I am having a rough night (teen dating & our church)

[Sara in AZ]

Wow, another life long LDS'r chiming in here, one who was raised in Salt Lake no less. And I have never ever heard that it's okay to group date at 14. We were always taught we had to wait until 16. Of course "had to" was really between us and our parents, and not between us and the bishop and the entire ward. And of course there was sometimes talk of "so and so who got to take a date to 9th grade promotion, gasp!" So this problem you're having sounds a lot more like an issue of "church culture" rather than church doctrine. However, my oldest is only 8 and I have not done all the research on current counsel from the general authorities. What is in For the Strength of Youth sounds pretty reasonable to me and that's what I would take as "scripture." There is a lot of leeway in there for parents and teenagers to communicate and develop their their own family rules. I'm sorry you've gotten caught up in this mess of crazy gossip and reporting on each other. I'm sure your bishop has everyone's best interests in mind, but in the end YOU really are the steward over those in your home as you do your best to follow the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

 

From For the Strength of Youth:

 

"Do not date until you are at least 16 years old. Dating before then can lead to immorality, limit the number of other young people you meet, and deprive you of experiences that will help you choose an eternal partner.

 

When you begin dating, go in groups or on double dates. Avoid going on frequent dates with the same person. Make sure your parents meet those you date. You may want to invite your dates to activities with your family. Plan dating activities that are positive and inexpensive and that will help you get to know each other. Do things that will help you and your companions maintain your self-respect and remain close to the Spirit of the Lord."

[MamaSheep]

I'm LDS too. My understanding is, and has been since I was a teenager, that we are advised not to date until we are 16. Fourteen is a good age to start going to group activities, and "hanging out" with a mixed group of friends, but not clinging to ONE special friend while "hanging out" with a group, as that is "dating". If you're pairing off as a couple, it's dating. But early "dating", especially of the type you are describing, is certainly not grounds for church disciplinary action, and would not keep either of them from receiving a temple recommend.

 

It does sound as if your bishop may be overstepping some in his interpretation and being rather overbearing in how he stated things. If that is the case, I agree that you should go by the FSOY pamphlet as guidelines, not what your bishop says. He doesn't have the authority to add to that. You may want to sit down with him and express your concerns in private, especially about the gossip and cliquishness that you see in the ward, as those are problems in themselves and are creating and amplifying other issues. Ask him for clarification. Take the FSOY pamphlet in and go over it with him. If he's not helpful, talk to your stake president. Because bishops (and stake presidents, for that matter) no more have authority to add to dating standards (which are council, not commandments--there is a difference) than he does to add to temple recommend standards. Which is none. Bishops can help you figure out how to apply church doctrine to certain situations, but they cannot make church doctrine. I've had a lot of bishops in my life, in several different parts of the country, and almost all of them have been really wonderful. One was a dud, though, and I know it does happen. If you wind up with a bishop that oversteps his authority (or otherwise goofs things up), you are in no way responsible to just blindly do whatever he says. And, in fact, as far as the church is concerned, you SHOULD not follow a bishop if he's off track. The church teaches that with everything you should study it out yourself and decide what you believe is true and good, and act on that. You should not just take anyone's word on it, even the bishop or an apostle. (Though I frankly believe those apostles really know what they're talking about.) It might be a good idea to read up for yourself on what the apostles have actually said on the subject, especially if you feel like you've never really gotten a good foundation in what the church teaches. Then you can go in and calmly discuss it with him, and if he's wrong you can show him what you've found--or what you haven't found (such as I have never heard anybody in the church say that two girls going to the mall together is automatically a "date"--these days you might want to make sure the other gal isn't looking at it that way, but sheesh!). Ask him to show you where he got his information. Keep in mind that the thing you linked to from the New Era is a collection of snippets taken out of context from much longer talks by various general authorities over a period of many years. It was compiled by a magazine editor, not by the first presidency or quorum of the twelve. It's not "scripture", even if the quotes are from apostles. What a prophet or apostle says is not "scripture" unless it is accepted as such by the church. That doesn't mean it isn't important, or useful, or that you shouldn't follow it, but there is a distinction. Sometimes apostles are just expressing their personal opinion. Sometimes they are just saying which team they hope wins the ball game. They don't have to say "thus saith the Lord" before something in order for it to be considered something that comes from the Lord, but by the same token if they say, "chocolate chip cookies are good" that shouldn't be taken as any special revelation on cookie varieties, it's just their opinion. The importance of what an apostle has said is somewhat dependent on the context in which it was said. All of those quotes are taken somewhat out of context, and are meant to be read as a sampling of what forms the overall picture of what church leaders have said about dating as a whole. The New Era is a good resource, but it is not a handbook of absolute rules, and is not intended to be read that way. It's just a magazine. It's not scripture. It's not even a policy handbook. It's pretty reliable, but certainly not the infallible word of God. The apostles would be the first to tell you to prayerfully consider what they have said and make your own choices for yourself and your family. General authorities give general guidelines and good advice, but it is up to us to fit those general patterns to our individual lives and circumstances.

 

I would strongly recommend looking up some of the talks those quotes are excerpted from. Read the whole talk. Think it over for yourself. Pay particular attention to what the apostles ACTUALLY say, and the REASONS they give for the advice they're giving. In talks on this subject they always seem to give good reasons and ask you to make your own decisions wisely and in accordance with your own, personal life circumstances. Talk it over with your husband. Maybe with the Relief Society president, or an LDS friend you think has a good doctrinal foundation and a level head, who's been in the church a while and knows their stuff. Make up YOUR mind as to what YOU think the apostles ACTUALLY said about this. Decide whether YOU think what they said makes sense, without the filter of your bishop's interpretation. And then decide what to do. The scriptural "rule" is chastity before marriage, and total fidelity afterward. The dating guidelines are excellent advice geared toward helping young people with raging hormones actually be able to obey that scriptural rule, but they are not, themselves, scripture.

 

The ACTUAL church guidelines (as opposed to some of the extrapolations it sounds like your bishop has made from them) are, I think, really good advice. They are definitely more 'strict' than the culture we live in, but if they err they do so on the side of keeping kids safe, and I like that. I will say that if it were me I would probably be trying to slow things down between the two of them. There is no rush. It won't hurt them to develop other friendships as well, or to keep their relationship at a friendship level for a while longer. And I have seen enough sad endings to be extremely cautious of romance at fourteen. But the dating guidelines are guidelines. And you do get to decide how to apply them in your own family. And that IS how it's done in the LDS church.

