phaedrus ut Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 With the recent policy change regarding worthiness interviews it brings an interesting question. Sam Young has been accused of apostasy by his bishop and stake president and threatened with disciplinary action. He related his recent meeting on his blog. Quote SP: Sam, do you want to be a member of the Church? ME: Yes. SP: Sam, are you an apostate? ME: No. SP: You are an apostate! ME: No, I’m not. I’m speaking out about the need to change a policy. SP: You are an apostate! He then flipped to the definition of apostasy in Handbook 1: “Apostasy refers to members who repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.” SP: Sam, are you an apostate? ME: No. I’m not speaking out against the Church of its leaders. I’m speaking out against a policy. SP: You are an apostate. SP: You can’t continue speaking in public about this. We will have to protect the good name of the church. As we saw with members who were excommunicated for speaking against the priesthood ban even when the church changes policy it doesn't reverse their excommunication. Was the recently policy change vindication enough to stop the disciplinary council against him? Phaedrus 2
Jeanne Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 (edited) No. If he did..Half of this board would be gonzo! Edited March 27, 2018 by Jeanne 2
Popular Post bluebell Posted March 27, 2018 Popular Post Posted March 27, 2018 I think the definition of apostasy in the handbook needs to be changed. 5
pogi Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 6 minutes ago, bluebell said: I think the definition of apostasy in the handbook needs to be changed. That makes you an apostate! 3
The Nehor Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 3 minutes ago, pogi said: That makes you an apostate! Agreed. Burn them all!!!
Tacenda Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 Cultish behaviour from this stake president, IMO.
The Nehor Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 1 minute ago, Tacenda said: Cultish behaviour from this stake president, IMO. I think I would have done the same thing. When do I get my complimentary black robe and sacrificial dagger?
ksfisher Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 14 minutes ago, bluebell said: I think the definition of apostasy in the handbook needs to be changed. Why? What's wrong with it as it stands now? Apostasy As used here, apostasy refers to members who: Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority. Are in a same-gender marriage. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.
Tacenda Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 1 minute ago, The Nehor said: I think I would have done the same thing. When do I get my complimentary black robe and sacrificial dagger? Soon, let me find a store that carries costumes!
Popular Post bluebell Posted March 27, 2018 Popular Post Posted March 27, 2018 3 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Why? What's wrong with it as it stands now? Apostasy As used here, apostasy refers to members who: Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority. Are in a same-gender marriage. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings. I don't think that "clears and open disagreement with the church or leaders" on policy or their opinions alone should be considered apostasy. 6
Gray Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 I believe his local leaders very badly misinterpreted the definition of apostasy, change or no change. 4
ksfisher Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 1 minute ago, bluebell said: I don't think that "clears and open disagreement with the church or leaders" on policy or their opinions alone should be considered apostasy. Disagreement is not the word that is used. Nothing is mentioned about the opinions of church leaders. "Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders." Do you think that members of the church, those who have covenanted to be followers of Christ, who repeatedly clearly, openly, and deliberately act in public opposition to the church or its leaders should be considered members in good standing?
Duncan Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 I guess it depends on what he does now with this petition and the aftermath, it seems like the Church is answering the concerns and so will it take the air out of his balloon. I guess time will tell to see what he does now 2
CA Steve Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Gray said: I believe his local leaders very badly misinterpreted the definition of apostasy, change or no change. Well that is the problem. When your stake president tells you that you are in apostasy, and you openly disagree and refuse to follow his instructions, you are by definition (see item #1 in the handbook above) in apostasy. So even if the SP is incorrect about his assessment of what constitutes apostasy (Item#2), a failure to follow his instructions is still apostasy. Admittedly I have a very limited exposure to the actual trials of people excommunicated for apostasy, but as far as I have heard it is a violation of item #1 given as the reason for excommunication. I have never heard of a trial where the accused was allowed to present evidence at his/her court regarding a doctrinal or policy dispute. There may have been discussions with leadership leading up to the trial where such discussions took place, but not at the trial itself. I agree with Bluebell above. Members should be able to publicly voice their opinions over non doctrinal matters. Item #1 gives local leadership unlimited power over member's public church related actions. Edited March 27, 2018 by CA Steve 4
Exiled Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 (edited) I think he will push for more change. He doesn't like the church leaders questioning the youth period and the church accomodation doesn't change this practice. So, there probably will be further proceedings. Edited March 27, 2018 by Exiled
bsjkki Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 (edited) Is there merit in his argument that the good name of the church was being more tarnished by a bad policy than his efforts to change the policy to protect people? Do you feel that protecting the name of the church involves silencing members who have suffered abuse at the hands of church leaders? Am I an apostate for asking the question? It is a public forum. I agree that we need to protect the good name of the church. How about that? The Church’s reputation is being trashed by a dreadful policy that is doing severe harm to our children. My fellow Mormons…join with 13,000 of us to protect the good name of the Church. If this policy is not eliminated, those who didn’t speak up for change will be responsible for the bad name the Church is now accruing. I am not going to be silenced. Our children’s protection is more precious than my membership. I have made the temple covenant of sacrifice. This is not a time to waffle on that promise. If called to do so, I’ll sacrifice my membership for the benefit of the kids. Whatever the Church decides to do to me, I forgive them in advance. My Stake President and Bishop are great men, having to operate within the system that they have been dealt. Edited March 27, 2018 by bsjkki 1
churchistrue Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 I think it's bad form to judge others especially to level of recommending excommunication. But if you were going to make a small list of people who claim to be LDS and then go about attacking and opposing the Church online, based on what I see, Sam would be on that list. Some of his objectives have overlap with some of the things I hope for the Church. But his tactics seem to be crossing a line for what I think is proper for faithful LDS. Just my opinion...
