Dating at 16 - the new revelation

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
spiritMan
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2276

Re: Dating at 16 - the new revelation

Post by spiritMan »

CuriousThinker wrote: October 1st, 2022, 4:42 pm
Mamabear wrote: October 1st, 2022, 4:23 pm From a 1996 church article:

“Dating - Begin to prepare now for a temple marriage. Do not date until you turn 16 years old. Dating should be done in groups.”

https://www.thechurchnews.com/1996/2/3/ ... -standards
Yep, this was what I was taught from in my ward and stake. That came out when I turned 14.
Same here, it looks like those who say differently are really the ones who's leaders were off the rails... But that's okay it's a big Church.. but getting smaller now.

spiritMan
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2276

Re: Dating at 16 - the new revelation

Post by spiritMan »

Mamabear wrote: October 1st, 2022, 4:44 pm
Lizzy60 wrote: October 1st, 2022, 4:41 pm
Mamabear wrote: October 1st, 2022, 4:35 pm
Durzan wrote: October 1st, 2022, 3:33 pm So, where’s the revelation or declaration saying that ANY of this has changed? Wasn’t that the point of the thread?
Here is the old:
You should not date until you are at least 16 years old. When you begin dating, go with one or more additional couples.

Here is the new:
For your emotional and spiritual development and safety, one-on-one activities should be postponed until you are mature—age 16 is a good guideline.
Well, you can drive a Mack truck through the new guideline.
Is the whole FSOTY guide going to be that vague?
Did you see the part where it says same sex attraction isn’t a sin?
Sure go on a mission with those thoughts……we know you won’t act on them.
Right, they have been teaching that ssa isn't a sin for about 6 years now.

That's why this has gotten so bad in the Church. The Church doesn't even recognize that sexual desire for the same sex is wrong. If the desire isn't wrong then clearly nothing that comes from the desire is wrong either.

So jacked up.

Mamabear
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3351

Re: Dating at 16 - the new revelation

Post by Mamabear »

spiritMan wrote: October 1st, 2022, 4:43 pm
Lizzy60 wrote: October 1st, 2022, 4:41 pm
Mamabear wrote: October 1st, 2022, 4:35 pm
Durzan wrote: October 1st, 2022, 3:33 pm So, where’s the revelation or declaration saying that ANY of this has changed? Wasn’t that the point of the thread?
Here is the old:
You should not date until you are at least 16 years old. When you begin dating, go with one or more additional couples.

Here is the new:
For your emotional and spiritual development and safety, one-on-one activities should be postponed until you are mature—age 16 is a good guideline.
Well, you can drive a Mack truck through the new guideline.
Is the whole FSOTY guide going to be that vague?
Yes it absolutely is.

I read through it earlier today.

It's just a bunch of platitudes and feel good messages.

Not a single word on modesty... But we'll most certainly shame all the young men for ever looking at porn (and I agree it is bad).

It's not even a standard just a bunch of drivel... Okay it does have some good overall message but it's effectively a free for all.
They gave up on modesty because they see the trend and they know they’re losing the battle on that one.

spiritMan
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2276

Re: Dating at 16 - the new revelation

Post by spiritMan »

Mamabear wrote: October 1st, 2022, 4:47 pm
spiritMan wrote: October 1st, 2022, 4:43 pm
Lizzy60 wrote: October 1st, 2022, 4:41 pm
Mamabear wrote: October 1st, 2022, 4:35 pm

Here is the old:
You should not date until you are at least 16 years old. When you begin dating, go with one or more additional couples.

Here is the new:
For your emotional and spiritual development and safety, one-on-one activities should be postponed until you are mature—age 16 is a good guideline.
Well, you can drive a Mack truck through the new guideline.
Is the whole FSOTY guide going to be that vague?
Yes it absolutely is.

I read through it earlier today.

It's just a bunch of platitudes and feel good messages.

Not a single word on modesty... But we'll most certainly shame all the young men for ever looking at porn (and I agree it is bad).

It's not even a standard just a bunch of drivel... Okay it does have some good overall message but it's effectively a free for all.
They gave up on modesty because they see the trend and they know they’re losing the battle on that one.
So when do we get thong garments for women?

