Former Bishop Hunger Strike for Youth Interview Policy Change

[ksfisher]

9 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Do you really think anybody in the COB cares about Sam's soul?    How about protecting the innocent...the win here is the integrity of the church and the safeguard of it.

COB is a building, it cares nothing for anyone.  But I do believe that the Lord's chosen prophets and apostles care for all of God's children.

The innocent whom Sam is harming are those led away from God by his tactics.

[Avatar4321]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Well, I think many of them would say they care about Sam's soul.  Its just that they conflate Sam's standing in the church with his standing with God.  The two things are synonymous for the orthodox.  Allegiance to church authorities is the same thing as obedience to God for them.  

Probably because Jesus said as much

[hope_for_things]

Just now, ksfisher said:

You said nothing about this being your opinion.  You made a statement of fact.

"Everything is being orchestrated by SLC."

That is a statement of fact.

 

You assumed it was a statement of fact, and when you asked me, I clarified that its my opinion, based on my observations of these kinds of things which I follow fairly closely in the media as I find them interesting.  

Maybe we'll have a Mormonleak someday that will give us more details on Sam's specific case.  We have evidence of past orchestrations, going back to the famous September six.   

Do you know of any recent statements where the church has denied having any involvement in high profile disciplinary cases?  I can't recall them even trying to assert that they don't get involved in these cases anymore.  

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The innocent whom Sam is harming are those led away from God by his tactics.

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Well, I think many of them would say they care about Sam's soul.  Its just that they conflate Sam's standing in the church with his standing with God.  The two things are synonymous for the orthodox.  Allegiance to church authorities is the same thing as obedience to God for them.  

Probably because Jesus said as much

Creative interpretation of scripture is really amazing.  

[Avatar4321]

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Or much lower, depending on your POV. 

I don’t know many people who hold to the lizard people under salt lake secretly running the Church theory 

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't believe Sam Young is motivated by a sincere, good faith concern for the welfare of LDS children.  I think he's on a massive ego trip, and "for the children!" rhetoric makes for a nice pretext.

Hmm.  So when he says in his letter to his stake president that "I value my church membership," he is lying?

I happen to agree with your assessment.  I don't think he values his membership, either.  I am just surprised that you reached the same conclusion.

Thanks,

-Smac

I've listened to quite a few hours of him talking and I am convinced that he does have a genuine concern for children and youth in the church.  That's not to say that his ego hasn't gotten the better of him from time to time, but I think his concern for the children/youth is real, sincere, and a top priority.

When he says that he values his church membership, I think he likely places some value on it... but more for the sake of his family or for the validation that he feels it might give his work (although, he'll use an excommunication to equally promote his cause).  But I don't think he values it in terms of his eternal salvation.  My honest and personal assessment of him, going back to before he even started "Protect LDS Children" was that he felt similar to Snuffer and Waterman.  Meaning, Sam likely considers the leaders to be in some "fallen" state such that an excommunication by the church isn't really meaningful.  (This being just my opinion based on the podcasts he has done.)

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Not sure what you mean by this.

I am by no means trying to deny that members of the church have been hurt by abuse.

I am saying that the tactics employed by Sam Young are harmful to those who may be struggling with their testimonies or just developing.  To see children at his media events is particularly saddening.  I cannot imagine how attendance at one of those would help develop ones faith in Christ.

[Avatar4321]

16 minutes ago, cinepro said:

What a great idea!  Hopefully these will turn into the ex-Mormon equivalent of mission calls openings, with friends and family gathered around the living room.

 

Why would this be something to hope for? What is good about it?

[provoman]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

1-You haven't been clear and I haven't obfuscated. Perhaps you could provide an example of how I'm obfuscating. Please back up your accusation.

3- Is that how CFR's work? You make a statement. I ask for a reference. You tell me to go read his blog. How about you provide the quote from his blog that proves your point, along with a link.

I maintain the CFR only because you ignored it once and now you are simply telling me to go read his blog. Provide the CFR or retract your accusation.

 You are welcome to read his blog. But even if I quoted what I consider belittling, belief is you would not agree. So go read his blog about his testimong to the Council. 

