Am I overreacting?

[yjacket]

8 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

@Lilyflowers88. I am so sorry this happened. You are not over reacting. The Yw leaders lied to you. How dare they. I would email the Bishop. I would explain to the Bishop what happened and ask for a meeting with him. After this meeting, I would consider asking for a meeting with yourself, the bishop and the YW leaders. The YW leadership kidnapped your daughter. Illegal and unsafe!

 

Well by goodness, she should just leave the Church over this too!!!

Talk about an over-reaction based on a 3rd hand story from a 16 year old!!! Who did something incredibly stupid (and possibly illegal if at any point in time private body parts were show).

Edited April 17, 2017 by yjacket

[anatess2]

21 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

I think there is a lot of truth to what yjacket has been saying.  I absolutely agree, church leaders should be able to offer correction.

My biggest issue is why did the leaders lie to get the daughter alone?  And why take the daughter to a park, an isolated area where the daughter would not be in familiar surroundings, to issue the chastisement?  I find this method of delivering correction . . . troubling.  

While I don't think the leaders should have to seek parental permission first, perhaps this would have been less problematic had the leaders instead pulled the child aside for a few minutes at church or something and had the talk.  Why the deception?  Could I trust someone who lied to me to take my child somewhere ever again?  Why lie about it?  

I don't agree that a topic as important as sexuality does not require parental permission first.  Sure, if my boy stole a cookie from a cookie jar or if he said inappropriate things in Sunday School or if he was disrupting the class or getting too competitive at mutual.... etc. etc. etc.  Reprimand my kid and tell me about it so I can reinforce it at home.  But, teaching my child about what they interpreted as my child's sexually inappropriate behavior?  Talk to the parent first.  And especially don't sneak my child out of my house for it.

Edited April 17, 2017 by anatess2

[Backroads]

17 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

I think there is a lot of truth to what yjacket has been saying.  I absolutely agree, church leaders should be able to offer correction.

My biggest issue is why did the leaders lie to get the daughter alone?  And why take the daughter to a park, an isolated area where the daughter would not be in familiar surroundings, to issue the chastisement?  I find this method of delivering correction . . . troubling.  

While I don't think the leaders should have to seek parental permission first, perhaps this would have been less problematic had the leaders instead pulled the child aside for a few minutes at church or something and had the talk.  Why the deception?  Could I trust someone who lied to me to take my child somewhere ever again?  Why lie about it?  

 

This is where I'm at. I have no problem, in fact, I encourage leaders to offer instruction and correction. In the appropriate setting.

But... this whole thing seems seedy and I personally can't think of anything that makes it a big misunderstanding. You don't isolate a person for instruction, particularly a minor. 

 

[yjacket]

22 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

But, teaching my child about what is sexually inappropriate behavior?  Talk to the parent first.

??? So we should stop teaching the Law of Chastity in Church now?

I remember several times growing up the discussions of don't do this don't do that without parents.  Come on anatess . . .seriously?

That is part of what the Church is for, should we now fill out disclosure forms every time we have a LoC conversation with teens? 

How many times do I remember the, don't have sex, don't neck, don't masturbate, don't pett, etc. without parents there?  Plenty! Was it uncomfortable, yeah of course.  But that's part of life, learning to deal with uncomfortable situations.  Deal with it.

Edited April 17, 2017 by yjacket

[Vort]

9 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

The YW leadership kidnapped your daughter. Illegal and unsafe!

This is a bridge too far. There was no illegal activity, certainly no kidnapping, and there was nothing (physically) unsafe about the experience. It was an unpleasant and unfortunate experience. Leave it at that. Blowing it up into criminal activity serves no good purpose for anyone.

[yjacket]

3 minutes ago, Backroads said:

But... this whole thing seems seedy and I personally can't think of anything that makes it a big misunderstanding. You don't isolate a person for instruction, particularly a minor. 

