yjacket

It was on the jumbo screen, too.
Yeah, in retrospect that was pretty cruel of me.

Then your faith is sorely misplaced...  Christ needs to be the focus...  Not the actions of flawed foolish mortals...
And if a large part of people say and think that waiting for a missionary is a poor choice and unlikely to work...  Then when we are proven right we are not going to go off in a fit of righteous indignation (which is want you appear to want).  The best we are going to do is "I told you so, maybe next time you will listen"

I touched on this on my other post, but I'm sorry, this rubs me the wrong way. 
My brother had a scout camp girlfriend in his teenager years. They went to different schools during the off-season, but fairly dated for several years. He went on his mission, she got engaged to someone else. She cancelled that wedding two weeks before it was to happen and zipped back to my brother when he returned from his mission. They dated a month, broke up, and they're both happily married to other people (we all still keep in touch).
"I will wait for you" is generally a dumb promise to make. Yes, we all have our cute stories of that one couple we know, but I don't think the average couple should be getting engaged over two years of a mission. As has been said already in this thread, you're young, you're still figuring out who you are. 
My brother and his camp girlfriend made no such promise. Their relationship went how it went, and all ended well. It might be for the best they didn't wind up together (and not just because my sister-in-law is an interior decorator who is going to help me with my kitchen.)
I don't think forcing a relationship is "dealing honestly with your fellow men." Even if some young doe-eyed girl makes a promise to wait for her missionary and marry him upon his return and winds up falling for another worthy young man (please feel free to change gender and  extended departure scenario as needed). She found someone else and broke up with a guy. It happens, and I don't think the mission scenario makes it any different or special than any other break-up scenario. Painful, perhaps very painful, but I don't know if it's temple unworthy dishonesty. 
Yes, waiting for a missionary sounds terribly romantic and gushy. But it's not realistic in a non-arranged marriage society. 
I'm married, but I would have hated to have my temple worthiness tied to waiting for a missionary. If I committed myself fully to every promise of marriage just because it was nice at the time, I'd still be waiting on a kid that moved in 3rd grade. 
 
 
She hasn't pledged to spend eternity with him until they are kneeling across the alter and the ceremony is complete. 

First of all if getting a Dear John during a person's mission causes a Crisis of Faith then that person's faith is sorely misplaced.
Now I don't know what culture everyone else has been exposed to during that mission age.   But I know that I was totally informed of the dangers of Dear Johns before  serving a mission.  I heard many stories of Dear Johns and how had different impacts to different people.  I also heard stories about those that waited and how only a few worked out (but yes some did)
This is the culture I was exposed to... and then I was considered an adult and left to make my own choices in how to handle dating, the matter no matter how foolish other might think they are.
As for being committed...  If you want commitment then get married...  Until then people are just dating and can break up for any reason... Including changing their mind about a long distance relationship.  After all we would much rather someone Dear John a hundred missionaries then terminate 1 marriage 

DoctorLemon is absolutely right on this. 
Our current modern culture, for better or for worse, is generally not ready to commit to eternal marriage at these young ages. 
Yes, it's certainly a low blow to be cuddling up with another young man/woman after your significant other has left on the mission/military/journey to the center of the earth. 
But... is it also wise to be getting engaged before a mission? Is it wise to be getting all romantic and placing these expectations on others?
I have trouble saying Dear Johning is unacceptable. It's a relationship, it ended, and John wasn't physically present. Do we really want to require every young man/woman to wait for a missionary?
Yes, it's best to discourage the serious relationship early on than to get into that kind of mess.

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. 

I think a distinction can be made between reprimanding and advising. A trusted non-parent adult advising a teenager on personal matters is fine and happens all the time. It's the parents who freak out, because the kid is seeking or getting advise from someone other than themselves. Sorry to break it to all you parents of teens, but they are seeking and getting advise from all over the place, which you have no control over. Better to teach them what advise to take or not to take, i.e., how to reflect on all advise that they receive and how to discern when to slap and when to thank. 

