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

[ALarson]

34 minutes ago, rongo said:

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. 

We have received no direction to bring up the topic of masturbation in any interviews with the youth (or anyone).

Do you have a source for that?  (Sincere request....thanks).

[Thinking]

59 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.

What if the allowable framework doesn't result in the necessary change?

[Michael Sudworth]

While I think brother Young has raised some good points he has/is intentionally damaging the Church's reputation. I don't buy that these concerns could not have been handled in a private and discreet way.

[Jeanne]

25 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said:

While I think brother Young has raised some good points he has/is intentionally damaging the Church's reputation. I don't buy that these concerns could not have been handled in a private and discreet way.

Priate and discreet...That would definitely be the church's way to go about things..

[Michael Sudworth]

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Priate and discreet...That would definitely be the church's way to go about things..

I think sensitive topics like this should be dealt with privately.  If individual parents wan't to change the policy for their own kids, they can do it.

Who is brother Young to speak for all members of the Church and their interests?  For all we know, 99% of Saints are perfectly fine with the existing policy.

[churchistrue]

32 minutes ago, Thinking said:

What if the allowable framework doesn't result in the necessary change?

Then you leave? Or you take that action knowing excommunication is possible? I mean what do you do in any organization if you want change and action within the allowable framework doesn't get it done? 

[ALarson]

39 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said:

While I think brother Young has raised some good points he has/is intentionally damaging the Church's reputation. I don't buy that these concerns could not have been handled in a private and discreet way.

How would you suggest he do that?  I'm not condoning all that he's done, but how exactly could a member of the church even contact one of the church leaders in Salt Lake "in a private and discreet way"?

Members are instructed to go to their local leaders with any questions or concerns.  If a ward member went to their Bishop about this or their SP (local leaders) how far up do you think that would go from there? 

I'm just being realistic here.  He got the leaders attention because he was not doing it quietly and discreetly.   I believe his cause is a good one and his intentions are also good (to prevent further abuse if possible).  No change is made at a local level, this had to come from Salt Lake.

Edited March 28, 2018 by ALarson

[Duncan]

8 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said:

I think sensitive topics like this should be dealt with privately.  If individual parents wan't to change the policy for their own kids, they can do it.

Who is brother Young to speak for all members of the Church and their interests?  For all we know, 99% of Saints are perfectly fine with the existing policy.

or they aren't but didn't have the know how to change anything

besides of which who was this Bishop to plant the idea for doing things in the mind of this young man? then he did them and now he had to get an interview with a General Authority?

"The adversary put in his way the opportunity and the temptation—and he fell!"

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1978/10/the-blessing-of-church-interviews?lang=eng

Something I saw all the time in the mission field was this from Alma 4, Satan didn't have to look far to prevent people from joining

"the wickedness of the church was a great stumbling-block to those who did not belong to the church; and thus the church began to fail in its progress."

I am not saying this is wickedness but dumb, real dumb, to implant ideas in people's heads and then surprise, surprise they up and do it. 

Edited March 28, 2018 by Duncan

[churchistrue]

48 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

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.

 

I agree with this criticism. It should be a little more clear what's allowed and what's not. But once they tell you you crossed the line, I guess that removes the uncertainty. It would be better if there was more consistency across the Church and the "leadership roulette" thing was removed. Correlation isn't always good but sometimes it's necessary. 

[rpn]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

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.

. 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?

 

There is absolutely nothing in the handbook that says that informal discipline for those things is allowed either.   And I'm arguing that the wording is evidence that it is NOT allowed either.