 

Well the whole thing about live-streaming in a swimsuit seems seedy to me to. . . but no one gives a rip about that.  It's all "oh those horrible leaders, how dare they correct MY child!!!).

If the kid is old enough to live stream on Facebook with a friend alone in a bathtub, they are darn well old enough to receive one-on-one instruction from leadership.

Edited April 17, 2017 by yjacket

[anatess2]

4 minutes ago, yjacket said:

??? So we should stop teaching the Law of Chastity in Church now?

I remember several times growing up the discussions of don't do this don't do that without parents.  Come on anatess . . .seriously?

That is part of what the Church is for, should we know fill out disclosure forms every time we have a LoC conversation with teens?

You're deliberately being bullheaded now.  I know you, yjacket.  It is VERY DIFFERENT to teach Law of Chastity in Church and telling my kid her behavior in the bathtub is sexually inappropriate.  TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS.  Give it up.  It's frankly making me mad at you.  And I don't like being mad at you.

Teach principles and let them govern themselves.  Teach principles AND LET THE PARENTS GOVERN THEIR KIDS with your help. 

It is REALLY making me upset that YOU CONDONE this Leadership's behavior.

Edited April 17, 2017 by anatess2

[zil]

6 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

I don't have the imagination you do that would turn this into a misunderstanding.

First, I will point out that it's pretty hard to imagine a scenario where the YWP handled things in the right way.  But "mistake" is not the same as "deceptive end-run around the parents".  So, here's a variation...

Once upon a time, somehow (how would be interesting to know), the YWP learn about the video in question.  Did they see it?  Did they hear about it?  If they only heard about it, what did they hear?  (Perhaps their reaction is to an exaggerated version of the video.)  This lingers in the background.

The YWP set up an appointment (or more than one) to visit some less-active sisters.  Perhaps the daughter knew this at one point but forgot, perhaps they forgot to tell her, perhaps it was last minute (might be relevant to know this).  YWP show up to pick up daughter for these visits.  Everyone heads out to the car.  In the driveway, YWP gets a text cancelling the (first) appointment.  She decides to take the opportunity to voice her concerns to the daughter (she may or may not have pre-planned such a discussion eventually, but doing it now is a spontaneous decision).  She may or may not have mentioned that the first appointment was cancelled (didn't want to lose the opportunity to talk to the daughter alone, so she said nothing; or mentioned it, but that fact was lost in the later emotions, whatever).

So, we can't just sit in the driveway to have this conversation, so we drive over to a nearby park (I see no indication in the OP that this was a strange place far away).  YWP expresses concerns (and perhaps has an erroneous understanding of the video so her concerns are over the top), daughter gets defensive (possibly reacting to falsehoods in the YWP's understanding of the video; also alone in a car in a somewhat isolated location with two adults who appear to her to have planned it this way (thus, daughter believes they lied)- who could blame her for getting defensive and emotional), things escalate out of control, and any remaining plans for the evening are cancelled.

To the daughter, it looks like they lied to get her alone, and so that's what she tells her mom.  To the daughter, this was unexpected and painful, and these amplify and reflect in her telling of events.  She doesn't need to lie about anything to make this look awful.  And yet her version of events isn't accurate.

Meanwhile, rather than having lied up front, the YWP made a stupid, spur-of-the-moment choice about how and where and with whom to have this discussion.

- 30 -

That does not seem at all out of reach to me.

Lest anyone think I'm making excuses for anyone, all I'm saying is that gathering more information before letting loose on the YWP would be wise.  And if the leaders planned from the start to lie to get the daughter away from mom for this conversation, that was so, so, very, very wrong.

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

It is REALLY making me upset that YOU CONDONE this Leadership's behavior.

Not to get into the middle of the slugfest, but...

I have not seen yjacket explicitly condone the behavior of the YW leadership. I have seen him rue the fact that a 16-year-old's account of an incident is accepted at face value, enough that many people line up to condemn the YW leadership on nothing more than a mother's report of said 16-year-old's account of what happened.