Lizzy60
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8520

Re: Dating at 16 - the new revelation

Post by Lizzy60 »

CuriousThinker wrote: October 1st, 2022, 4:42 pm
Mamabear wrote: October 1st, 2022, 4:23 pm From a 1996 church article:

“Dating - Begin to prepare now for a temple marriage. Do not date until you turn 16 years old. Dating should be done in groups.”

https://www.thechurchnews.com/1996/2/3/ ... -standards
Yep, this was what I was taught from in my ward and stake. That came out when I turned 14.
I was also taught group dating at 16, one-on-one dates would be allowed later. This was in 1970. I remember very clearly because my dad wasn’t too keen on my first boyfriend, so the group dating thing was strictly enforced. We moved, I got a new boyfriend (I was still 16) and I must have shown great maturity, because my dad allowed me to single date him including riding on the back of his motorcycle and flying in a two-seater plane.

spiritMan
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2276

Re: Dating at 16 - the new revelation

Post by spiritMan »

Lizzy60 wrote: October 1st, 2022, 4:52 pm
CuriousThinker wrote: October 1st, 2022, 4:42 pm
Mamabear wrote: October 1st, 2022, 4:23 pm From a 1996 church article:

“Dating - Begin to prepare now for a temple marriage. Do not date until you turn 16 years old. Dating should be done in groups.”

https://www.thechurchnews.com/1996/2/3/ ... -standards
Yep, this was what I was taught from in my ward and stake. That came out when I turned 14.
I was also taught group dating at 16, one-on-one dates would be allowed later. This was in 1970. I remember very clearly because my dad wasn’t too keen on my first boyfriend, so the group dating thing was strictly enforced. We moved, I got a new boyfriend (I was still 16) and I must have shown great maturity, because my dad allowed me to single date him including riding on the back of his motorcycle and flying in a two-seater plane.
Exactly, it was never a "your going to hell if you date single at 16" but it certainly wasn't stated it was okay or good.

User avatar
h_p
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2811

Re: Dating at 16 - the new revelation

Post by h_p »

Mamabear wrote: October 1st, 2022, 4:23 pm From a 1996 church article:

“Dating - Begin to prepare now for a temple marriage. Do not date until you turn 16 years old. Dating should be done in groups.”

https://www.thechurchnews.com/1996/2/3/ ... -standards
And here's the original 1965 FSY booklet: https://www.scribd.com/document/3307998 ... h-of-Youth, and it has 16 as the minimum age for dating, and only references group dating as being OK. "Steady dating" is verboten, but that's about it. It was OK to take a date to a church fireside, though. :-D

FWIW, I have no recollection of ever seeing or hearing about an FSY pamphlet until we had kids of our own. These things didn't make it out into the barren wasteland of the "mission field," or something? Maybe I just have a bad memory. But at any rate, back in the day, we didn't have the constant communication from the COB ivory tower like we do today. These kinds of things were taught by local leaders and parents. The rule I grew up with was no single-dating until you could start considering marriage. Ie, post-mission for men, and 18 for women. Imagine my surprise my first semester at BYU when I got introduced to the term "NCMO."

Mamabear
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3351

Re: Dating at 16 - the new revelation

Post by Mamabear »

From Reddit:
5ECF7D23-6AC0-4A6C-9C0E-550F1DE5F3A1.jpeg
5ECF7D23-6AC0-4A6C-9C0E-550F1DE5F3A1.jpeg (251 KiB) Viewed 263 times

User avatar
h_p
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2811

Re: Dating at 16 - the new revelation

Post by h_p »

Mamabear wrote: October 1st, 2022, 5:28 pm From Reddit:
Was this change from a formal announcement in conference, or just mentioned in a talk or something? I've been sitting this GC out, but this does make one curious...

Mamabear
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3351

Re: Dating at 16 - the new revelation

Post by Mamabear »

h_p wrote: October 1st, 2022, 5:35 pm
Mamabear wrote: October 1st, 2022, 5:28 pm From Reddit:
Was this change from a formal announcement in conference, or just mentioned in a talk or something? I've been sitting this GC out, but this does make one curious...
It was from the announcement today of the new, updated version of the for the strength of the youth pamphlet.

User avatar
creator
(of the Forum)
Posts: 8240
Location: The Matrix
Contact:

Re: Dating at 16 - the new revelation

Post by creator »

tribrac wrote: October 1st, 2022, 2:15 pm Artex, are you paid to come here and gaslight, or is it just a hobby?
Why even bother to respond to him if this is what you think he's here for?
dont-feed-the-troll.jpg
dont-feed-the-troll.jpg (62.76 KiB) Viewed 240 times

spiritMan
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2276

Re: Dating at 16 - the new revelation

Post by spiritMan »

creator wrote: October 1st, 2022, 6:03 pm
tribrac wrote: October 1st, 2022, 2:15 pm Artex, are you paid to come here and gaslight, or is it just a hobby?
Why even bother to respond to him if this is what you think he's here for?

dont-feed-the-troll.jpg
Yes I need to be reminded of this as my self control is lacking today and I'm a little edgy... Getting myself in trouble.

