changed Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 No sexually explicit questions No one-on-one interviews That is all that is being asked for. Can anyone here provide a reason why sexually explicit questions should not be officially prohibited by the church? Let's start with #1. 1
bluebell Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: 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. Not if you consider other verses besides just the NT (which of course the church would consider). 3 Ne. 18: 31-32-But if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people, for behold I know my sheep, and they are numbered. Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out of your synagogues, or your places of worship, for unto such shall ye continue to minister; for ye know not but what they will return and repent, and come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I shall heal them; and ye shall be the means of bringing salvation unto them. D&C 42:28 Thou knowest my laws concerning these things are given in my scriptures; he that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out.
smac97 Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 35 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?" The "whole idea behind disciplinary councils" originates from Jesus Christ. The Church should not ignore unrepentant apostasy or play dumb when it arises. In this the Church has a fairly clear mandate: D&C 50:8-9 - "But the hypocrites shall be detected and shall be cut off, either in life or in death, even as I will; and wo unto them who are cut off from my church, for the same are overcome of the world. Wherefore, let every man beware lest he do that which is not in truth and righteousness before me." D&C 64:34-37 - "Behold, the Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind; and the willing and obedient shall eat the good of the land of Zion in these last days. And the rebellious shall be cut off out of the land of Zion, and shall be sent away, and shall not inherit the land. For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim, wherefore they shall be plucked out. Behold, I, the Lord, have made my church in these last days like unto a judge sitting on a hill, or in a high place, to judge the nations." D&C 104:6-10 - "For I, the Lord, am not to be mocked in these things. And all this that the innocent among you may not be condemned with the unjust; and that the guilty among you may not escape; because I, the Lord, have promised unto you a crown of glory at my right hand. Therefore, inasmuch as you are found transgressors, you cannot escape my wrath in your lives. Inasmuch as ye are cut off for transgression, ye cannot escape the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption. And I now give unto you power from this very hour, that if any man among you, of the order, is found a transgressor and repenteth not of the evil, that ye shall deliver him over unto the buffetings of Satan; and he shall not have power to bring evil upon you." D&C 51:1-2 - "Hearken unto me, saith the Lord your God, and I will speak unto my servant Edward Partridge, and give unto him directions; for it must needs be that he receive directions how to organize this people. For it must needs be that they be organized according to my laws; if otherwise, they will be cut off." D&C 63:60-64 - "Behold, I am Alpha and Omega, even Jesus Christ. Wherefore, let all men beware how they take my name in their lips. For behold, verily I say, that many there be who are under this condemnation, who use the name of the Lord, and use it in vain, having not authority. Wherefore, let the church repent of their sins, and I, the Lord, will own them; otherwise they shall be cut off. Remember that that which cometh from above is sacred, and must be spoken with care, and by constraint of the Spirit; and in this there is no condemnation, and ye receive the Spirit through prayer; wherefore, without this there remaineth condemnation." D&C 133:63 - "And upon them that hearken not to the voice of the Lord shall be fulfilled that which was written by the prophet Moses, that they should be cut off from among the people." D&C 85:11 - "And they who are of the High Priesthood, whose names are not found written in the book of the law, or that are found to have apostatized, or to have been cut off from the church, as well as the lesser priesthood, or the members, in that day shall not find an inheritance among the saints of the Most High." D&C 1:14 - "And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people." D&C 134:10 - "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." Alma 1:24 - "The hearts of many were hardened, and their names were blotted out." 3 Ne. 18:31 - "If he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people." D&C 42:24 - "Adulterers who do not repent shall be cast out." D&C 42:28 - "He that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out." D&C 41:5 - "He that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciple; and he that saith he receiveth it and doeth it not, the same is not my disciple, and shall be cast out from among you." Helaman 12:25 - "And I would that all men might be saved. But we read that in the great and last day there are some who shall be cast out, yea, who shall be cast off from the presence of the Lord." 3 Nephi 14:15 - "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." As I have said before: "Look, I don't want them to leave the Church. I want them in it. I want everyone in it. But we are a community of faith. We cohere around faith. When we disregard apostasy we weaken our community." 35 minutes ago, Prof said: 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? I think He would direct His servants = whom He has designated to be judges in Israel - to follow the mandate and guidelines described above. Thanks, -Smac 2