"Our sexual feelings are good and an important part of Gods plan for marriages between a man and a wife only.  Until  then we are to control them.  We violate the law of chastity when we intentional arouse sexual feelings or continue doing things after we know it arouses ourselves or our partner.   If you are not stopping whatever you are doing as soon as you know it is arousing yourself or a partner, then you are violating the law of chastity."   I'd suggest you read Of Souls, Symbols and Sacraments (if kiddo is 16 or older) to fully understand the doctrine."   "Do you obey the law of chastity"  (if answer  is no) "Is this an ongoing problem or a one time event?".   "How do you feel about that?"   "What do you think you need to do to address this issue:  misusing this power, no matter how normal the world thinks it is, and no matter how powerful and beautiful those feelings can be, is harmful to your soul and that of any of your partners, and can have consequences that change lives. "  "What help do you want from me so that you can overcome this?"   Maybe some suggestions about how to deal with the strong feelings, and that sometimes people have to quit seeing someone who they've gone too far with in order to control the feelings, and protect the other person and themselves.  Maybe a statement that some people find that naming all the details can be therapeutic and help them hold themselves accountable,  and they do that to God directly and maybe in a journal they write (and sometimes thereafter burn),  and sometimes to a therapist or a bishop, and you will hear such a confession if the person believes it important to them, but it is not required to achieve full repentance so long as the member is fully honest with themselves.   Then suggesting they check in each week for a while, and if bishop thinks they should quit taking the sacrament or doing priesthood duties that should be explained.

A bishop's job is helping the repentant to get to a different place.   And yes, in some cases a penitent cannot until they have themselves thought long and hard about the details and what they need to do differently.   But the bishop  doesn't need to ask anything about the details of the acts, to provide the required help. 

[Michael Sudworth]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

How would you suggest he do that?  I'm not condoning all that he's done, but how exactly could a member of the church even contact one of the church leaders in Salt Lake "in a private and discreet way"?

We hear letters from members quoted during conference talks regularly so I don't think contacting the would be difficult. 

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Members are instructed to go to their local leaders with any questions or concerns.  If a ward member went to their Bishop about this or their SP (local leaders) how far up do you think that would go from there? 

I"m old school and always I try and keep in mind what my father taught me growing up: "If the Lord wanted to change things, he would reveal it to his Prophet."

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said:

We hear letters from members quoted during conference talks regularly so I don't think contacting the would be difficult. 

I"m old school and always I try and keep in mind what my father taught me growing up: "If the Lord wanted to change things, he would reveal it to his Prophet."

I bring you the case of Zelophehad's daughters, petitioned Moses et al, in front of the Tabernacle no less, to get their Dad's stuff and God said, what the heck do I care, give it to them. Moses wouldn't know about it until they made some mention of it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daughters_of_Zelophehad

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said:

We hear letters from members quoted during conference talks regularly so I don't think contacting the would be difficult. 

That would be going against what members have been instructed to do. Is that what you are advising?  Members have been told to go to their local leaders with any questions or concerns.  

 

17 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said:

I"m old school and always I try and keep in mind what my father taught me growing up: "If the Lord wanted to change things, he would reveal it to his Prophet."

Ok.  I agree that sometimes this happens....just not always.  There are also changes made after a problem or concern is brought to the attention of the Prophet (maybe that's how things are revealed to him at times). That's what appears to have happened here, IMO.

(I'm not saying that this change in policy came about solely because of what Sam Young is doing,....just to be clear.)

Edited March 28, 2018 by ALarson

[carbon dioxide]

11 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Why?  What's wrong with it as it stands now?

 

Apostasy

As used here, apostasy refers to members who:

1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.

2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

3. 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.
4. Are in a same-gender marriage.
5. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.

I agree with 4 of those points.  I still don't get how a same sex marriage is apostasy.  It is a breakage of the law of Chastity but really strains the meaning of apostasy they way i see it.

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, Michael Sudworth said:

 

I"m old school and always I try and keep in mind what my father taught me growing up: "If the Lord wanted to change things, he would reveal it to his Prophet."

I am sort of old school in a lot of things but I don't think that every change in the church needs approval or to be initiated by God.  There is a lot of things we do in the church that are not declared by the scriptures nor should we assume there were initiated by revelation.  I think God allows us to make decisions on our own for a lot of things.  God wants us to be anxiously engaged in good causes.  He does not want us to wait on him before we act on everything in our lives.  God does expect us to confess certain sins to the bishop but I don't think God cares if other people are in the room though I do think he does expect those in the room to keep things private and confidential.  I don't believe this change came by revelation because it did not need to.  The leaders saw some potential issues and made some changes to avoid problems in the future. 

