Should Sam Young of the Protect LDS Children petition still be charged with apostasy?

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

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.

It can be different.  It's not always different (and most of the time, it's different only in degrees).  A lot depends on the individual SP handling the issue and how they personally interpret 'opposition'.

[Danzo]

I say we should first see if he weighs as much as a duck

[rongo]

37 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.

He's leading and calling upon people to march on the Church at conference. 

Don't you think that's crossing the Rubicon; crossing a line? 

I don't think it's merely publicly expressing disagreement, but trying to force the Church's hand through grassroots activism that is where people find themselves in the apostasy realm. And when your stake president tells you to stop it, and you refuse to, you are also fading fast. Even when you disagree with him or the Church. 

It's kind of the definition of insanity, and then people act like NBA players who are mauling someone and get whistled for a foul ("What?! Are you kidding me?!"). When people do these things that cross the line, it's time to get out the candles for the vigil and start scheduling with John Dehlin. 

[phaedrus ut]

It's also possible that Sam Young is guilty of both apostasy and prophecy. 

[provoman]

1 hour 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?

 

I guess it then hangs upon what clear, open, public disagreement means. If a Church Leader does not make a public statement about an issue, can someone act in clear,  open disagreement?

 

If a Church Leader makes a statement in private to a person - a statement which no one else knows about - can the person instructed to do or not do something act in clear, open disagreement?

 

Or is speakng out against a Church manner of business clear, open, and public deliberate opposition to the Church.

 

The last seems more fitting in the Sam Young case....repeated clear, open, deliberate public opposition to a Church operating standard

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

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...

The problem is the Church has historically been very slow to change.

[bluebell]

40 minutes ago, rongo said:

He's leading and calling upon people to march on the Church at conference. 

Don't you think that's crossing the Rubicon; crossing a line? 

I don't think it's merely publicly expressing disagreement, but trying to force the Church's hand through grassroots activism that is where people find themselves in the apostasy realm. And when your stake president tells you to stop it, and you refuse to, you are also fading fast. Even when you disagree with him or the Church. 

It's kind of the definition of insanity, and then people act like NBA players who are mauling someone and get whistled for a foul ("What?! Are you kidding me?!"). When people do these things that cross the line, it's time to get out the candles for the vigil and start scheduling with John Dehlin. 

It might be, I don't know. 

I don't have much of an opinion about Sam's case specifically.  I know hardly anything about it.  I just think that generally, the definition of apostasy is too broad.  And I'm uncomfortable with a blanket policy that you must always follow your SP's council or you are an apostate.  I wonder if sometimes we push people towards Dehlin.

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think the definition of apostasy in the handbook needs to be changed.  

 (Apostasy!)

Edited March 27, 2018 by cinepro

[Calm]

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

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.

Specifics over what constitutes open and public opposition need to be made.  I think what is being asked for and if it is demanded and threats for ramping up actions are made if denied as opposed to just being there to say "here we are, this matters to us, please seriously consider changing...." should be identified as different behaviours, one not apostasy, the other possibly.

Public demonstration not on Sunday or a conference day so there is no interruption of worship if respectfully done, no yelling, etc....it is simply showing there are people who feel this way...that I am actually okay with, though I think a letter writing campaign would be better as long as if the letters were sent back to local leaders, it was made clear that writing concerns was not a case for apostasy in and of itself.

[Calm]

The march is on Friday, not during conference.

To me that makes a big difference.  It shows, imo, a desire to respect the feelings of those going to conference and many in the march may see it as sacred worship time as well and they are not putting their desire to be heard before others' need to worship.

[juliann]

A lot of members agree with the content of the petition and would probably sign it if it was less confrontive.  I think it is becoming increasingly more difficult for the church to make direct communication so difficult for those not in the leadership network and then condemn those who use the only means available. I also think the church's statement on this takes some of the steam out of the petition, though. 

[rpn]

What Sam has done that is objectionable in my view is insinuate that every  bishop is grooming children for sexual abuse and asking inappropriate sexual questions, that it is inherent in worthiness interviews and therefore unacceptable child abuse on its face.   I think as Sam has done that and to the extent that he has, he (and others) have born false witness AND have hurt the church.    I do not ever see a time when the church rejects bishops determination of worthiness for a TR, and I do not think any more than a small percent of bishops do the completely deplorable things that are described in Sam's stories.   I do get that even a small percent is a real problem.

