my kid does something stupid or boneheaded, I will speak much more plainly to my wife about said action then to my child (where I might if necessary speak very plainly to them).
You are not a parent, you don't have kids, you don't have any clue what that is all about (I'm not being negative-it's just a fact and that's okay). I have no doubt that you believe the version of the truth you are giving; however remember you specifically and intentionally lied about who you represented. If you willing to intentionally misrepresent yourself so fully on this anonymous message board, what else are you misrepresenting in "real" life. Misrepresenting who you are is by it's very definition immature.
I called you on it; I don't take pleasure in doing so, but it is for your own good. Look at how many pages have been created on this; look at how much discord, arguing, etc. has been caused by a misrepresentation. You need to accept responsibility for that.
If you can't accurately represent yourself on an anonymous message board, why in the world would anyone in the real world trust you?
My guess is that these little games you play have probably gone on for a very long time and unfortunately very few people have called you on it. This is a hard lesson to learn, but the sooner you learn it, the better off you will be in life.
- my two cents and Vort
-
2
-
2 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:
So yjacket was right all along... and no one believed him!
Kind of like George W. . .
Lol . . .well the response (if there is one) will tell me all I need to know.
-
12 minutes ago, zil said:
Type the @ sign. Type a few characters at the start of their login name. A list will pop up, use the mouse to click a name in the list. @yjacket - or use the down-arrow to select a name from the list, and then hit enter to insert it in your post. If it worked, the name will be white text in a blue box while still in the text editor.
Cool. Thank you!
-
You can't snow the snowman.
-
Well, my one burning question right now @Lilyflowers88 . Is why is the mother asking questions on an LDS board from her daughters account?
Who's account would it be when the birthdate on the account says 7/15/00 (i.e. the 17 year-old girl) and when in previous thread things are said like:
I can smell BS a mile away and my BS meter is off the charts. So exactly who posted the OP. The mother or the daughter?
I highly doubt the mother is posting on this board when the daughter makes comments like that. Why would the daughter give her mother access to her account when the daughter posts comments like that? If the mother really did make the comments. Did you know you daughter suffer/ed from depression. Did you know she suffered from addiction? Did you know that she hid these things from you?
Want to talk about honesty and being forthright? Maybe you should investigate a little bit more into just what exactly your daughter has been doing and saying online? Maybe instead of defending your daughter at every step of the way, take a long good hard look and what she tells you and then what she says online. If she does this online without your knowledge, what else does she do? If she can't talk to you about her depression and addiction, what else will she not talk to you about? It's okay for your daughter to come onto an anonymous message board receive feedback from total complete strangers, yet it's not okay for her leaders who know her and know her situation better than us to lovingly correct her?
Something is wrong with this picture-deeply wrong. Maybe instead of getting all up in arms at the leaders, maybe took a good hard long look at your kid. If and I'll make a small exception, if it truly is the mother-it shows a deeply unhealthy relationship between mother and child that the mother does not create her own account to address this issue (and does not state so upfront) and instead uses her daughters account to post this.
Come now @Lilyflowers88 tell us the real deal and no BS. I know you are checking this forum and probably this thread. You last visited this web site 9 min. ago.
-
2 hours ago, anatess2 said:
Parents have absolute authority over their children as it is their heads that God puts on the platter if they fail in this regard. You can help the parents by teaching them how to do their jobs properly - not do it for them.
----
P.S. I see this on Facebook all the time. Adults arguing with somebody else's children over stuff on non-public Facebook. It's a social media trend that disturbs me. If you see some child posting some bad stuff, go tag their parents and talk to the parents about it - preferably in private message - before you argue with the child about it.
I generally agree with you anatess; but there are always exceptions to the general rule. For example, what if some 16 year old shows you a video where they are being cruel to animals-they think it is funny and think you will think it is funny. Are you supposed to not say anything, then wait next week (actually try and remember the incident) and then talk to the parents? What if the parent is involved in it? As leaders do we not have a moral obligation to teach right and wrong?
I bolded the above portion b/c a teacher or leader correcting a child is not doing it for them-it is helping the parents. Growing up, if you got in trouble at school, the parent didn't call up the teacher demanding to know why and what happened-nor did everytime you got in trouble did the teacher send a note home. The parents trusted the teachers that they had ample enough reason to discipline the child at school and the parents reinforced and backed up that teaching at home. It was synergistic-parents and teachers working together. Today parents and teachers fight each other over silly stuff like "how dare you discipline my angel without my express permission".
