Former Bishop Hunger Strike for Youth Interview Policy Change

[changed]

3 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Why excommunicate any member on a hunger strike?  Does not the hunger strike eventually lead to one logical conclusion?   If he starts eating, it will show that he is not committed to his strike.

 

His hunger strike lasted 2 days longer than Ghandi's.  He lost 35 pounds.  I tink Ghandi, and all who stand up for victims and try to help the downtrodden through peaceful means are amazing committed people.  

Edited August 31, 2018 by changed

[changed]

54 minutes ago, provoman said:

My experience is I do not call someone Bishop who I did not know when they were a Bishop. ...

4 Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

If you are a Mormon in good standing you sustain and support everyone through the entire church in their leadership positions - it does not matter if you personally know them or not.

This is why I no longer hold a temple recommend - I will not sustain someone I do not know.  Mindlessly sustaining people  created years of abuse for members of my family - no one would raise their hand to say "no, they should not be in that leadership position" and so.... 18+ years and many many children later.... he is finally in jail... not because the church put him in jail, it took outside help to finally do that.

People need to be free to oppose church leadership without being excommunicated for it.

 

If Sam Young is excommunicated on the 9th, it will send a message that anyone who raises their hand to say "no, I do not agree with this decision" is an apostate... that 

All in favor?

Are there any opposed?  .... if you dare raise your hand, you will be excommunicated... is that the message the church wants to send out? because that is what is happening right now.

Edited August 31, 2018 by changed

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's not a very interesting question so I'll give my very uninteresting answer.

1- I don't recall ever referring to Daniel Peterson in any way. He doesn't enter into my thoughts or conversations so I don't recall ever having NOT called him Bishop Peterson. Can you provide a CFR that I refer to him and seem to refuse to call him by that title?

2- I didn't know he was a bishop

3- As I've said, I think the title of bishop is often used as a sign of respect, both to the individual and to the office. Just like you, I am much more likely to use the title when referring to someone I respect.

Any other questions?

No further questions. I thought it was common knowledge that he had been a bishop. 

Do you think you would have referred to him as Bishop Peterson if you had know he had been a bishop, and you were either referring to him or interacting with him? I know this is a stretch, because you seem to have never thought about him at all. 

I can't recall a single person here who knew he was a bishop (it came up quite often when he used to actively post here) ever referring to him as Bishop Peterson.

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's not a very interesting question so I'll give my very uninteresting answer.

1- I don't recall ever referring to Daniel Peterson in any way. He doesn't enter into my thoughts or conversations so I don't recall ever having NOT called him Bishop Peterson. Can you provide a CFR that I refer to him and seem to refuse to call him by that title?

2- I didn't know he was a bishop

3- As I've said, I think the title of bishop is often used as a sign of respect, both to the individual and to the office. Just like you, I am much more likely to use the title when referring to someone I respect.

Any other questions?

You win...rongo loses.   I know that's not your intent.  But I do agree with you.  I'm perplexed why this is such an issue for rongo.  Let people say what they want and stick to the issues. 

[provoman]

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

True. But it's NOT just an opinion that he's a Bishop. Sorry, man. That's a fact. I'm sorry it offends you.

I don't disagree that "TBM" and "critics" take different approaches to this. But does that reflect the bias of the critic to unduly bolster him, or does it reflect the bias of the TBM to tear him down? Again, you can't argue against the accuracy of him being referred to as Bishop.

 

Yes it does reflect the critics unduly bolster. It is agenda driven biased cultural appropriation.

No it does not reflect a members bias to tear him down, because he was never my Bishop and I never knew him as a Bishop, so he is Brother Young.

[changed]

5 minutes ago, provoman said:

...he was never my Bishop and I never knew him as a Bishop, so he is Brother Young.

 

You raised your hand to sustain him in general conference, and also sustained him in every temple recommend interview you ever had.  