I think it will be very useful if church leaders would tell bishops to quit asking about masturbation and sexual practices, and stick to the exact TR question, and teaching the correct doctrine and that the law of chastity is broken every time an individual intentionally arouses sexual feelings, or continues doing things after they know they/their partner is getting arouse, unless they are doing it in the context of their marital intimacy with their opposite sex legal spouse.   The handbook is explicit there can be NO discipline for what it calls "self-abuse", and therefore why does any bishop need to ask?   A younger person needs to know early that arousing his/her own sexual feelings makes it harder and harder to control and bank them as they get stronger, and that means s/he is setting themselves up for a harder life than if they determine early that no matter how good it feels, they'll wait until they are doing it with their spouse, as God directs.  Seems to me that a bishop can teach correct principles and hold people accountable without  needing to know anything more that whether they've violated the law and whether their doing so was part of a pattern or a one time sin, without any details.

Because I've never known anyone personally (having lived in more than 20 congregations in six states, east and west) whose bishop went off the rails in their interviews to ask these more personal questions, I do not believe they are the standard church leader behavior.   (Which isn't to say that they might not have become the standard in an area lead for years by an off the rails leader whose bishops failed to sound the alarm about them or were not heard when they did and actually followed their bad example).

 

 

[juliann]

I agree it is a small percentage of bishops, rpn.  I have no complaints when it comes to these topics, quite the opposite. I have always just considered that the case but I've seen hundreds of stories online. 

But we have a problem of "the same ten people" when it comes to leadership positions. Now that bishops are coming and going every 5 years, it increases the possibility that there are going to be some sketchy men on rare occasion. Couple that with how many people they have access to. (Given what I have seen on just this board alone, I would hope that bishops/SPs are also being vetted for their views about women in general.)

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, rpn said:

What Sam has done that is objectionable in my view is insinuate that every  bishop is grooming children for sexual abuse and asking inappropriate sexual questions, that it is inherent in worthiness interviews and therefore unacceptable child abuse on its face.   I think as Sam has done that and to the extent that he has, he (and others) have born false witness AND have hurt the church.    I do not ever see a time when the church rejects bishops determination of worthiness for a TR, and I do not think any more than a small percent of bishops do the completely deplorable things that are described in Sam's stories.   I do get that even a small percent is a real problem.

Agreed.

30 minutes ago, rpn said:

I think it will be very useful if church leaders would tell bishops to quit asking about masturbation and sexual practices, and stick to the exact TR question,

What about when the interviewee broaches the subject?  Confesses to it?  Asks if masturbation violates the Law of Chastity?

30 minutes ago, rpn said:

and teaching the correct doctrine and that the law of chastity is broken every time an individual intentionally arouses sexual feelings, or continues doing things after they know they/their partner is getting arouse, unless they are doing it in the context of their marital intimacy with their opposite sex legal spouse.  

I agree with this.

30 minutes ago, rpn said:

The handbook is explicit there can be NO discipline for what it calls "self-abuse", and therefore why does any bishop need to ask?  

That's not quite correct.  From Section 6.7.1 of Handbook 1 (emphasis added):

Quote

6.7 Determining Whether a Disciplinary Council Is Necessary

 6.7.1 When a Disciplinary Council Is Not Necessary

A disciplinary council normally is not necessary in the following instances.

Failure to Comply with Some Church Standards

A disciplinary council should not be held to discipline or threaten members who do not comply with the Word of Wisdom, who are struggling with pornography or self-abuse, or whose transgressions consist of omissions, such as failure to pay tithing, inactivity in the Church, or inattention to Church duties.

So I don't think it's quite correct to say that "there can be NO discipline," but rather that there is not grounds for a formal disciplinary council.

A bishop could, I think, impose some informal discipline for someone struggling with porn and/or masturbation, such as suspending a temple recommend, releasing a person from a calling, placing restrictions on taking the Sacrament, placing restrictions on administering priesthood ordinances, and so on.

30 minutes ago, rpn said:

A younger person needs to know early that arousing his/her own sexual feelings makes it harder and harder to control and bank them as they get stronger, and that means s/he is setting themselves up for a harder life than if they determine early that no matter how good it feels, they'll wait until they are doing it with their spouse, as God directs.  Seems to me that a bishop can teach correct principles and hold people accountable without  needing to know anything more that whether they've violated the law and whether their doing so was part of a pattern or a one time sin, without any details.

I agree that getting into specific details is not necessary.

