Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
smac97

Sam Young Lost His Appeal

Recommended Posts

Here:

Quote

Sam Young, the former Mormon who was excommunicated for “deliberately attacking and publicly opposing the church” in his campaign to end bishops’ one-on-one youth interviews, has learned that his appeal of that disciplinary decision has been rejected.

The Houston stake president, a regional lay leader in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, told Young of his appeal’s outcome Sunday while standing in a hallway at the church he once attended.

The leader did not give Young any notice in writing and said none would be forthcoming.

That is “consistent with the process for an appeal to the [governing] First Presidency,” church spokesman Eric Hawkins wrote Monday in an email to The Salt Lake Tribune.

Hmm.  I would have thought that a written notice would have been sent.  I guess not.  

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Well, I am ready for this 15 minutes of fame to be closed and move on. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here:

Hmm.  I would have thought that a written notice would have been sent.  I guess not.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I would imagine anything in a written notice would have been immediately posted on the internet with commentary deriding the church and/or the church discipline process.  At least this way he can't say that no one spoke to him about it.

Edited by ksfisher
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You're making it sound like the church did it this way because they are afraid of Sam Young posting their own words on social media. That seems like a far safer option than bypassing the persona filing the appeal, going straight to the person who X'd him, and then asking the SP to pass on the decision. That system seems much more fraught with possibility of misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation.

Do you really think the church is that afraid of having its own words used against it? That sounds pretty cowardly to me and I can't imagine they are really that afraid. But then again, I can't really understand why they would follow this strange process at all.

I don't think I really meant anything beyond what I said.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It does seem strange.

Sam Young is the one who appealed the decision to the 1st Presidency so one would expect that they would communicate with him in response. 

They did, albeit through an intermediary.

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It seems totally normal to also tell the SP of the decision. That makes perfect sense. But leaving Sam Young out of it seems rude. If this is the SOP for the church in handling appeals, they should rethink it.

Perhaps.  Or perhaps a formal letter from the First Presidency might give an unintended impression of finality.

And perhaps the Church may be excused from wanting to give a person like Sam Young additional grist for his publicity campaign against the Church.  It's a foregone conclusion that he would take such a private correspondence and flaunt it and parade it about (as he did, I think, with the letter from his stake president).  Publicizing private communications could also be seen as "rude."

Decorum is not one of Sam Young's strong suits.

-Smac

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It does seem strange.

Sam Young is the one who appealed the decision to the 1st Presidency so one would expect that they would communicate with him in response.  It seems totally normal to also tell the SP of the decision. That makes perfect sense. But leaving Sam Young out of it seems rude. If this is the SOP for the church in handling appeals, they should rethink it.

From what I have seen there is no letter. The decision on the appeal is told to the Priesthood authority who submitted the appeal to be passed on to the member. There is no standard method of making that communication in the Handbook.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I would imagine anything in a written notice would have been immediately posted on the internet with commentary deriding the church and/or the church discipline process.  At least this way he can't say that no one spoke to him about it.

Yes, that was my thought.  I wonder if a letter from the First Presidency, however well-intentioned, might end up being used by a person in rebellion as a badge of honor.  Such a letter could foster resentment and alienation.

I hope Sam Young has a change of heart.  

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

They did, albeit through an intermediary.

Perhaps.  Or perhaps a formal letter from the First Presidency might give an unintended impression of finality.

And perhaps the Church may be excused from wanting to give a person like Sam Young additional grist for his publicity campaign against the Church.  It's a foregone conclusion that he would take such a private correspondence and flaunt it and parade it about (as he did, I think, with the letter from his stake president).  Publicizing private communications could also be seen as "rude."

Decorum is not one of Sam Young's strong suits.

-Smac

I have confidence that the Office of the First Presidency is capable of writing a letter that confirms the original decision while also expressing a hope that the former member return to the fold. It doesn't seem that complicated.

If the church had a different SOP for other appeals but then communicated through Sam through an intermediary, in contradiction to the normal SOP, then I think you might have a point. But as Eric Hawkins stated, this is the usual process for communicating an appeal. Again, it seems like a letter would be a more careful way to convey the result of the appeal, not a conversation in a hallway. If anything, I think this seems more like the 1st Presidency keeping it's distance so they aren't sullied by the uncomeliness of excommunications. I think they'd rather have the SP take the heat than bear it themselves.

