Former Bishop Hunger Strike for Youth Interview Policy Change

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

This is a mistake. Sam has done and continues to do God's work.

Wow. Whatever you think of his actions, I can't see how he's done anything deserving of church discipline. If nothing else, this just gives added publicity to his efforts. I can just see the national headlines: Mormon church threatens to excommunicate man for trying to prevent child abuse. 

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Looks like Sam's membership might be coming to an end. 

https://invisiblescubit.wordpress.com/2018/08/29/excommunication-notice/

I find this incredibly sad and I admit to being a bit amazed by the tone-deafness of church leaders.

While I'm not surprised that the church is disciplining Bishop Young, I am shocked by their timing. It's hard to imagine the timing being much worse. At a moment when the catholic church is taking significant heat for abuse and cover-up, the church is literally disciplining a man who has, as his number one goal, the safety and protection of children. He JUST finished a hunger strike to bring attention to the issues that he feels puts children/youth at risk in our church. Did leaders meet with him? No. Instead, for his efforts he will likely be excommunicated from the church. Tell me that doesn't stink of a cover-up. I'm not saying it is...but it looks BAAAAAD.

For those of you who think it's a good move for the church to discipline Bishop Young, how do you explain this to your non-member friends? How do you explain that leadership is so sensitive to criticism that they excommunicate a person who is trying to protect children? Seriously, what does that conversation look like?

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Wow. Whatever you think of his actions, I can't see how he's done anything deserving of church discipline. If nothing else, this just gives added publicity to his efforts. I can just see the national headlines: Mormon church threatens to excommunicate man for trying to prevent child abuse. 

I'm not feeling surprised at all.  It seems to me whenever someone publically finds themselves at direct odds with Church leaders their seems to be little recourse other than to discipline with excommunication--all because that's what the practice has been for years and they simply don't want to buck that trend.  This really is no different than Kate Kelly in that sense.  They gave her some leeway for demonstration, just as they did him (I marched with him).  

I'm hoping to see a headline as you describe though.  That pretty much sums it up.  

[HappyJackWagon]

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not feeling surprised at all.  It seems to me whenever someone publically finds themselves at direct odds with Church leaders their seems to be little recourse other than to discipline with excommunication--all because that's what the practice has been for years and they simply don't want to buck that trend.  This really is no different than Kate Kelly in that sense.  They gave her some leeway for demonstration, just as they did him (I marched with him).  

I'm hoping to see a headline as you describe though.  That pretty much sums it up.  

IMO- though I see some similarities, this is much worse than the Kate Kelly issue. Ordain Women was seeking a change of action tied to church doctrine. Sam Young is seeking change tied to a church policy. Doctrine isn't challenged in any way, in fact, I'd argue that his position is more in keeping with the doctrine than the church policy is. But it's clear that leaders don't like to be challenged. That's really the unpardonable sin here. It's not about apostasy to Christ, or even the church. It's all about challenging the arm of the flesh and trying to make things better. The church is going to get heat for this and they'll deserve every bit of it.

Anyone want to take odds about whether SLC will step in to call off this "local matter"? I put the odds at about 1% but I've got to think that at the highest levels some of the apostles are a little miffed about the PR nightmare being created here. At least I hope they're aware enough to know this is another black eye for the church.

[rongo]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Anyone want to take odds about whether SLC will step in to call off this "local matter"? I put the odds at about 1% but I've got to think that at the highest levels some of the apostles are a little miffed about the PR nightmare being created here. At least I hope they're aware enough to know this is another black eye for the church.

Do you think Sam Young will . . .

a) attend and participate in his disciplinary council, and accept the outcome

b) attend, but hand in a resignation letter before an outcome can be announced

c) resign his membership before the council

d) a, b, or c + try to turn the publicity knife a few more times 

The answer is "d," but I think "c" is the specific route he will take. For some reason, high-profile apostates over the last several years aren't willing to go all the way to martyrdom. While that would exact the maximum amount of publicity, they can't bring themselves to let the Church do it to them. They feel impelled to quit before they're fired. 

