Former Bishop Hunger Strike for Youth Interview Policy Change

[JAHS]

Hrere's recent Deseret News article:

Here's why Sam Young faces discipline from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Why has a Houston-area church leader called a local disciplinary council for Sam Young, a former church bishop? It isn't because Young wanted the church to end sexually explicit interviews of children, as he said and a Newsweek headline stated, according to a church official.
Instead, Houston Texas South Stake President David Frank Hruska said the disciplinary council will consider whether Young is in apostasy based on reports that he has repeatedly acted in "clear, open and deliberate public opposition to the church or its leaders," according to the notice Hruska gave Young. The church considers disciplinary councils to be private. 
Young said Hruska warned him in January that his actions endangered his standing in the church, also often called the Mormon Church. Young's bishop issued a similar warning a week before what Young said was a 23-day hunger strike drawing attention to his opposition the youth interviews with church leaders.
Young said he got a knot in his stomach Wednesday night when he received a text that leaders wanted to visit him but said he's had months to steel himself for the possibility of excommunication. He said he will defend himself during the council meeting because "I'm not an apostate."
 

[Avatar4321]

6 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.

Not really seeing how calling someone apostate who fits the definition renders the term useless

[Avatar4321]

4 hours 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. 

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. 

what was the Bremen apostasy?

[Calm]

Quote

the church, also often called the Mormon Church

Good to know how they are approaching this now.

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, changed said:

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.  

I don't think abuse in the Church is as wide spread as Sam would like people to think

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

what was the Bremen apostasy?

Some information:

Then, in 1996, a member of the [Bremen] ward encountered a couple of disturbing articles about the early history of the church from the Utah Lighthouse Ministry, a conservative Protestant organization with an anti-Mormon mission. Attempting to come to terms with these, he asked friends in the ward for help and, in so doing, unintentionally started a wave of apostasy. Another brother translated parts of these articles into German and distributed them to members. In the fall discussion circles formed and letters were written to local and regional church authorities, questioning the official version of church history. The issues at stake were, first, the different versions of the First Vision as evidence of a developing concept of God rather than an initially clear and complete picture through revelation; second, differences between the Book of Commandments and the Doctrine and Covenants as evidence of changed (or possibly forged) revelations; and, finally, controversy over whether the Book of Mormon was a fiction or a genuinely ancient record. The members were especially upset because these papers had been written twenty years earlier (when most of them had just begun their membership in the church), but evidently no church response or explanation had ever been made available.  In February 1997 the mission president tried to solve the problem in one stroke by inviting everyone to a question-and-answer evening. During that meeting tension became acute between the group questioning the church's truthfulness regarding its history and members affirming their testimonies and high esteem for the Book of Mormon and the First Vision. The mission president did not answer the questions specifically, but called for a spiritual approach when hard historical facts were placed in question. When he defined truth as "whatever the prophet says, if he is not mistaken," some members decided to leave the ward. Two former bishops and a former branch president were among those who left. All together thirty people left, most of them long active in responsible church positions such as branch and district presidencies, district and stake high councils. The wards, of course, were left in an uproar and are still trying to regain composure. The Delmonhorst Branch was subsequently dissolved. The remaining dwarfunits continue to struggle. ("One Hundred Eighteen Years of Attitude: The History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in the Free and Hanseatic City of Bremen," by Jorg Dittberner, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 36, no. 1, Spring 2003, p. 68)

[changed]

26 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

I don't think abuse in the Church is as wide spread as Sam would like people to think

I used to think that... until I found myself fighting for my own kids (thankfully, our case was prosecuted - and a certain high priest - bishopric member - is now in jail for the rest of their life... quite a few kids and many many years in the making...)  the thing with abuse - people do not talk about it, so most think it is not common.  You are not going to share how your kids were abused in testimony meeting.  It is something you hide... once you are in the circle, and others start sharing their own experiences, and you get sucked into the pit with other victims who have been ignored/accused/not believed - that is when you realize how wide spread it is, when you realize how many people have left the church over it.  There are a lot of people supporting Sam - who feel he has given them a voice and is finally fighting for them... 

[Tacenda]

News of Sam's letter from the church has hit Newsweek apparently and the local news channels in Utah. It seems like the church is in the news more and more these days. 