You believe he was called by God by an organization that is led by God.  You believe that he holds priesthood keys.  I am guessing you believe the church is uniform and consistent no matter what building you worship in?

Edited August 31, 2018 by changed

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, provoman said:

Yes it does reflect the critics unduly bolster. It is agenda driven biased cultural appropriation.

No it does not reflect a members bias to tear him down, because he was never my Bishop and I never knew him as a Bishop, so he is Brother Young.

You won't call him bishop because he wasn't your bishop. Is he your brother?   

Your comment about cultural appropriation confuses me. Can you please explain how it is cultural appropriation to call an ordained bishop, "bishop"? You guys are being pretty ridiculous on this whole thing. You don't need to answer my question because I don't really care how you respond. Your bias is obvious and you're entitled to it.

[Prof]

54 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think this is both accurate and a problematic statement. Disciplinary Councils like this one are held to harmonize the individual to the Church and its leaders. It doesn't mention harmonizing to the will of God, or Jesus. The apostasy is not being in harmony with leaders. It's a problematic admission and shows how the church and its leaders have become an idol.

I have been contemplating the whole idea behind disciplinary councils. I keep coming back to the phrase "What would Jesus do?"

When people fall, as we do because we are all sinners, how did Jesus deal with them? Seems a lot different that how things are handled today.

Bringing it back to this case, I wonder how Jesus would deal with Bishop Young?

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Interesting, I can't recall the DNews doing damage control on a potential excommunication story like this in the past, does anyone else recall seeing a story like this in the DNews for any of the other high profile disciplinary cases in recent memory?  Why do you think they published a story like this?

My suspicion is the optics on this specific disciplinary action aren't good for the church.  I wonder if this is a sign that they will direct the local leaders not to excommunicate him?  

I wouldn't call it damage control. I think it might have just been an opportunity to inform the public on what the church regards as a reason for imposing a disciplinary action on a member.
This can relate to others who have been subject to disciplinary action in the past like John Dehlin where the process was explained in a Deseret News article
LDS stake holds disciplinary council for Mormon critic John Dehlin

It was also explained in the following Deseret News article
How LDS Church disciplinary councils work, change lives

[smac97]

.
 

Edited August 31, 2018 by smac97

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I wouldn't call it damage control. I think it might have just been an opportunity to inform the public on what the church regards as a reason for imposing a disciplinary action on a member.
This can relate to others who have been subject to disciplinary action in the past like John Dehlin where the process was explained in a Deseret News article
LDS stake holds disciplinary council for Mormon critic John Dehlin

It was also explained in the following Deseret News article
How LDS Church disciplinary councils work, change lives

Thanks for the link, I didn't remember this hitting the DNews for Dehlin.  Ok, so this probably isn't as unique as I was thinking from my past memories.  

I still think its likely a form of damage control, or controlling the message.  

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Prof said:

I have been contemplating the whole idea behind disciplinary councils. I keep coming back to the phrase "What would Jesus do?"

When people fall, as we do because we are all sinners, how did Jesus deal with them? Seems a lot different that how things are handled today.

Bringing it back to this case, I wonder how Jesus would deal with Bishop Young?

Part of the problem is that people disagree about how Jesus would handle a great many things, this subject included.  An appeal to 'what would Jesus do' doesn't often settle much because we have examples of Jesus being very loving and kind and we also have examples of Jesus calling people names, kicking them out of the temple using a whip, and telling them they will face hellfire.

[rockpond]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

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

Having now been exposed to more of Young's writings and statements (previously I was only tuned into his petition, march, and fast) I am going to apologize and retract my previous statements.

While I had felt that his two public actions, the march and the fast, were not worthy of discipline.  And I believed his voting opposed (and encouraging others to vote opposed if they felt the same as him) still fell within the proper use of common consent.  But...

Being made aware of his other actions, it seems clear to me that he has gone well beyond the above and both #1 and #2 in the letter from his SP are likely accurate.  So, again, I apologize for my lack of awareness of all that Young wrote/said and I retract my previous statements.

