person0

Why wouldn't you just film it and keep it for family use only?
I feel that what the leaders did was inappropriate, but in general, social media is just way too much these days with how people use it.  I have stopped using social media altogether because, although I'm not a particularly private person, people just put every thing they do, and who really cares about what you had for dinner, or that your child got a participation trophy in the 3 legged race, etc, etc, etc?
That being said, you've certainly got a memory, this experience will remain with you both for the rest of your lives  (unless you get Amnesia) 

Why wouldn't you just film it and keep it for family use only?
I feel that what the leaders did was inappropriate, but in general, social media is just way too much these days with how people use it.  I have stopped using social media altogether because, although I'm not a particularly private person, people just put every thing they do, and who really cares about what you had for dinner, or that your child got a participation trophy in the 3 legged race, etc, etc, etc?
That being said, you've certainly got a memory, this experience will remain with you both for the rest of your lives  (unless you get Amnesia) 

Why wouldn't you just film it and keep it for family use only?
I feel that what the leaders did was inappropriate, but in general, social media is just way too much these days with how people use it.  I have stopped using social media altogether because, although I'm not a particularly private person, people just put every thing they do, and who really cares about what you had for dinner, or that your child got a participation trophy in the 3 legged race, etc, etc, etc?
That being said, you've certainly got a memory, this experience will remain with you both for the rest of your lives  (unless you get Amnesia) 

Why wouldn't you just film it and keep it for family use only?
I feel that what the leaders did was inappropriate, but in general, social media is just way too much these days with how people use it.  I have stopped using social media altogether because, although I'm not a particularly private person, people just put every thing they do, and who really cares about what you had for dinner, or that your child got a participation trophy in the 3 legged race, etc, etc, etc?
That being said, you've certainly got a memory, this experience will remain with you both for the rest of your lives  (unless you get Amnesia) 

I have to say that @yjacket's more tempered response seems reasonable - get more info first, then move forward.  I can honestly say I've regretted going off half-cocked pretty much every time.  I'm not sure I've ever regretted getting more information first...
And I'm having no problem sitting here making up a credible story in my head which turns this all into one big fat misunderstanding.  Since it's possible that it was a misunderstanding, perhaps wisdom lies in getting more info...

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. 

@Lilyflowers88, there are two issues at play here.
ISSUE #1: How the YW leaders handled this situation
They handled it very poorly. The YW leaders, in seeking not to embarrass your daughter, blindsided her instead. Worse yet, they actually circumvented your authority. I expect they had only the best of intentions, so I'm not ready to condemn them for their foolish actions. But there is no doubt what they did was inappropriate. Your daughter's recounting of the "confrontation" was almost harrowing, but reading between the lines, I sense that they were really trying to allow her to save face in front of you while still trying to impress upon her just how unwise her actions were. Their thanks for her efforts to "reactivate" her friend while simultaneously telling her not to see the friend any more for a while suggests that they really did have good intentions, and were trying to look out for her welfare. Still, their actions were hamfisted and inappropriate.
What do you do about it? I would start by talking with the leaders directly. Be as kind as you can muster, but let them know that doing an end-around on you was wrong. If they have a problem with your daughter's actions outside of Church, they should consult with you. And yes, I do think you should let the bishop know, though not in some offical register-a-complaint way. Just a "By the way, Bishop, this unpleasant thing happened that I think you should know about."
ISSUE #2: What your daughter actually did
From your description, it sounds to me like there was nothing immoral about your daughter's actions per se. But I agree with the gist of what the YW leaders said: It was unwise and inappropriate. When you have videos of girls in showers or bathtubs, that implies nudity. Wearing swim suits may cover the nudity, but not the implication. Consider: Why did they do a video in a BATHTUB? And why in SWIMSUITS? Why not in Levi's and parkas? Obviously, it was a big joke about a "bathtub video" that didn't show any actual nudity.
Seriously, is it a normal thing in 21st-century America for young women to sit together in a bathtub in their swimsuits while they chat and listen to music? A hot tub, maybe. But a bathtub? I don't know, but that sounds plenty weird to me. If my teenage daughter were in the habit of sitting with a friend in a bathtub, I would tell her I thought it was inappropriate and a bad idea. If she were making videos of said bathtub adventures, that increases the weirdness quotient tenfold. No way would I ever allow her to publish such things to social media. yjacket is pretty much spot on in this area. However poorly the YW leaders handled this, not only was their heart (probably) in the right place, but what they were attempting to accomplish (poorly and outside of how they should have approached it) was probably what should happen. Your daughter needs guidance. She needs to be told that some things are not wise. She needs boundaries. You, her mother, should set those. This is where the YW leaders messed up; they should have gone to you, and YOU should have had that talk with your daughter, not them.