Edited August 30, 2018 by rongo

[stemelbow]

16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

IMO- though I see some similarities, this is much worse than the Kate Kelly issue. Ordain Women was seeking a change of action tied to church doctrine. Sam Young is seeking change tied to a church policy. Doctrine isn't challenged in any way, in fact, I'd argue that his position is more in keeping with the doctrine than the church policy is. But it's clear that leaders don't like to be challenged. That's really the unpardonable sin here. It's not about apostasy to Christ, or even the church. It's all about challenging the arm of the flesh and trying to make things better. The church is going to get heat for this and they'll deserve every bit of it.

Anyone want to take odds about whether SLC will step in to call off this "local matter"? I put the odds at about 1% but I've got to think that at the highest levels some of the apostles are a little miffed about the PR nightmare being created here. At least I hope they're aware enough to know this is another black eye for the church.

That's fair to point out the differences between the two.  I see what you're saying.

I don't think SLC will step in because I'm guessing they already did step in.  I'm guessing they initiated the push to get him disciplined.  It seems to be the case every time now.  With Bill Reel it sounds like they aren't even trying to say it is simply a local matter.  

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

Do you think Sam Young will . . .

a) attend and participate in his disciplinary council, and accept the outcome

b) attend, but hand in a resignation letter before an outcome can be announced

c) resign his membership before the council

d) a, b, or c + try to turn the publicity knife a few more times 

The answer is "d," but I think "c" is the specific route he will take. For some reason, high-profile apostates over the last several years aren't willing to go all the way to martyrdom. While that would exact the maximum amount of publicity, they can't bring themselves to let the Church do it to them. They feel impelled to quit before they're fired.  

Do you think Sam is an apostate because he's trying to change the way interviews are done, or for other reasons?

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

Do you think Sam Young will . . .

a) attend and participate in his disciplinary council, and accept the outcome

b) attend, but hand in a resignation letter before an outcome can be announced

c) resign his membership before the council

d) a, b, or c + try to turn the publicity knife a few more times 

The answer is "d," but I think "c" is the specific route he will take. For some reason, high-profile apostates over the last several years aren't willing to go all the way to martyrdom. While that would exact the maximum amount of publicity, they can't bring themselves to let the Church do it to them. They feel impelled to quit before they're fired. 

a) yes. And whether he "accepts" it or not, doesn't really matter in any way shape or form. The church will inflict the decision

b) He'll attend but I don't think he'll turn in his resignation. I think he would prefer the opportunity to talk and defend himself. I think he values his membership too much to resign.

c) I sure hope not. I honestly don't see that happening

d) This entire thing, including the Catholic scandal and the disciplinary council, couldn't have been planned in a way that would make the church look worse. Church leaders are stepping in it big time. Excommunicating (or at least threatening) someone who just ended a hunger strike as a way to try to help protect children reeks of cover up and abuse. It makes the church seem like they care more about their members saying nice things about it than they do protecting children from abuse. Any negative publicity the church receives will be of its own making and it will deserve every bit of it.

*Also, you've made this claim before, and it was debunked. If anything, it is a mixed bag. John Dehlin- excommunicated, Kate Kelly- excommunicated, Calderwoods- excommunicated. Jeremy Runnels- resigned, Bill Reel- ?

 

 

[rongo]

11 minutes ago, Gray said:

Do you think Sam is an apostate because he's trying to change the way interviews are done, or for other reasons?

I think he's an apostate because of a) how he is going about it, and b) his tone, attitude, and actions.

Wanting the Church to change the way interviews are done, in and of itself, isn't apostasy. There are good people in this forum who feel that way. But none of them are going full-out Sonja Johnson to try to force the Church's hand in the court of public opinion. And, Sam's theatrics and antics directly question and express public disbelief in the authority of the First Presidency and apostles.

Granted, writing to his stake president and attempting to have the letter forwarded to the Brethren wouldn't have done anything. So, he picked the hill he's willing to die on, and he's going to die on that hill. 

Yes, he's an apostate. I would think that even those who support him and think he's right and the Church is wrong would still acknowledge that Sam Young's behavior and attempts to embarrass the Church constitute apostate behavior. 

