Am I overreacting?

[Revolve]

Issue is not whether or not a leader should be discussing LOC with the youth. Just for fun, let's assume a 16 year old is actually telling the truth and not a lying idiot as was remarked, a leader has no place cornering a youth on false pretenses accusing that an innocent video was anything other. Based on the information given, no commandment or law was broken or implied. Trust is given, not earned. Unless my child gives me reason not to, I absolutely will defend her in a situation like this.

[Guest]

For further reference the Church Handbook:

Parents have the first responsibility for the spiritual and physical welfare of their children (see D&C 68:25–28). The bishopric and Young Women leaders support but do not replace parents in this responsibility. They offer support in the following ways:

 

They assist parents in helping their daughters prepare to receive the blessings of the temple by following the guidelines listed in 10.1.1.

 

They encourage communication between young women and parents.

 

They ensure that Young Women activities and other youth events do not put undue burdens on families or compete with family activities.

 

Leaders should be especially sensitive to young women who come from homes that lack strong support for gospel living.

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/young-women?lang=eng#102

It's very clear to me that the church believes that children are the responsibility of the parents and leader are to "support" and "assist" parents and "encourage" relationships between parents and child. And in no way "replace" the parent. Some on this thread will argue this point to the end but the Handbook states otherwise.

Edited April 18, 2017 by miav

[Blueskye2]

15 hours ago, Lilyflowers88 said:

Is is okay for them to come over to my house, ask to borrow my daughter to go and visit other young women in our ward, and then take her to a park instead and tell her all that she is doing wrong, without ever even bringing up this subject with my husband and I beforehand? Am I overreacting or is this actually something i should worry about?

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?!?!

On the parenting side, I'd be conversing with the daughter, to get what is going on in the kid's head. How they feel, what they think they should do and/or say. Discussing the "event" that has caused all the hullabaloo, as to, what others might find right or wrong with it. Not prompting, but getting at where the kid is, and guiding them through any lingering negative emotions (mortified, anger, embarrassment, etc.)

I'm sure, as a parent, you want to think it's all innocent. I'd say, mayyybeeee. But more likely it is teenage experimentation with exhibitionism. Same with the public handholding. Which is normal behavior for teenagers. But there is normal behavior caused by hormones and what is normal as accepted by you and/or the society to which she belongs. Including her religious society. So, another opportunity for teaching

As to "back in the day" ideas. ha. The ward I was in, all the adults were in cahoots. Nothing could go on without one or more adults telling your parents, then, the parents corrected their own children. There is no way in heaven or earth my mother would have let me be seen in a swim suit, anywhere, but the pool or other water locations. It would have been a near death experience, if social media were around and I posted a video of myself in a swim suit.

Edited April 18, 2017 by Blueskye2

[yjacket]

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.

Edited April 18, 2017 by yjacket

[yjacket]

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!

Edited April 18, 2017 by yjacket

[Guest]

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.

[yjacket]

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.

Edited April 18, 2017 by yjacket

[Guest]

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.

[yjacket]

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.

 

Edited April 18, 2017 by yjacket

[Guest]

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.

[Guest Godless]

16 minutes ago, yjacket said:

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.

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.

[yjacket]

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. 

[yjacket]

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.

Edited April 18, 2017 by yjacket

[Guest Godless]

12 minutes ago, yjacket said:

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?

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. 

Edited April 18, 2017 by Godless

[Guest Godless]

Duplicate

Edited April 18, 2017 by Godless

[yjacket]

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. 

[Guest]

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. 

[yjacket]

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.

[Blueskye2]

2 hours ago, yjacket said:

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!

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. 

[anatess2]

17 hours ago, Vort said:

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.

This is for you Vort:

An adult man can advice an adult woman on modesty.  Free speech and all.  You might get thanked or slapped, but you're both adults.  You can deal with any fights that may ensue or any psychological effects as adults.

An adult man or woman can advice children on modesty/morality as a general principle or for specific reprimands in places where rules are in place - for example, dress codes at School, behavior at Girl's Camps, etc - when they are in authority.