[JAHS]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for the link, I didn't remember this hitting the DNews for Dehlin.  Ok, so this probably isn't as unique as I was thinking from my past memories.  

I still think its likely a form of damage control, or controlling the message.  

To me the phrase "damage control" implies that the church has done something wrong when it has not. It is simply explaining an established process in the church.
"Controlling the message" is probably a better description.

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, Prof said:

I have been contemplating the whole idea behind disciplinary councils. I keep coming back to the phrase "What would Jesus do?"

In the 26th chapter of Mosiah, the prophet Alma was worried about the same thing:

v13 And now the spirit of Alma was again troubled; and he went and inquired of the Lord what he should do concerning this matter, for he feared that he should do wrong in the sight of God.

He prayed about what to do with those members of the church who had sinned, but would not repent. 

v14 And it came to pass that after he had poured out his whole soul to God, the voice of the Lord came to him, saying:

This is the answer he received:

v29 Therefore I say unto you, Go; and whosoever transgresseth against me, him shall ye judge according to the sins which he has committed; and if he confess his sins before thee and me, and repenteth in the sincerity of his heart, him shall ye forgive, and I will forgive him also.

v30 Yea, and as often as my people repent will I forgive them their trespasses against me.

v32 Now I say unto you, Go; and whosoever will not repent of his sins the same shall not be numbered among my people; and this shall be observed from this time forward.

It would seem, from these scriptures, that one of the conditions of being a member of the church is our willingness to repent of our sins.  Those who have sinned and continue in that sin have placed themselves outside of the covenant and the reach of the atonement.

The Lord, through His modern day prophets and apostles, has provided us with guidelines which help priesthood leaders understand how to help those who have sinned repent and once again enjoy the blessings of being a part of the Lord's covenant people.  The severity and the sin as well as the circumstances of that member of the church are taken into consideration.  This process is guided by a desire on the part of priesthood leaders to do the Lord's will and help all enjoy the full blessings of the gospel.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Part of the problem is that people disagree about how Jesus would handle a great many things, this subject included.  An appeal to 'what would Jesus do' doesn't often settle much because we have examples of Jesus being very loving and kind and we also have examples of Jesus calling people names, kicking them out of the temple using a whip, and telling them they will face hellfire.

Very true. Still, it seems very contrary to Jesus' general approach to dealing with sinners. It seems much more in line with the Pharisees and Saducees. Of course that's just my opinion but the P & S hung on the law and used it to justify many things. Righteousness was determined by adherence to the law. On the other hand Jesus fulfilled the law.

[hope_for_things]

Just now, JAHS said:

To me the phrase "damage control" implies that the church has done something wrong when it has not. It is simply explaining an established process in the church.
"Controlling the message" is probably a better description.

I like damage control because its a commonly used term, and doesn't necessarily imply something wrong was done.  For example, you could be a Trump supporter and recognize that certain news stories are controversial and are having a negative impact on him in public discussions and I think you could still consider responses from the White House as damage control without also agreeing that Trump has done something wrong.  

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Its all in his motives. 

No, it's in his methods, too.  And his objectives (which I think has very little to do with the very admirable sentiment of needing to protect LDS children and youth).

Methods and motives and objectives.  He's way off the mark on just about everything.  I think he's drunk with the thrill of notoriety and virtue-signalling.  With being adulated and constantly interviewed and lionized.  The it's-all-about-meee aspect of his behavior is really off-putting.

22 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

To him and his supporters they want to see LDS children free from any danger that has arisen for some LDS members due to these interviews. 

I don't believe that.  I think it's just a pretext to rail against the Church and virtue signal at the same time.  

22 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

To you, he doesn't really care so much about that but really just wants to go after the Church and get ex'd.  I'm sure you feel justified in your judgments.  I'm sure he feels justified in his cause.  I find the cause he's after to be more important than your need to put your judgments about him out there. 

I don't believe he is sincere in his cause.  

