Former Bishop Hunger Strike for Youth Interview Policy Change

[jkwilliams]

11 minutes ago, juliann said:

I was under the impression he was an active member. He certainly did nothing to correct that impression that I am aware of. But I haven’t followed this closely, he had a good point but his tactics reminded me too much of a circus ringmaster. 

I agree completely, and like you, I haven't followed this as closely as others obviously have. 

[clarkgoble]

50 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Well, for me it just means a personal God who created us and watches over us.

Ah. OK. I thought you meant something beyond that such as claims about his limits (or lack thereof). So say the Open Theism movement is often seen by some as moving beyond orthodoxy.

31 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I absolutely do see the difference. I'm just wondering where you draw the line. As I said early on in this thread, when he announced the hunger strike, I thought my eyes would be permanently rolled back into my head. It's certainly not something I would ever do. But I don't see how public advocacy, even with bullhorns and stunts, equates to open apostasy. YMMV

What counts as apostasy ultimately? I think seeing it as denying authority of the leadership is the usual conception both due to the apostasy movements after the polygamy revelation (particularly after the second move of "we really mean it") But you can also argue looking back at the apostasies in Kirtland or Nauvoo. While we don't have cries of "fallen prophet" and not quite as much doctrinal emphasis (such as with the Laws and the Nauvoo Expositor) there are lots of similarities.

Ultimately though I think in this day and age it's not as helpful as it once was. I tend to think we'd be better off just letting barking dogs be. If they start getting too extreme with publicity stunts that depend upon membership to get the press attention maybe it'd be warranted. Ultimately though I don't think anyone listens just because they're members - particularly when they do publicity stunts which are almost always counterproductive. (IMO)

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I absolutely do see the difference. I'm just wondering where you draw the line. As I said early on in this thread, when he announced the hunger strike, I thought my eyes would be permanently rolled back into my head. It's certainly not something I would ever do. But I don't see how public advocacy, even with bullhorns and stunts, equates to open apostasy. YMMV

Per section 6.7.3 of the Handbook, the following forms of conduct fall within the Church's definition of "apostasy":

Quote

1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.
2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.
4. Are in a same-gender marriage.
5. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.

Can "public advocacy [antagonistic and controntational to the Church], even with bullhorns and stunts," fall within the parameters of "repeatedly act[ing] in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders?

Sam Young's behavior seems to be nearly a textbook example of definition #1.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I guess I haven't been paying much attention, but I hadn't seen him representing himself that way. Do the voices of people who are in the church but not necessarily fully believing not count for anything? 

I've always thought it a fool's errand to try to effect change from within the church, but then the two sisters who started timeforcambio.org are causing me to rethink that belief. That said, I have no problem with people advocating for changes they believe in passionately, no matter what organization they belong to. I've never liked the idea that, as Boyd K. Packer put it, we must all "face the same way" and accept without question what our leaders tell us to do.

1:  Answer to question #1 is no. They don't count. For anything. Toe the line. If not shut up. If you don't and you are really famous, we will kick you out.

2: The BKP approach is still by far the norm.

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Per section 6.7.3 of the Handbook, the following forms of conduct fall within the Church's definition of "apostasy":

Can "public advocacy [antagonistic and controntational to the Church], even with bullhorns and stunts," fall within the parameters of "repeatedly act[ing] in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders?

Sam Young's behavior seems to be nearly a textbook example of definition #1.

Thanks,

-Smac

It seems to me that if they excommunicate him on the grounds of #1, it means that we have expanded it to something along these lines:  "Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church, its leaders, or its policies/procedures."

My reasoning is that for as obnoxious as his hunger strike may have been, it still acknowledged the leaders in their authority to direct the affairs of the church.  He arguing against doctrine.  He was begging for procedures to change in order to greater protect our children.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

1:  Answer to question #1 is no. They don't count. For anything. Toe the line. If not shut up. If you don't and you are really famous, we will kick you out.

2: The BKP approach is still by far the norm.

And if you aren't famous and aren't doing it publicly, we won't kick you out but we will take away your recommend.  (At least that is what is happening in my stake.)

