Former Bishop Hunger Strike for Youth Interview Policy Change

[jkwilliams]

Just now, bluebell said:

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)?

It's interesting that tithing settlement is self-reported: are you a full tithe payer? The bishop doesn't dig through your financial statements but takes your word for it. I wonder why worthiness interviews aren't done the same way. 

[rockpond]

1 hour 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 predict it will get delayed at the very least.  This could create really bad publicity for the Church.

[Exiled]

This is a mistake to discipline Mr. Young.  In an era where churches are having pedophile problems, dialing back sexual questions to youth seems like a logical course to take.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I predict it will get delayed at the very least.  This could create really bad publicity for the Church.

It's already started:

MORMON BISHOP SAM YOUNG FACING EXCOMMUNICATION FOR WANTING TO STOP SEXUALLY EXPLICIT INTERVIEWS OF CHILDREN

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

It's interesting that tithing settlement is self-reported: are you a full tithe payer? The bishop doesn't dig through your financial statements but takes your word for it. I wonder why worthiness interviews aren't done the same way. 

Being worthy to attend the temple is largely also self reported (with the last question being "do you believe you are worthy to attend the temple").  It's also very easy to lie in temple recommend interviews (people do it all the time), the bishop doesn't dig around to see if the answers are true, he takes our word for it.  I would imagine the other questions exist to try to keep people from going to the temple unworthily and doing significant harm to themselves spiritually.  

But even tithing settlement requires a meeting with the bishop behind a closed door.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

It's interesting that tithing settlement is self-reported: are you a full tithe payer? The bishop doesn't dig through your financial statements but takes your word for it. I wonder why worthiness interviews aren't done the same way. 

I've seen bishop's go much further than taking one's word for it, to be fair.  Much like I've seen many bishops steer clear from inappropriate questioning in interviews.  Kind of the crap shoot on this stuff.  Your point is a good one though.  is the only way to ascertain a young person's "worthiness" for temple attendance is to get a youngster in a room with an adult and explore sexual questions?  "you can trust me. I'm an adult." is the exact tactic predators have used.  

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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.  

I think it's safe to say that when you publicly refuse to recognize the Church's authority to try you (that you're not taking it seriously), then . . . you're probably gone. 

[rockpond]

I think the two reasons they give for his excommunication are a bit problematic:

1.  I think he technically encouraged members to vote their conscience and to feel that they could vote opposed if that is how they felt.  This seems like the SP is going to have to argue that voting opposed is an apostate move which then calls into question the purpose of common consent.

2.  Young's public actions opposed a policy/practice.  It's not accurate to say that he was opposing "the Church".  And his public actions each acknowledged the position and authority of the church leaders.

[HappyJackWagon]

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

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. 

Yeah, totally reasonable to schedule the DC at a time when they knew she would be out of state. I don't know what her finances were like. Don't care. It's absurd to blame her for not attending a meeting that would have had considerable expense in time and money.

 

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

So? If anything, I think that shows how little confidence they have in the proceedings. DC's are often viewed as kangaroo courts with pre-determined verdicts.

 

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

We'll see. How dare he let people know what is being done to him. The nerve.

Quote

Bluebell-

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)?

Perhaps he could discern by the spirit  I jest.

IF interviews are absolutely necessary for this purpose, which they probably aren't, there are many ways interviews could be held. Do you think interviews have always been done as they are today? How they are done, the questions asked, the frequency etc are all a matter of practice based on church policy. Even the TR questions are a policy. They've been changed many times through the years, and of course there weren't even TR question/interviews in the earliest days of the church. Even the way the church focuses on "worthiness" is a practice based on policy. Conflating practices/policies with doctrines is a huge problem, but a pretty common one.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Being worthy to attend the temple is largely also self reported (with the last question being "do you believe you are worthy to attend the temple").  It's also very easy to lie in temple recommend interviews (people do it all the time), the bishop doesn't dig around to see if the answers are true, he takes our word for it.  I would imagine the other questions exist to try to keep people from going to the temple unworthily and doing significant harm to themselves spiritually.  

But even tithing settlement requires a meeting with the bishop behind a closed door.

I would just suggest that for the very things you suggest these interviews ought to stop.  It is self-reported and anyone can lie.  There seems far less reasons to get an adult in the same room with a child and talk about personal sexual activity.  By and large it has little purpose, as you state, its all self reported and these kids could lie anyway.  It seems like all it does do is open the kid up for potential abuse by real predators, that is if the bishop, or mission pres, if you will, himself is not already a predator.  

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Being worthy to attend the temple is largely also self reported (with the last question being "do you believe you are worthy to attend the temple").  It's also very easy to lie in temple recommend interviews (people do it all the time), the bishop doesn't dig around to see if the answers are true, he takes our word for it.  I would imagine the other questions exist to try to keep people from going to the temple unworthily and doing significant harm to themselves spiritually.  

But even tithing settlement requires a meeting with the bishop behind a closed door.

I don't have a problem with the bishops asking the worthiness questions. The problem is delving into specifics with a minor behind closed doors, which is just inviting problems. 

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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

Hadn't thought of that. Yes, that could also happen.

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?

Kelly --- did not attend

Dehlin --- [I don't remember whether he attended or not. Did he?]

Runnels --- handed in a ready-made resignation at the DC

Watermann --- [I don't remember whether he attended or not. Did he?]

I guess I should have specified "resigned preemptively or did not attend." It will be interesting to see whether he attends or not.