 

ETA: I just went back and read more carefully and found where you said the parents of the young lady in question support the guidelines and want to limit the relationship. I would gently suggest that the gentlemanly thing for him to do, whether he agrees with their decision or not, would be to back off and actively encourage her to respect her parents' decision and not make her feel like she has to rebel against them to make him happy, or lose him forever to make her parents happy. He should just back off and say, that's ok, we'll pick up in a couple of years, and keep it at a friendship level similar to how he interacts with other girls for a while. If it's "real", it'll last. If it's not, then it's risky anyway. If he pushes it, the parents will see him as a threat. I would. If he backs off and respects their wishes, and encourages her to do the same, then he will win their respect and probably be the first guy they suggest going out with when she IS old enough according to their family rules.

 

Also, is it possible that the mother asked other people in the ward who she knew would be at the activities to keep an eye out and let her know what her daughter is doing? I think it's possible that I might ask friends to help me stay informed if my daughter were in a similar situation, especially if I knew the 16 year old boy's family rules were different from my 14 year old girl's (that really is a bit of an age gap at that stage of development), and that his parents would support his pursuing my daughter, even against my clearly expressed wishes. That would make me edgy as a mother. I don't think I would ask them to also keep the boy's parents informed, especially if I knew the boy's parents wouldn't have a problem with the behavior I was concerned about. And frankly, if one of my friends saw either of my kids at a church activity doing something they knew I wouldn't approve of, I would HOPE they would tell me about it.

Edited December 3, 2010 by MamaSheep

[Forget-Me-Not]

Another born-and-raised LDS here (and I've spent the last 5 or so years serving in YW and 14-15 Sunday School) and I very much agree with what Xuzi posted earlier. This is outside of the norm and your Bishop has gone waaay overboard. This is more an issue of local "Mormon culture" rather than LDS doctrine.

 

The FSOY pamphlet is pretty much the final worth on this subject and it says:

Do not date until you are at least 16 years old. . . When you begin dating, go in groups or on double dates. Avoid going on frequent dates with the same person. Make sure your parents meet those you date. You may want to invite your dates to activities with your family. Plan dating activities that are positive and inexpensive and that will help you get to know each other. Do things that will help you and your companions maintain your self-respect and remain close to the Spirit of the Lord.

What you're son and his friend are doing sounds perfectly respectable and fairly typical to me. HOWEVER, I can see being concerned with my 14 yo daughter starting to pair off, especially with a 16 yo boy. . .it's only 2 years difference, but at that age, it's still a BIG difference. The big concern is teens getting into really serious relationships while they are still too young to handle the emotions and feelings that might come with that.

I think there is a lot of merit to doing a lot of casual dating in the teen years, to prepare for doing more serious dating (as in dating to look for a marriage partner) in the 20's.

 

I've never EVER heard group dating at 14. I've always heard group dating starting at 16--and even then group dating is *encouraged*, not *required*. I don't see the dances as encouraging group dating at 14. Rather, they are activities for the 14-18 yo kids to start experiencing social situations with the opposite sex. For those who aren't familiar with these dances--these aren't bring a date type dances where one arrives and leaves with a date. They're really more like social mixers that involve dancing--in fact (in my area at least) they usually involve some sort a game or activity to encourage mingling.

 

And yes, boys are encouraged to refrain from serious dating until after their missions. If they plan to serve, they won't marry until they return anyway and it really is easier for them to focus without having an added distraction of a girl back home and worrying about whether she'll hang in there or "Dear John" him.

Edited December 3, 2010 by LemonPie

[FeFe]

I am not familiar with LDS doctrine at all but I'll pray for you.

[Annie]

Ask him to show you where he got his information. Keep in mind that the thing you linked to from the New Era is a collection of snippets taken out of contex t from much longer talks by various general authorities over a period of many years. It was compiled by a magazine editor, not by the first presidency or quorum of the twelve. It's not "scripture", even if the quotes are from apostles. What a prophet or apostle says is not "scripture" unless it is accepted as such by the church. That doesn't mean it isn't important, or useful, or that you shouldn't follow it, but there is a distinction. Sometimes apostles are just expressing their personal opinion. Sometimes they are just saying which team they hope wins the ball game. They don't have to say "thus saith the Lord" before something in order for it to be considered something that comes from the Lord, but by the same token if they say, "chocolate chip cookies are good" that shouldn't be taken as any special revelation on cookie varieties, it's just their opinion. The importance of what an apostle has said is somewhat dependent on the context in which it was said. All of those quotes are taken somewhat out of context, and are meant to be read as a sampling of what forms the overall picture of what church leaders have said about dating as a whole. The New Era is a good resource, but it is not a handbook of absolute rules, and is not intended to be read that way. It's just a magazine. It's not scripture. It's not even a policy handbook. It's pretty reliable, but certainly not the infallible word of God. The apostles would be the first to tell you to prayerfully consider what they have said and make your own choices for yourself and your family. General authorities give general guidelines and good advice, but it is up to us to fit those general patterns to our individual lives and circumstances.

 

...

 

Make up YOUR mind as to what YOU think the apostles ACTUALLY said about this. Decide whether YOU think what they said makes sense, without the filter of your bishop's interpretation. And then decide what to do. The scriptural "rule" is chastity before marriage, and total fidelity afterward. The dating guidelines are excellent advice geared toward helping young people with raging hormones actually be able to obey that scriptural rule, but they are not, themselves, scripture.

 

The ACTUAL church guidelines (as opposed to some of the extrapolations it sounds like your bishop has made from them) are, I think, really good advice. They are definitely more 'strict' than the culture we live in, but if they err they do so on the side of keeping kids safe, and I like that. I will say that if it were me I would probably be trying to slow things down between the two of them. There is no rush. It won't hurt them to develop other friendships as well, or to keep their relationship at a friendship level for a while longer. And I have seen enough sad endings to be extremely cautious of romance at fourteen. But the dating guidelines are guidelines. And you do get to decide how to apply them in your own family. And that IS how it's done in the LDS church.

 

:iagree:

 

I'm was born and raised LDS, and I agree with each and every word that MamaSheep wrote. I just quoted a couple points I wanted to emphasize, but I think she is very wise in what she posted. I urge you to read it a second time and let it sink in. Yes, we believe in modern revelation, but that doesn't mean that every word said by various levels of church leadership is scriptural. Your bishop is a human who seems to be really stretching the dating guidelines. If he were expressing his ideas as his personal/family values that would be one thing, but that doesn't sound like what he's doing.