22 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm sure many will agree with you, as we've seen in this thread, that its far more important to go after him and tell everyone he's lied about his motives.  

Not at all.  We've criticized his methods, too.  His methods and his motives are all unbecoming and unproductive, even counter-productive and harmful.

I have a hard time watching Mr. Young and his supporters march through the streets and casually slander the many good and decent men who accept an assignment to devote substantial effort and time, all unpaid and for a period of many years, to servce as bishops.  Yes, there are bishops who handle some aspects of interviews poorly.  Yes, there are even some (very few, I think) bishops who exploit the trust given to them to abuse innocents.  But I have a very hard time conceptualizing a bishop doing this while also adhering to the interview guidelines.  

A friend of mine recently asked a fair question: "How do we prevent the predator in priestly guise from using his position and the practice of sexually explicit interviews to groom & abuse young victims?"  The remedy proposed by Mr. Young is to totally eliminate all one-on-one interviews by all bishops.  That seems a bit like curing an injured arm by amputating it.  Sure, it will resolve the issue (sort of - a child abuser can circumvent most safeguards), but the cure may, for some, end up being worse than the injury.  

For example, has Mr. Young ever considered how many times bishop interviews have helped discover and stop abuse?  See, for example, this story:

An Arizona judge is being investigated on allegations of sexually abusing a girl from when she was 13 until she reached adulthood, The Associated Press has learned.

The alleged victim, now 25, told investigators last year that Pinal County Superior Court Judge Steven Fuller touched her genitals and buttocks repeatedly and also showed her pornography, according to a police report obtained by The Associated Press.

...

The alleged abuse occurred years ago and was reported in late September to police in the Phoenix suburb of Mesa by a lawyer for the Mormon church who said the alleged victim revealed the alleged abuse to her bishop. She spoke with investigators several weeks later, saying she was coming forward after being encouraged to do by Paul Babeu, a family friend who was the Pinal County Sheriff from 2009 through 2016.

...

The lawyer for the Mormon church went to police in Mesa, thinking that was where some of the alleged abuse occurred. Mesa police initially investigated but turned over the case to Pinal County authorities after discovering the alleged abuse happened in Pinal County.

"The alleged victim revealed the alleged abuse to her bishop."  That happens.  A lot.  All the time, in fact.  I speak from personal experience, actually.  But Mr. Young is demanding that this resource be taken away.  Has he considered the ramifications of his demands being fulfilled?  Has he considered how many times abuse of a child will continue unabated because he succeeded in vilifying bishops, in characterizing them and presumptively perverted and untrustworthy?

What about a young man struggling with an addiction to pornography?  What if he is too embarrassed to tell his parents?  What if he doesn't have a father around to give him advice?  What if he wants to talk to a trustworthy adult about this?  Not gratuitously, but about the problem and how he can cope with it and overcome it?  If he won't go to his parents, and - if Mr. Young gets his way - he can't go to his bishop (without his parents being present), then what does he do?  Talk to a teacher? What if he doesn't trust his teachers?  What if his teacher is not equipped to address such things?

Or consider a young woman who has violated the Law of Chastity.  What if she is too embarrassed to tell her parents?  What if she had unprotected sex and might be pregnant?  What if her partner has been very promiscuous and might have given her an STI?  What if her partner is an adult and she is underage?  What if she wants to tell her bishop and seek guidance as to what to do, but now cannot do so without her parents being present (and hence will probably not go the bishop at all)?  Again, not a gratuitous description, but enough details so that the bishop can know what has happened and can offer appropriate assistance?  If Mr. Young gets his way, bishops cannot be trusted and cannot help in this situation.

Or consider a young woman who was sexually assaulted.  What if her abuser is a family member, or a neighbor, such that she is scared to tell her parents (or, perhaps worse of all, what if the abuseris her parent)?  What if she wants to talk to her bishop about this, but not her parents or the police?  This happens all the time.  As I see it three of the biggest impediments to them getting help are 

1. a feeling of helplessness, a lack of control over their lives, and 
2. profound confusion and despair at the abuse, and 
3. misplaced feelings of shame and guilt.  