The SP was an integral part of the accusation, prosecution, judgement of the disciplinary council. Sending it back to the SP to communicate shows a lack of respect to the person appealing and further burns the bridge between the former member and the SP, who would also be an integral part of the former member returning to the church. If they must communicate verbally, or in person in lieu of a letter, why not have someone else convey the message. Why not have the Area Authority convey the message?

I expected the appeal to be denied. No surprise there. But I'm shocked by the rudeness of how the action was communicated: in a hallway, verbally, from the man who X'd Sam Young. Not a very compassionate procedure.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You're making it sound like the church did it this way because they are afraid of Sam Young posting their own words on social media.

Posting a private letter for public consumption?  From a guy who has repeatedly and publicly . . . behaved the way he has?

On balance, it appears that communicating the denial of an appeal through the stake president (or bishop) is the standard process.  That's how it worked with Kate Kelly (see here).

I suspect the First Presidency did not take any special measures relative to Sam Young.  But I wouldn't blame them if they did.

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That seems like a far safer option than bypassing the persona filing the appeal, going straight to the person who X'd him, and then asking the SP to pass on the decision. That system seems much more fraught with possibility of misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation.

Not really.  What is there to misunderstand or misrepresent?  Unless the local leader's decision is reversed, there isn't much to say.

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Do you really think the church is that afraid of having its own words used against it?

Meh.  I think the Church is going to be darned if it does, darned if it doesn't, darned no matter what.

If the First Presidency doesn't issue a letter, it's "rude."  If it does present a brief letter, it would be disparaged as cold, indifferent, aloof.  If it presents a longer letter, it would be disparaged as being a form letter, or else it would be published to the world to be picked apart and criticized.

Faultfinding.  Gotta love it.

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That sounds pretty cowardly to me

Says the fellow who hides behind a pseudonym.

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

and I can't imagine they are really that afraid.

Same here.

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But then again, I can't really understand why they would follow this strange process at all.

I encourage you to give this matter some study.  The Church should not ignore unrepentant apostasy or play dumb when it arises.  In this the Church has a fairly clear mandate:

  • D&C 50:8-9 - "But the hypocrites shall be detected and shall be cut off, either in life or in death, even as I will; and wo unto them who are cut off from my church, for the same are overcome of the world. Wherefore, let every man beware lest he do that which is not in truth and righteousness before me."
  • D&C 64:34-37 - "Behold, the Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind; and the willing and obedient shall eat the good of the land of Zion in these last days. And the rebellious shall be cut off out of the land of Zion, and shall be sent away, and shall not inherit the land. For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim, wherefore they shall be plucked out. Behold, I, the Lord, have made my church in these last days like unto a judge sitting on a hill, or in a high place, to judge the nations."
  • D&C 104:6-10 - "For I, the Lord, am not to be mocked in these things. And all this that the innocent among you may not be condemned with the unjust; and that the guilty among you may not escape; because I, the Lord, have promised unto you a crown of glory at my right hand. Therefore, inasmuch as you are found transgressors, you cannot escape my wrath in your lives. Inasmuch as ye are cut off for transgression, ye cannot escape the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption. And I now give unto you power from this very hour, that if any man among you, of the order, is found a transgressor and repenteth not of the evil, that ye shall deliver him over unto the buffetings of Satan; and he shall not have power to bring evil upon you."
  • D&C 51:1-2 - "Hearken unto me, saith the Lord your God, and I will speak unto my servant Edward Partridge, and give unto him directions; for it must needs be that he receive directions how to organize this people. For it must needs be that they be organized according to my laws; if otherwise, they will be cut off."
  • D&C 63:60-64 - "Behold, I am Alpha and Omega, even Jesus Christ. Wherefore, let all men beware how they take my name in their lips. For behold, verily I say, that many there be who are under this condemnation, who use the name of the Lord, and use it in vain, having not authority. Wherefore, let the church repent of their sins, and I, the Lord, will own them; otherwise they shall be cut off. Remember that that which cometh from above is sacred, and must be spoken with care, and by constraint of the Spirit; and in this there is no condemnation, and ye receive the Spirit through prayer; wherefore, without this there remaineth condemnation."
  • D&C 133:63 - "And upon them that hearken not to the voice of the Lord shall be fulfilled that which was written by the prophet Moses, that they should be cut off from among the people."
  • D&C 85:11 - "And they who are of the High Priesthood, whose names are not found written in the book of the law, or that are found to have apostatized, or to have been cut off from the church, as well as the lesser priesthood, or the members, in that day shall not find an inheritance among the saints of the Most High."
  • D&C 1:14 - "And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people."
  • D&C 134:10 - "We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship."
  • Alma 1:24 - "The hearts of many were hardened, and their names were blotted out."
  • 3 Ne. 18:31 - "If he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people."
  • D&C 42:24 - "Adulterers who do not repent shall be cast out."
  • D&C 42:28 - "He that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out."
  • D&C 41:5 - "He that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciple; and he that saith he receiveth it and doeth it not, the same is not my disciple, and shall be cast out from among you."
  • Helaman 12:25 - "And I would that all men might be saved. But we read that in the great and last day there are some who shall be cast out, yea, who shall be cast off from the presence of the Lord."
  • 3 Nephi 14:15 - "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

