yjacket

Well the whole thing about live-streaming in a swimsuit seems seedy to me to. . . but no one gives a rip about that. It's all "oh those horrible leaders, how dare they correct MY child!!!). If the kid is old enough to live stream on Facebook with a friend alone in a bathtub, they are darn well old enough to receive one-on-one instruction from leadership.

??? So we should stop teaching the Law of Chastity in Church now? I remember several times growing up the discussions of don't do this don't do that without parents. Come on anatess . . .seriously? That is part of what the Church is for, should we now fill out disclosure forms every time we have a LoC conversation with teens? How many times do I remember the, don't have sex, don't neck, don't masturbate, don't pett, etc. without parents there? Plenty! Was it uncomfortable, yeah of course. But that's part of life, learning to deal with uncomfortable situations. Deal with it.

Well by goodness, she should just leave the Church over this too!!! Talk about an over-reaction based on a 3rd hand story from a 16 year old!!! Who did something incredibly stupid (and possibly illegal if at any point in time private body parts were show).

(Big sigh). Everyone is taking the story of the daughter at face value and hardly anyone is giving the leadership the benefit of the doubt-so, so sad. Everyone is believing the word of a 16 year old and no one has actually talked to the leadership who are probably at least 2x-4x the age of the girl have raised kids, lived life, etc. What a sad, sad world we live in where the 3rd hand story of a 16 year old is elevated and given such stature without even confirming that it is true. Despicable.

And the amazing thing is that if you listen to what they are telling you, you just might find out some truths that can help you better raise your child. The other day my kid got in trouble for humming in line at school (he's young and I thought well that's dumb that he got in trouble for humming-he made it seem like it was just him-of course I didn't ask him if it was just him). Well parent-teacher conference was the next couple of days, the teacher brought it up that there were 7-8 boys all making a bunch of racket of which my son was one-who was adding to the racket by humming. Then I said to myself, ah I originally that it was pretty ticky tacky to get in trouble for humming, but now I know why-it wasn't just him (if it had been he prob. wouldn't have gotten in trouble) it was a gaggle of boys being rowdy. I had two choices, I could have gone in half-cocked thinking you idiot teacher why are you being so controlling or just let it go. I let it go and then found out the story from her perspective. I also could have undercut the teachers authority by telling my son "your teacher is an idiot to get you in trouble for that", but I didn't, I just said well you best obey your teacher and stay out of trouble. My son knows I back up the teacher and he can't play me against his teacher. It has to be really bad for me to take my son's side and I'm sure at some point I might have to-but I also recognize that he is going to spin getting in trouble with his teacher in the absolute best light possible.

I do agree that is probably the nugget of truth. They did talk to her about it, but the manner, the intentions, etc who knows. I personally don't think that YM/YW leadership needs to talk to parents about every behavioral/spiritual thing they see. I know growing up, there were plenty of times I was corrected by youth leadership without my parents knowledge-in fact that is actually one of the problems with today's society is that collectively everyone is afraid to discipline someone else's kid for exactly this reason. If you tell a child "that was bad", the child reacts tells mommy/daddy, mommy/daddy get in a big huff, defend the child, leadership/teacher gets defensive and child comes out smelling like a rose and an angel and leadership/teacher looks like the bad guy. This is why children grow up entitled, spoiled brats. They are unwilling and unable to take correction from anyone else and every time they get it they call mommy. I expect/want/need leadership/teachers to discipline my child when I'm not there and without my supervision. That is why they are leaders, I trust them to do the right thing, the best way they know how. I don't expect them to be perfect, but my children need mentors and correction from other outside of my supervision. What I do ask is that when it is bad enough, discipline my child, then tell me so I can also discipline them. They can get it in class and then get it when they come home. This really doesn't bother me that much, leadership trying to do it's job the best it can. The only thing that bothers me is that IMO this raises to the level that in addition to leadership providing mentoring/counsel/discipline, I need to be involved in it. But really, people get upset b/c a YM leader has a talk with their son at Scout Camp about appropriate behavior (i.e. bullying, etc. or about modesty?) without informing the parent prior to doing so. Quite frankly, why is everyone in a big huff about it? The child did something that was clearly inappropriate, leadership handled it and everyone is all up in arms at leadership? I feel for anyone in those positions today. I can't imagine being one, having to watch everything you say for fear that some parent will come and "tattle" on me b/c precious Johnny would never do xyz and "how dare you treat him like that", get called into the Bishop's office, etc. Nope no thankyou!