 

That said, I was always taught that group dating guideline was 16, but I have seen that guideline "broken" by many people without the type of results you're experiencing. :grouphug:

[Laurie4b]

Not being LDS, the one issue I'll comment on is that if the girl's parents are at all uncomfortable with any of it, you have to respect that. I would go and talk with them directly and find out what they are wanting. That is one way to circumvent the gossip, etc. Then you and dh and ds agree to abide by that. That should be true whether your church's ward is too strict or not. The other parents' convictions (even if they are changing) need to be honored. You need to find out what those are. And the parents with the most concerns are the ones who get to make the rules until the kids are of age.

 

My ds really wanted to date a girl whose parents didn't allow dating, but did allow group dating and friendship. It was sometimes hard to discern their boundaries, but he worked really hard at it. Often their rules were stricter than ours are. We just supported him when he was frustrated.

[Liza Q]

ETA: I just went back and read more carefully and found where you said the parents of the young lady in question support the guidelines and want to limit the relationship. I would gently suggest that the gentlemanly thing for him to do, whether he agrees with their decision or not, would be to back off and actively encourage her to respect her parents' decision and not make her feel like she has to rebel against them to make him happy, or lose him forever to make her parents happy. He should just back off and say, that's ok, we'll pick up in a couple of years, and keep it at a friendship level similar to how he interacts with other girls for a while. If it's "real", it'll last. If it's not, then it's risky anyway. If he pushes it, the parents will see him as a threat. I would. If he backs off and respects their wishes, and encourages her to do the same, then he will win their respect and probably be the first guy they suggest going out with when she IS old enough according to their family rules.

 

Also, is it possible that the mother asked other people in the ward who she knew would be at the activities to keep an eye out and let her know what her daughter is doing? I think it's possible that I might ask friends to help me stay informed if my daughter were in a similar situation, especially if I knew the 16 year old boy's family rules were different from my 14 year old girl's (that really is a bit of an age gap at that stage of development), and that his parents would support his pursuing my daughter, even against my clearly expressed wishes. That would make me edgy as a mother. I don't think I would ask them to also keep the boy's parents informed, especially if I knew the boy's parents wouldn't have a problem with the behavior I was concerned about. And frankly, if one of my friends saw either of my kids at a church activity doing something they knew I wouldn't approve of, I would HOPE they would tell me about it.

 

Well said.

[Xuzi]

Awesome post by Sister MamaSheep! :iagree: I especially want to repeat what she said, that Council DOES NOT equal Commandment. Your DS is not going against Gospel teachings by wanting to date this young girl unless he's putting pressure on her to go against her parents ("honor thy father and thy mother" and all that).

[Abigail4476]

ETA: I just went back and read more carefully and found where you said the parents of the young lady in question support the guidelines and want to limit the relationship. I would gently suggest that the gentlemanly thing for him to do, whether he agrees with their decision or not, would be to back off and actively encourage her to respect her parents' decision and not make her feel like she has to rebel against them to make him happy, or lose him forever to make her parents happy. He should just back off and say, that's ok, we'll pick up in a couple of years, and keep it at a friendship level similar to how he interacts with other girls for a while. If it's "real", it'll last. If it's not, then it's risky anyway. If he pushes it, the parents will see him as a threat. I would. If he backs off and respects their wishes, and encourages her to do the same, then he will win their respect and probably be the first guy they suggest going out with when she IS old enough according to their family rules.

 

Also, is it possible that the mother asked other people in the ward who she knew would be at the activities to keep an eye out and let her know what her daughter is doing? I think it's possible that I might ask friends to help me stay informed if my daughter were in a similar situation, especially if I knew the 16 year old boy's family rules were different from my 14 year old girl's (that really is a bit of an age gap at that stage of development), and that his parents would support his pursuing my daughter, even against my clearly expressed wishes. That would make me edgy as a mother. I don't think I would ask them to also keep the boy's parents informed, especially if I knew the boy's parents wouldn't have a problem with the behavior I was concerned about. And frankly, if one of my friends saw either of my kids at a church activity doing something they knew I wouldn't approve of, I would HOPE they would tell me about it.

 

This is great advice. :iagree: I wouldn't allow my son to date a girl if his parents weren't also supportive (unless they were both adults, of course).

[Veritaserum]

I have not read the other responses, but I wanted to gently suggest that your local ward is the problem. I was born and raised in your current faith and am completely baffled as to how your local bishop is trying to enforce HIS interpretation of a churchwide guideline.

 

I had guy friends at church. My family regularly got together with other families whose children my age were male. No one took any issue with this because it is a completely ridiculous complaint and totally none of anyone else's business! I would go talk to the stake president about the way your bishop is (mis)handling this situation.

 

I even had a steady boyfriend (as did a few other girls). We knew that this was generally discouraged because pairing off tends to provide more opportunities for extramarital sexual contact. (I think that this is true, BTW, but it is not a given that the parties will engage in these activities.) None of us were in any danger of being disciplined by church leaders simply for dating/having a boyfriend. It was up to our parents to decide the rules in our homes. Our parents were never in danger of being disciplined, either.

 

I came to agree with the idea of avoiding one-on-one serious dating until both parties are mature enough to make that commitment. I broke up with my boyfriend because I knew he wasn't the type of guy I really wanted to be with. I dated multiple people during the same period of time because there was no expectation that one date = commitment. If I didn't feel a connection after one date, I would decline any further invitations. If I did feel a connection, I'd go out with that guy again. I like that there was no pressure. When I met dh (in college), we did things as friends before things turned romantic. We decided to date each other exclusively and see where it led. After six months we got engaged.

 

My story is VERY common for members of my faith. It is quite disturbing to me that the OP's bishop and ward are overstepping their role. My oldest dd is best friends with a boy her age and I will not forbid the friendship when they enter puberty (which is right aroud the corner). The boy's family belongs to our congregation and I cannot imagine our bishop saying that they can't hang out together anymore. It would be FAR outside the bishop's authority to say such a thing.

 

I'm really sorry that the people in your ward are misinterpreting church guidelines in such a hurtful way. :(

[Parrothead]

... my problems with the very confusing and over restrictive doctrine, the fact that I feel my parental decisions aren't mine anymore and I am being judged for that, and where that leaves me with my religion and church is you can't get on board with counsel that has supposedly come down from our Prophet.