The trend that disturbs me is why in heaven would a parent give a child access to Facebook? Facebook is not private-it is absolutely 100% public. The sooner people realize this . ..the better. Think of it this way Facebook is just a virtual extension of a very large building with multiple rooms (i.e. not unlike a chapel building). If you invite 100 people into a room in the church building for a meeting, is that a "private activity"? I hardly think so.
Only Mark Z. owns Facebook (i.e. the keys to the big building), he just allows everyone else access to separate rooms within that building. We like to say that our Facebook page is our "private" space-but if you rented a 1000sqft apt. building and then had 100 friends over every night, I'd be real hard pressed to argue that what goes on with those 100 friends is "private"-especially if those friends include ward leaders, youth leaders, etc.
If you are in the physical chapel and see a child misbehave in the chapel, what do you do? Tell the kid to knock it off? Or do you run to the parents and tell the parents to tell the kid to knock it off? Common sense dictates you directly tell the child to knock it off.
Facebook, is exactly the same. If you are posting junk to Facebook it is a public setting to all your friends. So I have no problem with some leader telling a kid to knock it off when they see stuff on Facebook.
This is why it continually amazes me all the really dumb things parents allow their children to do on the internet. It's like giving a 16 year old the keys to a brand new Camero and then being absolutely shocked with the Camero is trashed and the kid ends up in the hospital. Facebook is not private, it is public and I have absolutely no problem with a youth leader having a discussion with a youth on appropriate online activities.
-
36 minutes ago, Zarahemla said:
Can anyone who knows answer this question? Did marrying purely for love become a main thing in the 20th century? Does anyone know the history?
Personally, I think it just came about because of an increase in wealth and productivity. There are very beautiful modern day "love" stories in the Bible-but those stories generally correspond with individual who have great wealth. So I think not marrying purely for "love" was probably just a necessity and practicality. 100+ years ago, the vast majority of people lived in small-rural settings, there was no wide availability of suitors-so people probably weren't as "picky". They saw someone who they were attracted to, figured they would make a good spouse and got married. Sex wasn't seen as a commodity, there was no "hook-up" culture and from a young age they were taught to get married and raise a family, etc. it was just what you did to ensure the survival of the species.
Interestingly enough, one thing we don't take into account today is people's smell. It's been documented that the more your spouse is okay with and even likes your B.O. the more likely they will get along. I think God gave us natural BO to help us naturally down-select proper mates-but that is JMO.
-
I'm very glad for you Z, I know this is something you have struggled with. I'm very glad that you were able to receive guidance from the One who can give it. God. No matter the struggles, no matter how long it takes-He will provide a way for us to overcome the problems and struggles we are dealing with. I'm very glad that you finally received what you need to carry on with life and not let this bog you down.
-
2 minutes ago, Eowyn said:
Thanks @yjacket . It is a sobering thing to be raising this generation- crucially important and daunting at times. It's scary to see the things they're doing and faced with right now. I worry about them all the time.
Amen Eowyn. You and I certainly come at things from a different approach, different methodologies, different tones; but I feel very confident that we both have in common a love of the Gospel, a love of Jesus Christ, a desire to do what is right so we can live with Him again and a burning desire to pass that on to the next generation.
-
40 minutes ago, Godless said:
Remember, we're talking about a child. I have no problem with a bishop taking the initiative to councel an adult about troubling behavior. In the case of a child, the parents need to be involved in this process. Period. No exceptions. That's not to say that church leadership can't give general guidance without the parents' consent, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about a non-parent chastising a youth for perceived questionable behavior, and that role belongs to the parents and the parents only, unless the parents openly consent to having church leadership intervene on their behalf.
I don't particularly agree with this. I agree depending on the age. For a 12-year old, sure maybe depending on what it is. For a 16-17 year old child, not so much. They are very close to what should be adulthood-and up until about the early 20th century were expected at age 16-17 to act like it. Being an adult is not some magical process whereby poof one day your 17, the next day you are 18 and you're an adult! It is a process that takes a lot of time.
What being an adult is really about is emancipation from your parents and being responsible for your own actions. In today's society we have 24 year olds who are legally "adults" but who are far, far from being an adult-they have the attitude and mindset of a child inside a big body.
So absolutely no I do not agree with this for a 16-17 year old-they need to learn how to be an adult and that includes getting their junk together, being responsible for their behaviors and when necessary receiving direct counsel from someone other than their parents without them present.
We have parents who won't allow their 8 year old to receive a baptismal interview alone with the Bishop. What message does that send to the child? That either they or the Bishop is not responsible enough to have a conversation alone. If you are so afraid that the Bishop is going to do something to your kid, then what is the point? If I'm worried the Bishop is a perv. I'm not letting my kid go near them let alone have a conversation with them-I'd pull them out of the Church and go somewhere else.