I don't have a problem with a trusted adult talking with someone else's kid. 
i do have a problem with the same trusted adult not being transparent with the girl's mother. It just needed to be a phone call to the mom, beforehand. That's the what the heck, I mean. 
Each situation is different. With this one being on social media, I think it is even more appropriate for a youth leader to have the discussion with the girl. For more than one reason, including other teens in the group have seen the video and may be unsure about one or more things. The youth leader has a responsibility to all of the girls in the group. 

Completely agree Vort.  I think we are seeing society fracture apart at its seams. 
I'm very libertarian, but I also believe that for any society to stay together cohesively as a society that there needs to be an underlying structure that is simply understood.  
The underlying structure that is replacing the old is "do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt someone else it's okay and anyone who tells you differently is a bigot, racist, homophobic, etc. etc. etc.". I'm libertarian, but not libertine. I believe laws and the power to take away someone's life, liberty, property should only be done in very few cases.  We shouldn't put people in jail for smoking a joint, but at the same time as a society we should be very pro-active in saying "doing drugs is bad". We seem to be heading down the road of saying "doing drugs is bad" is bad and laws are just made up by whoever has the power to make them.
This is where I do not believe in any way, shape or form that diversity/multi-culturism is "good".  Too much diversity and there is no underlying common decency, unwritten rules, etc., people don't know how to interact with each other b/c they are coming from two polar opposites.  When you come from such drastic opposites, how can you form a society? As such, we each become our own "tribes" formed around our own "interest groups". We have "friends" that are part of xyz club that we only talk about xyz, we have "friends" that are part of abc club and we only talk about abc with them.
We get into it here plenty; but regardless of how much we get into it, we all have an underlying basis and understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  It unifies us even when we get upset, offend others or are offended, even when we emphatically and forcefully disagree.
What happens in most of society when these same types of issues crop up, but there is not underlying basis that unifies?  
Society splits apart.

One of the problems in this world in today in teaching children.  No one actually, you know, directly confronts the child and says, xyz is wrong-don't do it.  If one child has a problem, we baby them, we give the lesson to everyone while really giving the lesson to only one kid so as to afford any "awkward" situation.
No one wants to make the actual child with the problem the responsible party so we instead socialize the entire instruction that needs to be directly addressed to the child.  It is good to make a child frustrated, it is good to directly call them out. It lets them know unequivocally where we stand and where they should stand too.  
Now, we shouldn't be jerks about it, but this socialization of one individuals problem to the entire group is balderdash.  And that is one thing that kids are missing the most in today's society that one-on-one personal instruction/mentoring/etc.  Every leader today wants to be their "friend" instead of being their leader, it's quite frankly crap.
None of my leaders growing up were my friend, they were my leaders, I respected them, I had great relationships with them, but they sure weren't my "friend".

If it was some random dude, I would agree.  But it wasn't some random dude, it was an instructor.  That is not being a perv.
Geez, I feel like I'm living in the twilight zone.  Did no one ever have gym class?  Did no one ever go to high school where the skirt couldn't be 3 inches above the knee.  Male teacher "that skirt is too short and immodest" . . .now it's (gasp!!!!!, HE'S A PERV!!!!!).
Give me a break. 

No. I don't regard that at all.  I can look at 6 year old girls at the beach see a bikini on them, "be offended" (who knows what words the guy actually used-memories are faulty), think to myself "why!!!" without being a perv.
Unfortunately society has trained people to think that the only reason someone would say something like this is if they are a perv and that just isn't the case.