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

d) This entire thing, including the Catholic scandal and the disciplinary council, couldn't have been planned in a way that would make the church look worse. Church leaders are stepping in it big time. Excommunicating (or at least threatening) someone who just ended a hunger strike as a way to try to help protect children reeks of cover up and abuse. It makes the church seem like they care more about their members saying nice things about it than they do protecting children from abuse. Any negative publicity the church receives will be of its own making and it will deserve every bit of it.

I hope that his local leaders, and the Church leaders, do what is right despite PR fallout. Your points about timing and the climate are good ones, but I think not tolerating public apostate behavior is important. So important, that I would be willing to take whatever PR lumps I have to in order to do the right thing. I know we differ on this as well, but I also don't think the Church's interview practices are harming children or putting them at risk, so I don't even think Sam Young is right on his issue. 

*Also, you've made this claim before, and it was debunked. If anything, it is a mixed bag. John Dehlin- excommunicated, Kate Kelly- excommunicated, Calderwoods- excommunicated. Jeremy Runnels- resigned, Bill Reel- ?

That's a good point --- several have "gone all the way." Kelly refused to attend her council, which I found odd because of all of her theatrics and pontificating up to that point. Snuffer? 

I'm also thinking of others who haven't been in the media. It is fairly common for doctrinal/practice apostates to resign to not allow the Church to "do it to them." There are exceptions that prove the rule, as you point out. 

You mentioned laying down odds. I predict that Sam Young won't allow the council to run its course. I'm basing my opinion on what he's said and how he's said it. Just a hunch. 

I'm not convinced that Bill Reel's is rapidly heading to a conclusion. I think it will get there eventually, but I don't think it's imminent. 

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think he's an apostate because of a) how he is going about it, and b) his tone, attitude, and actions.

Wanting the Church to change the way interviews are done, in and of itself, isn't apostasy. There are good people in this forum who feel that way. But none of them are going full-out Sonja Johnson to try to force the Church's hand in the court of public opinion. And, Sam's theatrics and antics directly question and express public disbelief in the authority of the First Presidency and apostles.

Granted, writing to his stake president and attempting to have the letter forwarded to the Brethren wouldn't have done anything. So, he picked the hill he's willing to die on, and he's going to die on that hill. 

Yes, he's an apostate. I would think that even those who support him and think he's right and the Church is wrong would still acknowledge that Sam Young's behavior and attempts to embarrass the Church constitute apostate behavior. 

I don't acknowledge that. 

[bluebell]

45 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

IMO- though I see some similarities, this is much worse than the Kate Kelly issue. Ordain Women was seeking a change of action tied to church doctrine. Sam Young is seeking change tied to a church policy. Doctrine isn't challenged in any way, in fact, I'd argue that his position is more in keeping with the doctrine than the church policy is. But it's clear that leaders don't like to be challenged. That's really the unpardonable sin here. It's not about apostasy to Christ, or even the church. It's all about challenging the arm of the flesh and trying to make things better. The church is going to get heat for this and they'll deserve every bit of it.

Anyone want to take odds about whether SLC will step in to call off this "local matter"? I put the odds at about 1% but I've got to think that at the highest levels some of the apostles are a little miffed about the PR nightmare being created here. At least I hope they're aware enough to know this is another black eye for the church.

I think that worthiness interviews for youth are a part of the church's doctrine.  Isn't Sam trying to get youth worthiness interviews completely stopped? That would seem to need a change of doctrine for that to actually work.  What are your thoughts on that?

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Looks like Sam's membership might be coming to an end. 

https://invisiblescubit.wordpress.com/2018/08/29/excommunication-notice/

Wow, this is so sad, thanks for posting.  

The wording of #1 sounds flawed to me and violates the spirit of the law of common consent by my understanding.  Voting in favor of or opposed to church leaders should be in individual's choice, and influencing others to vote opposed would be a violation of that right that everyone should have to support and sustain or be opposed to church leaders from a voting perspective.  When it comes to common consent which is really an attempt to make things more democratic, only a totalitarian would try to suppress opposing votes.  This is highly problematic if this represents the church's position on votes for church leaders.  

I'm assuming SLC was consulted and assisted in producing this letter because of the higher profile nature of Sam's actions.  