bluebell Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 20 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Disagreement is not the word that is used. Nothing is mentioned about the opinions of church leaders. "Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders." Do you think that members of the church, those who have covenanted to be followers of Christ, who repeatedly clearly, openly, and deliberately act in public opposition to the church or its leaders should be considered members in good standing? Yes, but disagreement can be a synonym of opposition, and some priesthood leaders have trouble differentiating between their opinion/interpretation on church teachings and actual church teachings. I think the way the definition of apostasy is worded leaves too much room for unrighteous dominion. Do I think that members who believe that the church should change a policy they see as dangerous should be considered members in good standing? Yes, I do. I think it's weird to say that one can't be a follower of Christ and disagree with church policy. I also can see how such disagreement might get to the extent or take a form where a member is no longer in good standing, but I don't think that happens automatically. 2
ksfisher Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 3 minutes ago, bluebell said: Do I think that members who believe that the church should change a policy they see as dangerous should be considered members in good standing? Yes, I do. I think it's weird to say that one can't be a follower of Christ and disagree with church policy. I also can see how such disagreement might get to the extent or take a form where a member is no longer in good standing, but I don't think that happens automatically. Believing that the church should change a policy is different than repeatedly clearly, openly, and deliberately acting in public opposition to the church or its leaders.
CV75 Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 1 hour ago, phaedrus ut said: With the recent policy change regarding worthiness interviews it brings an interesting question. Maybe he should get a second opinion...
bsjkki Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 Rob Porter's ex-wives public statements about their Bishops responses to their abuse received far more negative press coverage for the church worldwide. I have not seen national or international press stories about Sam Young. Should they not have come forward? Should they have not included these details in their statements? Would it be appropriate for a stake president to ask them not to speak? 1
smac97 Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 5 minutes ago, bluebell said: Yes, but disagreement can be a synonym of opposition, and some priesthood leaders have trouble differentiating between their opinion/interpretation on church teachings and actual church teachings. I think the way the definition of apostasy is worded leaves too much room for unrighteous dominion. If that happens, Bro. Young could appeal the exercise of authority over him. The stake president could be counseled and corrected, and the matter could be resolved. As it is, however, it appears that Bro. Young may himself indulging in a bit of "unrighteous dominion." He is seeking to turn public sentiment against the Church. He seems to have gone well past trying to persuade the Church, and is now trying to coerce it. It is hard to deny that Bro. Young has some valid concerns. But it's also hard to deny that he seems to be going about it in the wrong way. Once again, Elder Oaks 1987 remarks on how to address such things become relevant. 5 minutes ago, bluebell said: Do I think that members who believe that the church should change a policy they see as dangerous should be considered members in good standing? Yes, I do. I think it's weird to say that one can't be a follower of Christ and disagree with church policy. I also can see how such disagreement might get to the extent or take a form where a member is no longer in good standing, but I don't think that happens automatically. Agreed. "To the extent" is very much a judgment call. Which is why I am not going to respond to the question in the OP. It is not my place to judge or speak publicly about whether Bro. Young should be excommunicated. I don't have all the facts, and I certainly don't have the stewardship or authority. Thanks, -Smac 3
ksfisher Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 1 minute ago, smac97 said: It is not my place to judge or speak publicly about whether Bro. Young should be excommunicated. As I'm sure you are aware there are more outcomes to a disciplinary council than just excommunication. Perhaps "subject to church discipline" would be a better way to phrase this. 1
bluebell Posted March 27, 2018 Posted March 27, 2018 11 minutes ago, bsjkki said: Rob Porter's ex-wives public statements about their Bishops responses to their abuse received far more negative press coverage for the church worldwide. I have not seen national or international press stories about Sam Young. Should they not have come forward? Should they have not included these details in their statements? Would it be appropriate for a stake president to ask them not to speak? I didn't even know who Sam Young was until this thread. He hasn't shown up on any of my news sites that I typically follow. The other stuff (on the church) has, so I think your question on what is causing more harm to the church's name is valid.
Recommended Posts