[Thinking]

Member: You need to do Action A.

Local Church Leader: If we need to do Action A, the Lord will tell the Brethren, who will then tell us.

Member: You need to do Action A.

Local Church Leader: I repeat, if we need to do Action A, the Lord will tell the Brethren, who will then tell us.

Member creates petitions and rallies to encourage the Brethren to do Action A.

Local Church Leader: You are an apostate.

Meanwhile, the Brethren decide to do Action A.

Member is disciplined but doesn't care because Action A was more important than his membership.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Thinking said:

Member: You need to do Action A.

Local Church Leader: If we need to do Action A, the Lord will tell the Brethren, who will then tell us.

Member: You need to do Action A.

Local Church Leader: I repeat, if we need to do Action A, the Lord will tell the Brethren, who will then tell us.

Member creates petitions and rallies to encourage the Brethren to do Action A.

Local Church Leader: You are an apostate.

Meanwhile, the Brethren decide to do Action A.

Member is disciplined but doesn't care because Action A was more important than his membership.

Sam Young includes Action B and C in his petition as well though.  And Action A of Sam's (cease and desist all one on one interviews with minors) is not identical to Church's Action A (no one on one interview IF the person chooses).  Action B is missing completely, Action C is a match save that Action A they are reporting on is not identical.

Quote

We call on the LDS Church to immediately cease the practice of subjecting children to questions about masturbation, orgasm, ejaculation, sexual positions or anything else of a sexual nature. This applies to all children up to and including age 17. There should be no one-on-one interviews with children. A parent or other trusted adult of the child's choosing is to be present.

We call on the LDS Church to publicly disavow this practice.

We call on the LDS Church to ensure that all congregational leaders, as well the general membership, are informed that this practice is prohibited.

Summary:  I don't see him dropping the petition, but I think there will be many backing off on it now choice is established.

Quote

 

“It’s a huge step in the right direction but does not go far enough,” Young said. “What we are calling for is that it is ‘required’ to have two adults.”

This latest First Presidency statement “leaves all the wiggle room in the world for the bishop never to offer it,” he said. A bishop would have “total leeway for a one on one.”

Those with strong parents will be fine with this new option, he said. “What we don’t want is our most marginalized kids going behind closed doors.

 

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/03/26/mormon-leaders-update-rules-to-allow-adults-in-the-room-for-interviews-with-children-women/

 

[jkwilliams]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Sam Young includes Action B and C in his petition as well though.  And Action A of Sam's (cease and desist all one on one interviews with minors) is not identical to Church's Action A (no one on one interview IF the person chooses).  Action B is missing completely, Action C is a match save that Action A they are reporting on is not identical.

Summary:  I don't see him dropping the petition, but I think there will be many backing off on it now choice is established.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/03/26/mormon-leaders-update-rules-to-allow-adults-in-the-room-for-interviews-with-children-women/

I did have to chuckle a little at the complaint that the new rules don't go far enough because they don't involve female leaders. It made me wonder what church that person belongs to.

[sunstoned]

20 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.

As you mentioned, it is not really a court.  The accused is not allowed to present evidence and argue the rightness of their position.  It is really a no win situation for the accused.  In my admittedly limited experience, I no of no church court that was held where the accused was not found guilty and punished. 

[changed]

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

 

Should all the members who submitted stories and signed the Protect LDS Children petition be charged with apostasy?

My husband and I signed it, my husband and I also do not allow PPI's with our chidlren - we are not the only ones in the ward who do not allow PPI's... I guess we have had a string of "good" bishops who have not given us grief about it and agreed with it.  I did not submit our families' stories...

Edited March 28, 2018 by changed

[jkwilliams]

21 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

As you mentioned, it is not really a court.  The accused is not allowed to present evidence and argue the rightness of their position.  It is really a no win situation for the accused.  In my admittedly limited experience, I no of no church court that was held where the accused was not found guilty and punished. 

It's more like a sentencing hearing, in that the council is convened because the person has done something. It's the consequences of the actions that are at issue in a disciplinary council.

[HappyJackWagon]

20 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Why?  What's wrong with it as it stands now?