And I edited the original post within minutes of posting, because I foresaw the the ridiculous that is now ocurring, so I dont need to defend anything

Edited September 14, 2018 by provoman

[ksfisher]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Creative interpretation of scripture is really amazing.  

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Matthew 16:19

 

Unto whom I have given the keys of the kingdom, which belong always unto the Presidency of the High Priesthood:

Doctrine & Covenants 81:2

 

The keys of the kingdom of God are committed unto man on the earth

Doctrine & Covenants 65:2

 

Seems pretty clear that the Lord has entrusted the keys to entrance into His kingdom to priesthood holders on the earth.

 

[JAHS]

34 minutes ago, rockpond said:

  Likewise, we can anticipate more publicity surrounding his appeal.

No appeal. He will use this to turn himself into a martyr.  

[provoman]

3 minutes ago, JAHS said:

No appeal. He will use this to turn himself into a martyr.  

are appeals in writting or in person?

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, JAHS said:

No appeal. He will use this to turn himself into a martyr.  

It's possible.  But don't you also think it's possible that he'll use the appeal process to feed the publicity machine and THEN, when the excommunication is upheld, he can still be a martyr?

[JAHS]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

It's possible.  But don't you also think it's possible that he'll use the appeal process to feed the publicity machine and THEN, when the excommunication is upheld, he can still be a martyr?

He might, but I think he already resolved himself to being excommunicated. He was a Bishop and knows that excommunication was going to be the result of his actions.
I think he wants to be a martyr now before his 15 minutes of fame are over, not later. 

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It's possible.  But don't you also think it's possible that he'll use the appeal process to feed the publicity machine and THEN, when the excommunication is upheld, he can still be a martyr?

That is my expectation.

[provoman]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It's possible.  But don't you also think it's possible that he'll use the appeal process to feed the publicity machine and THEN, when the excommunication is upheld, he can still be a martyr?

 

4 minutes ago, JAHS said:

He might, but I think he already resolved himself to being excommunicated. He was a Bishop and knows that excommunication was going to be the result of his actions.
I think he wants to be a martyr now before his 15 minutes of fame are over, not later. 

he is flying all the way to SLC this weekend for a press conference wherein it appears he will open the letter and read the verdict.

[Avatar4321]

32 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Creative interpretation of scripture is really amazing.  

Really? Can you provide a different interpretation for these verses?

 

16 He that hearers you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me. (Luke 10:16)

 

 

He that receiveth you receivethme, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

41 He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward.

42 And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward. (Matthew 10:40-42)

That’s just the Bible warnings from Christ

 

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I've listened to quite a few hours of him talking and I am convinced that he does have a genuine concern for children and youth in the church. 

I'm quite fine with allowing reasonable minds to disagree about that.

In my view, he's inciting a moral panic.  He's getting his name in the media.  He gets to do all sorts of moral preening and virtue signalling.  He is being lauded and praised to the skies.  

So no, I do not grant him a presumption of acting in good faith.  To the contrary, I have concluded he is acting in bad faith.

Quote

That's not to say that his ego hasn't gotten the better of him from time to time, but I think his concern for the children/youth is real, sincere, and a top priority.

Sorry, not buying it.

Quote

When he says that he values his church membership, I think he likely places some value on it... but more for the sake of his family or for the validation that he feels it might give his work (although, he'll use an excommunication to equally promote his cause). 

First we had him say "I value my church membership," then you come along and say "I don't think Sam has cared about his membership for years."  And now were in some sort of muddled middle, where you suggest that he "likely places some value on it," but apparently for appearances only ("for the validation ... it might give his work") or "for the sake of his family."

So he wants to be able to publicly declare "I value my church membership" when - wink wink / nudge nudge - what he means is . . . he doesn't?

You're not exactly making Sam Young a more appealing figure.

Quote

But I don't think he values it in terms of his eternal salvation. 