Personally I would not stand for a church to tell me how to parent. I'm too much of an free thinking individual to deal well with something like what you described. Sounds like it might be time for you to reassess.

[Leav97]

Is is possible that the reason they are talking to her parents is because she is 14?

[mommaduck]

Gently: is it possible that it's the parents that have an issue with the relationship and are seeking counsel from the bishop instead of the other way around?

[Catwoman]

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I know almost nothing of your faith, but I would say this to anyone of any religion who was in your situation, so I hope no one takes this the wrong way...

 

(and how was that for a disclaimer? ;))

 

My concern isn't at all about your religious beliefs, or even those of your bishop; I'm concerned about you as a person. You are not happy. You are conflicted and stressed. Faith is supposed to be a good and comforting thing, and your experiences with your church leadership (and, apparently some church members, as well,) are making your life very difficult and I can see that you are terribly upset over everything that is happening.

 

I don't know how things work in your faith, but is there a way to switch to a different LDS church with different leadership that is more aligned with your personal beliefs, and that is a bit less controlling and conservative? It sounds like you believe in the basic tenets of your religion; it's just the "telling you how to live your life and parent your kids -- and watching you like a hawk to be sure you do it" thing isn't working for you.

 

I truly hope you are able to find a solution to this. :grouphug:

 

Cat

[simka2]

Just catching up on this thread. You have gotten a lot of good advice, and I think your instincts are right on. I am in the middle of searching for a new church, and I can tell you that if that was going on I would RUN!!!!!

[goldberry]

I am not LDS but a member of a church that also encourages obedience. I do believe that obedience to those in authority in the interest of unity is expected of me by God. I have also been in some congregations where obedience was detrimental to my spirituality and that of my family.

 

After years of prayer and struggle, I have reached a personal place of balance, where I am obedient to all things that I feel are not harmful to me or my family spiritually. Ultimately, it is I who have to answer to God for my own actions. If I am in disagreement with something, I consider very carefully whether being obedient in spite of disagreement would actually cause harm to my family. In other words, I feel if I am going to be disobedient to those in authority, I should be prepared to stand before God and answer for my choice. (Not just with, I didn't like that rule, or that rule was inconvenient.) And yes, I have made that choice in certain situations, but not nearly as many as I would have expected.

 

I have also had to live with the results of those choices. If you make a certain choice in the interest of your family, you may have to deal with other members viewing you a certain way - not an example, not good association, etc. Other people have the right to feel the way they feel. If the choice is important enough to you, you have to stand by it and deal with the consequences.

 

Some might say, why put up with that, why not just change churches. But, if you really believe your church has the truth on all the important issues, then you don't just abandon it. We live in an imperfect world and no church involving humans will be 100% perfect. You do, however, have to take whatever steps are necessary to protect your own family from spiritual harm, and your own conscience before God.

[Catwoman]

Some might say, why put up with that, why not just change churches. But, if you really believe your church has the truth on all the important issues, then you don't just abandon it.

 

Oh gosh, I hope I didn't come across that way in my posts! :eek:

 

I don't know what others meant, but I didn't say she should abandon her LDS faith or affiliation, but that if she can't work things out with her local church leadership, she might want to consider changing to a different church -- and by that, I meant a different physical building, not a different religion.

 

Just thought I should make that clear, in case my phrasing was awkward.

 

Cat

[Guest RecumbentHeart]

Sorry I didn't read it all. Just sharing my two cents as one who is rather conservative and holds roles of authority in the church in high regard - this kind of extrabiblical teaching and control of your family's behavior and conscience sounds straight up cultish. I join the ranks crying "Flee!!"

[goldberry]

Oh gosh, I hope I didn't come across that way in my posts! :eek:

 

I don't know what others meant, but I didn't say she should abandon her LDS faith or affiliation, but that if she can't work things out with her local church leadership, she might want to consider changing to a different church -- and by that, I meant a different physical building, not a different religion.

 

Just thought I should make that clear, in case my phrasing was awkward.

 

Cat

 

 

Oh, no, I wasn't refering to you specifically. It's just that some people move freely between faiths as long as they are Christian denominations. Others, like LDS, have very specific reasons for being in that particular denomination. So it makes it more difficult when you have issues. That's what I was referring to.

[Catwoman]

Oh, no, I wasn't refering to you specifically. It's just that some people move freely between faiths as long as they are Christian denominations. Others, like LDS, have very specific reasons for being in that particular denomination. So it makes it more difficult when you have issues. That's what I was referring to.

 

Oh, good. Thanks! :001_smile:

 

Cat

[Xuzi]

Oh, good. Thanks! :001_smile:

 

Cat

Also, in LDS culture, "Leave the church" means "abandon the faith", not just the building. The phrase is quiet a bit more loaded than it is in other denominations. :)

[Xuzi]

Sorry I didn't read it all. Just sharing my two cents as one who is rather conservative and holds roles of authority in the church in high regard - this kind of extrabiblical teaching and control of your family's behavior and conscience sounds straight up cultish. I join the ranks crying "Flee!!"

It's not really control over her family's behavior by the Church though. It's a Bishop who's gotten out of hand, yes, but it's way out of whack with actual church teachings and procedures (the "reporting"). He's taken council from the church leadership and taken it to an extreme that the leadership never meant it to be taken. Council does NOT equal commandment. You won't face church discipline for going against the council of the leadership.

 

To the OP: How long has this man been Bishop? New Bishops are called about every 5 years, so you may not have to deal with this guy's heavy hand for very much longer, and hopefully he'll have a more level-headed replacement.

 

I also agree with some other posters that perhaps the "reporting" is the parents doing, rather than the Bishop's? If they're concerned about her disobeying them, then having others keep an eye on her when they can't may be the method they're using to collect "proof" before addressing the issue more forcefully with her. Not a method I would personally use, but I've known a few parents who have used that method to keep tabs on their older children.

