Sam Young is Excommunicated

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't know what you're referring to here, but I smell an out-of-context reference.

So say you.

Reductio ad absurdum** (reduction to absurdity) strikes me as akin to Socratic reasoning whereby questions oblige one to confront the logical implications of his own position.

**With apologies to Happy Jack Wagon and California Boy, who must be close to apoplexy by now with all this Latin being thrown around.

 

 

Smell whatever you want, it isn’t out of context. 

And I am comfortable confronting the logical implications of my position.  Emphasis on logical implications.  The hypothetical presented by Smac was not a logical implication of the my position. 

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Just curious about what happens when, say, you are asked to teach a Sunday School lesson on the Book of Mormon. Does the assumption underlie your discourse that it is not to be taken literally, but rather, is as Smac put it, a collection of nice aphorisms? See, that would bother me as a member of that class or, even more, if one or more of my children were in the class.

I don’t see it as a “collection of nice aphorisms” it is scripture and I teach it as such.  I study it with my family at home the same way.  I’m currently also reading two Book of Mormon guides (both faithful, not critical) and I enjoy them both.

Since I was forced to rebuild my faith, about a decade ago, I’ve served as a seminary teacher, primary teacher, bishopric counselor, YM 1st counselor, Stake priesthood camp director, and YM President... I have taught lessons in each of those callings, using the Book of Mormon, and never had a problem.

 

 

[rockpond]

48 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

I take it as a history because Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith.  The book is very complex and holds together well.  The Lord bless you for believing it to any degree and applying it's teachings to your life.  I agree with Carbon Dioxide:

One of the things I love about the Gospel is that the Lord gives us permission to study things out in our minds.  We have a lifetime in this great playground to sort things out and figure out what is true and what is false.  Regardless of what you or I see as true, I believe the most important thing is to live the teachings of the Gospel.  If we do that, I believe the revelation of what is true will come probably sooner rather than later.  

I agree that it is complex and holds together well.  I don’t see that as evidence that it is a history.  

[Meerkat]

Just now, rockpond said:

I agree that it is complex and holds together well.  I don’t see that as evidence that it is a history.  

You don't object if I see it as a history, do you?  Whether it is historic or not (I believe it is,) the things I learn there resonate with me:

"for behold, ye are free; ye are permitted to act for yourselves; for behold, God hath given unto you a knowledge and he hath made you free.
            31 He hath given unto you that ye might know good from evil, and he hath given unto you that ye might choose life or death; and ye can do good and be restored unto that which is good, or have that which is good restored unto you; or ye can do evil, and have that which is evil restored unto you."

Helaman 14:30-31

Knowing good from evil and choosing the good is the main thing, in my opinion. Is that your take on it also?

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

To answer your question, I’ll share my beliefs:

Though not a literal history, the Book of Mormon is scripture.  It brings me closer to Jesus Christ. It teaches me how to live as a disciple of Christ. I feel the witness of the Spirit in its pages. 

I don’t know the particulars of how it was done, but Joseph Smith brought that to us.  He also restored the gospel that gave us priesthood ordinances such as baptism.  My baptism is a covenant with God that has deep meaning in my life and, like the Book of Mormon, brings me closer to Christ.

So, yeah, even though I don’t believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon, it’s really easy for me to honestly answer those questions in the affirmative. 

 

I understand that and appreciate your willingness to share. Joseph said the Book of Mormon and Priesthood authority were restored by the administration of resurrected beings representing God. This is what is meant when we talk about the Restoration. Was he telling the truth? If not, exactly what was restored? Is there scriptural support for your position? Joseph’s and Hyrum’s deaths sealed the testimony of the Book of Mormon. How do you understand that?

what do you think of this revelation? Thanks again for your answers.

Quote

D&C 17:1 Behold, I say unto you, that you must rely upon my word, which if you do with full purpose of heart, you shall have a view of the plates, and also of the breastplate, the sword of Laban, the Urim and Thummim, which were given to the brother of Jared upon the mount, when he talked with the Lord face to face, and the miraculous directors which were given to Lehi while in the wilderness, on the borders of the Red Sea.
2 And it is by your faith that you shall obtain a view of them, even by that faith which was had by the prophets of old.
3 And after that you have obtained faith, and have seen them with your eyes, you shall testify of them, by the power of God;
4 And this you shall do that my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., may not be destroyed, that I may bring about my righteous purposes unto the children of men in this work.

