rockpond Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 14 minutes ago, rongo said: Hadn't thought of that. Yes, that could also happen. Kelly - Excommunicated (did not attend because she was out of state, or out of the country, I can't remember which) Runnells - Resigned (he's the only one I can think of) Dehlin - He attended and was excommunicated. Waterman - He attended and was excommunicated. And he appealed. 1
juliann Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 I can't help but think his holding pep rallies with bullhorns outside church buildings had something to do with calling a council. He's become a nuisance. 2
alter idem Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 10 minutes ago, stemelbow said: 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. He'll need to clarify, but wasn't he referring to tithing settlement, NOT a temple worthiness interview? I believe Phone calls can be used for tithing settlement in place of a face to face interview. I don't Bishops text worthiness interviews. 1
rockpond Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 1 minute ago, juliann said: I can't help but think his holding pep rallies with bullhorns outside church buildings had something to do with calling a council. He's become a nuisance. I guess we add "Becoming a nuisance" to the list of excommunicable offenses in the handbook. It'll fit nicely under marrying someone of the same-gender. 3
Exiled Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 5 minutes ago, alter idem said: 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. How about just stopping these interviews all together? Is it really necessary for the church leader to usurp what should be a parent's duty? Of course it would diminish the church/parent role that the church wants to maintain.
CV75 Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 53 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. Policies and practices are not proscribed. A Church leader may rightly interview anyone over whom he presides. This has its root in latter-day scripture starting with Alma the High Priest’s group interview in Alma Chapter 5; his regulating worthiness the Church (Chapter 6) as did his father (Mosiah 26); counseling his own sons; and in more modern times, D&C 20:69. Even the commandment in D&C 68:25-28 is in the context of church administration and the responsibilities of the presiding authorities (how are they to carry out verse 33 if they don't ask!).
CV75 Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 8 minutes ago, rockpond said: I guess we add "Becoming a nuisance" to the list of excommunicable offenses in the handbook. It'll fit nicely under marrying someone of the same-gender. See Isaiah 65:2-7! The phrase, "a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the day" is equivalent to a perpetual annoyance and cause of irritation... Mission accomplished? :)
juliann Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 1 minute ago, rockpond said: I guess we add "Becoming a nuisance" to the list of excommunicable offenses in the handbook. It'll fit nicely under marrying someone of the same-gender. Not sure how the two relate. I do not support the gay ban, BTW, but nice try. Other protests have been smart enough to stay in streets. This is a guy who had a good point but preferred poking sticks at a beehive. The merits of exing aside, what I don't understand is why these provocateurs don't learn from those who have gone before them. There is a difference between protesting in parks and streets and parking on the doorstep of church offices with bullhorns during work hours. Those that prefer to break the camel's back while claiming to want change aren't credible. They just don't want to do the work it takes to make change from the inside. Is it right? Fair? Maybe not. But it certainly isn't a surprise!
bluebell Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: 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. Ok, I can see your point. It's an intriguing idea (that worthiness interviews do not need to be conducted in person and that there is no reason for a bishop to physically speak to the youth in his ward about such things ever). I'm not sure I agree but it's something to think about. 1
bluebell Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 20 minutes ago, Exiled said: How about just stopping these interviews all together? Is it really necessary for the church leader to usurp what should be a parent's duty? Of course it would diminish the church/parent role that the church wants to maintain. Apparently the church believes they are necessary (ignoring the parting shot at the church in your post). And they have spoken with Sam in person about them many times. Sam and the church disagree on the topic. Is 'do what Sam says' or 'Do nothing and let Sam continue to say and do whatever he wants' the only reasonable choices for the church to make in this situation?
bluebell Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 26 minutes ago, rockpond said: I guess we add "Becoming a nuisance" to the list of excommunicable offenses in the handbook. It'll fit nicely under marrying someone of the same-gender. We don't need to. Public opposition to the church and encouraging opposition to the prophet and apostles is already in there, right? 1
HappyJackWagon Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 1 minute ago, bluebell said: Apparently the church believes they are necessary (ignoring the parting shot at the church in your post). And they have spoken with Sam in person about them many times. Sam and the church disagree on the topic. Is 'do what Sam says' or 'Do nothing and let Sam continue to say and do whatever he wants' the only reasonable choices for the church to make in this situation? Have the decision makers in the church met with Sam? IOW- has anyone who is in a position of sufficient authority to listen and make changes ever listened or met with him? I'm not aware that they have. In fact that was part of the point of the hunger fast. Each day he invited one of the Q15 to meet with him. Of course, no one accepted that invitation. Meeting with a bishop or SP about this issue really doesn't mean much because they have no authority to make any change
bluebell Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Have the decision makers in the church met with Sam? IOW- has anyone who is in a position of sufficient authority to listen and make changes ever listened or met with him? I'm not aware that they have. In fact that was part of the point of the hunger fast. Each day he invited one of the Q15 to meet with him. Of course, no one accepted that invitation. Meeting with a bishop or SP about this issue really doesn't mean much because they have no authority to make any change Yes, that this what they have said. https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-statement-on-sam-young "Church leaders at every level—from Sam’s local bishop and stake president to a recent conversation with a general authority—have met with him to express love, to listen and to counsel with him. They have received and reviewed his materials and understand clearly his viewpoint. Further meetings with him are not necessary to clarify his position on this matter."