Yeah, neither do I.  And yet we see him saying this stuff in his letter:

• "You are putting me on trial for excommunication.  Think about that."
• "It’s my eternal salvation that’s at risk."
• "Only I risk being torn away from my family for eternity."
• "45 MINUTES!  45 MINUTES to defend my right to eternal salvation.   45 MINUTES to defend my right to spend eternity with my loved ones.  Is that the value the Church places on my eternity? ... {M}y eternal family ties are only worth 45 MINUTES?"
• "Even the church toilets are worth more than salvation. ... The defense of my eternal destiny isn’t even worth 1 hour."
• "Certainly, my years of dedicated service, my family and my eternity are worth as much time as the Church toilets."
• "Option to request that my name be removed: I want to make it clear that this is not my desire.  I value my church membership..."
• And yet there he is, declaring to the world that he "value{s} {his} church membership."  And interestingly, he says this as a response to the stake presidency's inquiry about whether he wants to resign his membership.  And he says . . . no.

So whom do we believe, him or you?

Personally, my money is on . . . you.  I think you are right.  I don't think Sam Young values his membership "in terms of his eternal salvation," either. 

Given his various itemized statements above, your defense of Sam Young only works if we treat him as a liar.  That being the case, perhaps you should give some additional thought to your support of Sam Young.

Quote

My honest and personal assessment of him, going back to before he even started "Protect LDS Children" was that he felt similar to Snuffer and Waterman.  Meaning, Sam likely considers the leaders to be in some "fallen" state such that an excommunication by the church isn't really meaningful.  (This being just my opinion based on the podcasts he has done.)

So is it your assessment that when he says "it's my eternal salvation that's at risk," he's just lying, right?  Showboating?  Pandering?

If your assessment of him is correct - that in his view "excommunication by the church isn't really meaningful" - then his statements about "being torn away from my family for eternity" and his "right to eternal salvation" and so on should be construed as fundamentally misleading and deceitful.  Is that correct?

And to be clear, you are here trying to defend Sam Young?  By persuading us to view him as fundamentally and profoundly dishonest in his representations?

I must admit, I am really confused.  If I had wanted to undermine Sam Young's credibility and message, I would be saying the same things that you are saying here: that Sam Young "has{n't} cared about his membership for years," that he doesn't value his membership "in terms of his eternal salvation."

But then I would point out that this assessment requires us also to declare Sam Young's letter to his stake president has full of lies and deceit.  And that if he is willing to lie to his stake president (and, indeed, the entire world - since he saw fit to publish his letter online) about such important things, then why on earth should we grant him any sort of presumption of acting in good faith?

Yes, that is what I would say about Sam Young.

Could you clarify, then, what it is you are saying about Sam Young?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 14, 2018 by smac97

[ksfisher]

15 minutes ago, provoman said:

are appeals in writting or in person?

Writing.

Handbook 1 6.10.10

A person who has been excommunicated, disfellowshipped, or placed on formal probation by a disciplinary council may appeal the decision. An appeal of the action of a ward disciplinary council is to the stake presidency (and high council). An appeal of the action of a stake disciplinary council is to the First Presidency. An appeal of the action of a branch or district disciplinary council is to the mission president. An appeal of the action of a disciplinary council presided over by a mission president is to the First Presidency.

If a person who has been disciplined wants to appeal the decision, he specifies in writing the alleged errors or unfairness in the procedure or decision. The person presents the appeal within 30 days to the presiding officer of the disciplinary council that made the decision. If a bishop or branch president presided over the council, he forwards the appeal with the Report of Church Disciplinary Action form and other relevant documents to the stake or mission president. If a stake or mission president presided over the council, he forwards the materials to the First Presidency.

The decision on the appeal may be to (1) let the initial decision stand, (2) modify the initial decision, or (3) direct the disciplinary council to rehear the matter. In addition, the First Presidency may refer an appeal to another priesthood officer or body for review (with or without receiving additional evidence) and resubmittal to the First Presidency with a recommendation.

[Avatar4321]

13 minutes ago, provoman said:

 

he is flying all the way to SLC this weekend for a press conference wherein it appears he will open the letter and read the verdict.

Won’t he be surprised if he is simply disfellowshiped and this stunt is what pushes it to excommunication

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm quite fine with allowing reasonable minds to disagree about that.

In my view, he's inciting a moral panic.  He's getting his name in the media.  He gets to do all sorts of moral preening and virtue signalling.  He is being lauded and praised to the skies.  