 

Edited September 21, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, Meerkat said:

You don't object if I see it as a history, do you?  Whether it is historic or not (I believe it is,) the things I learn there resonate with me:

"for behold, ye are free; ye are permitted to act for yourselves; for behold, God hath given unto you a knowledge and he hath made you free.
            31 He hath given unto you that ye might know good from evil, and he hath given unto you that ye might choose life or death; and ye can do good and be restored unto that which is good, or have that which is good restored unto you; or ye can do evil, and have that which is evil restored unto you."

Helaman 14:30-31

Knowing good from evil and choosing the good is the main thing, in my opinion. Is that your take on it also?

Yes, that’s my take on it also.  

And, no, I certainly don’t object to anything taking it as a history. 

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I understand that and appreciate your willingness to share. Joseph said the Book of Mormon and Priesthood authority were restored by the administration of resurrected beings representing God. This is what is meant when we talk about the Restoration. Was he telling the truth? If not, exactly what was restored? Is there scriptural support for your position? Joseph’s and Hyrum’s deaths sealed the testimony of the Book of Mormon. How do you understand that?

what do you think of this revelation? Thanks again for your answers.

 

I don’t know if he was telling the truth. 

The gospel of Jesus Christ is what was restored. 

Not sure what you mean by “scriptural support for that”. 

I don’t know that Joseph and Hyrum’s deaths sealed the testimony of the Book of Mormon. 

That revelation isn’t particularly meaningful to me. 

[HappyJackWagon]

20 hours ago, YJacket said:

Boy . . . definition of words have sure changed.  In the closet, out of the closet (i.e. openly).  Again because we've let the camel's nose into the tent the new goalpost is just obey the "Law of Chastity", it used to be homosexuality in any form is a sin, then it was SSA may happen but that doesn't make you homosexual, then it was you can be openly homosexual just don't "act" on it, now it's you can be openly homosexual just don't violate the Law of Chastity.  Which is quite ridiculous b/c the Law of Chastity includes ANY homosexual things, but the Law of Chastity has now been watered down so much it's just don't have sex outside of marriage-except for homosexuals just be celibate.

The guy goes on dates with other men, I know for a fact that would absolutely 100% be against any Law of Chastity when I was growing up, but I guess others see it that he is celibate so he is good.  How far down the rabbit hole we go?

So in a word, yes he openly violates the Law of Chastity. He openly attends drag shows. He openly discusses on his blog all things LGBTetc.  He has been invited many times to give youth firesides.  Regardless of whether or not he has advocated for any of those things in a fireside, do you really want your 15 year-old son to go to a fireside put on by the Church where a man is openly doing all these things?

Please read his blog, nerdygaymormon . . .go have a blast see what evil and wickedness has infiltrated the Church.

How far down the slope have we gone . . .and thus why I say the need for members to start wising up to what is going on . . . 

So would you admit that there are 2 separate versions of the law of chastity, one for straights and one for gays?

Quote

YJacket:

I have simply studied much about this issue, I have done what Elder Ballard has asked me to do, I have "listened to and learned from". I've compared what the world says, and what the world says inside the Church with God's word and God's Word says something totally different than what we have been taught and are teaching.  I am of firm belief that it is all rooted in sin and that through the Gospel of Jesus Christ men and women can change their very nature and beings of who they are into someone different.

So you're suggesting that any h0mosxual tendency is sin. You don't accept the church's official position about SS attraction? You think gay people can become non-gay? How? Faith and prayer?

You mentioned in an earlier post that there will be haters who think you are bigoted. I think you're right that there are many who will think you're bigoted but that doesn't necessarily make them haters.

Edited September 21, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours ago, rongo said:

As a thought exercise, hypothetically speaking, what if President Nelson were set apart, but then rejected by the sustaining vote? There are instances (e.g., discussed by President Smith in the Smoot hearings) where stake presidents were actually rejected in the sustaining, and the frustrated apostle had to select someone else. It's interesting to think about what would happen if something like that were to happen (and the chance of that happening is zero).