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

I hope that his local leaders, and the Church leaders, do what is right despite PR fallout. Your points about timing and the climate are good ones, but I think not tolerating public apostate behavior is important. So important, that I would be willing to take whatever PR lumps I have to in order to do the right thing. I know we differ on this as well, but I also don't think the Church's interview practices are harming children or putting them at risk, so I don't even think Sam Young is right on his issue. 

 

 

That's a good point --- several have "gone all the way." Kelly refused to attend her council, which I found odd because of all of her theatrics and pontificating up to that point. Snuffer? 

I'm also thinking of others who haven't been in the media. It is fairly common for doctrinal/practice apostates to resign to not allow the Church to "do it to them." There are exceptions that prove the rule, as you point out. 

You mentioned laying down odds. I predict that Sam Young won't allow the council to run its course. I'm basing my opinion on what he's said and how he's said it. Just a hunch. 

I'm not convinced that Bill Reel's is rapidly heading to a conclusion. I think it will get there eventually, but I don't think it's imminent. 

I think it's a massive problem that a church would rescind saving ordinances because he disagrees with and seeks to influence the policies of men. He's only an apostate to a policy and openly says what is the official position of the church; namely that there is fallibility in leadership. SO he's trying to influence what he views are harmful policies. Conflating apostasy to a policy, or even apostasy to a man doesn't sound like a justifiable reason to revoke an individual's salvation.

FYI- Kelly didn't attend her council because they notified her of it the day she was moving out of state. It was held after she had moved. Leaders knew of her for a very long time yet waited until she moved to hold a disciplinary council so I don't think it's fair to state she "refused to attend her council". IMO- the way the DC was carried out was an abuse of power designed to cut her out of her own DC.

Yes, I think Snuffer was also X'd.

Sam Young seems like he's all about drawing attention to the issue. Why else would he do a hunger strike? So it's hard for me to imagine him just quitting. I think it's much more likely that he'll play it out and allow the negative press to follow the church's poor behavior on this issue.

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think that worthiness interviews for youth are a part of the church's doctrine.  Isn't Sam trying to get youth worthiness interviews completely stopped? That would seem to need a change of doctrine for that to actually work.  What are your thoughts on that?

It's really not. It's a practice that has developed over time in an attempt to deem a person's worthiness. So even if I conceded that "worthiness" is a doctrine (which I don't), one-on-one interviews with youth is in no way doctrine. It's policy and practice. That's all.

[stemelbow]

17 minutes ago, rongo said:

I hope that his local leaders, and the Church leaders, do what is right despite PR fallout. Your points about timing and the climate are good ones, but I think not tolerating public apostate behavior is important. So important, that I would be willing to take whatever PR lumps I have to in order to do the right thing. I know we differ on this as well, but I also don't think the Church's interview practices are harming children or putting them at risk, so I don't even think Sam Young is right on his issue. 

 

 

That's a good point --- several have "gone all the way." Kelly refused to attend her council, which I found odd because of all of her theatrics and pontificating up to that point. Snuffer? 

I'm also thinking of others who haven't been in the media. It is fairly common for doctrinal/practice apostates to resign to not allow the Church to "do it to them." There are exceptions that prove the rule, as you point out. 

You mentioned laying down odds. I predict that Sam Young won't allow the council to run its course. I'm basing my opinion on what he's said and how he's said it. Just a hunch. 

I'm not convinced that Bill Reel's is rapidly heading to a conclusion. I think it will get there eventually, but I don't think it's imminent. 

I don't know how anyone could take seriously a church court wherein the presiding person and the court participants don't seem to know what's going on.  If I were in Jeremy's shoes I"d probably do the same thing.  Show up see what they have to say and as soon as I realized these fellows have no clue what they are talking about and are doing this disciplining because they are told to by authorities, I'd resign and walk out too.  It's quite clear the Bill's whole summoning is due strictly at the behest of higher ups who won't participate.  Sam's issue is interesting because it's a very focused one.  He's not disagreeing with Church doctrine.  he's interested in protecting children and changing a traditional practice in order to help further that protecting children cause.  But if he feels justified in his cause there's little reason to take the court seriously.  Again, in tese cases wherein the Church is clearly lying by saying its all a local affair, I'm not sure there's much point to the court itself.  They General leaders ought to put themselves out there if they are intent on going after people.  