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

People are complicated. I've thought about quitting the church, and I am really not sure whether I believe in the orthodox version of God. And I haven't had a temple recommend in years. But I'm still part of the church and hope for positive change. 

And last I heard, it's always been a sign of respect to refer to someone as "Bishop" if they have served as a bishop in the past. 

Since Bishop is an office in the priesthood once a bishop always a bishop just not an acting bishop. I still get called Bishop in my home ward though it has been ten years and on the third bishop since I was released in August 2008.

[Gray]

5 hours 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 think you've stretched the term apostate well past its breaking point. It seems to have no actual meaning.

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Since Bishop is an office in the priesthood once a bishop always a bishop just not an acting bishop. I still get called Bishop in my home ward though it has been ten years and on the third bishop since I was released in August 2008.

It isn't normal to be called that by people outside of your stake, though (I'm never called "Bishop" in my new stake, for example). That supporters are referring to him as Bishop Young shows that they (and he) are trying to leverage his former position for credibility and relevance.

[Gray]

5 hours ago, 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.

Yes, if voting opposed is apostasy, then common consent is a total farce.

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think you've stretched the term apostate well past its breaking point. It seems to have no actual meaning.

Yep... If the Church wants to kick him out of the club because he's become a nuisance, they have that right.  Calling him an apostate, however, starts to render that term useless.

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

Yes, if voting opposed is apostasy, then common consent is a total farce.

It isn't the personal voting opposed, but inciting others to as well. 

Honest question: if one tries to get others to vote opposed (and make a big show of it, like at GC), you don't think that is apostate behavior?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Quote

Per section 6.7.3 of the Handbook, the following forms of conduct fall within the Church's definition of "apostasy":

Can "public advocacy [antagonistic and controntational to the Church], even with bullhorns and stunts," fall within the parameters of "repeatedly act[ing] in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders?

Sam Young's behavior seems to be nearly a textbook example of definition #1.

Thanks,

-Smac

It seems to me that if they excommunicate him on the grounds of #1, it means that we have expanded it to something along these lines:  "Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church, its leaders, or its policies/procedures."

My reasoning is that for as obnoxious as his hunger strike may have been, it still acknowledged the leaders in their authority to direct the affairs of the church. 

I don't think it did.  And in any event, he still "repeatedly act[ed] in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders."  So I'm not seeing much in the way of an expansion of definition #1.

Quote

He arguing against doctrine. 

I think you meant to say "He [wasn't] arguing against doctrine."  Is that correct?

Except that he was arguing against doctrine. 

Bishops are judges in Israel.  That's doctrine.  See this excerpt from the entry for "Bishop" in The Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

Quote

The bishop's office is a complex priesthood calling. The bishop is president of the ward's Aaronic Priesthood holders and is responsible for all their activities. He is also an ordained high priest in the Melchizedek Priesthood and is the presiding high priest in the ward, responsible for all ward activities and functions (D&C 107:15-17). As the common judge and the presiding high priest, he determines the worthiness of all members of his ward and directs the performance of sacred ordinances (D&C 107:68-76). 

...

The bishop has overall responsibility for all functions of the ward, which are designed to lead each individual member to Christ and eternal life. He is to "watch over the Church" (D&C 46:27).

...

The bishop is the common judge of his ward. He spends much time visiting with or interviewing ward members. He determines their worthiness to participate in sacred ordinances, to receive the priesthood, to receive calls to serve in the ward and on missions, and to do temple work. He spends many hours interviewing and counseling youth as they become prospective missionaries.

Besides determining worthiness, the bishop must see that all Church ordinances are performed and recorded correctly. His direction or approval is necessary for baptism, confirmation, administration of the Sacrament, blessing and naming of babies, priesthood ordinations, and all temple ordinances for members of his ward.

Bishops have a duty to make reasonable inquiries into matters pertaining to worthiness.  That seems to be doctrine.  As CV75 put it:

Quote

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!).

Bishops also have a duty to keep confidences.  I think that duty, if not doctrine per se, is nevertheless grounded in doctrine.  This would be frustrated by Mr. Young's demands that another adult always be present.  There are also legal aspects to priest/penitent communications that could be imperiled if the Church followed Mr. Young's demands.