HappyJackWagon Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 1 minute ago, bluebell said: Yes, that this what they have said. https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-statement-on-sam-young "Church leaders at every level—from Sam’s local bishop and stake president to a recent conversation with a general authority—have met with him to express love, to listen and to counsel with him. They have received and reviewed his materials and understand clearly his viewpoint. Further meetings with him are not necessary to clarify his position on this matter." "a general authority"-- I wonder who that was and if he was a decision maker. I would be quite surprised to learn it was one of the Q15 or even presidency of the 70
Jeanne Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 In my own observations of him...especially the first day...I seemed to feel that he had great love for his former calling and what he learned from it. That he loved the church and the Savior...but wanted to make a change for the children..his...and yours. I am very saddened by the way he is treated by members in general...and their leadership. I will always admire his testimony and his great love with action.
smac97 Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: "a general authority"-- I wonder who that was and if he was a decision maker. I would be quite surprised to learn it was one of the Q15 or even presidency of the 70 Would it matter? Would anything other that complete capitulation to Sam Young's demand be acceptable? It seems...not. Hence the bad faith in Sam Young's "empty chair" posturing. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 7 minutes ago, Jeanne said: In my own observations of him...especially the first day...I seemed to feel that he had great love for his former calling and what he learned from it. That he loved the church and the Savior...but wanted to make a change for the children..his...and yours. By denigrating and slandering the bishops of the Church. By denigrating the leaders of the Church. Sorry. Not feeling the love. 7 minutes ago, Jeanne said: I am very saddened by the way he is treated by members in general...and their leadership. Huh? Who has mistreated him? Thanks, -Smac 1
smac97 Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 On 7/29/2018 at 9:50 PM, Bernard Gui said: This probably won’t turn out well. https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900026367/lds-church-responds-to-man-engaged-in-hunger-strike-to-protest-bishops-interviews.html Saw it coming a mile away, didn't ya? So did Sam Young. So can we dispense with the Captain Renault impersonations? That we are are shocked - shocked! - that Sam Young's behavior has led to disciplinary action? Thanks, -Smac 2
Bernard Gui Posted August 30, 2018 Author Posted August 30, 2018 (edited) 48 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Edited August 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui
rockpond Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 1 hour ago, juliann said: Not sure how the two relate. I do not support the gay ban, BTW, but nice try. Other protests have been smart enough to stay in streets. This is a guy who had a good point but preferred poking sticks at a beehive. The merits of exing aside, what I don't understand is why these provocateurs don't learn from those who have gone before them. There is a difference between protesting in parks and streets and parking on the doorstep of church offices with bullhorns during work hours. Those that prefer to break the camel's back while claiming to want change aren't credible. They just don't want to do the work it takes to make change from the inside. Is it right? Fair? Maybe not. But it certainly isn't a surprise! They don't relate. I was just referring to the placement of this after the most recent addition to the list. I would surmise that Young felt the cause was important enough to warrant putting his membership on the line. And I would also assume that he realized addressing this through existing channels wasn't going to affect change in a reasonable (to him) timeline. And it's not a surprise to him either -- he's known that it was likely coming.
smac97 Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, rockpond said: 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? The Calderwoods? Denver Snuffer? Rock Waterman? Thanks, -Smac Edited August 30, 2018 by smac97
rockpond Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 50 minutes ago, bluebell said: We don't need to. Public opposition to the church and encouraging opposition to the prophet and apostles is already in there, right? I addressed that in my previous post. He isn't opposing the church, he is opposing a policy of one-on-one interviews with sexually explicit questions. Nor did he encourage opposition to the prophet and apostles unless you are classifying the exercise of common consent as "opposition". In which case, if voting no in our exercise of common consent is an excommunicable offense -- why bother doing common consent? You are essentially saying: Vote yes or exit.
Bernard Gui Posted August 30, 2018 Author Posted August 30, 2018 (edited) 21 minutes ago, smac97 said: Saw it coming a mile away, didn't ya? So did Sam Young. So can we dispense with the Captain Renault impersonations? That we are are shocked - shocked! - that Sam Young's behavior has led to disciplinary action? Thanks, -Smac Yes. I invited the Washington State governor and legislature to meet with me every day for a couple of weeks to discuss my issues with our schools. 😎 No one showed up. We’re going on strike next week. Actually, a vote to strike was taken last night. It passed overwhelmingly. Edited August 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui
rockpond Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 10 minutes ago, smac97 said: The Calderwoods? Denver Snuffer? Rock Waterman? Thanks, -Smac All four of them attended their disciplinary councils and were excommunicated. I believe that both Denver and Waterman also appealed. So far, collectively, I think we have only come up with Runnells who voluntarily resigned. If I have missed someone, let me know.
CV75 Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 50 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Have the decision makers in the church met with Sam? IOW- has anyone who is in a position of sufficient authority to listen and make changes ever listened or met with him? I'm not aware that they have. In fact that was part of the point of the hunger fast. Each day he invited one of the Q15 to meet with him. Of course, no one accepted that invitation. Meeting with a bishop or SP about this issue really doesn't mean much because they have no authority to make any change What does it realistically or practically require for a member of the top quorums to meet with an individual member (given D&C 84:35-37)? According to them, doing so is part of their ministry, but is done in a particular way for a particular purpose: https://www.lds.org/church/news/inside-the-quorum-of-the-twelve-what-its-like-to-be-a-prophet-seer-and-revelator?lang=eng
Recommended Posts