Going to the police can come across as exacerbating these things. If the police get involved, then the abuser may end up getting arrested (which can be distressing when it's a family member, even to the victim).  If the police get involved, then the "secret" is out, which may enhance the confusion / despair / shame / guilt (at least that's the fear the victim may have).  If the police get involved, then the police (and/or DCFS) intrude into the home, ask very sensitive questions, and do so by the coercive power of government.  The victim's sense of helplessness or lack of control might actually get worse (again, that's the fear the victim may have at the prospect of contacting the police).  

And so it goes.  But here's the thing:  The police and DCFS still need to be involved.  That is the decision our society has made, and I think it's a necessary one.  So my point is that sometimes the victim may not want to call the police (because of the above concerns), which is why a disclosure to the bishop becomes so valuable.  Bishops, after all, are generally good and decent men, and they have an obligation to monitor the welfare of their flock, and in most jurisdictions they have a legal obligation to report most allegations of abuse.  The Church, recognizing this, has spent considerable time and effort to create a helpline for bishops that is staffed by attorneys who help navigate the legal intricacies that can and do arise in such situations.  

I could go on with many more real-world examples, but I hope you see my point.   Bishops are not perfect, but in my view they are clearly a net benefit in terms of addressing allegations of abuse, in helping youth cope with various other problems and questions and anxieties, and generally being someone that can be there to offer support and (some) guidance and (lots of) resources.  

Thanks,

-Smac 

[stemelbow]

18 minutes ago, Prof said:

I have been contemplating the whole idea behind disciplinary councils. I keep coming back to the phrase "What would Jesus do?"

When people fall, as we do because we are all sinners, how did Jesus deal with them? Seems a lot different that how things are handled today.

Bringing it back to this case, I wonder how Jesus would deal with Bishop Young?

He'd support him with a teaching about offending the little ones is about a bad as act as one can do.  He'd condemn the Church for sticking to their guns.  There's little doubt.  He seemed far less about the rules than the Church is.   

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Quote

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.

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

Having now been exposed to more of Young's writings and statements (previously I was only tuned into his petition, march, and fast) I am going to apologize and retract my previous statements.

Sounds good.

I think we very seldom have the whole story about publicized situations such as this, particularly when the person facing discipline is the source of the publicity.  That person knows he can say pretty much whatever he wants in the public sphere because the Church generally does not comment on such matters.  So we get a decidedly lopsided version of what is going on.

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

While I had felt that his two public actions, the march and the fast, were not worthy of discipline.  And I believed his voting opposed (and encouraging others to vote opposed if they felt the same as him) still fell within the proper use of common consent.  But...

Being made aware of his other actions, it seems clear to me that he has gone well beyond the above and both #1 and #2 in the letter from his SP are likely accurate.  So, again, I apologize for my lack of awareness of all that Young wrote/said and I retract my previous statements.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

39 minutes ago, changed said:

His hunger strike lasted 2 days longer than Ghandi's.  He lost 35 pounds.  I tink Ghandi, and all who stand up for victims and try to help the downtrodden through peaceful means are amazing committed people.  

What are your thoughts about Mike Norton - a supporter of Sam Young - publicly offering a financial reward to anyone who will disclose the location of President Dallin H. Oaks, so that Norton can physically assault Pres. Oaks?

Thanks,

-Smac

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Bishops are not perfect, but in my view they are clearly a net benefit in terms of addressing allegations of abuse, in helping youth cope with various other problems and questions and anxieties, and generally being someone that can be there to offer support and (some) guidance and (lots of) resources.  