[Catwoman]

Also, in LDS culture, "Leave the church" means "abandon the faith", not just the building. The phrase is quiet a bit more loaded than it is in other denominations. :)

 

Oops -- I didn't know that! Sorry! :blush:

 

Cat

[Xuzi]

Oops -- I didn't know that! Sorry! :blush:

 

Cat

No worries. :) I used to get all in a huff whenever someone of another faith would say to me "Why don't you just leave the church?" when I would be having an issue with people at church (which has been rare, but it happens. we're a church of humans after all :lol: ). I thought they were telling me that I should abandon my faith just because some fellow believers were jerks! :001_huh: It took me a few years into adulthood to realize that they only meant the congregation, not the faith. :tongue_smilie: I hadn't realized that it was just a difference in cultural upbringing. (because being LDS IS very much a culture, as well as a faith)

[Melinda in VT]

Former Mormon chiming in here. (I say that in case it changes how much weight you give my comments. ;))

 

The goal in the LDS church is to have everything correlated from one ward to another, but wards do have their own flavors. Some wards are more flavorful than others, and it sounds like yours might be one of them.

 

It seems to me that you are coming from a more liberal view of Mormon dating guidelines (I grew up in the church and group dating at 14 was certainly not ok in the wards and stakes I lived in) and your bishop is coming at it from a more conservative view (the two girls going to the mall is a date, two families doing things together is a date, etc.).

 

(It could be worse. A friend of mine once had a bishop who thought chocolate of any kind was against the Word of Wisdom and asked about chocolate consumption in temple recommend interviews. :glare:)

 

I think it would be easy to mix your issues with your current bishop and ward with your empathy for your son with the larger theological issue of obedience to church leaders. From the perspective of someone who has left the church, I would encourage you to separate those and deal with them individually.

 

How long has your bishop been serving? Any chance he's due to be released soon? :D

[MamaSheep]

To the OP: How long has this man been Bishop? New Bishops are called about every 5 years, so you may not have to deal with this guy's heavy hand for very much longer, and hopefully he'll have a more level-headed replacement.

 

Very true. Also, if the bishop is a problem he can certainly be replaced sooner than that. But church members have a responsibility to report the problems they're having with the man up the chain of command so that the people who do the replacing can talk to him. They would first sit down and talk with him about the complaints they've received, and give him a chance to make things right, of course. And if he does admit his fault and work to remedy the situation then of course the proper course of action would be to forgive him and support him in doing things right. My guess would be that he's basically a good guy who is very concerned for the youth and has taken that concern a little too far.

 

You know, something else I thought maybe I should mention is that the New Era is a magazine for teens. It's written TO teens, not to their parents. I would guess that the guidelines are rather more firmly stated to the teens than they might be to the parents. They're not going to say to teens, in effect, "this is the general standard for the church, but go see if you can manipulate your parents into letting you fudge it." They're going to say, "this is the general standard for the church, and you will be happier in life if you follow it." Melissa, you might want to search out information that's directed to parents, as you will probably find the flexibility angle more prominent in material for parents than for teens. To parents the message is more along the lines of, "this is the general guideline for the church, so that we can all be more or less on the same page and know where we stand with each other a little better, but your children are your stewardship and you should prayerfully set guidelines that are appropriate for your family."

[DianeW88]

Um, none of this is typical ward behavior and I've never seen anything like this in any ward I've ever been to. Children's lives and personal dating decisions are the responsibility of the parents and no one else. Yes, the church does not ENCOURAGE dating before the age of 16, but I have never even heard of the other "rules" you are talking about. It sounds to me like it is more gossip than anything else. If the bishop hasn't talked to you about it, it sounds like he also is treating it as gossip and not something worthy of making a big deal about or blowing it up out of proportion.

 

None of what you are referring to is church policy and should not be treated as such. Unfortunately, people sometimes tend to interpret things like dating in their own way, and this is where the confusion lies. But, do not think for one second that this is doctrine. It is not. It is a guideline for parents to postpone dating until age 16 when children are a little more mature and able to deal with a relationship. It is not scripture.

[Forget-Me-Not]

Also, in LDS culture, "Leave the church" means "abandon the faith", not just the building. The phrase is quiet a bit more loaded than it is in other denominations. :)

 

:iagree: Thanks for stating that Xuzi. I was trying to figure out how to word that diplomatically.

 

(It could be worse. A friend of mine once had a bishop who thought chocolate of any kind was against the Word of Wisdom and asked about chocolate consumption in temple recommend interviews. :glare:)

 

I wonder what he thought about the fact that you can buy hot chocolate mix at the Church Cannery AND in the Temple cafeterias? :D

 

I agree with everything Mama Sheep said. Especially the part about chastity before marriage and complete fidelity afterward. Everything else are guidelines for accomplishing that goal.

[Mimm]

Maybe I shouldn't derail this thread and I apologize if I do, but several people have mentioned being disciplined by the church. What would that involved exactly? And if you were being disciplined for something you simply didn't agree was wrong, what are your choices? Submit or leave?

[LuvingLife]

This is what happens to people all of the time, they follow man not God. I say you need to join a new church that teaches from the bible and doesn't follow what man says.

 

Praying for you!:grouphug:

[Xuzi]

Maybe I shouldn't derail this thread and I apologize if I do, but several people have mentioned being disciplined by the church. What would that involved exactly? And if you were being disciplined for something you simply didn't agree was wrong, what are your choices? Submit or leave?

Well, church discipline rarely happens when the person hasn't personally confessed their wrong-doing to the church, unless it was something *very* obvious (like you broke the law and were arrested or something. can't really hide that that happened, ya know?). I guess "discipline" is too harsh of a word to use, really, for what happens. It's basically just confessing your sin to the Bishop and working with him to repent of your sin. It may require meeting with the Bishop often, being asked to pray and read your Scriptures more often, not partaking of the Sacrament (communion) for a period of time, and/or not giving prayers in church and not holding a calling (aka church assignment, such as Sunday School teacher, since our church doesn't have paid cleregy) until the issue is resolved. The general membership of the church generally has NO idea who is meeting with the Bishop for these kinds of things, and it's reserved for very serious sins, such as fornication, adultury, criminal activity (like embezzling money, or drug addiction), or if the person just feels like they need the guidance of the Bishop in overcoming a particular sin. It can be a very Spiritual experience, actually, and helpful in strengthening your relationship with the Lord at a time when you're struggling (at least that's I've heard from my family members and friends who've done it). For many people it can be a very positive thing.

 

If a person is caught in a serious sin (like adultury) and is unrepentant of it, or the sin was really *really* bad (like they raped someone, or had *multiple* affairs, or were abusing their children, etc.) they could be excommunicated. But it's rare and reserved for very serious sins.