If you notice a running thread here, it is one of trust. Trust in leadership, trust in those placed in those positions of authority vs. over someone who isn't in said position.
- Just_A_Guy and Backroads
-
2
-
15 minutes ago, Godless said:
The point is that leaving the parents out if this process was incredibly wrong. Maybe the behavior was concerning. It's up to the parents to decide how to handle it. If the youth leadership was concerned, that's where they should have gone, not directly to the child. I don't care if the YW prez is married to the bishop. The bishop doesn't decide when and where someone is called to repentance. Only the individual can determine if and when repentance is warranted. In this instance, the parents (and only the parents) can assist in that process.
I'm also a bit concerned by your apparent disposition to automatically distrust teenagers. Believe it or not, it's not that unusual for teens to have a healthy trust-based relationship with their parents. The key is for parents to earn that trust, and you do that by being compassionate as well as firm, not just bringing the hammer down for every little misstep.
The Bishop doesn't decide when and where? The Bishops main focus and calling is over the youth!! So yes, in fact he does-that is exactly his job. That's the problem with this world today "only the individual can determine if and when repentance is warranted" what kind of drivel is that? Well you know I just like smoking pot-I don't think it's bad so I don't need to repent and the Bishop has no authority to call the young man to repentance?
In today's society instead of telling the young man, "what you are doing is wrong", we form a committee, then we have a leadership counsel, then it's decided a big lesson should be given on the "dangers of drug use"-all the while hoping that the young man will understand and figure it out. Instead of just plainly, calmly, explaining exactly where to stand and that what he is doing is wrong and that he needs to repent.
It's not that I think every teenager is a lier-it's just that I trust leadership, wisdom and experience more than I trust youth, inexperience and immaturity. They have their perspective, which I'm sure for this girl is reality-it just most likely isn't an accurate portrayal of reality. Until I have direct words from leaderships mouth that give me pause to question their leadership-I'm going to automatically side with them.
Yes, I agree that a lot of teens have a trust relationship. But I also recognize that kids do stupid things and to never be surprised by some stupidity that even the best kids might do and that even the best kids will spin things in their favor if they want to avoid embarrassment. I was a teen once, I was a very good teen-but even as a very good teen-I still did the above. Avoided punishment, embarrassment and discipline when I could. Thankfully, I had good leaders who called me on the carpet when I did stupid stuff and I learned from it.
-
2 minutes ago, Eowyn said:
So we don't totally agree, and that's fine. It is possible to disagree and not cast aspersions. Just as these leaders were probably doing their best, ( and I did say early on that my responses were based on the girl's telling being accurate, which is reasonable to question but I was choosing not to for the conversation's sake), I believe we are all doing our best, even in our differences of opinion.
I do totally agree with this statement. My apologies for getting huffing as I'm sure it is with you the raising of the next righteous (hopefully) generation is critically important. We are only one generation away from apostasy-so getting it right is important. Even if we disagree on how that should be done.
-
17 minutes ago, Eowyn said:
Did they kiss?
Say they did on the video. I'd talk to the parents and probably bishop ASAP and proceed according to those conversations.
Are they kidding in front of me? Of course I'd stop it, probably say something about how it's inappropriate, separate them, and immediately proceed as above.
What is so offensive about involving parents? It seems like the liberal thing would be to give myself the authority to say whatever "felt" right.
How the situation is handled will affect their attitude toward church leaderships and authority the rest of their lives. Prayerful pausing is good. Bringing in help from people with stewardship over them is good.
Sometimes bringing down a hammer with a heavy hand does more lasting damage.
Totally agree, I don't think there is anything offensive in involving the parents-it would probably be a good thing. But I don't think not involving the parents is some horrible crime either. Sometimes a heavy hammer does more damage, sometimes a heavy hammer needs to be brought down.
My guess is the youth leader did talk to the Bishop-especially since they are married. I'm sure the actions they took where not taken willy-nilly nor did they just to say whatever they "felt" right. But we don't know, but maybe the Bishop already knows that this kid is a pretty good kid but that the parents aren't terribly supportive-maybe it's a less-active family. Maybe he knows that the parent doesn't have a good handle on the kid. There are a whole host of reasons why the parent(s) wasn't approached first that could be very good reasons.