Totally wrong, this is absolutely 100% wrong.  Discipline does not mean punishment (although it can).
Giving a kid a dirty look is discipline, sitting them in the corner is discipline, teaching them mentoring them on how to behave is discipline.
Without the ability to discipline a teacher cannot teach.  You just don't have any clue as to what you are talking about here.
I don't think I have ever disagreed with you more anatess.
And the above is why this world is in such a mess culturally.  Parents want to protect their "babies" so much that they don't want anyone else to discipline them.  The kids end up being spoiled, unruly brats, disrespectful of authority, etc.  
Authority and leadership requires the ability to discipline, without it-leadership does not work. Period. End of Story. One can never be a leader if one does not have the ability to discipline-it just doesn't work.
(notice, I said discipline-which may or may not include "punishment").
By the mere virtue of putting your children in YM/YW you already have given a portion stewardship to those leaders to discipline your child. If you don't want them to discipline your baby-then don't put them in the program.
It is critically important for children to learn about and respect proper authority figures.  Being an adult requires as such; I get pulled over by the cops, I don't get to throw a tantrum and tell the cop-you're a pig I hate you (regardless of what I might think).  My boss requires my respect as an authority figure regardless of whether I agree or disagree with his opinions. I have many authority figures in my life who I am required to give respect to, submit to and receive guidance, counseling and discipline from.  
The earlier a child learns that authority comes in all different shapes, sizes and flavors the better life will be for them; if you undercut the authority and leadership of a Church leader by saying "they never have the right to discipline MY child".  What lesson are you really teaching your kids?
The lesson you are really teaching your children is that they don't have to answer to anyone!  That they are "above the law", no one can discipline them but their parents.  When they get to be adults, that same attitude prevails and that is why we have a narcissistic society full of a bunch of entitled jerks.

Lol, not at all you said " But, teaching my child about what is sexually inappropriate behavior? "  Those were your words, not mine.  This isn't just about a bathtub it is about livestreaming in a bathtub and concern on leaderships part about homosexuality, there is a big, big difference.  And no one has asked the question how did the leaders find out about this?
The other question is why would leadership be worried about homosexuality?  My guess is their are other indicators (they could be wrong indicators), that lead them to believe this.  As a parent rather than castigate them, I'd want to understand more why they feel so inclined that this is an issue--is there something that they see that I don't see??
I highly doubt the parent or the girl told them? Obviously someone told them otherwise how would they find out . . . I doubt they facebook stalk the girls-maybe they are facebook friends?  If they are and saw the livestream then yes I would say they should explain that it's not appropriate and explain more than just 5-6 kids see this.
Again, we don't know the full story, all we have been told is 3rd hand information from a 16 year old who will obviously spin the actual truth into whatever makes her look like an angel.  
And as someone said, they don't even have to make an overt lie about it; they just see whatever is presented and believe they are in the right, the leaders are in the wrong and their retelling of the story will end up putting good light on her and bad light on the leaders. This isn't rocket science, we all do this all the time.
That is why I have said talk to her leadership in a calm, rational manner.
This might be a big deal, but until further information is known or gathered I'm inclined to give leadership the benefit of the doubt rather than the child.

Thus the joke....  
 
As the OP stated that one of the women in question is married to the Bishop, I can see where alternative solutions could be presented. (Especially when we have so little information about the entirety of the matter.) If @Vort and @person0 would read carefully what I said, they would see that I never insinuated that the EQP had anything to do with the young woman's presidency... 

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!  

I like most of what you said, however, the EQP has exactly 0 stewardship in this situation.  The keys the EQP holds have nothing to do with this woman's issue.  His stewardship only applies as it pertains to Home Teaching for this family, but not the Young Women's leaders because they are a side organization not a subordinate organization.  He is not the person to go to at all, unless he is their friend and they just want some friendly advice (but isn't that why they posted here?).

Not sure if I understand you correctly. But to clarify, the elders quorum president does not hold keys to the Young Women's program. These ward auxiliaries are all under the auspices of the bishop.
Not to flog a dead horse too much, but we do not have any story from the YW president, only a second-hand report originating in a 16-year-old with hurt feelings. We might be wise to temper our judgment on this matter.