 

The church really is not as intimately involved in the day-to-day doings of it's membership as some people might think, or as it may appear from the OP. There IS a definite sense of community among LDS members, and that can lead to people knowing a lot about what other people are doing and knowing when they're struggling and things like that, and church activities and friendships can make up a large part of a Mormons life, but it's not nefarious. It's just an extension of our beliefs, that we're "all in this together", and that, as children of God, we're all family, and we treat eachother as such. :) I don't feel "watched" or "policed" or like I've signed over my right to decide for myself over to the church and I'd better fall in line "or else".

[Dayle in Guatemala]

What you choose to do with your children is your business, not the church's. I can't say that strongly enough. The church is there to provide spiritual encouragement and, when asked, guidance. It is not there to get involved in the personal decisions of the family--unless there is some kind of abuse happening.

 

If the church doesn't agree with what you and your dh decide and gets involved in that decision to the point where it's causing you stress, find another church.:grouphug:

[DianeW88]

Also, is it possible that the mother asked other people in the ward who she knew would be at the activities to keep an eye out and let her know what her daughter is doing? I think it's possible that I might ask friends to help me stay informed if my daughter were in a similar situation, especially if I knew the 16 year old boy's family rules were different from my 14 year old girl's (that really is a bit of an age gap at that stage of development), and that his parents would support his pursuing my daughter, even against my clearly expressed wishes. That would make me edgy as a mother. I don't think I would ask them to also keep the boy's parents informed, especially if I knew the boy's parents wouldn't have a problem with the behavior I was concerned about. And frankly, if one of my friends saw either of my kids at a church activity doing something they knew I wouldn't approve of, I would HOPE they would tell me about it.

 

:iagree: This. Absolutely. If this mother doesn't want her 14 year old dd to have ANY sort of relationship with a boy, you and your son need to respect that. Whether you call it "dating", "friendship", "girlfriend/boyfriend" is pure semantics. Perhaps she feels this is something that isn't in her dd's best interest at the moment and if she and her dh do not approve of this relationship for whatever reason.....that is all that matters. She is 14, she is a minor, and I believe a large majority of parents would not want their very young teen daughter to be involved in this type of friendship at this point in her life. I don't this is exclusive to LDS parents either.

 

I also would have NO problem as her mother asking her YW leaders to be on the lookout for this sort of thing between her and your son and inform me about it if they saw it. It truly is up to the girl's parents to decide whether or not your son is allowed to see their dd. You don't get a say in it. They also aren't required to discuss it with you or to give you any reason at all if they don't want it happening. As my dh and I have told a young man who tried pursuing our dd in spite of our objections, "This is not something we're negotiating. She is our daughter and she is not allowed to date you." End of story. I think the best thing you and your son can do in this situation is to back off for awhile. Maybe in the future, things will change. But I really don't see a problem with parents not wanting their 14 year old dd to have an exclusive "friendship" with a boy.

[MamaSheep]

Maybe I shouldn't derail this thread and I apologize if I do, but several people have mentioned being disciplined by the church. What would that involved exactly? And if you were being disciplined for something you simply didn't agree was wrong, what are your choices? Submit or leave?

 

Here are some snips from an article on the church's website that might be helpful:

 

When a bishop learns of a transgression, usually through the confession of the member involved, he first counsels with the member. When the sin is not grievous, the bishop may decide, through inspiration, that no disciplinary action is needed. He may continue to give counsel and caution, helping the member resist temptation and avoid further transgression.

 

Another option the bishop has is to place the member on informal probation, temporarily restricting his privileges as a Church member—such as the right to partake of the sacrament, hold a Church position, or enter the temple. The bishop may ask the member to surrender his temple recommend temporarily. In addition, he may require the member to make specific positive changes in attitude or behavior. No official record is made or kept of informal probation. The bishop maintains close contact with the member and may terminate the probation period when he is prompted to do so.

 

In these cases, informal Church discipline may negate the need for formal disciplinary action. Since repentance and reformation are the primary objectives of any Church disciplinary action, the bishop may feel that the person has done or is doing everything necessary to repent and that a disciplinary council would serve no useful purpose

 

On the other hand, the spirit of inspiration may move the Church leader to convene a disciplinary council, particularly if the member holds a prominent position in the Church.

 

In the scriptures, the Lord has given direction concerning Church disciplinary councils. (See D&C 102.) The word council brings to mind a helpful proceeding—one of love and concern, with the salvation and blessing of the transgressor being the foremost consideration.

 

Members sometimes ask why Church disciplinary councils are held. The purpose is threefold: to save the soul of the transgressor, to protect the innocent, and to safeguard the Church’s purity, integrity, and good name.

 

The First Presidency has instructed that disciplinary councils must be held in cases of murder, incest, or apostasy. A disciplinary council must also be held when a prominent Church leader commits a serious transgression, when the transgressor is a predator who may be a threat to other persons, when the person shows a pattern of repeated serious transgressions, when a serious transgression is widely known, and when the transgressor is guilty of serious deceptive practices and false representations or other terms of fraud or dishonesty in business transactions.

 

Disciplinary councils may also be convened to consider a member’s standing in the Church following serious transgression such as abortion, transsexual operation, attempted murder, rape, forcible sexual abuse, intentionally inflicting serious physical injuries on others, adultery, fornication, homosexual relations, child abuse (sexual or physical), spouse abuse, deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities, robbery, burglary, embezzlement, theft, sale of illegal drugs, fraud, perjury, or false swearing.

 

Disciplinary councils are not called to try civil or criminal cases. The decision of a civil court may help determine whether a Church disciplinary council should be convened. However, a civil court’s decision does not dictate the decision of a disciplinary council.

 

Disciplinary councils are not held for such things as failure to pay tithing, to obey the Word of Wisdom, to attend church, or to receive home teachers. They are not held because of business failure or nonpayment of debts. They are not designed to settle disputes among members.

 

...

 

Decisions of the council are to be made with inspiration. A council can reach one of four decisions: (1) no action, (2) formal probation, (3) disfellowshipment, or (4) excommunication.

 

Even if a transgression has been committed, the council may decide to take no action at that time. (The member would be encouraged to receive further counsel from his or her bishop.)

 

Formal probation is a temporary state of discipline, imposed as a means to help the member fully repent. The presiding officer of the council specifies the conditions under which the probation can be terminated. During the probation, the bishop or stake president keeps in close contact to help the individual progress.

 

The third decision the council may take is to disfellowship the member. Disfellowshipment is usually temporary, though not necessarily brief. Disfellowshipped persons retain membership in the Church. They are encouraged to attend public Church meetings, but are not entitled to offer public prayers or to give talks. They may not hold a Church position, take the sacrament, vote in the sustaining of Church officers, hold a temple recommend, or exercise the priesthood. They may, however, pay tithes and offerings and continue to wear temple garments if endowed.

