The main thing that I found funny about the article was the use of euphemism such as “[T]hat beautiful mystery called parenthood.” Parenthood is defined as “the state of being a parent” and is at least several steps removed from waltzing. (Oh my. I just noticed that it’s too late at night to try and write a serious response. This post really makes me giggle.)

I will simply quickly agree that teenagers need accurate, thorough information from their parents to help them navigate the minefields of adolescence and adulthood, and then they need to combine this information with wisdom and charity and good judgment and a lot of assistance and help from their parents and their church leaders.

As Ardis said, thank you for “redrawing the line.”

I suppose I knew that you, Researcher and others for whom I have great respect stand squarely for virtuous principles even when having fun with language. I guess that in trying to raise my children I have been trying hard to get them to develop empathy and I have become too attuned to the effects such play can have on the corporeal. My standard for the dead, who are not dead, but sleep is much the same.

Thank you for your kind words.

And here are advertisements for such books from church magazines; the comments include links to the text of some of those books.

As you and one or two others have mentioned, there are current dances that appall us every bit as much as the waltz did Sister Richards and Willmia, and for exactly the same reason. It’s easier to see that point in dances that offend us, and easy to laugh at the stodginess of past generations whose dances we now consider classic and suitable for stake talent shows or all-church youth festivals of the not-too-distant past: the waltz is shocking? the Charleston is indecent? swing is immodest? Well, yeah, at one time, they were.

Dr. Mary Wood Allen wrote hygiene books chiefly for parents to use in giving their children an understanding of human reproduction. A sample of one such, What a Young Girl Ought to Know, will give you a taste of their “pure” (non-clinical) tone. And I’ll reprint what Aretta Young discussed with Mabel in another installment of this “She Had a Question” series.

I know know the sentiment in what Sister Richards wrote is quaint, and few today see the harm in a waltz, but it all comes down to where to draw a line that needs to be drawn. I am sure there were those for whom a square dance too was “a means of wrong coming to some, or rather [an event that] generates sin in the hearts of some.”

I certainly felt some primitive stirings when I was a member of a square dance club in college, but I never felt so icky as I did as I attended one dance where a couple with whom I was friends proceeded to pantomime the initiation of the “beautiful mystery called parenthood” as dance. Somewhere in between the square dance and the display my friends put on was that line, and on that day I crossed it.

We should never fault nor mock those who who draw that line closer to the side of safety, nor parents and leaders who encourage youth to establish high standards. Parents and leaders must, however, teach the correct principles and not just issue dictates.

“Just say no” is only a starting point, and must be followed up, as Sister Richards indicates, with as complete an explaination of the facts. Children need to know what the hypothalamus does, but they also need to know how it relates to them, much as they need to learn how to listen to the Spirit. “This warm feeling of happiness is the Spirit, this other is your body’s response to the proximity of a hot guy.”

Leaders in particular must also recognize when they might be eating meat offered to idols in front of one for whom the idol has meaning.

My wife will not touch an herbal infusion of any kind because they are called “teas.” Out of respect for her I do not either, even though for me I would see nothing wrong with a pepermint tea, or even a mild grain beverage like a Sharp’s. (Hmm, should I put some in my food storage?) For the “noble” at heart these things may not be a temptation and may not lead to sin, but “for the same reason that you would not play cards or drink beer [Was this pre- or post-catechism? (somewhere around this time was when the WoW went from being advice to commandment, part of a movement called "catechism"] or buy lottery tickets or have your fortune told, you” should not dance in a suggestive way, injest substances that appear to some to be something that might impair your judgement or otherwise break a commandment.

Sister Richards values may be behind the curve of fashion and her language may appear as quaint as her ideals, but in principle she is absolutely right.

On the other hand, my wife teaches math at a junior high, and when we occasionally chaperon the dances there, the deep and holy secrets in the “waltzing” there leaves little to the imagination. I’m afraid that poor Misses Young and Richards would faint away in a near fatal case of the vapors. I’m sure there was a middle ground in there somewhere, but it’s not on display at these dances.