How can we ever hope to form a Zion society when a garden-variety misunderstanding like this is blown up into a federal case, complete with charges of kidnapping?

[yjacket]

13 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

You're deliberately being bullheaded now.  I know you, yjacket.  It is VERY DIFFERENT to teach Law of Chastity in Church and telling my kid her behavior in the bathtub is sexually inappropriate.  TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS.  Give it up.  It's frankly making me mad at you.  And I don't like being mad at you.

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.

Edited April 17, 2017 by yjacket

[Guest]

As a YW leader, I can say that if this happened anywhere close to how your daughter tells it, they were out of line. In fact, I can't imagine having a conversation like this at all without the mother present. They should have gone to you. Period. If they felt they couldn't for some reason, they should have discussed it with the bishop from the beginning so he could discern whether the family needed to be approached/counseled.

We are there to provide opportunities for growth (activities) and support (when asked). I can't imagine ever, ever going over a parents' head, unless I knew they were abusive or something, and even then I wouldn't go in without the bishop's support. 

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, yjacket said:

My guess is their are other indicators

this was my thought as well

 

Still... the leaders handled this very, very poorly.

[anatess2]

I'm out of here.

All I can say is... YOU, CHURCH LEADERS, DO NOT DISCIPLINE MY CHILD.  I DO.   Teach him correct principles.  Leave the disciplining to me. You talk to me if my child exhibits disturbing behavior and I will deal with it and ask for your help if I need to.  You do otherwise, we will have a problem.  A BIG ONE.  There is nothing more important to me in this mortal existence than my God, my Husband, and my Children.  You cannot take over my job without me handing it to you first.

And that's all I am going to say about that.

Peace out.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

Leave the disciplining to me.

I actually agree with this. Even in the case where the mother asked me for help (with the same sort of issue, coincidentally), I suggested counseling with the bishop and some places to look for qualified help. This is out of my scope of authority.

[Guest]

Although... if a kid is being a knucklehead while they're in my care and it's affecting other kids, you'd better believe I'll step in and take care of it.

[yjacket]

18 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I'm out of here.

All I can say is... YOU, CHURCH LEADERS, DO NOT DISCIPLINE MY CHILD.  I DO.  

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.

Edited April 17, 2017 by yjacket

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

No.  Forgiveness and kindness and compassion doesn't negate the necessity of bringing this up with the Bishop.  This is an error in Church Leadership and needs to be addressed as such.  The parent has no priesthood authority over the YW presidency of the Church.  ONLY the bishop does.  These kinds of things cannot be allowed to happen again.  It's bad enough it happened once already.  If this was something some other parent did while performing their church calling - then it needs to be brought up to their respective Presidencies so that efforts are made to prevent this kind of stuff from happening again.  If this was something that happened in school, it needs to be brought up to the principal or if it was the principal then to the district.  In any case, corrective action is needed by someone of authority within that organization.

*shrug*

Your opinion.

[Backroads]

I am fortunate that the most uncomfortable moment of my life was when an instructor at Camp School pulled me aside to tell me he was offended by my reasonably modest swimsuit, after asking me if I were LDS, as if that gave him some sort of priesthood responsibility over the practical and what I thought was modest swimsuit. It was weird, degrading, and out of place at a non-church function.

I am all for the village, I really am. But villages have rules, not people randomly declaring power.

I haven't seen this video. I don't know if it was majorly inappropriate or condoned lesbian relationships. But hey, I have gone skinny dipping with other females and I am straight. 

If the YW leaders intentionally went behind Lilly's back, they were usurping power in the village and may have possibly been acting on their own moral perspectives rather than an urgent sin.

Edited April 17, 2017 by Backroads

[The Folk Prophet]

25 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

I actually agree with this. Even in the case where the mother asked me for help (with the same sort of issue, coincidentally), I suggested counseling with the bishop and some places to look for qualified help. This is out of my scope of authority.

Hmm. I'm not sure I'd qualify "giving a talking to" as "discipline".