 

Excommunication is the most severe judgment a Church disciplinary council can take. Excommunicated persons are no longer members of the Church. Therefore, they are denied the privileges of Church membership, including the wearing of temple garments and the payment of tithes and offerings. They may attend public Church meetings, but, like disfellowshipped persons, their participation in such meetings is limited. Excommunicated persons are encouraged to repent and so live as to qualify for eventual baptism.

 

Great consideration is given regarding the confidentiality of the decisions of a Church disciplinary council. No announcement is ever made when a member is placed on formal probation. Decisions to disfellowship or excommunicate are generally not announced publicly unless the transgression is widely known.

 

 

Hope that helps. :)

[Xuzi]

What you choose to do with your children is your business, not the church's. I can't say that strongly enough. The church is there to provide spiritual encouragement and, when asked, guidance. It is not there to get involved in the personal decisions of the family--unless there is some kind of abuse happening.

 

 

I agree. This Bishop is *way* out of line in wanting to get involved with your parenting decisions without your expressly asking for his council. It's not his stewardship. If he won't back off, then I might consider changing congregations unless he's going to be released soon.

[BeckyFL]

I've never attended a church that had so much say in day to day affairs of the families. I've heard sermons preached and ideas given, but never "rules" made for things that aren't in the word. If they were living together, having sex, etc it would be different but to me, the families should be deciding these things. That's really frustrating. :grouphug:

[Xuzi]

I've never attended a church that had so much say in day to day affairs of the families. I've heard sermons preached and ideas given, but never "rules" made for things that aren't in the word. If they were living together, having sex, etc it would be different but to me, the families should be deciding these things. That's really frustrating. :grouphug:

It not so much that the church "has a say", but they do offer council. The members are free to accept or reject said council.

[MamaSheep]

It not so much that the church "has a say", but they do offer council. The members are free to accept or reject said council.

:iagree: Yes. That.

[Mimm]

Well, church discipline rarely happens when the person hasn't personally confessed their wrong-doing to the church, unless it was something *very* obvious (like you broke the law and were arrested or something. can't really hide that that happened, ya know?). I guess "discipline" is too harsh of a word to use, really, for what happens. It's basically just confessing your sin to the Bishop and working with him to repent of your sin. It may require meeting with the Bishop often, being asked to pray and read your Scriptures more often, not partaking of the Sacrament (communion) for a period of time, and/or not giving prayers in church and not holding a calling (aka church assignment, such as Sunday School teacher, since our church doesn't have paid cleregy) until the issue is resolved. The general membership of the church generally has NO idea who is meeting with the Bishop for these kinds of things, and it's reserved for very serious sins, such as fornication, adultury, criminal activity (like embezzling money, or drug addiction), or if the person just feels like they need the guidance of the Bishop in overcoming a particular sin. It can be a very Spiritual experience, actually, and helpful in strengthening your relationship with the Lord at a time when you're struggling (at least that's I've heard from my family members and friends who've done it). For many people it can be a very positive thing.

 

If a person is caught in a serious sin (like adultury) and is unrepentant of it, or the sin was really *really* bad (like they raped someone, or had *multiple* affairs, or were abusing their children, etc.) they could be excommunicated. But it's rare and reserved for very serious sins.

 

The church really is not as intimately involved in the day-to-day doings of it's membership as some people might think, or as it may appear from the OP. There IS a definite sense of community among LDS members, and that can lead to people knowing a lot about what other people are doing and knowing when they're struggling and things like that, and church activities and friendships can make up a large part of a Mormons life, but it's not nefarious. It's just an extension of our beliefs, that we're "all in this together", and that, as children of God, we're all family, and we treat eachother as such. :) I don't feel "watched" or "policed" or like I've signed over my right to decide for myself over to the church and I'd better fall in line "or else".

 

Thank you for the explanation. :)

[missesd]

It not so much that the church "has a say", but they do offer council. The members are free to accept or reject said council.

 

I really wanted this thread to die... it's been a drama-filled, stressful 2 days, and it's not over yet. There is still church on Sunday, which should be fun. And next week is my sons birthday, in which her 2 boys were coming over that weekend for a fort sleepover. They were REALLY heartbroken, but I had to tell my son, that just may not happen now. He's heartbroken, and I am heartbroken for him, but I really don't see her letting them come. Things got so bad that her daughter is spending the weekend at her grandma's.

 

Anyway... I have chosen to keep quiet mostly because really I am not sure how I feel about the church right now, and I just feel that that is best. However, I could not let the above statement go without saying that, Yes, that is true. BUT we all know to do is "frowned upon", it is not without some sort of repercussion. Whether it is being counseled by our Bishop about how this counsel is right, or whether it is having other members look down upon us. I have been a member for a loooong time... since I was 14, 22 years. And I have seen it time and again, if someone chooses to go against church suggestion, guidelines, doctrine, what have you... they are judged by other members within the wards. It does affect friendships, and the friendships of their kids, with you or your kids. You are not asked or chosen to do or participate in certain things, people generally avoid you. In short, it IS uncomfortable. Going with the flow is always more stomachable then that. And yes, I know that is not a word, but it's the best I can could come up wit, sorry...

[stansclan89]

It not so much that the church "has a say", but they do offer council. The members are free to accept or reject said council.

 

The church does give council and we are free to do as we please. The people in church are definitely prone to gossiping when you're not doing what the council says. It takes a strong person to hold their head high and say this is what's best for our family when it is against the council. You are a hser so are already a strong person--hold your head high and do what you feel is best for your family.

 

You and your dh are the only ones able to receive revelation specifically for your family. If you have prayed about it and you feel this is what is right for your family, no one can rightfully dispute that.

[Sputterduck]

You are letting yourself be controlled by mere humans. There should be nothing between you and God.

[Veritaserum]

Anyway... I have chosen to keep quiet mostly because really I am not sure how I feel about the church right now, and I just feel that that is best. However, I could not let the above statement go without saying that, Yes, that is true. BUT we all know to do is "frowned upon", it is not without some sort of repercussion. Whether it is being counseled by our Bishop about how this counsel is right, or whether it is having other members look down upon us. I have been a member for a loooong time... since I was 14, 22 years. And I have seen it time and again, if someone chooses to go against church suggestion, guidelines, doctrine, what have you... they are judged by other members within the wards. It does affect friendships, and the friendships of their kids, with you or your kids. You are not asked or chosen to do or participate in certain things, people generally avoid you. In short, it IS uncomfortable. Going with the flow is always more stomachable then that. And yes, I know that is not a word, but it's the best I can could come up wit, sorry...