Vort said it much better than me!! Completely agree with Vort. I would add, that I would only be ticked at the leadership not for pulling an end around but for not letting me know so I could also impress upon my child the inappropriateness of doing this behavior. But if the parent thinks this type of stuff is totally cool-not much you can do about that.

No, I'm not backtracking at all and I didn't miss the point. IF the story is exactly like it is told, then yeah the Bishop should probably be involved. But it most likely did not go down that way. If probably went like this . . .let's go visit less-actives, they go visit less actives, (hey this is also a good opportunity to discuss appropriate on-line behavior) in a good setting-and in fact I would expect leadership to have those types of conversations with the kid-it's called mentoring and I had it all the time growing up. The conversation probably was completely benign and more likely was just a hey we really need to be careful about xyz. If that's the conversation, I have absolutely 0 problem with it. If the conversation was one where it was very harsh and denigrating then I might have a problem with it. A lot of it has to do with tone and how it was done. However, the story told to the parent is probably very different than what actually happened. And a parent should be able to tell within a couple min. conversation with the actual leadership about which version happened.

No, they aren't but teenagers aren't adults either and with teenagers you never quite know exactly what they will and won't do. And again I'd first talk to the leadership before going off half-cocked on the Bishop.

And you can't separate the behavior from the incident as they are intertwined. Yeah, well a lot of parents do suck in today's society. . . just look at their offspring to see it. No, I'm just simply saying to talk to the leadership before talking to the bishop? What logical reason do you have for not talking to the leadership first?

Oh and are we getting snowballed here? Is Lillyflowers the mother or the child-the OP is written like an adult but then the birthdate on the account is in 2000, i.e. the actual 16-17 year old girl? And if we are getting snowball . . . I caught you. (if not ignore).

No, it is possible that this was a conversation they had; they might not have thought it was that big of a deal to talk to the parents about. Anatess you are seeing blood here instead of taking the logical approach which is talk to the leadership first-then if necessary talk to the Bishop. Why is this so blasted hard?

Daggummit . . .I'm not implying that LilyFlower is lying. REREAD WHAT I WROTE!!!!! I'm implying that LilyFlower's daughter is a 16 year old immature drama queen who probably/maybe took things out of context and provided a bad story to her mother. IF it went down like the daughter says it did, then it might be an issue. My guess is that it did not go down like she said it did b/c teens are teens and especially girls are DRAMA QUEENS!!! More importantly, the point missed here is that the actual behavior of the child (i.e. livestreaming on Facebook in a bathtub is inappropriate)

Maybe they were out of line, maybe not. Again, Lilyflowers hasn't even talked to the leadership to find out their version!!! My goodness, this is parenting 101, when your child comes how from school complaining about the teacher, the first thing you do is go to the teacher and talk to them. You don't go straight to the principle. This isn't an emergency situation that must be done TODAY!!! It needs to be addressed but there is time to do it right instead of going off half-cocked.

Anatess, we don't know what is going on. You don't elevate directly to the Bishop without first talking to the leaders. Find out what their version of the story is . . .then if necessary elevate. My big beef here is that in today's society we believe the child over the leadership absolutely backwards. Believe the adult/leadership first, if the story doesn't add up, then believe the child. THIS is why kids grow-up entitled!!!! It may not have been false pretenses. If it was go to the Bishop-but you won't know until you talk to the leadership first. Dealing with a 16-17 year old kid . . .who are you going to believe the immature kid or the leadership? That's why you find out from the leadership what happened then depending on what they say, how they say it if necessary elevate. At the same time, discuss with child appropriate use of social media.