To me, it isn't about discipline a child.  It's about a worker in the ministry being able and willing to take criticism and correction from someone higher up in the ministerial hierarchy without (pardon the insensitivity here) running home to mommy about it.
And while I realize an earlier comment in this vein was tongue-in-cheek; I think there was a healthy dose of truth there:  If one isn't prepared to handle the accountability and the emotional difficulties of the ministry, then--male or female--one shouldn't be agitating for a place in the ministry.

To be fair, I don't think it's the place of anyone to correct a well meaning adult on their modesty as it relates to swimwear or much else. They're adults. If it's legal, follows the clearly defined rules/policies of whatever institution, etc., then who's place is it to determine where the cut becomes too "french" for another adult? Knowing backroads was 24, this really becomes a matter of adults having the right to determine such things for themselves.

Completely agree Vort.  I think we are seeing society fracture apart at its seams. 
I'm very libertarian, but I also believe that for any society to stay together cohesively as a society that there needs to be an underlying structure that is simply understood.  
The underlying structure that is replacing the old is "do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt someone else it's okay and anyone who tells you differently is a bigot, racist, homophobic, etc. etc. etc.". I'm libertarian, but not libertine. I believe laws and the power to take away someone's life, liberty, property should only be done in very few cases.  We shouldn't put people in jail for smoking a joint, but at the same time as a society we should be very pro-active in saying "doing drugs is bad". We seem to be heading down the road of saying "doing drugs is bad" is bad and laws are just made up by whoever has the power to make them.
This is where I do not believe in any way, shape or form that diversity/multi-culturism is "good".  Too much diversity and there is no underlying common decency, unwritten rules, etc., people don't know how to interact with each other b/c they are coming from two polar opposites.  When you come from such drastic opposites, how can you form a society? As such, we each become our own "tribes" formed around our own "interest groups". We have "friends" that are part of xyz club that we only talk about xyz, we have "friends" that are part of abc club and we only talk about abc with them.
We get into it here plenty; but regardless of how much we get into it, we all have an underlying basis and understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  It unifies us even when we get upset, offend others or are offended, even when we emphatically and forcefully disagree.
What happens in most of society when these same types of issues crop up, but there is not underlying basis that unifies?  
Society splits apart.

One nuance from the OP that I missed earlier, is that one of the YW leaders involved is married to the bishop.

I don't have a problem with telling the bishop anything any time. What I have a problem with is the implications (USUALLY IN ALL CAPS) that THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT MUST BE REPORTED!!! The tone implies something other than the idea: I'd let the bishop know because he's the ward's steward, and otherwise I'd forgive and forget.

I think this is a relevant issue, and one I don't really understand how to approach.
On the one hand, we have societal pressure for men in general never, ever to correct women in general, and specifically for adult men never to correct a girl or young woman on immodesty. Though this is overwrought and counterproductive in many instances, it's clear that such strictures arose from completely inappropriate actions of men toward women, and that there is at least a little wisdom behind such pressure.
On the other hand, we have the teachings of the gospel and the expectation that we take an active, even parental, interest in the development and well-being of the youth around us. That is our generational responsibility to them. At times, that might even include some sort of censure.
People like me want these rules spelled out in a nice, concise, logical, easily identifiable format, e.g. Men, don't ever correct a young woman on her dress under any circumstance. Even if she's running around naked, just call her parents (or the cops) and let them deal with it. But such rigid rules are impossible; we are forced to use "common sense". And unfortunately, as we all know, what's common sense to one person is uncommon sense to another, and nonsense to a third.
Our society now is presently at a stage where we aren't really supposed to say anything to anyone, ever (unless it's a liberal excoriating a conservative, but that's a separate discussion). This has even crept into parent-child relationships, where parents are afraid to correct their own children. The pendulum has swung very much too far toward the permissive and the "keep-your-mouth-shut" side. This is far worse than some normal situation, since it appears that people today can't agree on where the pendulum should be, or even whether we should keep the pendulum at all or just remove all constraint.