30 minutes ago, rpn said:

Because I've never known anyone personally (having lived in more than 20 congregations in six states, east and west) whose bishop went off the rails in their interviews to ask these more personal questions, I do not believe they are the standard church leader behavior.   (Which isn't to say that they might not have become the standard in an area lead for years by an off the rails leader whose bishops failed to sound the alarm about them or were not heard when they did and actually followed their bad example).

I think most bishops are actually fairly keen on not delving into the details of such things.  Teaching correct principles, yes (emphatically yes).  Imposing some disciplinary measures where appropriate, yes.  Professional counseling in some circumstances, yes.  

-Smac

[rpn]

IME, the "same 10 people" is often the result of pride, and unrighteous dominion and limited willingness/ability to see outside of their own points of view.   That is another something that should be broken up.   (But then I once staffed an entire primary of 120 children largely with members who hadn't been to church for a while (but did have testimonies) based on inspiration.   It is easier to hear inspiration when one is open to it doing things in completely different ways, for sure.)

[rpn]

Quote

A bishop could, I think, impose some informal discipline for someone struggling with porn and/or masturbation, such as suspending a temple recommend, releasing a person from a calling, placing restrictions on taking the Sacrament, placing restrictions on administering priesthood ordinances, and so on.

I do not think that language gives bishops the right to suspend a TR, release a person from a callling.... etc., as discipline for these things: those words essentially say they are not sins at all in the sense of the church needing to take action because of them.   And the list is of things that someone has become entangles/dependent upon, such that the things you list are not just unlikely to help, but also may increase the feeling of hopelessness that makes the ensnared give up instead of continuing to fight  to overcome.   So imposing any of it is also likely harmful and paints a scarlet letter on them that is doubly so.

Yes, one might release someone from a calling if there could be increased risk to them or others because of their lack of control --- -but that isn't discipline.

[rongo]

51 minutes ago, rpn said:

I do not think that language gives bishops the right to suspend a TR, release a person from a callling.... etc., as discipline for these things: those words essentially say they are not sins at all in the sense of the church needing to take action because of them.   And the list is of things that someone has become entangles/dependent upon, such that the things you list are not just unlikely to help, but also may increase the feeling of hopelessness that makes the ensnared give up instead of continuing to fight  to overcome.   So imposing any of it is also likely harmful and paints a scarlet letter on them that is doubly so.

Yes, one might release someone from a calling if there could be increased risk to them or others because of their lack of control --- -but that isn't discipline.

What the handbook says is that a disciplinary council is not to be held for masturbation or pornography. It does not say that informal discipline (e.g., sacrament and priesthood restrictions, temple, etc.) is not to be imposed. And it does not say that it is not a sin. It very clearly is a sin in the eyes of the Church.

I think it will be very useful if church leaders would tell bishops to quit asking about masturbation and sexual practices, and stick to the exact TR question, and teaching the correct doctrine and that the law of chastity is broken every time an individual intentionally arouses sexual feelings, or continues doing things after they know they/their partner is getting arouse, unless they are doing it in the context of their marital intimacy with their opposite sex legal spouse.   The handbook is explicit there can be NO discipline for what it calls "self-abuse", and therefore why does any bishop need to ask?   A younger person needs to know early that arousing his/her own sexual feelings makes it harder and harder to control and bank them as they get stronger, and that means s/he is setting themselves up for a harder life than if they determine early that no matter how good it feels, they'll wait until they are doing it with their spouse, as God directs.  Seems to me that a bishop can teach correct principles and hold people accountable without  needing to know anything more that whether they've violated the law and whether their doing so was part of a pattern or a one time sin, without any details.

This is confusing, rpn, because what most bishops have done is to simply ask about masturbation, without getting into details. You say above to "quit asking about masturbation and sexual practices, and stick to the exact TR question," but then you say that they should "teach the correct doctrine and that the law of chastity is broken every time an individual intentionally arouses sexual feelings, or continues doing things after they know they/their partner is getting arouse, unless they are doing it in the context of their marital intimacy with their opposite sex legal spouse." Now getting into THAT would invoke the fury of the "stop this now!" crowd. When you say "Seems to me that a bishop can teach correct principles and hold people accountable without  needing to know anything more that whether they've violated the law and whether their doing so was part of a pattern or a one time sin, without any details," again, to ascertain whether or not it is part of a pattern or a one time thing, the bishop would have to ask about it, wouldn't he? How can he ascertain that without asking about it?

 

[churchistrue]

3 hours ago, Thinking said:

The problem is the Church has historically been very slow to change.