changed Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, bluebell said: Not if you consider other verses besides just the NT (which of course the church would consider). 3 Ne. 18: 31-32-But if he repent not.. What is Sam supposed to repent of? He should repent of ... being concerned for the welfare of children? 3 minutes ago, smac97 said: D&C 42:28 - "He that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out." Sam Young is NOT some big sinner. He is a loving father and faithful husband, who has lived a righteous life. He keeps the word of wisdom, and has spent countless hours working as a volunteer in callings in the church. Why is everyone talking about what to do with "sinners" when that is not what this is about? Sam is not being called to a disciplinary council for "sinning" - he is being disciplined for voting "opposed" to harmful policies within the church. Edited August 31, 2018 by changed
smac97 Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 (edited) 16 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 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.” Emphasis added. Who are these "nonparent adults" who have "a meaningful role in a teenager's life?" Tne YM/YW presidencies and teachers, probably. And scout leaders. And . . . bishops. The same bishops whom Sam Young and his followers vilify as perverts and child molesters. -Smac Edited August 31, 2018 by smac97
smac97 Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 5 minutes ago, changed said: Sam Young is NOT some big sinner. How do you know that? Has God has appointed you to make such a determination? 5 minutes ago, changed said: He is a loving father and faithful husband, who has lived a righteous life. He is not facing discipline because of what he has done or not done in his role as a husband and father. 5 minutes ago, changed said: He keeps the word of wisdom, He is not facing discipline because of what he has done or not done relative to the Word of Wisdom (IIRC, formal church discipline is not authorized for violations of the WoW). 5 minutes ago, changed said: and has spent countless hours working as a volunteer in callings in the church. He is not facing discipline because of what he has done or not done relative to his "callings in the church." 5 minutes ago, changed said: Why is everyone talking about what to do with "sinners" when that is not what this is about? Sam Young is publicizing all of this. Perhaps you should take it up with him. But for his publicity hound antics, we would not be having this discussion. 5 minutes ago, changed said: Sam is not being called to a disciplinary council for "sinning" - The apparent charge is apostasy. Apostasy is a sin. 5 minutes ago, changed said: he is being disciplined for voting "opposed" to harmful policies within the church. No, that is not correct. Thanks, -Smac 2
changed Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 (edited) 18 minutes ago, smac97 said: 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. 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. 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): 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. In the abstract, I agree with you. But the opposition cannot be unfettered. Time, place and manner. These things matter. No, it's not. Thanks, -Smac I have had long discussions with my local leaders, and studied the issues - you are sustaining all church leaders. Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church? Do you personally know and have a spiritual witness of "other General Authorities"? It is in the same context - local authorities, and all the general authorities - it is all in the same boat. I am faulting the church for placing a pedophile (and I will make this plural as I am not the only one who has had to deal with this).. so pedophiles - into leadership positions. I get that no one is perfect and there are a few "bad apples" but this is not about a few bad apples - it is about an organization that promoted those bad apples put them into leadership positions year after year after year. (yes, they knew - it ended his first temple marriage, he was going to the church addiction recov group - they knew) Opposition is part of the sustaining vote - the questions are asked at general conference, and in stake conferences - if opposition and saying "no, I do not sustain that" should happen at a different place and a different time, then the question should not be asked in that public venue. Edited August 31, 2018 by changed
ksfisher Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 1 minute ago, smac97 said: Emphasis added. Who are these "nonparent adults" who have "a meaningful role in a teenager's life?" Tne YM/YW presidencies and teachers, probably. And scout leaders. And . . . bishops. The same bishops whom Sam Young and his followers vilify as perverts and child molesters. -Smac Personally, I don't recall any of the interviews I had with bishops growing up. I know I had them, but I don't recall them now. I was blessed with fantastic young mens leaders. We didn't have a priesthood bearer in our home so they became, along with watching how the bishopric conducted themselves, my role models as to how priesthood bears should act and serve. I recall one leader playing basketball with me one on one (yes, alone) and forcing me to dribble left handed. While the left handed dribbling skill may not be of much use to me 35 years later, his example and dedication to ministering to one young man has impacted my life and the way I serve others.