My initial screen name of lds_person_0 was too long and complicated so I changed it to be just Person0
Probably exactly 0 people will care but thought I would let everyone know anyway :-)

I would like to offer a similar perspective in agreement with what others have said but to add to it as well:
First lets consider the word virtue:
I tend to use the above definition of virtue when thinking about these verses, although the other definitions would just as easily render the same result.
It is not possible to maintain power or influence solely by the excellence, value, merit, etc, of the priesthood.  Just as @Blackmarch said, it would not be successful for long.  As soon as you start saying, "Do it because I am the [insert priesthood role]", how long before no one respects you anymore and no longer honors your demands?
It is unrighteous for an individual to even attempt to maintain or exert power over another simply by merit of the priesthood.  It is against the heavenly order of things.  The simple fact that one would attempt it is wickedness on their part at that moment in time and they ought to repent, else 'amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.'
Don't most of those sound like the fruits of the Spirit?  If one acts in accordance with the direction of the Spirit and exhibits the fruit of the Spirit in his actions, people will see his fruit and the righteous within his stewardship will obey.  By following this principle, he will be perfectly able to maintain his power or influence.
A final connection lies in D&C 29:36:
The priesthood is not magic.  In this verse, God hints at the fact that His power is honor.  Everything obeys him because of his attributes and perfections.  By following the guidelines of these verses, and learning to act in accordance with them, would one not establish himself to those who seek after righteousness as honorable?  Are not most people willing to follow and accept a man of true honor? I believe that he would and that they are.  By giving us these principles, the Lord is not only teaching us what not to do (because it can not and will not ever work) but also giving us further light and knowledge about how to become like Him who literally is the embodiment of priesthood perfection, and is able to exercise it and maintain it eternally upon these principles.

I would like to offer a similar perspective in agreement with what others have said but to add to it as well:
First lets consider the word virtue:
I tend to use the above definition of virtue when thinking about these verses, although the other definitions would just as easily render the same result.
It is not possible to maintain power or influence solely by the excellence, value, merit, etc, of the priesthood.  Just as @Blackmarch said, it would not be successful for long.  As soon as you start saying, "Do it because I am the [insert priesthood role]", how long before no one respects you anymore and no longer honors your demands?
It is unrighteous for an individual to even attempt to maintain or exert power over another simply by merit of the priesthood.  It is against the heavenly order of things.  The simple fact that one would attempt it is wickedness on their part at that moment in time and they ought to repent, else 'amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.'
Don't most of those sound like the fruits of the Spirit?  If one acts in accordance with the direction of the Spirit and exhibits the fruit of the Spirit in his actions, people will see his fruit and the righteous within his stewardship will obey.  By following this principle, he will be perfectly able to maintain his power or influence.
A final connection lies in D&C 29:36:
The priesthood is not magic.  In this verse, God hints at the fact that His power is honor.  Everything obeys him because of his attributes and perfections.  By following the guidelines of these verses, and learning to act in accordance with them, would one not establish himself to those who seek after righteousness as honorable?  Are not most people willing to follow and accept a man of true honor? I believe that he would and that they are.  By giving us these principles, the Lord is not only teaching us what not to do (because it can not and will not ever work) but also giving us further light and knowledge about how to become like Him who literally is the embodiment of priesthood perfection, and is able to exercise it and maintain it eternally upon these principles.

My initial screen name of lds_person_0 was too long and complicated so I changed it to be just Person0
Probably exactly 0 people will care but thought I would let everyone know anyway :-)

It means that it should not be the stick of the priesthood you use to motivate people. I would say that those traits are about the only means of succsessful influence over people to a bishop. Should he choose a seperate route i dont think he will be succsessful for long.