I calls 'em like I see 'em-it is a dumb idea (not that you are dumb, just that the idea to allow a 16-17 year-old to do this is so, so dumb). Sorry to bust your bubble. (the bold only according to her) LOL,ROFL, LOL. really?? Okay, keep living in the social media dream world. All it takes is 1 . . .just 1 person to record it and it is gone into the wild. Not only that but Facebook and all the media organization have records of it (yes they keep digital copies of everything!). You can use the "waybackmachine" to get snapshots of a website at a previous point in time. Trust me, if someone wants it they can get it.

anatess, something else is going on here . . .this doesn't meet my sniff test.

Lilyflowers, I'm going to guess there is something more that is going on here than what you have told us as several red flags in the story light up. My guess is your daughter is giving you a version of the story that isn't quite the truth and probably contains a lot of bs in it too and my guess is she has probably got you wrapped around her finger to believe her every word and to come to her aid at the drop of a hat. First off your daughter is 16-17; teenagers are mischievous (even the good ones), they don't tell the truth all the time, they try to get away with things. They are trying to be adults but not quite ready to be adults and some are more mischievous than others; girls are going to be boy crazy and utter drama queens, boys will be causing some mayhem . . . my motto is trust but verify. There is her version of the truth (warped by her still immature not fully formed brain), the version of the leaders and then the actual truth. Her version of the truth makes it seem like they planned out this "secret", premeditated behind the back way of jumping her. I highly doubt that is the actual truth. Before you go off all half-cocked ready to give someone a piece of your mind, it might be good just have a calm, rational discussion with the leaders. After church, "Hi, Katie (whatever her name is) came home very upset the other night after visiting less actives, I couldn't quite make out the full story-would you mind telling me what happened?" Very calm, very rational-not in a momma bear mode, but in a "I'd like to understand their perspective mode" Now, I will give a piece of my mind :-). What the heck?? Why in the world are you allowing your kids to use Facebook and livestream??? There is absolutely no redeeming value for a 16 year old to be live-streaming on Facebook. Kids these days can't even carry on a normal conversation b/c they are stuck in social media world. And yes, I do think livestreaming being in bathtub in swimsuits is a bad thing. What exactly is the point of livestreaming on Facebook being in the bathtub? Anyone can have access to it; just send them a link-and once the link is sent out-you can't control who it goes to-even if it is password protected. This has got to be one of the dumbest ideas that a parent would let their 16-17 year old live stream being in the bathtub with swimsuits. All the idiot girl needs to do (and yes a 16-17 year old is an idiot), is send the link to Billy. Billy thinks it's great and sends the link to Joe. Now Joe sends it to his 15 best friends and before you know it 20 16-17 year old (or maybe even older!!!) kids are watching your daughter in a bathtub with her swimsuit on. Do you see where this is going??? Billy sends a text to your daughter, "hey show a little bit of shoulder baby, j/k, lol :-)!!!!" So, yeah, if I'm a leader over youth, you dang right, I'd give her a piece of my mind for doing something idiotic like that . . . and I'd give the parents a piece of my mind too!! And if you think "oh my daughter would never do that!!" Think again, you've given her access to the world-if my 8 year old can figure out how to reset passwords, manipulate web browsers, etc. I guarantee your 16-17 year old is smart enough to have a second account on the side and only tell her mom the things she wants to hear to make her out like an innocent little angel.

That's only b/c we can pick them off from 3000 miles away; you bet your bottom dollar it would come back if we ever picked a fight with a real target instead of just beating up on 2-bit dictators to flex our muscles and show the world who the King of the Hill is.

Trust me a used junker pays it's way in spades. I've got a junker that costs me 1-2k/year in maintenance-still much better than paying 5-6k/year on payments. They only way buying a new car makes sense is if you are going to drive it until the wheel fall off (and even then you will come out ahead if you buy a cheap used junker). If/when those maintenance cost start really going up (3k/year) then I'll consider ditching it-that or it completely breaks down-probably happen first. You're wedding, but while we are doling out financial advice :-). Weddings should be cheap-get married in the temple (no cost), reception (use the church building, maybe 500 in food costs?). The biggest expense would be the honeymoon. Since your fiance works, I would also advise challenging yourselves to live off of 50% of the take home from your salary. Save the rest. Don't really splurge until you have at least 6 months-1 year of living expenses. At some point, you'll probably have kids and if you are smart you'll want to make sure your wife stays at home with the kids. Trust me on this one . . .life happens. People get sick, you lose your job, economy goes in the toilet. Be prepared. Having a financial reserve and no debt has saved my bacon when my world was crumbling into tiny pieces. I will also say you should take a portion of the money you save and buy some hard assets with, gold and silver. Some people might laugh but you know what, one day the crap just might hit the fan and you might find the internet down or the banking system has a meltdown. It has happened to plenty of other countries over the past 10-20 years. And I guarantee you will always be able to take hard physical assets and get money for it. And if you decide to use long-term debt; use it for something productive like starting a business not for something that just sits away and rots (a house). Just some crazy advice from the guy who bought 2 houses with cash :-).