My guess is the implementation went awry. I am not going to castigate and burn at the stakes a good leader who most likely thought about it, prayed about it, tried to do the right thing and then maybe said or did something that the young lady interpreted wrong. I'm going to support them in their endeavors and tell the young lady she should also support her leaders, regardless of whether she was offended. We are dealing with a 16-17 year old, old enough to start dealing with her own stuff without involving mom/dad at every action-it's called growing up.
And yes I would say that posting stuff on facebook falls under the realm of youth leaders. As I said, somehow the youth leaders found out about it. Either they are friends with the girl or another young lady was talking about it and they investigated. The stuff you post on Facebook isn't private-it's public.
-
16 minutes ago, Eowyn said:
I said THEIR sexuality. Context. Read the OP. Telling a YW she's putting off lesbian vibes or whatever. That's what I was referring to. You seem convinced that I'm some kind of liberal feminist or something, and if you had any grasp of who I am you'd laugh at how silly that is.
That's all the energy I am willing to give this.
So at what point does a youth leader have the right to step in? What if she kisses another girl during this livestream? In today's society, it is completely acceptable to kiss another girl and not be homosexual. So if she kisses another girl, the leadership doesn't have any right to step in and say that is unacceptable behavior? That deals with their sexuality.
16-17 years aren't mature, all it takes is one dare from some livestream viewer. "I bet you wouldn't kiss her lol, j/k!!" Okay, well I'll do it. The road to hell is paved one brick at a time. Maybe the youth leaders have very good information that the other girl really is homosexual and are simply trying to caution this girl from getting wrapped up in some experimentation that she doesn't need to be involved in.
This is where I go back to again and again. I trust the youth leaders over my children. For whatever reason, the youth leaders who have been called, who have the right and the authority to receive inspiration from Heaven felt that this behavior was inappropriate. So I trust them, that when they call my kids on the carpet they have a good reason for doing so. They see something that I can't, don't or won't see. And for that I thank them. If they were teaching my child something contrary to the gospel I would have a problem with it.
Nothing that they have said in the retelling is contrary to the gospel. You want to separate the two but you can't separate the two. Appropriate sexual behavior must be taught even more-so in today's society where kids are receiving so many mixed messages on what is and isn't appropriate sexuality.
-
5 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:
Luring a minor son or daughter to a park via deception, including deceiving me, would put me over the edge. I'd be on the sneaky adult's doorstep asking them what the heck?!?!
I agree with much of what you said; but I'm not convinced that "luring" is the right connotation or their intent. My guess as to what really kind of happened is something of the following.
YM president married to the Bishop sees this livestream video. She is aware of it and sees the dangers in it. She is concerned about it, recognizes that the girl is almost an adult-big enough to handle her own junk without involving Mom/Dad at every step. She probably discusses it with her husband-the Bishop! and the Bishop-her husband probably recognizes that it is potentially an issue. The Bishop does what happen in any leadership guidance. When a leader needs to counsel those whom he leads, he generally will make a good opportunity to do so.
This has happened to me plenty of times and I have done it plenty of times to others. The Zone Leader goes on splits with you as a missionary, during the course of splits he gives counsel and guidance-you go on splits as a District Leader, you go visit people and give counsel to those you lead. In fact, I actually relish and enjoy one-on-one moments with my leadership. It gives me an opportunity to learn from them and to receive counsel and guidance-regardless if I like it.
I highly doubt they came to the house, picked her up and immediately (once she was in the car) said "ah now that we have you sequester we are going to the park for a little chat" (queue evil grins and laughs).
My guess is the Bishop probably told the YW leader, you know there is a good opportunity to give some counsel to a young lady. Let's make a situation that allows for this opportunity. We can take one evening and go visit less actives (a good thing to do-that probably needs to be done) and during the course of that event, give counsel to this lady on appropriate behaviors. We can kill 2 birds with one stone. Teach her about leading, i.e. visiting less actives and at the same time give counsel on appropriate behavior.
The actual implementation of this probably went screwy, but again I highly doubt this is really a big deal. This is not a big deal folks. Again, rather than focus on the actual behavior that was wrong from the child-which makes me think that individuals really think the behavior wasn't a problem-people are all up in arms at leadership.
My goodness, I absolutely feel pity and sorry for any youth leaders. It's amazing we can even get anyone to accept the calling. With this kind of a response from people, I would never want to be a youth leader. The slightest thing I do will be perceived as me being a monster and horrible. No wonder our the next generation is out of whack-parents won't let them be raised.
To any youth leader, good luck you have my complete sympathies. It is sad to see the world's view of how parents are supposed to protect their child from every little thing infect the Church-good luck!
-
9 hours ago, Eowyn said:
yjacket you are so offensively off-base in your evaluation of who I am and what I think that it's not even worth trying to further clarify everything I've already said in this thread.