[rongo]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

FYI- Kelly didn't attend her council because they notified her of it the day she was moving out of state. It was held after she had moved. Leaders knew of her for a very long time yet waited until she moved to hold a disciplinary council so I don't think it's fair to state she "refused to attend her council". IMO- the way the DC was carried out was an abuse of power designed to cut her out of her own DC.

Yes, but the fact remains that she chose not to attend. I don't think she would have attended if she hadn't have moved, either. I'm pretty poor, but I would have flown out there and attended mine. 

Yes, I think Snuffer was also X'd.

Of course he was, but he, also, didn't attend his.

Sam Young seems like he's all about drawing attention to the issue. Why else would he do a hunger strike? So it's hard for me to imagine him just quitting. I think it's much more likely that he'll play it out and allow the negative press to follow the church's poor behavior on this issue.

I think he will go the media, blog, and social media route in waving around his letter (check) and publishing an open resignation letter.

[Prof]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's really not. It's a practice that has developed over time in an attempt to deem a person's worthiness. So even if I conceded that "worthiness" is a doctrine (which I don't), one-on-one interviews with youth is in no way doctrine. It's policy and practice. That's all.

Honest question-not trying to threadjack. What makes something policy versus it being doctrine? 

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't know how anyone could take seriously a church court wherein the presiding person and the court participants don't seem to know what's going on.  If I were in Jeremy's shoes I"d probably do the same thing.  Show up see what they have to say and as soon as I realized these fellows have no clue what they are talking about and are doing this disciplining because they are told to by authorities, I'd resign and walk out too. 

Of course you would. That's the pattern I'm pointing out. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Prof said:

Honest question-not trying to threadjack. What makes something policy versus it being doctrine? 

Doctrines reside in the scriptures. Policies do not. 

Quote

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.

 

Edited August 30, 2018 by jkwilliams

[rongo]

Just now, Prof said:

Honest question-not trying to threadjack. What makes something policy versus it being doctrine? 

Whether you agree with Kelly-Snuffer-Watterman-Reel-Young or not. 

 

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

Of course you would. That's the pattern I'm pointing out. 

Well that's the question, rongo.  why would anyone take it seriously in these scenarios?  You act like it's a bad thing for seeing the whole circus for what it is.  

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's really not. It's a practice that has developed over time in an attempt to deem a person's worthiness. So even if I conceded that "worthiness" is a doctrine (which I don't), one-on-one interviews with youth is in no way doctrine. It's policy and practice. That's all.

How would a bishop know whether or not a YM or YW was worthy to enter the temple, or receive the priesthood, without interviewing them to ascertain their worthiness (according to the standards of the church)?

[smac97]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I find this incredibly sad and I admit to being a bit amazed by the tone-deafness of church leaders.

I am occasionally amused at the inconsistency that critics have about the Church.  On the one hand, the Church is faulted for being obsessed with its "image," even to the extent of engaging in duplicity and other forms of misconduct to shore up its "image."  But on the other hand, the Church is regularly accused of being "tone deaf" and doing things that are obviously bad for its "image" (supporting Prop 8, the policy changes, disciplining recalcitrant members, etc.).

It seems like the Church is trying to follow moral precepts, to do what is right, which is not always what is popular.

Quote

While I'm not surprised that the church is disciplining Bishop Young, I am shocked by their timing.

And if the local leaders waited a few months, we'd no doubt be hearing accusations about how the Church sinisterly waited until things "calmed down" and then quietly took its vengeance upon the hapless Sam Young.  We're darned if we do, darned if we don't, darned no matter what.

Meanwhile, the only person advertising the disciplining of Sam Young is . . . Sam Young.

By the way, gotta love your attempt at puffery/bolstering by referring to him as "Bishop Young."

Quote

It's hard to imagine the timing being much worse.

Worse in what way?  For whom?  Are you telling us that you are concerned about the welfare of the Church?

And if you are suggesting that the timing is "worse" as pertaining to Sam Young, isn't he exacerbating things by trying to sensationalize the disciplinary council?