Quote

He was begging for procedures to change in order to greater protect our children.

"Begging?"  

I am having a difficult time granting Mr. Young a presumption of good faith.  His rhetoric is just too caustic.  For example:

 

Not much in the way of nuance in this image.

Bishop interviewing a youth = "sexual shaming our children."  

Characterizing bishop interviews a per se and categorical "sexual shaming [of] our children" is, I think, quite wrong,

And look at the URL: "Protect LDS Children."  Protect them from what? 

LDS bishops.  Bishops are a categorical threat to LDS children.  That is how Sam Young is coming across.

Or this one:

 

 

Who is purportedly conducting "sexual interviews with children?"  According to Sam Young and his organization/supporters, the answer is . . . bishops.    All bishops are doing this.  (For the record, I was never asked any inappropriate questions by a bishop.)

Who is purportedly committing "sexual abuse of LDS Children?"  According to Sam Young and his organization/supporters, the answer seems to be . . . bishops.  All bishops are doing this. 

Or this one:

Who is causing "pain" to LDS children?  According to Sam Young and his organization/supporters, the answer is . . . bishops.  All bishops are doing this.  

Who is committing "emotional abuse of children?"  According to Sam Young and his organization, the answer is . . . bishops.  All bishops are doing this.  

Or this one:

 

Who is "shaming our youth to death?"

According to Sam Young and his organization/supporters, the answer is . . . bishops.  All bishops are doing this.  

Or this one:

What is causing LDS youth to be "thinking about suicide?"  According to Sam Young and his organization/supporters, the answer is . . . bishop interviews.  All of them.  

I suppose it's good that that sometimes, in some venues, Mr. Young steps back from his scorched earch rhetoric (or so I've been told).  But overall, his message is pretty offensive.  And inaccurate.   He and his followers are publicly characterizing thousands of good and decent men, who volunteer extensive time and effort to act as bishops, as sexual perverts, as threats to children, as sexually and emotionally abusing children and causing them "pain", as "shaming" youth to death and driving them to suicide.  I take exception to this characterization.  It is unfair and inaccurate.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 30, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Again, I take issue with saying his petitions and marches were "against the Church". 

Publicly characterizing the Church's bishops as sexual perverts, as threats to children, as sexually and emotionally abusing children and causing them "pain", as "shaming" youth to death and driving them to suicide, etc. is not "against the Church?"

With friends like these...

🤨

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

They were actually against a policy held by the Church. 

Sorry, that's not gonna fly.  His behavior went way, way beyond merely arguing against "a policy held by the Church."

What are your thoughts about these remarks?

Quote

For 15 nights, I invited the 15 apostles to come to temple square and meet with adults who have been hurt as children.  Over those 15 day, upwards of 800 people, members and former members gathered with anticipation.  Every night their hopes were dashed.  They were greeted by an empty chair.

The apostles are fully aware of the thousands of children who their policies have dreadfully hurt.  They are fully aware that their protocols continue to put our kids in harms way.  They continue to refuse to even recognize their victims.  The apostles remain in their comfy ivory tower and look down with, what appears to be, dismissal and disregard for the masses.

Well, fine.  If that’s the way they want it, I am going over their heads…directly to the master of the universe.  For the last 4 nights at Temple Square, I’ve invitedJesus to join us.  

Will he actually show up?  I don’t have certain confirmation.  However, I’m pretty sure He will not disappoint.  A chair will be awaiting Him.  Not a red velvet throne fit for an apostle.  Nope.  A lowly camp chair.  The same humble seating that the apostles treated with disdain.

Are you sure his behavior was not "against the Church?"

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I think there is a significant difference though I realize many here see it differently.  But, I agree with your general point... one can be a non-believer and/or opposed to certain aspects of the Church and often stay in good standing with the Church.  It's when you start going public that your membership becomes at risk... and I think we have ample evidence of that now.

And we've had it before.  Kate Kelly.  John Dehlin.  Jeremy Runnells.

Moreover, Sam Young is a former bishop.  He knew what he was doing.  He knew the boundaries.  He knew he was transgressing against them.