However, I can see an analogue between that and HJW's hypothetical about a stake president's decision that is not sustained by the high council. It would certainly bring about a situation that would need to be resolved, lest the high council feel like the stake president was just doing what he wants, regardless. Although he does have the authority to do that. 

I wonder if the Brethren would say (if asked, and if they answered) similarly that they have the full authority to set apart the president without a sustaining, and to have the sustaining later "for ratification purposes only."

Of course they did set apart President Nelson prior to receiving a sustaining vote. Kind of shows what a sham the vote of common consent is. It wasn't even important enough to wait to set apart the president.

But yes, if he is rejected and opposed by the people, he shouldn't serve as president/prophet. If he were actually opposed by so many members it seems unlikely his prophetic voice will really be listened to. He'll be a lame duck on day one. Not a great recipe for effective leadership and I think that is exactly why common consent exists and why a sustaining vote should be received prior to setting apart.

[Duncan]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Of course they did set apart President Nelson prior to receiving a sustaining vote. Kind of shows what a sham the vote of common consent is. It wasn't even important enough to wait to set apart the president.

But yes, if he is rejected and opposed by the people, he shouldn't serve as president/prophet. If he were actually opposed by so many members it seems unlikely his prophetic voice will really be listened to. He'll be a lame duck on day one. Not a great recipe for effective leadership and I think that is exactly why common consent exists and why a sustaining vote should be received prior to setting apart.

correct me if I am wrong but aren't Apostles set apart after the vote?

[rongo]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Of course they did set apart President Nelson prior to receiving a sustaining vote. Kind of shows what a sham the vote of common consent is. It wasn't even important enough to wait to set apart the president.

But yes, if he is rejected and opposed by the people, he shouldn't serve as president/prophet. If he were actually opposed by so many members it seems unlikely his prophetic voice will really be listened to. He'll be a lame duck on day one. Not a great recipe for effective leadership and I think that is exactly why common consent exists and why a sustaining vote should be received prior to setting apart.

It would certainly be a dilemma, no doubt about that. Not even squeaking by with a simple majority --- that would be as equally catastrophic as a near-unanimous rejection. If there were consistently a sizeable number of people bellowing "Opposed!" along with Sam Young (but still far short of approaching halfway), that would trigger it being addressed, I think. 

I think if there were great division among a stake disciplinary council, almost every stake president would reconsider, for the reasons you said above. Even if one has the authority to ramrod a decision through, there is also legitimacy and credibility that need to be considered. 

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

It would certainly be a dilemma, no doubt about that. Not even squeaking by with a simple majority --- that would be as equally catastrophic as a near-unanimous rejection. If there were consistently a sizeable number of people bellowing "Opposed!" along with Sam Young (but still far short of approaching halfway), that would trigger it being addressed, I think. 

I think if there were great division among a stake disciplinary council, almost every stake president would reconsider, for the reasons you said above. Even if one has the authority to ramrod a decision through, there is also legitimacy and credibility that need to be considered. 

In today's technology age there are pretty simple ways the church could seek and receive sustaining/opposing votes from the church membership. They haven't done anything to implement a system for this, but they could. I hope they do. It would be fascinating to see 1) how many members vote (may give a better indication of membership)  2) how many vote to sustain 3) how many vote opposed. The results could be included as part of the auditing report. Asking for a sustaining vote of the 20,000 in the conference center doesn't really represent the entirety of the church. I suspect most of us can agree on that. Right now "bellowing" opposed in the conference center is the only real way to have an opposing vote noticed but again, I suspect most of us can agree that's not ideal. Sadly, it's all there is.

I think you're right that the majority of SP's would probably avoid ramrodding a decision through. But right now, it's really not necessary to ramrod because they are the only decision maker. As the only one responsible for passing the judgement, members of the SP and HC accept that the SP will unilaterally make the decision. The culture is designed to sustain the leader, not oppose, even if there is legitimate disagreement.