LOL . . .high paying jobs in SF that's a good one. I've checked, my skillset doesn't transfer to anything close to what I can get elsewhere (when comparing apples to apples). I'm in tech-software engineer. I'm sure they'd love to have me in San Jose. No thank you!!!! I'd get maybe a 10-20% pay bump. The only people who stay in SF over the long term and deal with the housing mess there are people who are like those in DC-just so enamored with the place that they can't see the forest for the trees. Plenty of high-tech jobs all over the US that will pay good money (not as much actually salary-but your lifestyle will be much better). And until people vote with their feet SF and the rest of the bubble cities will get more and more expensive.

??? Yeap and most people can't just magically pull off making an extra 20k a year to pay the interest when things get tight.

Ah but that was part of my plan. I saved all my money to pay for cash in one of the highest priced home markets out there-DC. I made good money, rented dirt cheap-I never paid more than 1k/month including utilities for rent all at the same time supporting a wife and a new baby. I made tons of sacrifices and then when the time was right I moved to a place that had a much lower cost of living and bought for cash at the same time getting a pay increase to move. Anyone trying to buy a home in SF is just nuts-that's why I don't live there or plan to raise a family there. Plenty of places in the USA that have good jobs and a much lower cost of living; you just have to be willing to find them :-). I literally don't think a company could pay me enough money to move to SF- they would easily have to pay me 250k+ for me to live the same lifestyle I have where I currently live and I make a fraction of that. Oh plus right now, is probably not a very smart time to be buy a home-probably smarter to be selling a home. Housing prices are nominally right about the same price before the '08 collapse; but since that was 9 years ago no one remembers the lessons of it. Echo-bubble. A lot of the similar mindset and attitudes are prevailing like I saw in '05-06 when I first graduated. It's not as bad and I don't think it will get as bad-but mark my words we are in for a recession and a housing drop. A few more interest rate hikes from the Fed. should pop this bubble. And this is the reason why I hate credit; our economy is a debt-based economy and the Fed. causes the business cycle-the "Masters of the Universe"-blah.

Because war is absolute hell on earth; nothing else can compare to it. Why would we subject women to that hell? In addition, war is built for men. On average men have longer endurance, greater strength, greater fortitude and more mental toughness. You call it sexist, I call it reality. Just the simple things of being able to relive oneself is much better suited to men in combat (unless you would like women to wear dresses in combat?). Then add the combination of men and women in a testosterone driven environment camping together, living together, fighting together. . . if they didn't fraternize I'd be surprised. The moment you add a women into a group of all males, the dynamics change-it is just the reality of it. It's just the way it is; men and women are built differently, think differently and respond differently. If you want women fighting, at least keep them completely separated from the men; if I'm knee deep in the crap and my legs get blown out, no way in hades I want a woman beside me to get me to the chopper.

Now that you have said a little more; I agree. That situation sucks. That's just horrible that they have 6 kids and the dude was with an underage teen. In jail for several years . . .wow. I'm not one to advocate divorce, but she probably should have left him yesterday. Is there anything in your sister-in-laws background, was there abuse as a child-did she live in an environment that was not a good upbringing? The reason why I ask is that not only is there a certain attitude for the abuser but the abused also has a certain attitude and bares some responsibility for the relationship. Most women would probably never put up with this level-but she is . . .why? I'm sure it isn't just because she loves him. Until she figures that out, even if she left him today-she would most likely end up with another man who was abusive in a similar way. But it might be good for her to figure out what she can do on her own so that when her husband gets out, she will be a different person and he will have to change.