I agree with @person0.  Paul's writings talk about the Spirit as an "earnest" (in other words, a "down payment") on the blessings we receive in the hereafter; so we can know roughly where we stand with God long before the resurrection just by gauging the degree of Spirit that we typically enjoy in our daily walk with Christ (but with the caveat that sometimes circumstances beyond our control may make it more difficult to feel the Spirit).
And yeah, the resurrection comes before the final judgment; so we will already have our celestialized/terrestrialized/telestial bodies at that point.  Whether we will be sufficiently experienced with resurrected bodies to know the difference, of course, is another question entirely.

For those of us who are going to the celestial kingdom, I'm confident we will know for ourselves far in advance of the resurrection and judgement.  For those who enter other kingdoms, I would assume some of them will know far in advance as well based on their gospel knowledge, some may not but will probably come to understand once they receive and accept the fullness of the gospel.  I would venture to say that I think no one will be surprised about their eternal destination at the time of judgement.  As for me personally, if I were to die today, I am 100% confident I will end up in the celestial kingdom, because I am temple worthy and strive to live up to my covenants.  So as you can see, I have my 'hint' already. 

Tonight during family scripture study, we read in Mosiah 11 about how King Noah taxed his people and lived in laziness.  One of the taxed metals was Ziff.  Immediately my daughter asked, "What is Ziff?"  My wife explained that it was a metal and that they could have used it like we use money.  My daughter asked, "Like what?" so my wife said, "Like how we use pennies and nickles and quarters and stuff."  My daughter responded with an authoritative tone and said, "It will be a quarter."
It was basically like this:

So now it's official I suppose!  

I actually had a personal experience similar to this on my mission.  I was on exchanges with a missionary who had set up to provide a tour of the church building and teach about the first vision.  The way we alternated back and forth I was the one who recited the account from Joseph Smith.  When I recited it, It was literally the most botched and incorrectly worded recitation I had ever done, and have ever done to this day.  However, regardless of my slow tongue, the spirit was very strong and bore powerful witness of the truth of Joseph Smith's Vision, and the investigators recognized the spirit and accepted our message as truth.
The other missionary told me he believed an evil spirit had tried to prevent me from sharing the message but that the spirit prevailed regardless of my words.  I do not know either way for sure, but I do know that the spirit bore witness and conveyed the truth regardless of my failure to communicate.

Just because even righteous men struggle with keeping a law of God, does not mean, nor even hint at the idea that the law will not apply.
If even just 1 righteous priesthood holder were to abide his covenant with 2 spouses then the marriage is eternal in relation to both spouses (the spouses could be at different times due to death).  If this happens just once, then plural marriage will be applicable in the Celestial Kingdom (even if only for a righteous few).  I tend to believe that there will be more than just a handful of sufficiently righteous practitioners of plural marriage by the time all is said and done.  Also, in terms of agency, when we are resurrected to a celestial glory, filled with righteousness and our desires are to the Kingdom of God and to abiding the principles of eternity, who will even care about plural marriage?  Will wives bicker and complain about it?  No.  Will husbands lustfully seek it?  No.  In every applicable situation will it be entered into and eternal for the right reasons?  Yes.  I seriously doubt anyone will have an issue with it once we get to that day, and there is more evidence to suggest that it will be applicable eternally than that it wont.
Also, in relation to David and Solomon: 
I would venture to say that it is more likely that the Lord is revealing information line-upon-line when speaking to the Nephites regarding plural marriage.  He had not issued a commandment to them to practice polygamy, they still wanted an excuse because of David and Solomon.  Even though David and Solomon had initially entered into many marriage covenants righteously, they also did "things which they did not receive of [the Lord]", therefore, He could righteously reveal only this precept to the Nephites because it is what they needed to hear in order to repent since they received no such commandment.