Good article here talking about some of these things:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900026772/guest-opinion-why-we-need-lds-bishop-youth-interviews.html

"Research suggests that when youths have positive interactions with religiously articulate and active adults, they are better equipped to navigate life’s challenges. Looking at a study of 3,370 American teens from various faiths, conducted by sociologists Christian Smith and Melinda Denton, Princeton Theological Seminary professor Kenda Creasy Dean observed that, among those studied, Mormon teens “were the least likely to engage in high-risk behavior and consistently were the most positive, healthy, hopeful and self-aware teenagers.” She attributed this success, in part, to the higher number of nonparent adults who played a meaningful role in a teenager’s life. In one study, at-risk youths who participated in mentoring programs experienced less depressive symptoms, greater acceptance among peers, more positive feelings about their abilities and improved performance at school. In a digital environment, personal connections (especially religious ones) provide benefits. “Eighth-graders who are heavy users of social media increase their risk of depression by 27 percent,” according to sociologist Jean M. Twenge. But, research reveals that attending religious services “cut their risk significantly.”

[changed]

16 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

In the 26th chapter of Mosiah, the prophet Alma was worried about the same thing:

....v29 Therefore I say unto you, Go; and whosoever transgresseth against me, him shall ye judge according to the sins which he has committed; ...

Sam Young is no more of a sinner than you or I.  This all started because one of his daughters was taught about pornography and taught how to masturbate when she was 12 years old in an interview - Sam then talked to his other daughters, and 4 of 6 of them had also had very inappropriate interviews.  He started worrying about the interview process, other people told him their own horror stories, and Sam decided to try to change what is a real problem in the church.  

Sam is not transgressing against God - he is disagreeing with church policies that allow old married men to take young girls into a closed rooms and talk about sex... 

Edited August 31, 2018 by changed

[changed]

3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Good article here talking about some of these things:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900026772/guest-opinion-why-we-need-lds-bishop-youth-interviews.html

"Research suggests that when youths have positive interactions ....

 

Two-deep policies provide wonderful strengthening supports for children.

One deep policies... with untrained "volunteers" who have not had background checks...  not so much.

Positive interactions - great!!!

Abusive interactions - not great!!

Edited August 31, 2018 by changed

[smac97]

39 minutes ago, changed said:

4 Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

If you are a Mormon in good standing you sustain and support everyone through the entire church in their leadership positions - it does not matter if you personally know them or not.

I don't think this is correct.  We are not called upon to sustain the local authorities everywhere, just the ones who have jurisdiction over us.

This is why a person visiting a ward will not participate in a sustaining vote in that ward.

39 minutes ago, changed said:

This is why I no longer hold a temple recommend - I will not sustain someone I do not know. 

I invite you to reconsider your position.  I don't think are expected to sustain the 28,000 bishops and branch presidents in the Church.  Just the one who has jurisdiction over you.

39 minutes ago, changed said:

Mindlessly sustaining people  created years of abuse for members of my family - no one would raise their hand to say "no, they should not be in that leadership position" and so.... 18+ years and many many children later.... he is finally in jail... not because the church put him in jail, it took outside help to finally do that.

You are faulting the Church for failing to incarcerate a person?  That does not seem like a reasonable expectation.  The Church lacks authority to deprive anyone of their liberty, both under the laws of the land and the Church's laws.  See D&C 134:10 (emphasis added):

Quote

We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

I can't really speak to specific anecdotes.  The local leaders are, in many circumstances, required to report allegations of abuse.  These guidelines are sometimes not followed, and great harm can be the result.

39 minutes ago, changed said:

People need to be free to oppose church leadership without being excommunicated for it.

In the abstract, I agree with you.  But the opposition cannot be unfettered.  Time, place and manner.  These things matter.

39 minutes ago, changed said:

If Sam Young is excommunicated on the 9th, it will send a message that anyone who raises their hand to say "no, I do not agree with this decision" is an apostate... that 

All in favor?

Are there any opposed?  .... if you dare raise your hand, you will be excommunicated... is that the message the church wants to send out? because that is what is happening right now.

No, it's not.

Thanks,

-Smac