Avatar4321 Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 34 minutes ago, smac97 said: 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. I don't believe that. I think it's just a pretext to rail against the Church and virtue signal at the same time. I don't believe he is sincere in his cause. 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 a feeling of helplessness, a lack of control over their lives, and profound confusion and despair at the abuse, and 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 This is precisely why his demands won’t be met
stemelbow Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 17 minutes ago, smac97 said: 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. I don't believe that. I think it's just a pretext to rail against the Church and virtue signal at the same time. I don't believe he is sincere in his cause. Not at all. We've criticized his methods, too. His methods and his motives are all unbecoming and unproductive, even counter-productive and harmful. Ok,. Who has been hurt by him? Quote 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. I walked down the street that fateful day and didn't slander a soul and don't think I heard anyone else slander anyone either. So what are you talking about? Quote es, 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. Great. Then it should be understood that anyone who agrees that any bishop could handle an interview poorly is cause for alarm. We should address it and fix the problem. And you should realize that some people, including Sam, don't think any addressing that has been done is enough. Quote "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? When you say "a lot", how often? Have you quantified the amount of times someone has told a bishop and has not told anyone else and the bishop did something to help compared to times when a bishop was told about abuse, like in the wives of Rob Porter's case, and the bishop did nothing helpful at all? Can you make the comparison wherein the interview itself had either resulted in abuse or harassment or opened up the child to inappropriate conversations with adults that also led to abuse and compare that to the number of times the interview helped identify abuse and the result was the Bishop helped? Can you also say that if another adult was present in the interview wherein the child identified the abuse and the bishop did something that the child would not have identified the abuse? If you can't make those comparisons then it doesn't seem like you would take child abuse as seriously as Young. Quote 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? What if the bishop is not equipped to address such things? There's a lot of what ifs there, smac. What if a child tells a bishop that he/she has seen porn and the bishop condemns him/her with an addiction when it is not to the point of an addiction and the child suffers unneeded guilt as a result? What if a child opens up to a bishop about a pron problem and the bishop admits he too has a problem with it and then uses his new found info about the porn issue with the child against the child and everything else goes sour? What if you pulled your head out of your...oh wait...just kidding. Quote 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. You realize there are many more billions of people in the world than there are Mormons, right? What do you think a young girl who has out of wedlock sex with a boy and is too embarrassed to tell her parents she got pregnant ought to do if she is not LDS? Do you really think all LDS children are so much better off because they have a bishop? If so, why would God bless these very few kids and not help the very many others? Quote 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 a feeling of helplessness, a lack of control over their lives, and profound confusion and despair at the abuse, and 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. Yes and none of your examples address the stories told about bishop's interviews that turn out negative. You can say the positive outweighs the negative, but just try and imagine if there was less negative all around. Wouldn't that be nice?
changed Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, smac97 said: No, that is not correct. Thanks, -Smac It is correct - you can read the letter that was sent to Sam. https://invisiblescubit.wordpress.com/2018/08/29/excommunication-notice/ The reason for this council is that you are reported to have acted repeatedly in clear, open and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders. You have, among other things: Encouraged others to vote opposed to Church leaders. Organized more than one public “action” that expressed opposition to the Church or its leaders. He is being disciplined for saying "No, I do not sustain that" and telling others (who were abused) they can vote opposed too. Part of the healing process for abuse victims is learning how to create and enforce boundaries - knowing it is possible to say "No", that saying "No" is ok... Sam empowered abuse victims to say "No". To change the policy Sam first went through his local leaders - after tens of thousands of people signed his petition - after hundreds of stories sent (he compiled them into a book) - only after the magnitude of the problem was clear did he take desperate measures of organizing groups. Edited August 31, 2018 by changed