My experience with Spanish and Russian matches @person0's and @LiterateParakeet's, not @Carborendum's - namely, the familiar, intimate (not the same as "informal" in my opinion) term is used rather than the non-intimate term reserved for authority figures and strangers.  But my experience was certainly not from a mission and is very limited in Spanish and not that extensive with Russians.
"Thou" in English has gone through various meanings (formal to intimate), but for me, it is the intimate term of address and conveys things "you" simply cannot - "you" being too vague and common a term.  And I was always taught that this is its use - intimate, and respectful the way you feel love and respect for a Father, not the way you demonstrate politeness and respect for a stranger or authority figure (the latter often coming with implications of negative consequences should respect not be demonstrated).

Just because even righteous men struggle with keeping a law of God, does not mean, nor even hint at the idea that the law will not apply.
If even just 1 righteous priesthood holder were to abide his covenant with 2 spouses then the marriage is eternal in relation to both spouses (the spouses could be at different times due to death).  If this happens just once, then plural marriage will be applicable in the Celestial Kingdom (even if only for a righteous few).  I tend to believe that there will be more than just a handful of sufficiently righteous practitioners of plural marriage by the time all is said and done.  Also, in terms of agency, when we are resurrected to a celestial glory, filled with righteousness and our desires are to the Kingdom of God and to abiding the principles of eternity, who will even care about plural marriage?  Will wives bicker and complain about it?  No.  Will husbands lustfully seek it?  No.  In every applicable situation will it be entered into and eternal for the right reasons?  Yes.  I seriously doubt anyone will have an issue with it once we get to that day, and there is more evidence to suggest that it will be applicable eternally than that it wont.
Also, in relation to David and Solomon: 
I would venture to say that it is more likely that the Lord is revealing information line-upon-line when speaking to the Nephites regarding plural marriage.  He had not issued a commandment to them to practice polygamy, they still wanted an excuse because of David and Solomon.  Even though David and Solomon had initially entered into many marriage covenants righteously, they also did "things which they did not receive of [the Lord]", therefore, He could righteously reveal only this precept to the Nephites because it is what they needed to hear in order to repent since they received no such commandment.

Tonight during family scripture study, we read in Mosiah 11 about how King Noah taxed his people and lived in laziness.  One of the taxed metals was Ziff.  Immediately my daughter asked, "What is Ziff?"  My wife explained that it was a metal and that they could have used it like we use money.  My daughter asked, "Like what?" so my wife said, "Like how we use pennies and nickles and quarters and stuff."  My daughter responded with an authoritative tone and said, "It will be a quarter."
It was basically like this:

So now it's official I suppose!  

Tonight during family scripture study, we read in Mosiah 11 about how King Noah taxed his people and lived in laziness.  One of the taxed metals was Ziff.  Immediately my daughter asked, "What is Ziff?"  My wife explained that it was a metal and that they could have used it like we use money.  My daughter asked, "Like what?" so my wife said, "Like how we use pennies and nickles and quarters and stuff."  My daughter responded with an authoritative tone and said, "It will be a quarter."
It was basically like this:

So now it's official I suppose!  

Tonight during family scripture study, we read in Mosiah 11 about how King Noah taxed his people and lived in laziness.  One of the taxed metals was Ziff.  Immediately my daughter asked, "What is Ziff?"  My wife explained that it was a metal and that they could have used it like we use money.  My daughter asked, "Like what?" so my wife said, "Like how we use pennies and nickles and quarters and stuff."  My daughter responded with an authoritative tone and said, "It will be a quarter."
It was basically like this:

So now it's official I suppose!  

Tonight during family scripture study, we read in Mosiah 11 about how King Noah taxed his people and lived in laziness.  One of the taxed metals was Ziff.  Immediately my daughter asked, "What is Ziff?"  My wife explained that it was a metal and that they could have used it like we use money.  My daughter asked, "Like what?" so my wife said, "Like how we use pennies and nickles and quarters and stuff."  My daughter responded with an authoritative tone and said, "It will be a quarter."
It was basically like this:

So now it's official I suppose!  

I leave the admissions department completely in the LORD's hands. It is unlikely that the thief on the cross could have passed a very detailed doctrine test. Nevertheless, doctrine is important, and the more we are given the more we are accountable. This is why sites like this do so well, and why I'm pleased to be associated with it, as the resident outsider.  IMHO LDS spirituality is a high-cost, high-benefit expression of faith. I get why many find great encouragement and support from it.  :-)