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, Duncan said:

correct me if I am wrong but aren't Apostles set apart after the vote?

I "think" so, but can't be certain. That certainly didn't happen for President Nelson's setting apart as prophet, seer, and revelator.

As was mentioned earlier in the thread, the act of seeking a sustaining vote for a new apostle (or any of the general church leadership) is perfunctory.

How could anyone truly vote to sustain a person whose name they heard for the first time seconds before? There's no opportunity for reflection or prayer. Not to mention, the only vote that is noted at all are those in the conference center. So even if the apostles are set apart after this kind of a vote, doesn't really matter much. There are ways by which this process could be significantly improved. For example, how useful would it be to know the name and background etc of a new apostle a week or 2 before conference, so that members could make an informed vote of sustaining/opposing? After a new apostle is called we usually get myriad stories about their families, work history, church resume etc. We learn about them after the fact. That's not very useful. As another example, if the name for a new apostle is presented a couple of weeks early, members could be asked to vote in a number of ways that would actually count their vote and show if the individual really is sustained. I suspect most/all would be, but dedication to the 19th century process of asking for a vote by raise of hands reflects a disinterest by the church in how people actually vote.

[lostindc]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not much of a mystery.

Bishop: "Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?"

Me: "Well, I believe Joseph Smith was either insane or an outright fraud, or perhaps some combination of both.  I reject his various and extensive statements about the origins and nature of the Book of Mormon.  Either there were no plates, or else Joseph Smith and/or his contemporaries fabricated them.  There was no Angel Moroni, because there were no Nephites.  Or Lamanites.  Or any descendants of Lehi.  Lehi never existed.  The Three Witnesses were either mentally insane or profoundly deceived.  I reject their testimony.  The Eight Witnesses were either in on Joseph Smith's fraud, or else were deceived.  I reject the Book of Mormon for what it claims to be. And although the Book of Mormon repeatedly and emphatically repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately regarding the book's historicity, and although Joseph Smith repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lied concerning the historicity of the book, I think the book has some good moral aphorisms, so I'll accept them on that basis.  And I am also willing to accept Joseph Smith, fraud/lunatic though he was, as a 'prophet.'  So with these provisos and caveats in place, I will say yes, I have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these, the latter days."

Sorry, I just can't picture myself saying that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac, are you okay with the references I provided to your call for references regarding the in-fighting with LDS leadership over blacks and the priesthood?  I didn’t see a response and wanted to make sure.

Edited September 21, 2018 by lostindc

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, lostindc said:

Smac, are you okay with the references I provided to your call for references regarding the in-fighting with LDS leadership over blacks and the priesthood?  I didn’t see a response and wanted to make sure.

I was more interested in your (apparent) claim that activism/agitation in the Civil Rights Era was a key or predominant motivating/precipitating factor for the 1978 revelation.  I'm not much persuaded on that point, but I won't press the matter further.  Thank you for your efforts.

As for "in-fighting with LDS leadership," yes, I've known about that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 21, 2018 by smac97

[Gray]

19 hours ago, bluebell said:

As are you (and others). But you seem to want to hold the church accountable to your private interpretation, while suggesting that a prophet’s teachings on the subject are irrelevant.

That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. 

My private interpretation appears to me, at least, to be much more in harmony with the revelations on the matter. That's because my private interpretation is derived from trying to understand what the text is saying, and what was its intent as opposed to being driven by the exigencies of the shifting power dynamics of leadership. Also my private interpretation is informed by common, shared notions of consent and what it really means to give or withhold consent.

 

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

I don’t know if he was telling the truth. 

The gospel of Jesus Christ is what was restored. 

Not sure what you mean by “scriptural support for that”. 

I don’t know that Joseph and Hyrum’s deaths sealed the testimony of the Book of Mormon. 

That revelation isn’t particularly meaningful to me. 

Thanks. 

[Gray]

19 hours ago, rongo said:

As a thought exercise, hypothetically speaking, what if President Nelson were set apart, but then rejected by the sustaining vote? There are instances (e.g., discussed by President Smith in the Smoot hearings) where stake presidents were actually rejected in the sustaining, and the frustrated apostle had to select someone else. It's interesting to think about what would happen if something like that were to happen (and the chance of that happening is zero).

