Former Bishop Hunger Strike for Youth Interview Policy Change

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yes. I invited the Washington State governor and legislature to meet with me every day for a couple of weeks to discuss my issues with our schools.  😎 No one showed up. We’re going on strike next week.

Actually, a vote to strike was taken last night. It passed overwhelmingly.

What a coincidence!  I have repeatedly invited Kevin Feige to sit down with me and discuss plot holes in the MCU and my proposals for fixing them.  I am shocked - shocked! - at his brazen indifference to my requests.  Who does he think he is?  Doesn't he know I have paid to see these movies?!  And a friend of mine owns some stock in Disney, which sorta makes me a stockholder of Disney - which owns Marvel!  Doesn't he understand that I just want to help?

So my plan is to publicly campaign against and slander Kevin Feige, and Marvel, and the MCU, and Disney until A) Kevin Feige publicly apologizes, AND B) publicly sits down with me,  AND C) utterly caves to each and every demand I plan on presenting.  Yep.  Nothing says "I want to help the leaders of this institution in improving the institution" like publicly smearing that institution and its leaders.

That'll work, right?  Well without the bounds of reasonableness and decorum and basic respect.  Not misguided or absurd at all.

🤨

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I addressed that in my previous post.  He isn't opposing the church, he is opposing a policy of one-on-one interviews with sexually explicit questions.

Nor did he encourage opposition to the prophet and apostles unless you are classifying the exercise of common consent as "opposition".  In which case, if voting no in our exercise of common consent is an excommunicable offense -- why bother doing common consent?  You are essentially saying:  Vote yes or exit.

 

The church leaders have set the youth policy and he continues to publicly oppose it and them and to encourage other members to oppose it.  It's not unreasonable to view that as opposition to the church and it's leaders (opposition that has nothing to do with dissenting in GC and Stake conference).

 

[blueglass]

In January 1982 the first presidency sent out a letter, requesting bishops, mission presidents, stake presidents to inquire on "unnatural, impure, or unholy practices" to make sure those seeking temple recommends or ordinances were not engaging in oral sex, whether married or not.  Floods of letters were received in opposition and distress over the new interview process and in response the first presidency changed this policy, and clarified that questions pertaining to sexual activity between spouses should not be asked.  Sam, was requesting that the sexual questions in the interviews be eliminated, and that additional protections be put in place such as requiring 2 people in the interview to match the 2-person policy when counting tithes and offerings.   

Edited August 30, 2018 by blueglass

[Jeanne]

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

By denigrating and slandering the bishops of the Church.  

By denigrating the leaders of the Church.

Sorry.  Not feeling the love.

Huh?  Who has mistreated him?

Thanks,

-Smac

The Leaders only acknowledged in negativity when they could have sat down and in front members answer honest questions.  General membership...some..him/hawed and followed the negativity. 

[rongo]

This is interesting. I hadn't seen it before.

https://www.millennialstar.org/guest-post-what-is-sam-young-really-after/

I think the "I'm just a simple, believing member who wants to drive positive change in the church I love" trope is a lot more complex than Sam Young and his supporters are representing. I didn't know that his "paper trail" of disaffection and activism stretches back almost five years. 

Like I said, interesting. 

[Avatar4321]

Is he still starving himself?

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, rongo said:

This is interesting. I hadn't seen it before.

https://www.millennialstar.org/guest-post-what-is-sam-young-really-after/

I think the "I'm just a simple, believing member who wants to drive positive change in the church I love" trope is a lot more complex than Sam Young and his supporters are representing. I didn't know that his "paper trail" of disaffection and activism stretches back almost five years. 

Like I said, interesting. 

Hmm.  So he lost his testimony in 2014.  And yet here we have HappyJackWagon calling him "Bishop Young."

He has repeatedly threatened to "quit the Mormon Church!!!"  and he doesn’t know if Christ really exists and he has turned in his temple recommend.  And yet here we have Jeanne talking about how "he love{s} the church and the Savior."

This bit from your link is interesting:

Quote

As I mentioned above, through most of 2017, youth interviews were only one of a dozen categories of reasons Young was voting opposed in Church. The first time he ever mentioned it on his blog was on March 19, 2017. It was mentioned a couple of more times as the year progressed, but Young seemed to notice that his audience responded more to these things than they did to his long-winded and convoluted rants about common consent, or to his old, white, straight complaints about homosexual issues. He started focusing on this in October 2017 and put his numerous other complaints on his shelf. He found something with which he could get his 15 minutes, and he started beating that drum; which brings us back to 2018.

I wonder how accurate these surmises are.

And this:

Quote

So why is he doing all of this? Having watched him for years, and conversed with him on occasion, I have come to a couple of conclusions. Ultimately, Sam wants the Church to bend to his will, regardless of what that may mean or entail. If you look at this current cause of his in a vacuum (which I don’t) or take him at his word (which would be naive), his crusade is to protect youth from sexual abuse, which in his mind includes any shame a teenager may feel as a result of sexual sin, or any sin for that matter. His demand is that the church do away with all one-on-one interviews, because he claims to think that they are all harmful, and to eliminate any sexual questions of any kind, because they make people feel remorse for breaking the law of chastity, and since breaking the law of chastity is a “natural” thing, kids shouldn’t feel bad about it.

However, historically he has upset that the Church doesn’t take into account his opinion on things. I have seen him complain, over and over again, that he has spent years of his life in the Church and given it thousands of dollars, and he should have a say in how it is run. He seems to think that his opinion should count just as much, or more, than those of the apostles. He has bounced from one cause to another over the years, and never got much traction or acclaim until this. Now that he is getting attention he is going to keep making a bigger and bigger stink until the Church bends to him.

Interesting stuff.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

19 minutes ago, rongo said:

This is interesting. I hadn't seen it before.

https://www.millennialstar.org/guest-post-what-is-sam-young-really-after/

I think the "I'm just a simple, believing member who wants to drive positive change in the church I love" trope is a lot more complex than Sam Young and his supporters are representing. I didn't know that his "paper trail" of disaffection and activism stretches back almost five years. 

Like I said, interesting. 

I guess I haven't been paying much attention, but I hadn't seen him representing himself that way. Do the voices of people who are in the church but not necessarily fully believing not count for anything? 

I've always thought it a fool's errand to try to effect change from within the church, but then the two sisters who started timeforcambio.org are causing me to rethink that belief. That said, I have no problem with people advocating for changes they believe in passionately, no matter what organization they belong to. I've never liked the idea that, as Boyd K. Packer put it, we must all "face the same way" and accept without question what our leaders tell us to do.

[blueglass]

11 minutes ago, rongo said:

This is interesting. I hadn't seen it before.

https://www.millennialstar.org/guest-post-what-is-sam-young-really-after/

I think the "I'm just a simple, believing member who wants to drive positive change in the church I love" trope is a lot more complex than Sam Young and his supporters are representing. I didn't know that his "paper trail" of disaffection and activism stretches back almost five years. 

Like I said, interesting. 

In this guest post it says that Sam "doesn't know if Christ really exists".  In JST Mark 14:36-38, Christ rebukes his disciples, because they began "to complain in their hearts, wondering if this be the Messiah."  Does rebuking the disbeliever re-kindle faith?   

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  So he lost his testimony in 2014.  And yet here we have HappyJackWagon calling him "Bishop Young."

He has repeatedly threatened to "quit the Mormon Church!!!"  and he doesn’t know if Christ really exists and he has turned in his temple recommend.  And yet here we have Jeanne talking about how "he love{s} the church and the Savior."

This bit from your link is interesting:

I wonder how accurate these surmises are.

And this:

Interesting stuff.

People are complicated. I've thought about quitting the church, and I am really not sure whether I believe in the orthodox version of God. And I haven't had a temple recommend in years. But I'm still part of the church and hope for positive change. 

And last I heard, it's always been a sign of respect to refer to someone as "Bishop" if they have served as a bishop in the past. 

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

People are complicated. I've thought about quitting the church, and I am really not sure whether I believe in the orthodox version of God. And I haven't had a temple recommend in years. But I'm still part of the church and hope for positive change. 

A very big difference between you and him is that you aren't organizing petitions or marches against the Church, and you didn't do a hunger strike/empty chairs stunt. 

That's the big difference here. All of us know many people who don't believe much or most of Church teachings, but they are in no danger of discipline. And, there is a common thread with the Kellys, Snuffers, and Youngs of the world.

[Avatar4321]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

People are complicated. I've thought about quitting the church, and I am really not sure whether I believe in the orthodox version of God. And I haven't had a temple recommend in years. But I'm still part of the church and hope for positive change. 

And last I heard, it's always been a sign of respect to refer to someone as "Bishop" if they have served as a bishop in the past. 

Sometimes the change we start must come from within

[Duncan]

Just now, blueglass said:

In this guest post it says that Sam "doesn't know if Christ really exists".  In JST Mark 14:36-38, Christ rebukes his disciples, because they began "to complain in their hearts, wondering if this be the Messiah."  Does rebuking the disbeliever re-kindle faith?   

slight correction, he rebuked them for not staying awake not for wondering if he was the Messiah

[Danzo]

About Time!

I hope it happens soon so we can move on to gossip about the next guy.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

A very big difference between you and him is that you aren't organizing petitions or marches against the Church, and you didn't do a hunger strike/empty chairs stunt. 

That's the big difference here. All of us know many people who don't believe much or most of Church teachings, but they are in no danger of discipline. And, there is a common thread with the Kellys, Snuffers, and Youngs of the world.

Again, I take issue with saying his petitions and marches were "against the Church".  They were actually against a policy held by the Church.  I think there is a significant difference though I realize many here see it differently.  But, I agree with your general point... one can be a non-believer and/or opposed to certain aspects of the Church and often stay in good standing with the Church.  It's when you start going public that your membership becomes at risk... and I think we have ample evidence of that now.

For example, people in my stake have lost their temple recommends for publicly stating that they don't believe that the Book of Mormon is a literal history OR for confessing to their Bishop that they disagree with the Nov 2015 policy.  While I hold to both of those beliefs, I keep my mouth shut and have thus far kept my recommend and callings.

[jkwilliams]

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

A very big difference between you and him is that you aren't organizing petitions or marches against the Church, and you didn't do a hunger strike/empty chairs stunt. 

That's the big difference here. All of us know many people who don't believe much or most of Church teachings, but they are in no danger of discipline. And, there is a common thread with the Kellys, Snuffers, and Youngs of the world.

What about people like Maddy Ciccote and Camille Junca who pushed hard to get the church to make changes to its missionary safety policies? Are they suddenly apostates because they are now openly and publicly calling for change? Would it matter if they weren't still believers? 

[rongo]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

What about people like Maddy Ciccote and Camille Junca who pushed hard to get the church to make changes to its missionary safety policies? Are they suddenly apostates because they are now openly and publicly calling for change? Would it matter if they weren't still believers? 

At this point, no. If they start forming marches and petitions and hunger strikes and empty chair kabuki theater in front of the temple, I think they would be in KellySnufferYoung territory. 

I think that sometimes activists get caught up in publicity and attention and hurt their own cause. Ordain Women, I'm looking at you! Once you start jumping over lots and lots of sharks in an effort to extend your 15 minutes, I think even nominal supporters start to inch away. 

[clarkgoble]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

People are complicated. I've thought about quitting the church, and I am really not sure whether I believe in the orthodox version of God. And I haven't had a temple recommend in years. But I'm still part of the church and hope for positive change. 

And last I heard, it's always been a sign of respect to refer to someone as "Bishop" if they have served as a bishop in the past. 

What would count as the orthodox conception of God? Seems like there's actually a pretty wide variety of conceptions that are allowed within normative Mormonism.

To the Bishop reference, that's done a bit although I think it's more habit than respect. I always found it a bit annoying myself. However when someone's lost their testimony and largely broken from the Church it seems more than a bit problematic as a term.

46 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Sam, was requesting that the sexual questions in the interviews be eliminated, and that additional protections be put in place such as requiring 2 people in the interview to match the 2-person policy when counting tithes and offerings.   

I don't think the issue is his views on that policy. I certainly know people with similar views. I think it's how he's going about agitating for the change. This is much more than simply writing a letter to Church Headquarters.

 

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

What would count as the orthodox conception of God? Seems like there's actually a pretty wide variety of conceptions that are allowed within normative Mormonism.

Well, for me it just means a personal God who created us and watches over us.

Quote

To the Bishop reference, that's done a bit although I think it's more habit than respect. I always found it a bit annoying myself. However when someone's lost their testimony and largely broken from the Church it seems more than a bit problematic as a term.

Maybe it's part of what Elder Packer called "the unwritten order of things." What I find interesting is that, when an active member refers to me as "Brother Williams" in an online forum, it's almost always meant derisively. 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

"a general authority"-- I wonder who that was and if he was a decision maker. I would be quite surprised to learn it was one of the Q15 or even presidency of the 70

If the general authority reported on his meeting to a 'decision' maker' (to use your term), would it matter if he himself was not a decision maker?  Clearly, the quorum of the 12 and the first presidency are aware of his demands, thoughts, and feelings on the issues.  For what purpose, in regards to changing bishop/youth interviews, would an apostle go and speak with Sam personally?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

This is interesting. I hadn't seen it before.

https://www.millennialstar.org/guest-post-what-is-sam-young-really-after/

I think the "I'm just a simple, believing member who wants to drive positive change in the church I love" trope is a lot more complex than Sam Young and his supporters are representing. I didn't know that his "paper trail" of disaffection and activism stretches back almost five years. 

Like I said, interesting. 

I actually saw this early, but since most of the accusations are unsupported, I don't know that it's fair to present them as if they are fact.

[Calm]

“hadn't seen him representing himself that way.“

If he put up pictures of himself on FB attending SM the week before his protest, but hadn’t gone to church prior to that, I would say that is trying to present himself as active member. 

I say “if” because I don’t trust my memory and have no oomph to search it out. Maybe someone with better recall can mention this. 

Edited August 30, 2018 by Calm

[juliann]

27 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

What about people like Maddy Ciccote and Camille Junca who pushed hard to get the church to make changes to its missionary safety policies? Are they suddenly apostates because they are now openly and publicly calling for change? Would it matter if they weren't still believers? 

You really don’t see a difference in what they did? And by not using bullhorns they accomplished far more than this guy will. But again, it is more work from within. You don’t get a fan club. You don’t get splashy events. It is all a question of priorities and how hard and long you are willing to work at it. I know because I spent over a decade before the church got interested enough to give FM coverage. And as conservative as we might be, we have had “progressive” speakers who were able to expand many member’s thinking. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, juliann said:

You really don’t see a difference in what they did? And by not using bullhorns they accomplished far more than this guy will. But again, it is more work from within. You don’t get a fan club. You don’t get splashy events. It is all a question of priorities and how hard and long you are willing to work at it. I know because I spent over a decade before the church got interested enough to give FM coverage. And as conservative as we might be, we have had “progressive” speakers who were able to expand many member’s thinking. 

I absolutely do see the difference. I'm just wondering where you draw the line. As I said early on in this thread, when he announced the hunger strike, I thought my eyes would be permanently rolled back into my head. It's certainly not something I would ever do. But I don't see how public advocacy, even with bullhorns and stunts, equates to open apostasy. YMMV

[juliann]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

“hadn't seen him representing himself that way.“

If he put up pictures of himself on FB attending SM the week before his protest, but hadn’t gone to church prior to that, I would say that is trying to present himself as active member. 

I say “if” because I don’t trust my memory and have no oomph to search it out. Maybe someone with better recall can mention this. 

I was under the impression he was an active member. He certainly did nothing to correct that impression that I am aware of. But I haven’t followed this closely, he had a good point but his tactics reminded me too much of a circus ringmaster.