Appreciate the reminder!

User avatar
creator
(of the Forum)
Posts: 8240
Location: The Matrix
Contact:

Re: Dating at 16 - the new revelation

Post by creator »

Artaxerxes wrote: October 1st, 2022, 2:09 pm People on ldsff love to make up rules and then claim that the church changed these rules.
You're a person on LDSFF. Why are you here if people on LDSFF are so terrible?

User avatar
TheDuke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5863
Location: Eastern Sodom Suburbs

Re: Dating at 16 - the new revelation

Post by TheDuke »

In this case it is true and valid. She made up a thing about being 18 and saying it was a new revelation. I have yet to see the implied revelation and as I have said I have never heard in my 52 years of dating, children and grand children in any ward from CA, NM, OH, UT, NY, etc... never ever said 18. Sure show some references to groups being nice. But, always it was 14 for groups. Always, always because they made a big deal about being 14 for dances and group activities. 16 was for dating, always for the greater church. The 18 was never stated. And sure they will say it is always better to date in groups. But, so, they will say it is better to over pay your offerings, get to church early, fast longer, pray more, etc.... but it is not now or never been even a rule to date at 18. And after being asked there has been no evidence of this claim either. so, I am a bit miffed that stuff like this can come up. Not because it is wrong or out of bounds but because a fraudulent claim is made. Some one has some experience to support it and never does the claim get facts. Like RMN and SRA or RMN as an intentional murderer, etc....

I love LDS FF for discussions but I don't like ridiculous accusations. I mean they are ok to start a topic but if not followed up by a shred of evidence, seems wrong. but I'm just one person. But, one person who loves truth but also honor. We have a range of understandings of those but there is name calling here a few posts back that has no merit. As, opinions are fine but personal attacking gets old very quick.

I've said enough here. Like I said, I have had a bishop, EQP, YMP, etc all say that Coke is against WoW, but I'm smart enough to know the truth and sort out and not blame SLC for it. Seems like a bit of honor goes a ways as well, but I'm old fashion I guess. Not used to a "new normal"

Mamabear
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3351

Re: Dating at 16 - the new revelation

Post by Mamabear »

TheDuke wrote: October 1st, 2022, 6:47 pm In this case it is true and valid. She made up a thing about being 18 and saying it was a new revelation. I have yet to see the implied revelation and as I have said I have never heard in my 52 years of dating, children and grand children in any ward from CA, NM, OH, UT, NY, etc... never ever said 18. Sure show some references to groups being nice. But, always it was 14 for groups. Always, always because they made a big deal about being 14 for dances and group activities. 16 was for dating, always for the greater church. The 18 was never stated. And sure they will say it is always better to date in groups. But, so, they will say it is better to over pay your offerings, get to church early, fast longer, pray more, etc.... but it is not now or never been even a rule to date at 18. And after being asked there has been no evidence of this claim either. so, I am a bit miffed that stuff like this can come up. Not because it is wrong or out of bounds but because a fraudulent claim is made. Some one has some experience to support it and never does the claim get facts. Like RMN and SRA or RMN as an intentional murderer, etc....

I love LDS FF for discussions but I don't like ridiculous accusations. I mean they are ok to start a topic but if not followed up by a shred of evidence, seems wrong. but I'm just one person. But, one person who loves truth but also honor. We have a range of understandings of those but there is name calling here a few posts back that has no merit. As, opinions are fine but personal attacking gets old very quick.

I've said enough here. Like I said, I have had a bishop, EQP, YMP, etc all say that Coke is against WoW, but I'm smart enough to know the truth and sort out and not blame SLC for it. Seems like a bit of honor goes a ways as well, but I'm old fashion I guess. Not used to a "new normal"
If you look at my comments I shared what has changed.

User avatar
TheDuke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5863
Location: Eastern Sodom Suburbs

Re: Dating at 16 - the new revelation

Post by TheDuke »

nothing at all has changed. It was really never even a policy, just a suggestion that was taken seriously by many (like not seeing rated-R movies back when R was R and all else was PG). Just suggestions and recommendations. But never was 18 ever mentioned.