However, I can see an analogue between that and HJW's hypothetical about a stake president's decision that is not sustained by the high council. It would certainly bring about a situation that would need to be resolved, lest the high council feel like the stake president was just doing what he wants, regardless. Although he does have the authority to do that. 

I wonder if the Brethren would say (if asked, and if they answered) similarly that they have the full authority to set apart the president without a sustaining, and to have the sustaining later "for ratification purposes only."

I think the brethren would chide the members of the church for disloyalty and President Nelson's position would stand.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I "think" so, but can't be certain. That certainly didn't happen for President Nelson's setting apart as prophet, seer, and revelator.

As was mentioned earlier in the thread, the act of seeking a sustaining vote for a new apostle (or any of the general church leadership) is perfunctory.

How could anyone truly vote to sustain a person whose name they heard for the first time seconds before? There's no opportunity for reflection or prayer. Not to mention, the only vote that is noted at all are those in the conference center. So even if the apostles are set apart after this kind of a vote, doesn't really matter much. There are ways by which this process could be significantly improved. For example, how useful would it be to know the name and background etc of a new apostle a week or 2 before conference, so that members could make an informed vote of sustaining/opposing? After a new apostle is called we usually get myriad stories about their families, work history, church resume etc. We learn about them after the fact. That's not very useful. As another example, if the name for a new apostle is presented a couple of weeks early, members could be asked to vote in a number of ways that would actually count their vote and show if the individual really is sustained. I suspect most/all would be, but dedication to the 19th century process of asking for a vote by raise of hands reflects a disinterest by the church in how people actually vote.

In the Early Church, replacement apostles were chosen by their brethren without approval from the members.

[HappyJackWagon]

19 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

In the Early Church, replacement apostles were chosen by their brethren without approval from the members.

Please remind me...how well did it go when Joseph tried to step down and install Hyrum as President instead? Did the members disapproval have something to do with that?

[Scott Lloyd]

50 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

In the Early Church, replacement apostles were chosen by their brethren without approval from the members.

I don't know that we can definitively say that. I think there was a lot that went on in the Early Church that we don't have record of.

 

[Bernard Gui]

27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't know that we can definitively say that. I think there was a lot that went on in the Early Church that we don't have record of.

 

Perhaps, but I haven’t found evidence to the contrary in my readings of the earliest Church Fathers. I am open to correction.

 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Please remind me...how well did it go when Joseph tried to step down and install Hyrum as President instead? Did the members disapproval have something to do with that?

From our later perspective, not well I suppose, but in those early years folks were still trying to figure things out. The Church evolves, no? How does this affect my observation about the only other time apostles came and went? Your source, please?

Edited September 21, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

From our later perspective, not well, but in those early years folks were still trying to figure things out. The Church evolves, no? How does this affect my observation about the only other time apostles came and went?

I was pointing out that even IF a formal sustaining wasn't called for, the early saints had access to the top leadership and could express their opposition. I'd need to see examples of apostles being set apart without sustaining so I'm not sure if that's accurate or not, but even if it is, the role of apostle wasn't even solidified until after Joseph's death when the 12 became the authoritative body within the church. Before that, they were a traveling high council, or missionaries. So even if they weren't sustained, that could be, at least in part, to the developing role they played at the time.

[Bernard Gui]

44 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I was pointing out that even IF a formal sustaining wasn't called for, the early saints had access to the top leadership and could express their opposition. I'd need to see examples of apostles being set apart without sustaining so I'm not sure if that's accurate or not, but even if it is, the role of apostle wasn't even solidified until after Joseph's death when the 12 became the authoritative body within the church. Before that, they were a traveling high council, or missionaries. So even if they weren't sustained, that could be, at least in part, to the developing role they played at the time.

Most of the members lived in one community and its environs and knew the leaders personally. Are you downplaying the role of the 12 for any particular reason? ....a traveling high council, but more importantly special witnesses of Christ and a quorum equal in power and authority with the First Presidency (along with the 70). 

Your source, please?

Edited September 21, 2018 by Bernard Gui