[yjacket]

Just now, Backroads said:

I am fortunate that the most uncomfortable moment of my life was when an instructor at Camp School pulled me aside to tell me he was offended by my reasonably modest swimsuit, after asking me if I were LDS, as if that gave him some sort of priesthood responsibility over the practical and what I thought was modest swimsuit. It was weird, degrading, and out of place at a non-church function.

So what . . .who really cares.  As an instructor he felt it was his obligation to inform you of the rules.  You dealt with it, moved on, etc. And I bet afterwards you were a little more conscious of the types of clothes you wear-the message being be modest.  Maybe it was modest, maybe it wasn't.  We all see things through our own eyes.

I'd rather suffer these little things vs. having teachers and leaders afraid of correcting children b/c of blowback from parents.  One causes temporary suffering, the lack of it causes major societal problems.

[Just_A_Guy]

Ok, true story here:

When I was a teenager, the movie "Showgirls" came out.  There was a local controversy about whether an NC-17 film should be shown in the local theater; and as the TV news station was running its story--what should show up on the B-roll but our priest's quorum first assistant and a friend, buying their tickets to the movie (complete with fake ID).  Making things even better, this chucklehead kid was also dating the YM President's daughter at the time.

Now, I happen to like the paradigm of treating this youth leader as an adult and reproving him directly; letting him answer for his own stewardship and his own conduct without the added humiliation of dragging his parents into what was fundamentally a PPI.  And when we're talking about gender roles, in this context I lean towards the view that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

So, I'm not a fan of getting the girl alone by lying to her; and yeah, I'd probably involve the bishop for that one issue alone.  But it's daughter, not mother, who is in the Laurels class presidency; and it was apparently due to her ecclesiastical roles that the YW presidency felt impelled to intervene.  For every girl who would be outraged to have her mother excluded, there's another who would be livid that her mother had been involved.  

So I would cut the YW presidency a little slack on that issue.  I agree with @Vort and @yjacket that two teenagers making a pseudo-nude-o-bathtub-video is kind of a big deal--the days when folks of the same gender could innocently go skinny dipping are long past, thanks to the pornification of society at every level.  And if Mom insists on acting otherwise, then it sort of explains (doesn't justify, but explains) why the YW presidency felt they had to do an end-run around Mom in the first place.

Edited April 17, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Backroads]

3 minutes ago, yjacket said:

So what . . .who really cares.  As an instructor he felt it was his obligation to inform you of the rules.  You dealt with it, moved on, etc. And I bet afterwards you were a little more conscious of the types of clothes you wear-the message being be modest.  Maybe it was modest, maybe it wasn't.  We all see things through our own eyes.

I'd rather suffer these little things vs. having teachers and leaders afraid of correcting children b/c of blowback from parents.  One causes temporary suffering, the lack of it causes major societal problems.

What rules did I break? 

[Guest]

If the child does something wrong  while in the care of the leader than the leader needs to step in and and correct the behavior and may need to discipline the child appropriately. However if a child does something wrong at home (which in this case it was at home) then it is up to the parents to discipline, if the leader decides to get involved they are over stepping their calling and are wrong. But if they do see something that concerns them they can and should talk to the parents.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Hmm. I'm not sure I'd qualify "giving a talking to" as "discipline".

Telling a girl she posted an inappropriate video that makes her look like a lesbian is more than "talking". (Again, this is all under the premise that things happened as the girl said.) A disciplinary talking to more than "Hey, stop doing what you're doing" is out of line without running it by the parents first and giving them first shot at handling it. Cornering a girl and making those kinds of statements shows a lack of experience with teenagers and/or forethought, even if they had the "right". It was stupid. 

 

 

Edited April 17, 2017 by Eowyn

[yjacket]

Just now, Backroads said:

What rules did I break? 

He obviously felt you were immodest and as an instructor, knowing that you are LDS felt you should set a good example for others and informed you of it.  

Big deal, he called you out.  At this point, who cares.