Gadzooks, dude.  The I'm-on-my-way-out-of-the-Church-so-I'll-do-all-I-can-to-turn-it-into-a-media-frenzy tactics are getting a bit long in the tooth.  Just how many times do we have to go through this sort of dog and pony show?  Kate Kelly.  John Dehlin.  Denver Snuffer.  I had thought Jeremy Runnells was the defining jump the shark / nuke the fridge moment:

Standing in the back of a truck parked in the stake center parking lot.  Flanked by loudspeakers.  Speaking into a microphone.  Railing against his (former) faith.  This, to me, does not represent someone who valued membership in the Church, or had respect for the Church.

But something tells me Sam Young is going to ham it up even more.  We'll have to wait and see.

I'd like to take Sam Young seriously, but this sort of conduct only diminishes him.  He is playing to the crowd.  Preaching to the choir, with the "choir" being critics and opponents and disgruntled members of the Church.  Not the leadership.  Not the rank-and-file.

Quote

At a moment when the catholic church is taking significant heat for abuse and cover-up, the church is literally disciplining a man who has, as his number one goal, the safety and protection of children.

I don't believe that.  He may have started with that objective, but he's way, way beyond it now.  It's morphed into something sad.  And misguided.  And unreasoned and unreasonable.  And coercive.  And rebellious.  

Whether it has morphed into apostasy is a question I will leave to those who have stewardship and jurisdiction.

Quote

He JUST finished a hunger strike to bring attention to the issues that he feels puts children/youth at risk in our church.

Meh.  His "Hey, President Nelson, do what I am demanding or I will starve myself and create a media spectacle calculated to put you and the Church in the worst possible light"-style theatrics have not impressed me in any moral or spiritual way.  In fact, what kept coming to mind was Romans 10:

Quote

1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

I admire zeal, but not the excessive, misguided, it's-all-about-me kind that Sam Young has been demonstrating.

Protests and rallies and marches and hunger strikes and public calumnies against the Church and its leaders are not, I think, the tactics that the Lord wants His covenant people to utilize in working out disagreements in the Church.  As to how we should handle such things, I highly recommend a 1987 article by Elder Oaks, entitled "Criticism," in which he provides some very measured, very thoughtful, very scriptural, and very apostolic counsel.

Quote

Did leaders meet with him? No.

Good grief.  Spare us the histrionics.  

EDIT TO ADD: And yes, the leaders of the Church did meet with him.

Does that alter your calculus at all?  I doubt it will.  I doubt it altered Sam Young's calculus, because he isn't looking to confer or counsel with the Church.  He is not making requests (if he were, he would have been satisfied with the opportunity to air his views - and he plainly wasn't and isn't satisfied).  He is making demands.  His way or the highway.  Capituation to his say-so, or else a scorched-earth campaign against the Church.

This is not reasonable behavior.  

Sam Young is acting in bad faith here.  That's the plain and ugly reality of it, IMO.

Quote

Instead, for his efforts he will likely be excommunicated from the church.

He's a former bishop.  He knew what he was doing.  He knew how this would (very likely) end.

Quote

Tell me that doesn't stink of a cover-up.

Cover-up of what?  What on earth are you talking about?

Quote

I'm not saying it is...but it looks BAAAAAD.

So "Tell me that doesn't stink of a cover-up" is not an accusation of a cover-up?

Quote

For those of you who think it's a good move for the church to discipline Bishop Young,

Again, gotta love your transparent bolstering/puffery efforts with the "Bishop Young" schtick.

Anyhoo, about disciplining Sam Young . . . I think it's a necessary move.  

A few years years ago we discussed the excommunication of the Calderwoods.  I made the following statement: 

Quote

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.

Don Bradley (who himself at the time had recently returned to activity in the Church), made the following remarks (same link):

Quote

In the thread about the excommunication of the Calderwoods, Smac made a comment that I think is important enough that it merits discussion on its own, apart from the details of their case.

Smac:

  Quote

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.

 

Those who know my personal history and the tenor of my posting in the last few years will not be surprised to hear that I would like to see us make our LDS sub-culture more tolerant of doubt and disagreement. So, when I say how much I like what Smac says here and how important I think his insight is, I hope it's clear that it's decidedly not because I'm trigger happy to see people be labeled apostates and kicked out of the church. 