You say that yet you don't even put forth the effort to explain. I'm not evaluating you; you said "that it's a parent's say who/when they are spoken to about their sexuality."
What else do you mean by that? I can only interpret that to mean that YM/YW leaders have no right to discuss sexuality/homosexuality/LoC issues without the express permission of their parents. In other words; you seem to imply that in order for leaders to have a conversation about LoC, they must first inform you. "Hey Eowyn, we are planning to have a talk about LoC/homosexuality/sexuality tomorrow night? Are you good with that?" You seem to want that kind of head's up, yet you completely ignore that the vast majority of teaching occurs spontaneously. A good leader knows when to take advantage of an appropriate situation to discuss in further detail something. My point is that by virtue of putting a child in YM/YW you have already invested a priori that power and authority with the leadership to teach and exhort the youth over spiritual and temporal matters (i.e. LoC/sexuality). If you can't or won't accept this than either a) pull your kids out of YM/YW or b) the Church should stop teaching LoC.
Look, if the leader was teaching some wack-o doctrine, i.e. to a boy-"you need to be friendly to lots of girls b/c one day you'll might be polygamously married to several of them in the next life", yeah okay we might have an issue. But they weren't, they were counseling on the dangers of social media and homosexual relationship.
And yes, considering that modern pop-culture has junk like "I kissed a girl and I like it" by Katy Perry, Miley Cyrus, Transgender people on the cover of Time Magazine, etc. -abso-freaking-lutey do I want leaders discussing and talking about appropriate sexual behaviors to my children on an age appropriate level.
This comes down to a world-view, either these types of behaviors are appropriate or they aren't appropriate. If they are not of God, then considering how much pop-culture is indoctrinating children that these behaviors are totally fine, children need as much reinforcement from leadership explaining and exhorting them that it is not appropriate. I guarantee you if you as a parent are the only one teaching that they are not appropriate b/c you deem that it is only within your preview to do so. You children will have a much harder time distinguishing between right and wrong. You may want to be the only one teaching them about this stuff-but in today's society you need you leaders to be teaching them this stuff.
So do you or do you not agree with their basic teachings? If you don't agree with their basic teaching-then take it up with the Church. If you do agree with the premise but just disagree with how they went about doing it-fine all leaders make mistakes-big deal.
I don't know which it really is, but you seem to indicate that you have a problem with the actual teaching of LDS doctrine against homosexual behavior and modesty. I could be completely wrong-if I am-great. But if I am wrong, the please recognize that the leaders were most likely trying to do their best to help the youth avoid pitfalls rather than being jerks.
Crisis of Faith - Dear John Letters
in Marriage and Relationship Advice
Posted
LB,
I would simply chalk it up to the girl being immature. Should she be upfront and forthright-yes. Should she break off any steady relationship prior to dating another, yes. Did she make a bad decision in getting engaged and in breaking it off quickly, yes. Do I like it, no. Am I glad I'm not in the dating game today, absolutely. I personally found most of the "dating game" silly and immature myself.
But I chalk most if not all of it up to the fickleness and immaturity of youth and it has been happening for centuries. There are some great poems and plays expressing some of the same feelings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Expectations and the movie come to mind-and also note the upbringing of those who are fickle in love.
I think it is more prevalent today simply because of our modern day culture. If you are looking for anyone to blame; blame the fact that less is expected of children these days, they are in general more coddled, have more hand-holding and less responsibility than any generation. They are less likely to be self-sufficient and less likely to be fully formed adults at the age of adulthood. So by the time they reach a marrying age, instead of actually being adults they are children trying to act like adults-and they might fail miserably.
Before castigating others for doing this, look into yourself. How responsible are you? Would you make a good husband? If you are extremely responsible than thank your lucky stars you did not marry someone so fickle. Because I guarantee after the honeymoon is over and the real work of a marriage begins-you would be unequally yolked and would have some major, major problems.
As far as the Church solving the problem or Church culture, how exactly do you propose the Church solve the root problem, which is lack of maturity and responsibility? No amount of talks over the pulpit is going to address this issue. Gaining maturity and responsibility comes from personal action and being given assignments and then being held responsible for fulfilling them; it comes from allowing people to fail and make mistakes-not from talks addressing this issue. To solve the problem begins, long, long before dating/marrying age.
My guess is that in the hereafter, that young lady will probably approach you and say STTE "I'm really sorry I hurt you, I was young immature and it wasn't right, please forgive me".
Let it go man and find a mature girl who you can enjoy life with and grow old together.