As I have said before (regarding the Calderwoods, but also applicable to Sam Young): "Look, I don't want them to leave the Church. I want them in it. I want everyone in it. But we are a community of faith. We cohere around faith. When we disregard apostasy we weaken our community."

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I don't think I really meant anything beyond what I said.

But the reaction to what you said proves your point

Critics always have a come-back taking it farther down the road toward their own agenda.  The back and forth never ends until someone goes silent.  Bravo for the response and the way it was handled!

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Says the fellow who hides behind a pseudonym.

 

-Smac

Once again, you get personal by attacking me. There's no need to be a prick. I'm out.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I expected the appeal to be denied. No surprise there. But I'm shocked by the rudeness of how the action was communicated: in a hallway, verbally, from the man who X'd Sam Young. Not a very compassionate procedure.

Would a letter mailed to his home somehow have been more compassionate?  

Edited by bluebell

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:
Quote

They did, albeit through an intermediary.

Perhaps.  Or perhaps a formal letter from the First Presidency might give an unintended impression of finality.

And perhaps the Church may be excused from wanting to give a person like Sam Young additional grist for his publicity campaign against the Church.  It's a foregone conclusion that he would take such a private correspondence and flaunt it and parade it about (as he did, I think, with the letter from his stake president).  Publicizing private communications could also be seen as "rude."

Decorum is not one of Sam Young's strong suits.

I have confidence that the Office of the First Presidency is capable of writing a letter that confirms the original decision while also expressing a hope that the former member return to the fold. It doesn't seem that complicated.

I agree. I was speculating (just as you were with your comments about them being "cowardly").

I think the First Presidency probably has good reason to follow this course of action.

Quote

If the church had a different SOP for other appeals but then communicated through Sam through an intermediary, in contradiction to the normal SOP, then I think you might have a point. But as Eric Hawkins stated, this is the usual process for communicating an appeal.

I stand corrected.

Quote

Again, it seems like a letter would be a more careful way to convey the result of the appeal, not a conversation in a hallway.

There may also be additional factors in play.

And there doesn't seem to be much need for a "careful way to convey the result" when the "result" is an unexplained affirmation of the local leader's decision (the basis for which is set forth in writing and given to the individual).

Quote

If anything, I think this seems more like the 1st Presidency keeping it's distance so they aren't sullied by the uncomeliness of excommunications.

Right.  Let's never pass up an opportunity to impute (and publicize) the worst possible motives to the leaders of the Church.

🤨

Quote

I think they'd rather have the SP take the heat than bear it themselves.

Says the person who hides behind a pseudonym (and hence avoids getting "sullied" or "tak[ing] the heat" for his various calumnies against the Church and its leaders).

Quote

The SP was an integral part of the accusation, prosecution, judgement of the disciplinary council. Sending it back to the SP to communicate shows a lack of respect to the person appealing and further burns the bridge between the former member and the SP, who would also be an integral part of the former member returning to the church.