OK. And every person must decide if they can live with that, or if they can work for change within the allowable framework, or if they can't and they feel compelled to coerce the Church, campaign against the Church, harshly criticize in a way that embarrasses the Church and designed to force action and to encourage people to leave. The Church might excommunicate you if you choose the latter approach. You could be right or wrong, but that's not allowed.

 

 

 

[Duncan]

What about withholding forgiveness? not loving your neighbour taking advantage of someone? Judging others? Christ spoke more about that than he did about self abuse. If self abuse and porn are that bad then what about the litany of other problems, why can't Bishops with hold a recommend from them? I get periodic emails from the HP Group Leader with jokes about gay people, how is that holy and worthy of a recommend but let's say a 25 yr old single man who struggles with self abuse is disbarred from the Temple? What is more and correct me if I am wrong but doesn't handbook 1 say that attempted murder a DC may be necessary but apostasy is mandatory, Sam Young could be exed but someone who tries to kill someone else it's higgledy piggledy as to whether or not a DC is held? protecting kids vs. trying to murder someone? it's almost inconceivable to think that apostasy is worse than attempted murder. 

[CV75]

6 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

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. 

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 

This may not be what the SP was thinking, but reading your link, the following accusations can easily appear to be apostate in nature: that the Church will not change anything to protect children from being harmed and that this is systemic in nature; that the SP threatened him with excommunication; that those who don’t speak up for change are responsible for the bad name the Church (and therefore as good as apostate); his willingness to sacrifice membership over his beliefs. I don’t see the new “Preventing and Responding to Abuse” document, released 2 months after his interview, warranting his continued accusations.

[ALarson]

26 minutes ago, rongo said:

This is confusing, rpn, because what most bishops have done is to simply ask about masturbation, without getting into details. 

No adult male leader should be bringing the topic of masturbation up in an interview (with a youth or an adult woman or man).  The only question that should be asked is if they live or obey the Law of Chastity.

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No adult male leader should be bringing the topic of masturbation up in an interview (with a youth or an adult woman or man).  The only question that should be asked is if they live or obey the Law of Chastity.

What I was trying to clarify was that rpn was saying on the one hand to stick to the questions, but also to teach XYZ.

Priesthood leaders may ensure that the person understands what the question is asking, if there is a question about that (I've said before that I think the explanation in For the Strength of Youth is best. Where he feels that the person knows exactly what the question is asking, he won't go into any detail. But, assuming that we actually believe in the principle of inspiration for judges in Israel (and I realize that many don't really believe this principle), if inspired to ask follow-ups or to clarify, some feel that they can and ought to. Others feel that they never should, worlds without end. That's really the Schwerpunkt with this issue. 

[rongo]

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No adult male leader should be bringing the topic of masturbation up in an interview (with a youth or an adult woman or man).  The only question that should be asked is if they live or obey the Law of Chastity.

Also, the Brethren clearly disagree with you on this. The recent (very good) counsel to ascertain whether or not a problem represents a pattern or an incident requires that the leader . . . ask about it. 

The new missionary worthiness requirements require detail, so your absolute above is definitely wrong in those cases. 

For the record, almost always youth themselves have asked me about it (as opposed to me bringing it up). And I know that even then the "stop it now!" crowd insist that bishops should refuse to talk about it. That makes it worse than it is, like we're neurotic about it and it shouldn't be discussed. 

[Duncan]

Elder Tingey of the Seventy came here in 2004 and he said that if you struggle with porn then go to the Temple and get help, you can't do that if you don't have a recommend. Obviously that isn't a one size fits all statement but what would a Bishop say to help you get out of it that a therapist wouldn't say? the point is to stop and change and if you can do that without the Bishop's help then more power to a person

[CA Steve]

52 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

OK. And every person must decide if they can live with that, or if they can work for change within the allowable framework, or if they can't and they feel compelled to coerce the Church, campaign against the Church, harshly criticize in a way that embarrasses the Church and designed to force action and to encourage people to leave. The Church might excommunicate you if you choose the latter approach. You could be right or wrong, but that's not allowed.

 

 

 

There is no definition as to what is the "allowable framework" outside of what a bishop or SP says it is.

There used to be an umpire in baseball who when his strike calls were questioned by the batter, would tell the batter that the pitches were strikes because he called them strikes. 

So apostasy is apostasy because a leader has decided it is. What's worse, that leader does not have to defend his decision to anyone if he does not choose to do so.

 

Edited March 27, 2018 by CA Steve