Jump to content
lostindc

Sam Young is Excommunicated

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, cinepro said:

May I suggest a more elegant solution...?

image_asset_22083.jpg

But what if it were more like the cone of silence in the Steve Carrell/Anne Hathaway remake? 

Then there would be a lot more leaks . . . :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, rockpond said:

So presumably the person who made the recording or leaked the recording took on the name "Alma", right?

Has anyone given thought that it could have been a HC who saw himself as Alma (the elder) sitting among the wicked priests of King Noah?

And this HC saw Sam Young as Abinadi?

 

If this has been brought up already, I apologize.  This thread is moving too fast for me!

I think that’s the impression they are trying to give

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Well, she stated that she trusts her source.  So, I'd imagine she has one.  Either way, she's stated that she chooses not to name them and simply believes their word.  She's clarified just as smac clarified after he stated something as a fact.

Smac did not state fact. He said all along it was a “surmise.”  

Abulafia, on the other hand, made a flat statement of fact, then refused to identify her source after a CFR  was given. That’s a blatant violation of board guidelines (which you ought to know, as you are expected to be familiar with them as a condition of participation). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, rongo said:

That would indicate Young to me, then, because --- why not include Sam's voice on the recording? That makes it look like he didn't want his tone, or things he said "off script" to get out. He published the papers he says they gave the council and read. That's it. Why not provide audio of the martyr speaking truth to power if he was just reading what he published after? 

What if he went "off script" and hurt the image people are frantically insisting on maintaining? I could totally see the released audio just being the stake president then. 

Similarly, if it was an Alma the Elder on the council, why not release the audio of Abinadi? Unless Abinadi's performance was something you didn't want people to hear. 

Maybe it will be published.  

Maybe the person who recorded it was closer to the SP but their distance from Sam made the recording of him inaudible.

Personally, I am more interested in what the SP had to say.  Although I haven't yet listened it yet.  Maybe on my commute tomorrow.  Or maybe not.

Share this post


Link to post

TV's  Dallas and Storage Wars:Texas notwithstanding we are dealing with Texans here, Houstonites, to be exact so if the faucet drips a little as they say....bring your own mop and bucket😶

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:
2 hours ago, rockpond said:

So presumably the person who made the recording or leaked the recording took on the name "Alma", right?

Has anyone given thought that it could have been a HC who saw himself as Alma (the elder) sitting among the wicked priests of King Noah?

And this HC saw Sam Young as Abinadi?

 

If this has been brought up already, I apologize.  This thread is moving too fast for me!

I think that’s the impression they are trying to give

Do we know if it was the person who made the recording who selected the "Alma" moniker, or was that Mike Norton's invention?

 

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Do we know if it was the person who made the recording who selected the "Alma" moniker, or was that Mike Norton's invention?

 

No idea

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, kllindley said:

Your source clearly states that not all physicians are trained in taking a sexual history.  I know many mental health clinicians are not.  I don't have any reason to believe that nurses or other technicians are more universally trained.  

That's my point.  People freak out about the idea of an "untrained" Bishop asking these questions, when there are more (by orders of magnitude) untrained professionals out there doing the same thing.  If it's traumatic to have the questions asked in one case, it should be equally traumatic in the other.  

It states that it's much more common for new graduates. By percentage you have many more physicians who are trained than bishops who are trained. And of course they also undergo criminal background checks.

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Smac did not state fact. He said all along it was a “surmise.”  

Abulafia, on the other hand, made a flat statement of fact, then refused to identify her source after a CFR  was given. That’s a blatant violation of board guidelines (which you ought to know, as you are expected to be familiar with them as a condition of participation). 

Smac did first accuse Sam of recording it or putting someone else up to it (and I think has stuck to that). 

Abulafia has clarified and stated that she has a source who told her it was not Sam or his wife who did the recording and that she trusts her source.  She can keep that source confidential.  She's explained where she formed her opinion.  So maybe just drop it.....

She's agreed that she was surmising as well based on what her source told her.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, cinepro said:

May I suggest a more elegant solution...?

image_asset_22083.jpg

 

 

I think you could just take the phone into the cone of silence with you. I suggest setting off a small scale EMP blast to fry all electronics in the room before you get started. Would probably fry all the Church electronic and annoy a few of the neighbors but it is the only way to be sure.

Edited by The Nehor

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, Gray said:

It states that it's much more common for new graduates. By percentage you have many more physicians who are trained than bishops who are trained. And of course they also undergo criminal background checks.

Not all states require background checks on doctors, I believe.

PS:  I don't think a criminal background check for bishops would be too costly, seems like a good idea imo.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, lostindc said:

Can you show me in the scriptures where this occurs?  You made the claim.

For me, I can't imagine an all-knowing God requiring a middle-man to know the details of someone's sexual activities.

D&C 42:80

80 And if any man or woman shall commit aadultery, he or she shall be tried before two elders of the church, or more, and every word shall be established against him or her by two bwitnesses of the church, and not of the enemy; but if there are more than two witnesses it is better.
  81 But he or she shall be condemned by the mouth of two witnesses; and the elders shall lay the case before the achurch, and the church shall lift up their hands against him or her, that they may be dealt with according to the blaw of God.
  82 And if it can be, it is necessary that the abishop be present also.
  83 And thus ye shall do in all cases which shall come before you.

Share this post


Link to post

There have been lots of reports on this thread, most have been petty.  Let's all move on from the personal posts or the thread will be locked.

Share this post


Link to post

Duplicate post....