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

For example, people in my stake have lost their temple recommends for publicly stating that they don't believe that the Book of Mormon is a literal history OR for confessing to their Bishop that they disagree with the Nov 2015 policy. 

We can't really speak to anecdotes like this.  We don't know the parties involved.  Or what was said.  Or what was decided.  

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

While I hold to both of those beliefs, I keep my mouth shut and have thus far kept my recommend and callings.

I'll leave such matters to you and those with stewardship over you.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

A very big difference between you and him is that you aren't organizing petitions or marches against the Church, and you didn't do a hunger strike/empty chairs stunt. 

That's the big difference here. All of us know many people who don't believe much or most of Church teachings, but they are in no danger of discipline. And, there is a common thread with the Kellys, Snuffers, and Youngs of the world.

The question I have about this is really, how many other Church organizations "discipline" members for being publicly open in opposition about policy and practice.

Answer, very few.  The LDS Church may be the only one of a half dozen. And the ones I know of most LDS would view them and cult like organizations. 

What does that say about control and cult like practices?  Yes I said the dirty word. Cult like practices.

There is no open space for people who are not full blown I KNOW THE CHURCH IS TRUE members, at least unless such member suffer in silence. 

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Again, I take issue with saying his petitions and marches were "against the Church".  They were actually against a policy held by the Church.  I think there is a significant difference though I realize many here see it differently.  But, I agree with your general point... one can be a non-believer and/or opposed to certain aspects of the Church and often stay in good standing with the Church.  It's when you start going public that your membership becomes at risk... and I think we have ample evidence of that now.

For example, people in my stake have lost their temple recommends for publicly stating that they don't believe that the Book of Mormon is a literal history OR for confessing to their Bishop that they disagree with the Nov 2015 policy.  While I hold to both of those beliefs, I keep my mouth shut and have thus far kept my recommend and callings.

See!  That is the only way you can survive.  

[Gray]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

It isn't the personal voting opposed, but inciting others to as well. 

Honest question: if one tries to get others to vote opposed (and make a big show of it, like at GC), you don't think that is apostate behavior?

No, not at all. If you're attaching a moral positing to voting yay or nay (or encouraging others in either direction), then the vote itself is meaningless.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

According to Sam Young and his organization/supporters, the answer is . . . bishops.  All bishops are doing this. 

 

CFR

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

No, not at all. If you're attaching a moral positing to voting yay or nay (or encouraging others in either direction), then the vote itself is meaningless.

Then what does the vote actually mean, without attaching a moral positing? 

If your answer is "a pure democratic straw poll of the audience," I think you grossly miss the mark of what it meant even to Joseph Smith and contemporaries. 

Which isn't to say that it isn't more or less mindless and thoughtless in our day. But in our day, voting no, and especially conspicuously voting no (like the "Opposed!" yells in conference) is shocking to active LDS culture. And that is why those people do it. They don't do it to register before God and angels their moral assent and support/lack of support. They are trying to shock people, in your face-style.

I've shared this before, but the only no votes I have personally ever witnessed were at the beginning of the Bremen apostasy. About a third of the ward was voting no on routine callings (primary positions, etc.). It was stunning, and the aftermath of the climate was excommunications and resignations and the collapsing of the two wards into one ward. I've given talks before on the importance of taking common consent seriously. The sword cuts both ways. Just as people should feel free to vote their conscience, they should also hold that sacred and not use it as leverage or pawns in an agenda game. A presence of consistent culture of voting no as a protest (as opposed to having personal knowledge of disqualifying factors or other compelling reasons) is a red flag, in my view. 

I think that inciting other people to vote no (and other things, like encouraging people not to be baptized) is regarded by normative Mormonism (who don't chafe against the dominant Mormon culture, hierarchy, policies, doctrines, etc.) as apostasy from the Church. That people outside of normative Mormonism disagree with this shouldn't surprise anyone. 

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

Then what does the vote actually mean, without attaching a moral positing? 

If your answer is "a pure democratic straw poll of the audience," I think you grossly miss the mark of what it meant even to Joseph Smith and contemporaries. 

It means that you think that the person in the calling is appropriate for the calling, or not. If you can't go either way without consequences, then it has no meaning.