BTW if you go to the single adults documentation of years past (I was only older SA in my memory due to not remembering before) it was suggested to date in groups even there (50 yo). for many still a good suggestion. Frankly there was more hanky-panky in the SA (old SA at the time) then youth, so, you can see why for some (or many) the advice may be warranted, not that I cared much but we did have many SA dating activities in groups for those so in need.

EvanLM
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4798

Re: Dating at 16 - the new revelation

Post by EvanLM »

Artaxerxes wrote: October 1st, 2022, 2:19 pm
tribrac wrote: October 1st, 2022, 2:15 pm Artex, are you paid to come here and gaslight, or is it just a hobby?
Feel free to cite to the old pamphlet saying that says what you're claiming. Because this what the reality was:

Screenshot_20221001-131902.png

Who's doing the gaslighting here?
in my neck of the woods that meant group dating at 14 . . .sorry, we were bad apples

User avatar
HereWeGo
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1220

Re: Dating at 16 - the new revelation

Post by HereWeGo »

spiritMan wrote: October 1st, 2022, 4:26 pm
Mamabear wrote: October 1st, 2022, 4:23 pm From a 1996 church article:

“Dating - Begin to prepare now for a temple marriage. Do not date until you turn 16 years old. Dating should be done in groups.”

https://www.thechurchnews.com/1996/2/3/ ... -standards
I wonder why anyone would come up with the age of 18 for single dating... Hmmm

Clearly 16 ain't it, 17 probably wasn't it so 18 or graduation seems like a good age.

Hmm I wonder why people would have said this... Nah clearly the churchites are so much better that they rewrite history.
Missionary age guys who had dated a girl one on one for a while were choosing to stay home and get married instead of leave the woman he loved. If you group date until 18 or so, you were less likely to deeply fall in love and forego a mission.

EvanLM
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4798

Re: Dating at 16 - the new revelation

Post by EvanLM »

these posts always make me sooooo happy that I was raised by inactive parents. daisy duke shorts and halter tops all my teenage years . . . hitchhiking to yellowstone from Jackson and not even old enough to drive a car. . . 15 years old . . . friend and I got picked up by mototcyclists on the way up . . in a convertible, the way back down to jackson.

wasn't old enough to date but the campsite I was in had 6 of us girls and one dog. every night all the guys were at our campsite. wonder why . .

the best thing is. . some of my friends were nonmormon and all were 17 years or older. absolutely no sex and no drugs among us even though we got offers . . . week long trip and gone from home and no adults

no wonder I love those girls . . and we wore daisy dukes and halter tops and swore

that was so long ago

EvanLM
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4798

Re: Dating at 16 - the new revelation

Post by EvanLM »

if parents teach their children to be worthy of the temple or be prepared to enter a temple then they don't have to worry about missions or anything else.

besides, you don't have to go on a mission to be in the CK . . you just have to be under the new and everlasting covenant

I am so truthful that I have never appreciated my inactive parents as much as you guys have helped me to. I though you guys were the lucky ones. I can feel good about what I did with my agency and what my parents did teach me about virtue and drugs and responsibility.

spiritMan
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2276

Re: Dating at 16 - the new revelation

Post by spiritMan »

EvanLM wrote: October 1st, 2022, 7:21 pm these posts always make me sooooo happy that I was raised by inactive parents. daisy duke shorts and halter tops all my teenage years . . . hitchhiking to yellowstone from Jackson and not even old enough to drive a car. . . 15 years old . . . friend and I got picked up by mototcyclists on the way up . . in a convertible, the way back down to jackson.

wasn't old enough to date but the campsite I was in had 6 of us girls and one dog. every night all the guys were at our campsite. wonder why . .

the best thing is. . some of my friends were nonmormon and all were 17 years or older. absolutely no sex and no drugs among us even though we got offers . . . week long trip and gone from home and no adults

no wonder I love those girls . . and we wore daisy dukes and halter tops and swore

that was so long ago
The sad thing is how women are so easily manipulated.

Why wear daisy dukes?
It's just like bikini's. Why in the world would a woman wear in swimming a tiny piece of cloth over her private parts.