 

What Smac says above is simple realism. Abundant sociological research shows, unsurprisingly, that strong community boundary maintenance helps maintain strong communities: i.e., if communities want to thrive, they should set high standards and hold people to them.

 

My point isn't to comment on the Calderwoods' case: I don't know enough about it; and I'd prefer to leave discussion of it to the other thread. 

 

But I think it's worth pointing out how this principle might apply to the recent cases I know more about, particularly that of Kate Kelly. While there are definitely some gray areas regarding appropriate ways to express disagreement with church policy, and while I think we need more cultural "space" for such disagreement, there are also clear boundaries. For instance, no one (in their right mind) with an LDS background could seriously think that it's okay with the church to do protest-style actions and form national pressure groups to change church policy. 

 

When people knowingly flout the boundaries, and then refuse to take into account or even compromise with instructions on this from their church leaders, the church is not obligated to allow them to perpetually continue these actions as members in good standing. Nor would the church be wise to do so. To not take disciplinary action in such cases fails to reinforce the boundaries, sends the message that the actions taken are okay, and weakens the community. 

 

While I personally, for several reasons, wish Kate Kelly's stake president had taken a lesser disciplinary action, such as disfellowshipping, I think it's simply unrealistic when people expect the church to allow with impunity dissent in any and every form, no matter how at odds with the church's norms and doctrine the forms of dissent may take. Confronted with clear, and particularly with extreme, violations of its norms and boundaries the church is both right and wise to take steps to reassert and reinforce those norms and boundaries. This is part of how communities remain vital.

I think Don's comments here hold true for Sam Young.

And so do mine.  I don't want Sam Young to leave the Church. I want him 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.

And again, Sam Young knew what he was doing.  He knew he was engaging in what would almost certainly be determined to be excommunicable conduct.  And he did it anyway.  

Quote

how do you explain this to your non-member friends?

First, I would familiarize them with Sam Young's vitriolic rhetoric and behavior.

Second, I would ask them "Do you think any voluntarily-associated community is obligated to subjugate itself to bullying and coercive rhetoric and behavior, such as we've seen from Sam Young?  Imagine that Sam Young were to deploy his rhetoric and publicity hound tactics to publicly call out and coerce and humiliate and bully his wife.  Or his child.  Or his business partner.  Or his employer.  Wouldn't you expect those associations to be harmed by Sam Young's public rhetoric/conduct?  Wouldn't it be rather absurd to criticize the targets of that public rhetoric/conduct if they chose to distance themselves from Sam Young?"

Third, I would point out that Sam Young is a former bishop and long-time member of the Church.  He knew what he was going.  He knew he was engaging in what would almost certainly be determined to be excommunicable conduct.  And he did it anyway.  It therefore makes little sense to decry the utterly foreseeable (and natural, and reasonable) consequences of Sam Young's misconduct.  

Finally, I would repeat what I have said before: I don't want Sam Young to leave the Church. I want him 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.

Quote

How do you explain that leadership is so sensitive to criticism that they excommunicate a person who is trying to protect children? Seriously, what does that conversation look like?

Actually, I question whether you are speaking "seriously."  I think you are speaking emotionally.  I think you are speaking melodramatically.

In any event, how is this any of your business?  Or any of mine?  Or any of my friends'?  

Thanks

-Smac

Edited August 30, 2018 by smac97

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Do you think Sam Young will . . .

a) attend and participate in his disciplinary council, and accept the outcome

b) attend, but hand in a resignation letter before an outcome can be announced

c) resign his membership before the council

d) a, b, or c + try to turn the publicity knife a few more times 

The answer is "d," but I think "c" is the specific route he will take. For some reason, high-profile apostates over the last several years aren't willing to go all the way to martyrdom. While that would exact the maximum amount of publicity, they can't bring themselves to let the Church do it to them. They feel impelled to quit before they're fired. 

I think he will attend the council, will appeal an excommunication, and use it all to generate more publicity.

I'm curious... who are you thinking of that chose to resign rather than face a council?

For me, the names that come to mind are Kate Kelly (excommunicated), John Dehlin (excommunicated), and Jeremy Runnells (resigned).  Who are the other high-profile resignations I'm not remembering?