 

Quote

Which isn't to say that it isn't more or less mindless and thoughtless in our day. But in our day, voting no, and especially conspicuously voting no (like the "Opposed!" yells in conference) is shocking to active LDS culture. And that is why those people do it. They don't do it to register before God and angels their moral assent and support/lack of support. They are trying to shock people, in your face-style.

Which speaks to how the scriptural principle of common consent has degenerated. It's just mindless formality now. If the entire church voted against someone, would anything happen?

 

Quote

I've shared this before, but the only no votes I have personally ever witnessed were at the beginning of the Bremen apostasy. About a third of the ward was voting no on routine callings (primary positions, etc.). It was stunning, and the aftermath of the climate was excommunications and resignations and the collapsing of the two wards into one ward. I've given talks before on the importance of taking common consent seriously. The sword cuts both ways. Just as people should feel free to vote their conscience, they should also hold that sacred and not use it as leverage or pawns in an agenda game. A presence of consistent culture of voting no as a protest (as opposed to having personal knowledge of disqualifying factors or other compelling reasons) is a red flag, in my view. 

I think that inciting other people to vote no (and other things, like encouraging people not to be baptized) is regarded by normative Mormonism (who don't chafe against the dominant Mormon culture, hierarchy, policies, doctrines, etc.) as apostasy from the Church. That people outside of normative Mormonism disagree with this shouldn't surprise anyone. 

That in of itself might be evidence that normative Mormonism is apostate, relative to its founding documents. If one cares about such things.

Edited August 30, 2018 by Gray

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yep... If the Church wants to kick him out of the club because he's become a nuisance, they have that right.  Calling him an apostate, however, starts to render that term useless.

I am beginning to think that if you don't have the words of a hymn memorized...you're an apostate.  What they don't know is that they may have lost a wonderful member..dedicated and could have helped the youth.

[changed]

4 hours ago, rongo said:

It isn't the personal voting opposed, but inciting others to as well. 

Honest question: if one tries to get others to vote opposed (and make a big show of it, like at GC), you don't think that is apostate behavior?

Everyone acts on their own accord - the people who support Sam are those who have been harmed by church policies.  Abuse in the church has united people - Sam just happened to become the spokesperson.  

[changed]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I am beginning to think that if you don't have the words of a hymn memorized...you're an apostate.  What they don't know is that they may have lost a wonderful member..dedicated and could have helped the youth.

 

They will have lost quite a bit more than just one member... quite a few people are leaving the church over this.

[changed]

Here is a link to the letter for anyone who is interested:

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

The news stories are starting to roll in:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/08/30/ex-lds-bishop-who-went/

https://www.newsweek.com/mormon-bishop-sam-young-excommunication-sexually-explicit-children-interviews-1096856

https://fox13now.com/2018/08/29/founder-of-group-protect-lds-children-may-be-excommunicated/

 

 

 

Edited August 31, 2018 by changed

[provoman]

from Sam Young's blog

Quote

 

You are destroying the Mormon church–my church.  That’s right.  I’m pointing a finger directly at you…all of you who continue to vote approval.  You are destroying my church…one member at a time…thousands every month…tens of thousands every year.

Your sustaining vote upholds the violation of Christ’s law of common consent.

Every vote of approval gives license to unrighteous dominion.  Our own scriptures warn us of the certainty of this colossal danger.

Every sustaining vote condemns Christ’s system of checks and balances, converting it into nothing more than a hollow & pointless practice.

 

Quote

On the other hand, those of you who choose to sustain MUST take responsibility for the dire effects that disobedience is wreaking on the church

 

 

Quote

 

Twenty-four days from now, general conference will be upon us.  You can take the responsibility of contributing to the church’s destruction.  Your sustaining vote will sustain the subversion of common consent.  Or, you can stand on Christ’s side and vote to uphold His law.

For me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

Follow Jesus by Voting Opposed

 

 

Quote

Dear Stake President and Bishop,

This is my dutiful notification that during the April 2017 General Conference, I voted in disapproval when the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve were presented.

Of course, I don’t oppose the church, the apostles or the prophet. I use the word disapprove as that’s the phrasing that Jesus used in the revelation found in D&C 124:144

 

.