 

:grouphug: I'm sorry things are so tough right now. And I'm really sorry that the above has been your experience with the Church. It is NOT meant to be that way (and isn't that way in most wards, ime).

 

I hope things improve for you and your family and I hope that you find a course of action that brings you peace.

[Xuzi]

Missesd, I'm so sorry that you're struggling right now. :( I'm so sorry that the people around you are judging you for doing things differently than they are. I'm sorry to hear that the church culture where you are is that way. It is not the way it is supposed to be. It's not what Christ wants in his church. I'll keep you and your family (and the gossipers in your ward) in my prayers. I hope it all gets straightened out for the best for you.

[scrapbabe]

Just sent you a PM.:001_smile:

[Mekanamom]

Missesd, I'm so sorry that you're struggling right now. :( I'm so sorry that the people around you are judging you for doing things differently than they are. I'm sorry to hear that the church culture where you are is that way. It is not the way it is supposed to be.

 

 

It is not uncommon, though, even if it isn't supposed to be that way.

 

Back in the day, when I was a member, there was an issue similar to this in my ward. IIRC, I think it was S.W.K. who counciled female members to NOT have pierced ears. (I realize it is different now, and women may choose to have one set of ear piercings as long as they wear tasteful earrings.) But back then it was a big deal. The youth had firesides and lessons about it. We were told that we should not have pierced ears, and that it was right up there with the law of chastity. It was about keeping our bodies pure and avoiding the appearance of evil. Anyone who dared to have pierced ears was ostracized and gossiped about. Horrible chunky clip-on earrings became a sort of status symbol. It was ridiculous!

 

Just using this example to say... Yes, these things happen, and no, it is not uncommon. I dont think its exclusive to the LDS religion, either... I think it is more of a social group phenomenon. Members are expected to follow council, and there are social consequences if they do not. I'm sorry the OP is on the receiving end of it this time.

 

Edited to add: My ward was not especially snarky. It was full of great people. Sometimes people get swept up in these things. Also- back in the day in my ward, it was group activities with both young men and young women starting at 14 (I don't think I remember the term "group dating" used, though), and exclusive dating beginning at 16 was accepted. At 17 I was personally counciled to start looking for a returned missionary to marry. This council came from a leader outside of my ward in an interview after I had completed a "mini-mission" (I spent maybe 2 weeks living & working with a pair of sister missionaries as a youth missionary)... getting married that young was not common advice given within my ward. I'm a little relieved to hear they are now advising the youth across the board to wait until they're out of their teens before even looking to get married, actually. LOL. Still... it is not uncommon in my area for 18yo women to be getting married in the LDS community... and I, personally, would certainly want my own children to have some parent-guided dating experience before they choose a life partner.

Edited December 4, 2010 by Mekanamom

[Plagefille]

Now I AM LDS too and I have heard NOTHING like that. It may just be someone's opinion. It has always been group dating at 16 (at least since I remember) and to wait to start serious relationships. What is going on with your son sounds fine to me. Does not even sound like they are going on dates.

 

I would ask the leaders in your area where they are getting this from?

[MamaSheep]

It is not uncommon, though, even if it isn't supposed to be that way.

 

Back in the day, when I was a member, there was an issue similar to this in my ward. IIRC, I think it was S.W.K. who counciled female members to NOT have pierced ears. (I realize it is different now, and women may choose to have one set of ear piercings as long as they wear tasteful earrings.) But back then it was a big deal. The youth had firesides and lessons about it. We were told that we should not have pierced ears, and that it was right up there with the law of chastity. It was about keeping our bodies pure and avoiding the appearance of evil. Anyone who dared to have pierced ears was ostracized and gossiped about. Horrible chunky clip-on earrings became a sort of status symbol. It was ridiculous!

 

Just using this example to say... Yes, these things happen, and no, it is not uncommon. I dont think its exclusive to the LDS religion, either... I think it is more of a social group phenomenon. Members are expected to follow council, and there are social consequences if they do not. I'm sorry the OP is on the receiving end of it this time.

 

Edited to add: My ward was not especially snarky. It was full of great people. Sometimes people get swept up in these things. Also- back in the day in my ward, it was group activities with both young men and young women starting at 14 (I don't think I remember the term "group dating" used, though), and exclusive dating beginning at 16 was accepted. At 17 I was personally counciled to start looking for a returned missionary to marry. This council came from a leader outside of my ward in an interview after I had completed a "mini-mission" (I spent maybe 2 weeks living & working with a pair of sister missionaries as a youth missionary)... getting married that young was not common advice given within my ward. I'm a little relieved to hear they are now advising the youth across the board to wait until they're out of their teens before even looking to get married, actually. LOL. Still... it is not uncommon in my area for 18yo women to be getting married in the LDS community... and I, personally, would certainly want my own children to have some parent-guided dating experience before they choose a life partner.

 

 

You're right, these things do happen. And members of the church should be aware of it, and be careful not to let themselves get caught up in it. I think it's an effect of having lots of imperfect people involved in running the system. And we're ALL imperfect people, we're going to make mistakes, and we need to help each other stay on track. And bishops and stake presidents are definitely not immune.

 

I think it's why the church places so much emphasis on personal study, knowing for oneself what the gospel is, knowing what we, personally, believe, and why, and what it's grounded in, and not being dependent on anyone else to tell us what to believe or how to apply it. Because if you aren't well-rooted yourself, it's easier to get caught up in someone else's excesses. Especially if that person is in a position of authority when he jumps the track.

 

Here's a good conference talk on the subject, for those who are interested: http://lds.org/ensign/2003/03/looking-beyond-the-mark?lang=eng

[Sara in AZ]

 

I think it's why the church places so much emphasis on personal study, knowing for oneself what the gospel is, knowing what we, personally, believe, and why, and what it's grounded in, and not being dependent on anyone else to tell us what to believe or how to apply it. Because if you aren't well-rooted yourself, it's easier to get caught up in someone else's excesses. Especially if that person is in a position of authority when he jumps the track.

 

 

 

 

MamaSheep, you have such wise things to say. And it was Joseph Smith who said, "Teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves"