Sam Young is Excommunicated

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, rongo said:

I didn't know that. I would assume that Sam himself (or his wife) recorded it then. Even though they signed a "non-recording" agreement. It would be easy to bring two phones: one you make a big production of turning off for effect, and the one you keep hidden for recording. 

I never had to deal with this, but nowadays, I would assume I was being recorded. Asking people to promise not to or sign something is no guarantee that no recording will take place. 

I don't think the signed agreement was intended to guarantee anything.  It was intended as an assurance of Sam Young's honesty and integrity, or even a test of his honesty and integrity.

And it looks like he failed that test.

-Smac

[Stargazer]

12 hours ago, Danzo said:

You have your opinion. I personally think 12 years old is a bit late to start taking about chastity.

I should have been talking to my kids about it well before 12.  I discovered to my amazement that when it came to telling them about the birds and the bees they had already gotten quite an education about it.  From the wrong sources, of course, but they were far more sophisticated about it than I would ever have imagined.  

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, Thinking said:

Reductio ad Absurdum

You seem to be implying this is necessarily a bad thing. Are you? 

[Danzo]

6 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Call for references please. I don't think you are suggesting that criminals should be shielded from the law.  I hope that's not what you are arguing. Have you read about Frank Curtis btw?

Here is a recent example of can happen to children placed in government care

https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/crime/2018/05/01/lawsuit-dhs-covered-up-ignored-keizer-couples-abuse-foster-children/569017002/

"Because of Oregon Department of Human Services' ignorance and inadequate investigations, three children were abused for years in a filthy Keizer foster home, according to a $100 million civil rights lawsuit filed in federal court. 

The abuse became so severe, one foster child, a 10-month-old girl, was hospitalized with fractures in all four of her limbs. 

Another child suffered years of sexual abuse at the hands of her foster parent.

The man responsible for the abuse, Casey Miller, is in prison serving a 30-year sentence for repeatedly sodomizing the girl."

 

Here is a recent audit of our state's child welfare system

https://sos.oregon.gov/audits/Documents/2018-05.pdf

"DHS and Child Welfare struggle with chronic and systemic management shortcomings that have a detrimental effect on the agency’s ability to protect child safety. Management has failed to address a work culture of blame and distrust, plan adequately for costly initiatives, address the root causes of systemic issues, use data to inform key decisions, and promote lasting program improvements. As a result, the child welfare system, which includes the foster care program, is disorganized, inconsistent, and high risk for the children it serves."

 

A summary of the audit

https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-child-welfare-audit-secretary-state/

[provoman]

22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Reference please. Where can this be found?

nnn youtube

[HappyJackWagon]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think the signed agreement was intended to guarantee anything.  It was intended as an assurance of Sam Young's honesty and integrity, or even a test of his honesty and integrity.

And it looks like he failed that test.

-Smac

If you're going to impugn Sam Young's honesty and integrity I think you should at least provide evidence that he actually recorded the proceeding, contrary to what he claimed. I have yet to see a link to any recording, let alone any evidence that he recorded it. CFR.

ETA- I found the link Provoman referenced. It says it was recorded by "Alma". It seems odd to me that Sam Young would use a pseudonym when he's been so open about this process. How do we know it's Sam Young and not someone else. In fact, wouldn't the name Alma suggest that it was one of the council members there in attendance? Like I asked before, Sam was required to sign the form and also had his phone confiscated. Was anyone else forced to sign or have their phone confiscated?

What benefit would Sam get from recording and releasing the SP's accusation without any comment?

I'll be willing to accept whatever the evidence states, but to me it seems more likely that someone else recorded this, and not necessarily on Sam's behalf. This recording seems more harmful than beneficial to his cause. I'm honestly perplexed by this. Who gave it to NNN? What is the benefit and why would he post if he's in agreement with Sam Young?

Edited September 17, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Quote

 

I don't think the signed agreement was intended to guarantee anything.  It was intended as an assurance of Sam Young's honesty and integrity, or even a test of his honesty and integrity.

And it looks like he failed that test.

-Smac

 

If you're going to impugn Sam Young's honesty and integrity I think you should at least provide evidence that he actually recorded the proceeding, contrary to what he claimed. I have yet to see a link to any recording, let alone any evidence that he recorded it. CFR.

Okay.

Thanks,

The recording was posted by Mike Norton.

-Smac

Edited September 17, 2018 by smac97

[The Nehor]

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Many of the resignations may very well have come from people who were disaffected long before Sam Young came along this year. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a difficult decision. Many of those people may have been hanging on, hoping they could find a way to make the church work a positive influence in their lives. Yet they gave up on that hope. A lot of people are giving up on that hope, so in my mind it doesn't matter much to me if the people are "active, or what". My guess is that the vast majority of these people have been active. Many have probably served in leadership positions. Now they're gone. It doesn't all happen in an instance, but just because someone drifts along, trying to make things work, and then finally give up on that effort, doesn't mean the church hasn't lost an important member.

That's consistent with my observation.

It can be one thing or a series of things that make someone go inactive.  And then something else happens (or they become aware of something else) and they decide they no longer even want to be associated with the church.

For example, there were probably people who went inactive back when the church was fighting against the rights of gay couples to legally marry.  I think it likely that many of those people left their names on the records of the church until the PoX in 2015 when that made them decide to formally resign.

Likewise, someone who went inactive after the PoX may be deciding now to resign.

These are just speculations based on my social media observations.

 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

Something has been bothering me about the underlining assumptions about this whole discussion. That I haven’t been able to articulate until now.

we are told that bishops shouldn’t ask a minor details about their sex life. Why are we assuming a minor has a sex life? We are teaching them the law of chastity. Why assume they will ignore it and have sex lives to share details about?

The whole assumptions here is our kids are having sex and shouldn’t be accountable if they do. But they shouldn’t be and are accountable if they violate their covenants.

 

 

If you go to Sam Young's blog (invisiblescubit.wordpress.com) there is a post titled "29 Questions" in which he has compiled questions that people have reported they (or their children) were asked by a bishop.  But, I warn you before you head that direction, it is a disturbingly graphic list.

[Abulafia]

Sam Young and his wife did not record the proceedings. 

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Abulafia said:

Sam Young and his wife did not record the proceedings. 

Someone in the high council?

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If you go to Sam Young's blog (invisiblescubit.wordpress.com) there is a post titled "29 Questions" in which he has compiled questions that people have reported they (or their children) were asked by a bishop.  But, I warn you before you head that direction, it is a disturbingly graphic list.

So graphic, in fact, that Sam Young even commissioned and posted on YouTube a video that narrates these purported questions.

There is a difference between expressing good faith concerns with or disagreements about problematic questions such as these and treating such matters salaciously ("treating sexual matters in an indecent way and typically conveying undue interest in or enjoyment of the subject").

The video seems to traverse over or eliminate that difference.

Ew.

-Smac

 

Edited September 17, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Sam Young and his wife did not record the proceedings. 

How do you know this?

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

Just now, Abulafia said:

Sam Young and his wife did not record the proceedings. 

Because they said so?

I have a harder time believing that a high councilor or stake presidency member recorded it and sent it to Mike Norton. And Sam Young has been a breathless live streaming machine. 

I think his supporters and critics differ sharply on whether or not he is a paragon of virtue who would never lie to the stake president about recording. 

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

Because they said so?

I have a harder time believing that a high councilor or stake presidency member recorded it and sent it to Mike Norton. And Sam Young has been a breathless live streaming machine. 

I think his supporters and critics differ sharply on whether or not he is a paragon of virtue who would never lie to the stake president about recording. 

I think Sam Young wants to come across as having some degree of integrity so it is a shock for me to see this and think that he might have recorded it.

At the same time, I think it is naive to assume that you can gather 15 men (SP+HC) from the Stake in which Sam has lived and served and have NONE of them be supporters of his.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

How do you know this?

Thanks,

-Smac

And how do you know it was Sam? Just a reminder that I had a CFR out there for how you know Sam recorded it.

Quote

If you're going to impugn Sam Young's honesty and integrity I think you should at least provide evidence that he actually recorded the proceeding, contrary to what he claimed. I have yet to see a link to any recording, let alone any evidence that he recorded it. CFR. 

You were willing to state he failed the test of his honesty and integrity so I think that should be retracted if you can't show that it was Sam. If it was, I'll apologize to you.

[smac97]

Just now, rockpond said:

I think Sam Young wants to come across as having some degree of integrity so it is a shock for me to see this and think that he might have recorded it.

And yet, the recording exists.  So how do you account for it?

Just now, rockpond said:

At the same time, I think it is naive to assume that you can gather 15 men (SP+HC) from the Stake in which Sam has lived and served and have NONE of them be supporters of his.

This person "support[ed]" Sam Young by violating the trust of the stake president, the other members of the council, and the Church by secretly recording a disciplinary council and sending it to one of the most virulent anti-Mormons alive today.

Are you expecting us to surmise that Sam Young had nothing to do with this recording?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

And how do you know it was Sam? Just a reminder that I had a CFR out there for how you know Sam recorded it.

I surmise that Sam Young recorded it, or someone working at his behest did so.

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You were willing to state he failed the test of his honesty and integrity so I think that should be retracted if you can't show that it was Sam. If it was, I'll apologize to you.

Nah.  I'll stick with it.  It's a reasonable surmise that Sam Young had a hand in having it recorded.  Whether by his own hand or through an agent.  Respondeat superior and all that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And yet, the recording exists.  So how do you account for it?

This person "support[ed]" Sam Young by violating the trust of the stake president, the other members of the council, and the Church by secretly recording a disciplinary council and sending it to one of the most virulent anti-Mormons alive today.

Are you expecting us to surmise that Sam Young had nothing to do with this recording?  

Thanks,

-Smac

I have no idea and I'm not expecting you to surmise anything.  I just expressed my thoughts on it (the ones you quoted) and I stand by those.  Though the likelihood varies dramatically from person to person, the recording could have come from anyone in that room.  Or, perhaps, from someone who planted a device in the room.  

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I surmise that Sam Young recorded it, or someone working at his behest did so.

Nah.  I'll stick with it.  It's a reasonable surmise that Sam Young had a hand in having it recorded.  Whether by his own hand or through an agent.  Respondeat superior and all that.

Thanks,

-Smac

So you're sticking with your statement of fact that you admit you can't prove. Interesting.

I'm curious how you think this benefits Sam? Clearly it must if he released the recording, right? What's the purpose? This does more to hurt him than help his cause. It's interesting that you're so confident in your assumption that you are unwilling to even accept the possibility you are wrong, or accept a CFR to provide evidence of your position.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's a reasonable surmise...

Is that our new standard here?

[lostindc]

4 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

So ban youth from the temple

Not sure how the elimination of worthiness interviews would lead to banning youth from the temple?

[california boy]

3 hours ago, TOmNossor said:

I think most of these changes happened perhaps partially because of Sam Young, but Sam judged them be not enough change.  This is another reason, I think Sam is consciously or unconsciously caught up in his movement.  

I wonder if he is rejoicing because of all those who have left the church in large part because of him?

I wonder if he will claim he is rejoicing or claim it is unfortunate.

I do not know the heart of the man, only the public spectacle. 

Charity, TOm

Really?  It is in the Bishop's Handbook? I have read the press release, but until it is in the handbook, press releases are meaningless and just PR imo. Can you tell me exactly how it is stated?  Perhaps if we know this some of the emotional tone will calm down.

[lostindc]

2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Something has been bothering me about the underlining assumptions about this whole discussion. That I haven’t been able to articulate until now.

we are told that bishops shouldn’t ask a minor details about their sex life. Why are we assuming a minor has a sex life? We are teaching them the law of chastity. Why assume they will ignore it and have sex lives to share details about?

The whole assumptions here is our kids are having sex and shouldn’t be accountable if they do. But they shouldn’t be and are accountable if they violate their covenants.

 

 

It's a fairly safe assumption.