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

I don't think abuse in the Church is as wide spread as Sam would like people to think

And why would he "like" people to think there is widespread abuse?

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, Jeanne said:

What they don't know is that they may have lost a wonderful member..dedicated and could have helped the youth.

Have you actually read his blog?

The Church lost Sam four years ago, when he decided, first, that the Church of Jesus Christ was full of 'holes, inconsistencies and unsavory elements' and, then, that Christianity more broadly was the same. He concluded that atheists had good reason for their disbelief and decided he couldn't be sure that Jesus even existed.

He has threatened to 'quit the Mormon Church' several times since then when his post-belief progressive positions have clashed with a number of Church doctrines, but in the end, he decided to stay to work for change from within.

Sam's exit from the Church, whenever it formally happens, has been a long time coming, as those who've read his blog will already know.

[Hamba Tuhan]

21 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It seems like the church is in the news more and more these days. 

Fantastic!

[Hamba Tuhan]

18 minutes ago, ttribe said:

And why would he "like" people to think there is widespread abuse?

Because the world prefers a rebel with a cause.

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Because the world prefers a rebel with a cause.

Or, because assigning evil motives just makes marginalizing him so much easier. 

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Fantastic!

Yep, too bad it's negative and sometimes it feels like the church could have avoided some of these news stories and just stopped by and spoke with Sam and explained a little bit about what goes on in interviews and tell their side, instead they send this letter. How much better would it have been had they sat on that chair Sam provided during the fast.

But the church knows best. I say that with sincerity, believe it or not, because I've always said that a person wanting to confess or get some guidance in order to move on is a good thing. As you read most of my posts concerning interviews I've been on the fence or even in defence of a certain type of interview. ETA: I do know about the statement from the church about what goes on in interviews though, so no need to remind me. Just wished we could have heard from one of the leaders too.

Edited August 31, 2018 by Tacenda

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Or, because assigning evil motives just makes marginalizing him so much easier. 

Yeah, that must be it ...

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Sometimes it feels like the church could have avoided some of these news stories and just stopped by and spoke with Sam and explained a little bit about what goes on in interviews and tell their side ...

I'm guessing you already know that Sam would never have stopped his publicity seeking in such a situation. I doubt he intends to stop his publicity seeking if he's actually excommunicated. More power to him. Though the media interest will almost inevitably follow the same trajectory it did after the excommunications of Kate Kelly, John Dehlin and others. There's a reason they call it the 'news'...

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yeah, that must be it ...

Well, a lack of introspection seems very unlikely to achieve any kind of understanding. 

[Tacenda]

Just now, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm guessing you already know that Sam would never have stopped his publicity seeking in such a situation. I doubt he intends to stop his publicity seeking if he's actually excommunicated. More power to him. Though the media interest will almost inevitably follow the same trajectory it did after the excommunications of Kate Kelly, John Dehlin and others. There's a reason they call it the 'news'...

Believe it or not, I thought of Kate Kelly. I hope he was more sincere than her. Because someone that wanted the PH, sure gave up their faith in the church a little too swifty, for wanting that PH. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Believe it or not, I thought of Kate Kelly. I hope he was more sincere than her. Because someone that wanted the PH, sure gave up their faith in the church a little too swifty, for wanting that PH. 

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Believe it or not, I thought of Kate Kelly. I hope he was more sincere than her. Because someone that wanted the PH, sure gave up their faith in the church a little too swifty, for wanting that PH. 

It was rather an overnight switch or so it seemed to me...stay and fight to glad to be gone.  I wonder how much more successful they would have been if they had chosen a spokesperson who came across as more emotionally invested in the cause (she blew off the wear pants to church day because she didn't want to wear pants, she blew off contributing to the history of the OW book after she left OW because she wasn't given more control over content even though they needed her name as it was a fundraising effort)

[stemelbow]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

It was rather an overnight switch or so it seemed to me...stay and fight to glad to be gone.  I wonder how much more successful they would have been if they had chosen a spokesperson who came across as more emotionally invested in the cause (she blew off the wear pants to church day because she didn't want to wear pants, she blew off contributing to the history of the OW book after she left OW because she wasn't given more control over content even though they needed her name as it was a fundraising effort)