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Being worthy to attend the temple is largely also self reported (with the last question being "do you believe you are worthy to attend the temple").  It's also very easy to lie in temple recommend interviews (people do it all the time), the bishop doesn't dig around to see if the answers are true, he takes our word for it.  I would imagine the other questions exist to try to keep people from going to the temple unworthily and doing significant harm to themselves spiritually.  

But even tithing settlement requires a meeting with the bishop behind a closed door.

Not really. I've texted mine the past 3 years.

[Exiled]

Just now, rockpond said:

I think the two reasons they give for his excommunication are a bit problematic:

1.  I think he technically encouraged members to vote their conscience and to feel that they could vote opposed if that is how they felt.  This seems like the SP is going to have to argue that voting opposed is an apostate move which then calls into question the purpose of common consent.

2.  Young's public actions opposed a policy/practice.  It's not accurate to say that he was opposing "the Church".  And his public actions each acknowledged the position and authority of the church leaders.

I think unwanted publicity is the biggest offense Mr. Young committed.  That always seems to be where members get into trouble with the brethren.  It's ok to disagree until there is a following and the media gets involved calling for or making the brethren change when they aren't ready to change.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think it's safe to say that when you publicly refuse to recognize the Church's authority to try you (that you're not taking it seriously), then . . . you're probably gone. 

Well, fine, rongo.  But my question keeps getting side-tracked for your desire to condemn people it seems.  Why is that?  

[alter idem]

If you look at the letter he receive, it gives the reasons a disciplinary council is being held.

 

Quote

1. Encouraged others to vote opposed to Church leaders.
2. Organized more than one public “action” that expressed opposition to the Church or its leaders.

From this it's likely that this is a pattern of behavior and his local leaders are aware of his activities and they've been going on for a while.  From the explanation offered, it would seem his 'hunger' strike was not the only reason he's being called into a disciplinary council.

I don't expect this is a surprise to him and most likely he chose to end his membership in the church with something which would garner more publicity and cause more PR damage to the church. 

I'd bet he'll not resign and given his publicizing the letter and continuing his stand of opposition to church leadership, I expect the outcome will be excommunication.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Well, fine, rongo.  But my question keeps getting side-tracked for your desire to condemn people it seems.  Why is that?  

What question?

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't have a problem with the bishops asking the worthiness questions. The problem is delving into specifics with a minor behind closed doors, which is just inviting problems. 

I agree, but from what I understand Sam has a problem with any meeting that occurs between a youth and adult, regardless of the topics discussed.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding that though.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Not really. I've texted mine the past 3 years.

Uh oh...that's an interesting sounding twist.  I'm not sure I'm feeling comfortable with the bishop texting my kids their questions about my kids' sexual acts and feelings.  

I get your point, but the thought of something like this just sent a cold chill down my spine.  

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Not really. I've texted mine the past 3 years.

Ok.  Is that how you propose the church should handle worthiness interviews with the youth as well?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, bluebell said:

I agree, but from what I understand Sam has a problem with any meeting that occurs between a youth and adult, regardless of the topics discussed.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding that though.

I'm not sure. Even if he were asking for that, I still don't see that as being in a state of apostasy. 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm not sure. Even if he were asking for that, I still don't see that as being in a state of apostasy. 

I don't either.  I think the charge of apostasy stems completely from his encouragement of others to vote opposed to Church leaders and Organizing of more than one public “action” that expressed opposition to the Church or its leaders. (to use the words from his disciplinary council letter) and not from his stance about youth interviews.

[HappyJackWagon]

27 minutes ago, Prof said:

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

Here are a few definitions of doctrine.

Quote

1. Elder B.H. Roberts explained what Official Doctrine is:

   The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine.”

    

2. President Harold B. Lee explains,

   “It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works.”

    

3. May 4, 2007 First Presidency Statement-

   “Not every statement made by a church leader – past or present – necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal though well-considered opinion but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publication.

   This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.”

So doctrine is really the consistent teaching of the church. That's not to say that doctrine can't/doesn't change over time.

Policy would refer to ways in which the church is governed or practiced. How does the church try to implement it's doctrines. For example, if it's a doctrine that we should keep the commandments, the policy would center around how we encourage and enforce obedience. If the doctrine is about vicarious saving ordinances for the dead, the policy would be about how that is accomplished: who can participate and how do you decide if someone can participate? Etc. Hope that helps a little.

[alter idem]

10 minutes ago, Exiled said:

This is a mistake to discipline Mr. Young.  In an era where churches are having pedophile problems, dialing back sexual questions to youth seems like a logical course to take.

I don't see how the church has any other choice.  Sam Young chose a defiant and very public way to present his complaints.  He's apparently encouraged other members to 'oppose' the church leadership as well.  

 

As you say, he also chose to hold his public 'hunger' strike at a time when the Catholic church's problems with pedophilia are being brought up once again,  allowing the press to run with this--suggesting that the LDS church has a pedophile problem too.  IMO, it was no accident, Young wanted to inflict maximum damage.

 

And, the church had already made changes to youth interviews--that's what was so surprising about Sam Young's bringing this back into the public.  This was a non issue.

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Ok.  Is that how you propose the church should handle worthiness interviews with the youth as well?

I'm simply saying it can be done. There could be phone interviews, skype interviews, youth could be given a handout with the questions they can answer and then turn in. They could do it on a scan tron form. They could do it via email, or FB messenger, or... there are so many ways the answer to these questions could be ascertained. HOW the church decides to determine worthiness is policy.