Hiding behind a pseudonym while publicly - and regularly - maligning the Church and its leaders also "shows a lack of respect."  

And yet...

Physician, heal thyself.

FWIW, I don't think there is any such "lack of respect" shown by communicating through the stake president.  Unless, of course, we are predisposed to think the worst of the leaders of the Church.

Quote

If they must communicate verbally, or in person in lieu of a letter, why not have someone else convey the message. Why not have the Area Authority convey the message?

Meh.  An area authority may live far away from the individual, requiring substantial travel time.  And distance may also cause delays in communication.  And involving the Area Authority seems unnecessary (unless, again, one is predisposed to think the worst of the leaders of the Church).

Quote

I expected the appeal to be denied. No surprise there. But I'm shocked by the rudeness of how the action was communicated: in a hallway, verbally, from the man who X'd Sam Young. Not a very compassionate procedure.

The guy who regularly and publicly maligns the Church and disparages its leaders while hiding behind a pseudonym is "shocked" by "rudeness."

Captain Renault would be proud.

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Once again, you get personal by attacking me. There's no need to be a prick. I'm out.

I don't think it is an "attack" to observe the rich irony of you accusing others of "rudeness" when you so regularly malign and disparage the leaders of the Church - your Church - while hiding behind a pseudonym.

Frankly, it's weird that you get so huffy about this.  Do you really not perceive the irony?

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Would a letter mailed to his home somehow been more compassionate?  

No.  It would be criticized as "cold" or "aloof" or "indifferent."

That's the beauty of faultfinding: One will always succeed at it.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think it is an "attack" to observe the rich irony of you accusing others of "rudeness" when you so regularly malign and disparage the leaders of the Church - your Church - while hiding behind a pseudonym.

Frankly, it's weird that you get so huffy about this.  Do you really not perceive the irony?

Thanks,

-Smac

Can we not devolve the discussion into personal insults please?  Nothing good ever comes of it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Can we not devolve the discussion into personal insults please?  Nothing good ever comes of it.

Amen!

I usually agree with HJW but I thought he seemed a little sensitive on this one but then I realized he wasn't quoted right. His comment was cut off mid-sentence to convey the opposite meaning of what he was saying and then was accused of being a coward for hiding behind a pseudonym. I guess I'm a coward too because I use a pseudonym. Aren't we all members here? Can't we be more civil?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Here:

Hmm.  I would have thought that a written notice would have been sent.  I guess not.  

Thanks,

-Smac

It seems to me that if the Stake President is making an appeal in behalf of a former member, the communication is properly between the First presidency adn teh Stake president.

Share this post


Link to post

Does anyone know of an appeal of stake disciplinary judgment that has not been rejected?  I’ve never heard of one.

I wonder how seriously those are taken? Often, when decisions are made we see (for better or worse) general leaders support local leaders.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, SouthernMo said:

Does anyone know of an appeal of stake disciplinary judgment that has not been rejected?  I’ve never heard of one.

I wonder how seriously those are taken? Often, when decisions are made we see (for better or worse) general leaders support local leaders.

I have heard of cases where the First Presidency overturned the results of a disciplinary council. It is not a rubber stamp process for them.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Steve-o said:

Amen!

I usually agree with HJW but I thought he seemed a little sensitive on this one but then I realized he wasn't quoted right. His comment was cut off mid-sentence to convey the opposite meaning of what he was saying and then was accused of being a coward for hiding behind a pseudonym. I guess I'm a coward too because I use a pseudonym. Aren't we all members here? Can't we be more civil?

 

Fair enough.  I should not have implied HJW was a coward.  I apologize.

Thanks,

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It seems to me that if the Stake President is making an appeal in behalf of a former member, the communication is properly between the First presidency adn teh Stake president.

I don't understand. Why did the Stake President make the appeal for Sam Young? Wouldn't Sam Young do that himself? How would something like this work in a court case? I know it's not the same but it's the closest thing I can think of. Would a judge appeal to a higher court to have his own judgement appealed? Or would the person file their own appeal through their attorney? Does anyone know?

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
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...