Literally, most women would never leave house and wear bras and panties running around outside . . .but make it so they can go in the water and boom perfectly fine.

spiritMan
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2276

Re: Dating at 16 - the new revelation

Post by spiritMan »

EvanLM wrote: October 1st, 2022, 7:26 pm if parents teach their children to be worthy of the temple or be prepared to enter a temple then they don't have to worry about missions or anything else.

besides, you don't have to go on a mission to be in the CK . . you just have to be under the new and everlasting covenant

I am so truthful that I have never appreciated my inactive parents as much as you guys have helped me to. I though you guys were the lucky ones. I can feel good about what I did with my agency and what my parents did teach me about virtue and drugs and responsibility.
Yes, setting an idol of the Temple is the correct model of behavior.

EvanLM
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4798

Re: Dating at 16 - the new revelation

Post by EvanLM »

h_p wrote: October 1st, 2022, 5:23 pm
Mamabear wrote: October 1st, 2022, 4:23 pm From a 1996 church article:

“Dating - Begin to prepare now for a temple marriage. Do not date until you turn 16 years old. Dating should be done in groups.”

https://www.thechurchnews.com/1996/2/3/ ... -standards
And here's the original 1965 FSY booklet: https://www.scribd.com/document/3307998 ... h-of-Youth, and it has 16 as the minimum age for dating, and only references group dating as being OK. "Steady dating" is verboten, but that's about it. It was OK to take a date to a church fireside, though. :-D

FWIW, I have no recollection of ever seeing or hearing about an FSY pamphlet until we had kids of our own. These things didn't make it out into the barren wasteland of the "mission field," or something? Maybe I just have a bad memory. But at any rate, back in the day, we didn't have the constant communication from the COB ivory tower like we do today. These kinds of things were taught by local leaders and parents. The rule I grew up with was no single-dating until you could start considering marriage. Ie, post-mission for men, and 18 for women. Imagine my surprise my first semester at BYU when I got introduced to the term "NCMO."
I went to young womens and they taught all of us about "petting and necking". Then my groups of girls would tease and laugh at the expressions and claim that we had no idea what they meant. We all laughed about our different wards and bishops, but we knew what the boundaries were in the 60s and 70s age of free love. It's different now. We weren't likely to be victims which is different than just being tempted.

EvanLM
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4798

Re: Dating at 16 - the new revelation

Post by EvanLM »

spiritMan wrote: October 1st, 2022, 7:28 pm
EvanLM wrote: October 1st, 2022, 7:26 pm if parents teach their children to be worthy of the temple or be prepared to enter a temple then they don't have to worry about missions or anything else.

besides, you don't have to go on a mission to be in the CK . . you just have to be under the new and everlasting covenant

I am so truthful that I have never appreciated my inactive parents as much as you guys have helped me to. I though you guys were the lucky ones. I can feel good about what I did with my agency and what my parents did teach me about virtue and drugs and responsibility.
Yes, setting an idol of the Temple is the correct model of behavior.
well if you think that. . . but I refer to the level of spiritual faithfulness to Christ that it actually requires. If one is serious then they will live the higher law that is really required. I am sorry that you and other saints take it to the level of outward show.

EvanLM
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4798

Re: Dating at 16 - the new revelation

Post by EvanLM »

spiritMan wrote: October 1st, 2022, 7:27 pm
EvanLM wrote: October 1st, 2022, 7:21 pm these posts always make me sooooo happy that I was raised by inactive parents. daisy duke shorts and halter tops all my teenage years . . . hitchhiking to yellowstone from Jackson and not even old enough to drive a car. . . 15 years old . . . friend and I got picked up by mototcyclists on the way up . . in a convertible, the way back down to jackson.

wasn't old enough to date but the campsite I was in had 6 of us girls and one dog. every night all the guys were at our campsite. wonder why . .

the best thing is. . some of my friends were nonmormon and all were 17 years or older. absolutely no sex and no drugs among us even though we got offers . . . week long trip and gone from home and no adults

no wonder I love those girls . . and we wore daisy dukes and halter tops and swore

that was so long ago
The sad thing is how women are so easily manipulated.

Why wear daisy dukes?
It's just like bikini's. Why in the world would a woman wear in swimming a tiny piece of cloth over her private parts.

Literally, most women would never leave house and wear bras and panties running around outside . . .but make it so they can go in the water and boom perfectly fine.
the real answer? you want the real answer? cuz my mom thought they were cute . . remember inactive . . no commitment . . . they are not illegal . . and if you are stupid enough to look and drool then shame on you. . . they were cute . . . .hahahahahahahahahahahaha actually my mom asked that we not wear them in our small town but it was ok outside our town . . .we ignored her . . . we were inactive . . . that was a long time ago . . Alma finally grew up, too

Post Reply