I'm disappointed people have wanted to make these issues about the people and then tear down the people, pointing out their weaknesses as if those mean something in regards to the cause itself.  Kate Kelly is fine.  When you lose your faith in the org there's no telling how one will react.  That says nothing about whether she was emotionally invested, in my mind.  But then again to me the cause was a just one and that's really what mattered.  The same thing with Sam.   People want to make this about him and whether he could pass a temple recommend interview, as they preside in judgment or something.  Who cares?  the lame judgment in the Church is disturbing and awful.  Let's stick to the issue and forget about his motives, or whether he "really" believes or is "really" a Mormon.  Should kids be sitting in a closed room with an adult and get asked questions about their sexual proclivities?  Seems counter-intuitive to protecting children to me.  Sam has a great point, and that's what matters.  It doesn't matter if he's struggled in his faith due to the difficult issues or not.  

Edited August 31, 2018 by stemelbow

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm disappointed people have wanted to make these issues about the people and then tear down the people, pointing out their weaknesses as if those mean something in regards to the cause itself.  Kate Kelly is fine.  When you lose your faith in the org there's no telling how one will react.  That says nothing about whether she was emotionally invested, in my mind.  But then again to me the cause was a just one and that's really what mattered.  The same thing with Sam.   People want to make this about him and whether he could pass a temple recommend interview, as they preside in judgment or something.  Who cares?  the lame judgment in the Church is disturbing and awful.  Let's stick to the issue and forget about his motives, or whether he "really" believes or is "really" a Mormon.  Should kids be sitting in a closed room with an adult and get asked questions about their sexual proclivities?  Seems counter-intuitive to protecting children to me.  Sam has a great point, and that's what matters.  It doesn't matter if he's struggled in his faith due to the difficult issues or not.  

Sexual questioning is in fact sexual harassment. Sam's daughters suffered through this, which is what started him off on this mission in the first place.

[Tacenda]

46 minutes ago, Gray said:

Sexual questioning is in fact sexual harassment. Sam's daughters suffered through this, which is what started him off on this mission in the first place.

https://www.mormonstories.org/podcast/sam-young-excommunication/  He explains it in this newest podcast of MS's. I believe he started out with a testimony of the church, but can't say for sure. It's surprising the amount of stories I hear about with these questions. The other podcast before has a lady named Collette Larsen who mentions that she was asked if she masturbated at the age of 62 when she was there to get an okay to get sealed to her fiance. Crazy! So I wonder if it's the direction of the church leadership, funny how these questions evolve, because I never remember getting asked things like that. She said this bishop apologised a year later or something, stemming from her vocalized disapproval.

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours ago, rongo said:

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.

Is there a restriction against calling someone Bishop outside of their home ward or stake? Not that I'm aware of. It is a sign of respect. I find it interesting that people seem to be bothered, perhaps even offended, by people using the title with Bishop Young. You're not arguing that it's incorrect. You just don't like it because it reminds people that he IS an ordained bishop in the church. Is there something wrong with reminding people that he is a bishop or do you just find it embarrassing?

Edited August 31, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[smac97]

16 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.

Not at all.  The Church has specified the contours of its definition of "apostasy."

There is nothing unusual about an organization providing specific definitions for a term that is technical or intended to be used in specific contexts.  For example, what does "occupant of real property" mean?  Well, in a generalized sense, it means . . . someone who is occupying real property.  But the Utah State Legislature has crafted a very specific statute that defines that term in the context of eviction disputes.  See Utah Code Ann. sec. 78B-6-801(4) (defining it as "one who within five days preceding an unlawful entry was in the peaceable and undisturbed possession of the property."  Such specific definitions are important because eviction disputes are serious matters, and because judges and lawyers and involved individuals benefit from having more precisely-defined parameters with which to work.

The Church has done something similar with "apostasy."  The Church wants local leaders to have appropriates measures of discretionary authority, but that authority cannot be free-wheeling.  By way of example, I refer you to the messy - and apparently erroneous - excommunication of Avraham Gileadi - see here, here and here).  So a more particular - though still not entirely precise - definition of "apostasy" has been provided to bishops and stake presidents in section 6.7.3 of Handbook 1:

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.

Thanks,

-Smac