Edited by TOmNossor
Delete duplicate

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Gray said:

 

Thank you for the link, it's appreciated. I've heard a lot of people claim that Sam was trying to get people to vote opposed. Here's what he actually says:

 

 

If this constitutes apostasy, common consent has become a farce, and the word apostasy has no meaning.

 

 

 

 

Gray,

I do not agree with your take on Sam Young.  I do not believe it is impossible that you believe Sam Young is the fellow you claim him to be (and he claims to be).

It seems to me that Sam Young is quite willing to burn down the church to get his way.  That his way is no partial way as the church already moved his direction.  That his cause was once 6th on his list of reasons to proclaim his opposition, but is now all he talks about.  And much more. 

Concerning what you claim the link I offered said:

The title of the link is literally, “Invitation to Vote Opposed – Together.”  While one of his invitations is as you quote, another is, “Add your name to the Common Consent Register – A Record of those who Disapprove.  Click here for the link.”

Then he spends many pages documenting why he does not sustain the church leaders.  His prose is in support of his title and his invitation to sign his Disapprove petition.

Again, his heart could be pure, I have no ability to see it.  But I can gauge the cumulative impact of his words and actions.  I think if he found out that person x (any person in the whole world) would agree with him and sign his petition and oppose the CoJCoLDS if he offered argument y he would offer argument y (I would like to believe that he would offer argument y ONLY if he believed it to be true, and I do believe this, but he would offer argument y because he is interested in everyone voting disapprove he can get to vote disapprove, IMO).

Charity, TOm

Edited by TOmNossor
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Hestia said:

There have been lots of reports on this thread, most have been petty.  Let's all move on from the personal posts or the thread will be locked.

Can we edit out personal attacks and ban the offenders from the thread so this thread can continue? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

D&C 42:80

80 And if any man or woman shall commit aadultery, he or she shall be tried before two elders of the church, or more, and every word shall be established against him or her by two bwitnesses of the church, and not of the enemy; but if there are more than two witnesses it is better.
  81 But he or she shall be condemned by the mouth of two witnesses; and the elders shall lay the case before the achurch, and the church shall lift up their hands against him or her, that they may be dealt with according to the blaw of God.
  82 And if it can be, it is necessary that the abishop be present also.
  83 And thus ye shall do in all cases which shall come before you.

I don't believe that scripture supports the need for one and one interviews with minors or even adults. The history of confession within the LDS church, like most things, has developed and changed imho.

Edited by Abulafia
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Hestia said:

There have been lots of reports on this thread, most have been petty.  Let's all move on from the personal posts or the thread will be locked.

I get the feeling you did not fully investigate my well researched theory that a particular poster is, in fact, a doodoo head.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, ALarson said:

Smac did first accuse Sam of recording it or putting someone else up to it (and I think has stuck to that). 

Abulafia has clarified and stated that she has a source who told her it was not Sam or his wife who did the recording and that she trusts her source.  She can keep that source confidential.  She's explained where she formed her opinion.  So maybe just drop it.....

She's agreed that she was surmising as well based on what her source told her.

You misunderstood Smac to begin with. He immediately clarified after it was clear you misconstrued his words. 

Abulafia, at your prompting, pretended to play your word game about “surmise” but then doubled down on it being a statement of fact coming from a source that he/she refuses to Identify. Again, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t assert it as fact and at the same time call it a statement if opinion just to get out of answering a CFR. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, ALarson said:

Smac did first accuse Sam of recording it or putting someone else up to it (and I think has stuck to that). 

Abulafia has clarified and stated that she has a source who told her it was not Sam or his wife who did the recording and that she trusts her source.  She can keep that source confidential.  She's explained where she formed her opinion.  So maybe just drop it.....

She's agreed that she was surmising as well based on what her source told her.

Board guidelines hold that when there is a call for references on an assertion, the reference must be provided or the claim withdrawn. I have not yet made good on my pledge to report the refusal to identify the source, but it appears from the moderator warning that others may have (I’ve been away from this board for many hours). With the moderator warning, I’m not sure of the efficacy now of fulfilling my pledge, but I’m guessing that by now the moderators are aware of the refusal to answer the CFR. If so, I guess we’ll see how consistent the moderation team is at enforcing board guidelines. 

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, rockpond said:

While still making comments about Sam's lack of integrity for having recorded the DC.

If Sam did make a surreptitious recording of the proceedings, or abetted or agreed to having others do so, it would indeed be a lack of integrity. Abulafia appears to have information about this but he/she is not being forthcoming. 

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, rongo said:

Why only the very limited audio footage, then? Why not the whole thing?

No telling what, if any, editing was done to the recording before it was posted. 

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If Sam did make a surreptitious recording of the proceedings, or abetted or agreed to having others do so, it would indeed be a lack of integrity. 

Yes, IF being the important word and Smac was not saying "if".

I think you should have let this one go.  Now, this "surmising" thing is gonna come back to haunt us all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You misunderstood Smac to begin with. He immediately clarified after it was clear you misconstrued his words. 

???

I haven't responded to Smac or communicated with him regarding what he posted.  You must have me confused with someone else possibly?

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, IF being the important word and Smac was not saying "if".

I think you should have let this one go.  Now, this "surmising" thing is gonna come back to haunt us all.

Seriously!

Smac did make an accusation (and has stuck to it even though he did eventually say he was just surmising....but that he still believes it's true).

Abulafia also made a statement and then did reveal that she'd been told this by a source who she trusted (but didn't feel comfortable naming them).  She agreed that she was surmising too or that it was her opinion that her source was someone she could trust.

Time for Scott to drop this and move on.....

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×