An adult anybody should not reprimand a child on a child's specific morality issue made anywhere else without addressing the parents first or having the reprimand be made in the presence of parents -  this includes Bishops and yes, this includes seeing the child run around naked.  You may invite the naked child into your house to at least protect the child, offer her a robe if she wants it, but then you wait for the parents talk to her about her nudity.  If you feel that the parent is not teaching the child properly, you take it up with the parents - not go around the parents to teach the child how you think she should to be taught unless you have irrefutable proof that the parents are dangerously negligent.  But yes, part of our jobs as teachers/member missionaries/etc., is to offer correction when something is not right within our wards.  But you do not offer such correction to a child without their parents.  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.

Now, if you're Filipino and a member of a family clan, any adult in the clan can reprimand any child in the clan.  It's not unusual for a clan child to get their butts whooped by their grandmas, for example.  But even then, you better be sure what you're doing is in line with the parent's ideals (yes, even clans have unique parenting styles within them and even unique belief systems - as is obvious in my case) otherwise, it will cause inter-clan warfare that could result in multi-generational feuds.  Yes, we have that exact situation in my clan that has been going on for 3 generations.  No, a ward is not a clan.

 

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.

Edited April 18, 2017 by anatess2

[Blueskye2]

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. 

[Guest MormonGator]

22 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

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. 

This is a really good post. Great points. 

[yjacket]

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. 

Edited April 18, 2017 by yjacket

[Guest]

If I were in the same position, I'd feel highly offended.  But I'm not in that position.  Instead, I'm looking at it more objectively.  I'd get the other side of the story before proceeding with a reaction.

@Lilyflowers88, you've gotten your daughter's side of it.  And it is enough to make your blood boil.  I think that's perfectly normal.  But now let's look at the other side.

Have you actually seen the video?  What swimsuits they were wearing?  Could you clearly tell they were wearing them (i.e. through soap or murky water or whatever)?  If you were not the girl's mother and already "known" it was innocent, what would you have thought when you had seen the video?  Was there even the appearance of evil?  What would you have thought if it were any other girl in the ward in that video with another girl that you didn't know?

Now put yourself in the YW leadership's shoes.  I'm going to offer an alternative sequence of events.

Your daughter is one of those who saw the video and got the "lesbian vibe".  She brings it up to you, not because you are the YW pres.  But because you are her mother.  You now view it from this girl's lesbian vibe perspective.  You get the same impression.

You then report it to the bishop.  He is the bishop, he can't be looking at that kind of inappropriate material.  All he can do is trust the YW pres.  So, he'll need the opinion of another woman who has seen the video to reassure him that there is nothing inappropriate in the video.  Then he can look at it himself.

In the meantime, he's asked the YW pres and her counselor to talk to the young lady and let her know about an appointment that HE is going to setup.  They agree.They talk together on how best to go about it.  

Quote

Do we bring it up to the mother first or talk to the daughter directly?  I don't know.  If we talk to the mother first, that will seem like we're tattling.  But she is the girl's mother, shouldn't she have the right to know?  Sure, but what if she doesn't already know?  Should we give the daughter the chance to tell her mother for herself?  Yes, but...  I guess there really is no good way to do this is there?

What if we ask the daughter to talk with us about reactivating the other girl in the video?  Well, we don't want to name names do we?  Maybe not.  We can ask to talk to her about reactivation.  That sounds good.  I really wish we didn't have to tip-toe around this.  Neither do I.  But what else can we do.  If we're too direct we'll come off as arrogant and condescending.  It looks like no matter what, someone is going to get hurt by this.  All we can do is our best.

I don't know if any of this is real or memorex.  But what I'm saying is that you need to get the other side of the story first.  THEN make a judgment in fairness and equity.

[Backroads]

I suppose I'm sensitive to the idea this girl was more or less jumped.

I personally hate being blindsided. Sure, 16-17 is the time to be stepping into more adult roles, but at the same time there is still an age difference. 

If it did indeed play out pretty much as the daughter said with driving to a park alone, that's just more than a little uncomfortable to me, even as an adult. It's even more uncomfortable as a teenager.

I'm sure the leaders had the best of intentions and other posters here have me being more thoughtful of what the YW leaders may have intended, but the end result as reported is quite ugly.

Sorry, but I still think that matter of addressing the underlying concern ought to be discussed.