 

Apostasy

As used here, apostasy refers to members who:

1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.

2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

3. 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.
4. Are in a same-gender marriage.
5. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.

I have problems with the two bolded sections but I'll only talk about 1 right now.

Short story: The handbook is clear that members should not be charged fees or asked to pay to participate in regular ward activities. Over the past couple of years our ward has been in open violation of this handbook policy. The ward requires youth to pay to participate in various youth night activities and even to participate in temple trips (presumably to help cover gas expenses). For families who may not be able to afford to have their children participate they can go to the bishop to receive financial assistance to cover the cost. For many people this isn't a big thing but it bugs me to no end because 1-it's a clear violation of what I consider to be a very good policy  2- it creates an undo burden on families (especially those with many children in the programs 3- it puts families in the situation of asking for financial aid simply to have their kids participate in ward activities 4- a well managed ward will have adequate budget to cover these expenses. If they don't, they shouldn't do the activity.

Each and every time my children are asked to pay to go on a temple trip or roller skating with their youth group or whatever offsite activity they are doing, I make a stink about it. I openly challenge the ward leadership every time for the reasons stated above. I'll object in meetings or on the ward FB page. Every time they rebuff me. According to the first definition of apostasy, that makes me apostate because I am repeatedly acting in clear, open and deliberate opposition to church leaders. Definition one has the ability to create little dictators at the local level, as well as the general.

Just because Sam Young's SP says he's apostate for acting in clear opposition to him or at least his interpretation of policy, does not mean Sam Young is an apostate.

Another shorter story- My father once worked for his SP. They had a dispute at work where his boss asked him to do something he wasn't comfortable with so he refused. The SP pulled his temple recommend for failing to sustain his SP. "Failing to sustain" is essentially the same thing as being "apostate". It allows for petty tyrants to rise up and enforce their will with the threat of eternal damnation if a person doesn't get in line. THAT is what's wrong (for starters) with the definition of apostasy.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

14 hours ago, ALarson said:

We have received no direction to bring up the topic of masturbation in any interviews with the youth (or anyone).

Do you have a source for that?  (Sincere request....thanks).

This is definitely something we were asked to do. It was one of those probing questions I'm ashamed I asked, though I quickly stopped. I don't recall it being a church wide thing but it came from our SP who said it had come from the area authority. I can only trust that the SP was telling the truth about that and the effect was the same. Priesthood leader tells you to ask, you ask...until you don't.

[ALarson]

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is definitely something we were asked to do. It was one of those probing questions I'm ashamed I asked, though I quickly stopped. I don't recall it being a church wide thing but it came from our SP who said it had come from the area authority. I can only trust that the SP was telling the truth about that and the effect was the same. Priesthood leader tells you to ask, you ask...until you don't.

I think you're right.  This seems to come from local leadership (directions on asking more probing questions such as about masturbation).  My SP has specifically directed us NOT to ask about it (especially with the young women and young men).  I wonder if these directives will become more prohibitive with what is taking place right now (i.e. "me too", and the abuse allegations in the news against church leaders, etc.).

rongo seems to have read something that came from Salt Lake instructing leaders to specifically ask about masturbation.  I'm hoping he can clarify or provide a source as I would like to see what he is referring to.

Edited March 28, 2018 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

20 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is definitely something we were asked to do. It was one of those probing questions I'm ashamed I asked, though I quickly stopped. I don't recall it being a church wide thing but it came from our SP who said it had come from the area authority. I can only trust that the SP was telling the truth about that and the effect was the same. Priesthood leader tells you to ask, you ask...until you don't.

I admit, my wife has been asked about whether I masturbate or view porn more than I have in interviews.  When she told me she was asked about me, I was floored.  Then I realized the personal feelings the bishop and SP had for me and was like "Oh...okay".  Then last year the bishop who had asked her, having been released since but is a HC probed my wife further about me.  "You can't really leave alone in a room with his phone can you?"  "you don't want to see his browser history, do you?"  When she told me I was like, "that's sexual harassment".  

In my experience many former bishops and SPs have really unhealthy views of boundaries, mostly because of direction they have received.  I'm glad you have recognized that.