So no, I do not grant him a presumption of acting in good faith.  To the contrary, I have concluded he is acting in bad faith.

Sorry, not buying it.

First we had him say "I value my church membership," then you come along and say "I don't think Sam has cared about his membership for years."  And now were in some sort of muddled middle, where you suggest that he "likely places some value on it," but apparently for appearances only ("for the validation ... it might give his work") or "for the sake of his family."

So he wants to be able to publicly declare "I value my church membership" when - wink wink / nudge nudge - what he means is . . . he doesn't?

You're not exactly making Sam Young a more appealing figure.

Yeah, neither do I.  And yet we see him saying this stuff in his letter:

• "You are putting me on trial for excommunication.  Think about that."
• "It’s my eternal salvation that’s at risk."
• "Only I risk being torn away from my family for eternity."
• "45 MINUTES!  45 MINUTES to defend my right to eternal salvation.   45 MINUTES to defend my right to spend eternity with my loved ones.  Is that the value the Church places on my eternity? ... {M}y eternal family ties are only worth 45 MINUTES?"
• "Even the church toilets are worth more than salvation. ... The defense of my eternal destiny isn’t even worth 1 hour."
• "Certainly, my years of dedicated service, my family and my eternity are worth as much time as the Church toilets."
• "Option to request that my name be removed: I want to make it clear that this is not my desire.  I value my church membership..."
• And yet there he is, declaring to the world that he "value{s} {his} church membership."  And interestingly, he says this as a response to the stake presidency's inquiry about whether he wants to resign his membership.  And he says . . . no.

So whom do we believe, him or you?

Personally, my money is on . . . you.  I think you are right.  I don't think Sam Young values his membership "in terms of his eternal salvation," either. 

Given his various itemized statements above, your defense of Sam Young only works if we treat him as a liar.  That being the case, perhaps you should give some additional thought to your support of Sam Young.

So is it your assessment that when he says "it's my eternal salvation that's at risk," he's just lying, right?  Showboating?  Pandering?

If your assessment of him is correct - that in his view "excommunication by the church isn't really meaningful" - then his statements about "being torn away from my family for eternity" and his "right to eternal salvation" and so on should be construed as fundamentally misleading and deceitful.  Is that correct?

And to be clear, you are here trying to defend Sam Young?  By persuading us to view him as fundamentally and profoundly dishonest in his representations?

I must admit, I am really confused.  If I had wanted to undermine Sam Young's credibility and message, I would be saying the same things that you are saying here: that Sam Young "has{n't} cared about his membership for years," that he doesn't value his membership "in terms of his eternal salvation."

But then I would point out that this assessment requires us also to declare Sam Young's letter to his stake president has full of lies and deceit.  And that if he is willing to lie to his stake president (and, indeed, the entire world - since he saw fit to publish his letter online) about such important things, then why on earth should we grant him any sort of presumption of acting in good faith?

Yes, that is what I would say about Sam Young.

Could you clarify, then, what it is you are saying about Sam Young?

Thanks,

-Smac

I am not trying to make Sam Young a more appealing figure.  Nor am I here trying to solicit support for him.  Just participating in the discussion.

When he says things like "it's my eternal salvation that's at risk" and "being torn away from my family for eternity" I think he is trying to appeal to the sensibilities of believing members.  Do I think he really believes it?  No.  So, if that makes it pandering, than yeah.

Sorry if I am letting you down by not supporting him.    Wasn't my intent.  I think he has good intentions.  And I think had done a good thing with the petition and the March 2018 march... but I'm not so sure about anything after that.

 

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Won’t he be surprised if he is simply disfellowshiped and this stunt is what pushes it to excommunication

I suppose there is the possibility that he could open the letter in front of SLC media only to discover that one of the terms of his probation is "no more press conferences at church headquarters". 

[Avatar4321]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I suppose there is the possibility that he could open the letter in front of SLC media only to discover that one of the terms of his probation is "no more press conferences at church headquarters". 

Would be tragically amusing

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Everything is being orchestrated by SLC. 

CFR please.

SLC doesn't get involved unless he appeals an excommunication.  They don't need SLC for this one, the verdict is pretty obvious.