Exiled Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 (edited) 14 minutes ago, smac97 said: Emphasis added. Who are these "nonparent adults" who have "a meaningful role in a teenager's life?" Tne YM/YW presidencies and teachers, probably. And scout leaders. And . . . bishops. The same bishops whom Sam Young and his followers vilify as perverts and child molesters. -Smac I don't think he is saying bishops are perverts and child molesters per se. I think he is saying why foster the environment that allows perverts and molesters to do their work. I am sure the percentage of bishops who fall into the perverted category is quite small, but one is too many. Also, asking such questions of youth and giving corrective remedies is for parents to do, if even necessary, and not bishops. Edited August 31, 2018 by Exiled 1
changed Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 (edited) 47 minutes ago, smac97 said: .... "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. ... Thanks, -Smac Sam is NOT taking that away. He is not advocating an end to interviews, he is advocating an end to one-on-one interviews, and an end to sexually explicit probing questions. As an educator I have had students come to me for help - had a situation just this week in fact. I do not talk with students behind closed doors, I immediately get the trained school councilor involved. Closed door one-on-one interviews are not the solution. Edited August 31, 2018 by changed
smac97 Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 Just now, Exiled said: Quote Emphasis added. Who are these "nonparent adults" who have "a meaningful role in a teenager's life?" Tne YM/YW presidencies and teachers, probably. And scout leaders. And . . . bishops. The same bishops whom Sam Young and his followers vilify as perverts and child molesters. -Smac I don't think he is saying bishops are perverts and child molesters per se. He sure doesn't seem to be making any attempt to avoid the patently obvious inferences to be drawn from his rhetoric, signage, etc. See here. Just now, Exiled said: I think he is saying why foster the environment that allows perverts and molesters to do their work. That's not all he is saying. And he's disregarding many of the other factors at work here, not the least of which is the tremendous benefits that bishop interviews can and do provide. See here. Moreover, it his behavior that has become most problematic. Just now, Exiled said: I am sure the percentage of bishops who fall into the perverted category is quite small, but one is too many. By that logic, we need to stop driving cars. "One [accident] victim is too many," after all. We also need to stop going to hospitals. "One [hospital infection] victim is too many." We also can't go to doctors anymore. "One [medical malpractice] victim is too many." And the schools. Gotta shut them down, too. "One [bullying] victim is too many." And alcohol. That's out. "One [intoxicated violence] victim is too many." And so on. Ad infinitum. This topic deserves some serious attention. Unrealistic and unreasonable aphorisms aren't really going to help. Just now, Exiled said: Also, asking such intimate questions and giving corrective remedies is for parents to do, not bishops. In the main, I quite agree. Thanks, -Smac
changed Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 17 minutes ago, smac97 said: How do you know that? Has God has appointed you to make such a determination? He is not facing discipline because of what he has done or not done in his role as a husband and father. He is not facing discipline because of what he has done or not done relative to the Word of Wisdom (IIRC, formal church discipline is not authorized for violations of the WoW). He is not facing discipline because of what he has done or not done relative to his "callings in the church." Sam Young is publicizing all of this. Perhaps you should take it up with him. But for his publicity hound antics, we would not be having this discussion. The apparent charge is apostasy. Apostasy is a sin. No, that is not correct. Thanks, -Smac Sam is a bishop - do you think the church is led by God? Then God is the one who made him a bishop. ... I live in Houston... I will be there on the 9th to support Sam... I have not read all of the articles, but I have cried on his shoulder, and have been in a support group with other victims he is helping. 1
smac97 Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 1 minute ago, changed said: Quote .... "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. ... Thanks, -Smac Sam is NOT taking that away. Yes, he is. And you are not addressing this part of my remarks: Quote 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)? 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? Well? If Sam Young gets his way, youth who find themselves in these circumstances may well end up not reporting past abuse. And the abuse could very well be ongoing. But thanks to Sam Young (who is busy these days slandering the bishops of the church 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, and so on) The main problem, I think, lies with Sam Young's scorched earth, appallingly coerceive, my-way-or-the-highway, we-have-to-stop-all-bishops-interviews-because-I-say-so-and-because-bishops-are-presumptive-perverts-and-child-molesters rhetoric and tactics. His self-aggrandizement also doesn't help. At all. Thanks, -Smac 1
smac97 Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 2 minutes ago, changed said: Sam is a bishop - No, he's not. 2 minutes ago, changed said: do you think the church is led by God? Then God is the one who made him a bishop. Surely you are not suggesting that Sam Young is infallible because he previously served as a bishop. Surely you are not saying that. So what are you saying? 2 minutes ago, changed said: ... I live in Houston... I will be there on the 9th to support Sam... I have not read all of the articles, but I have cried on his shoulder, and have been in a support group with other victims he is helping. I get it. You are emotionally invested. So am I, to an extent. But that doesn't preclude me from stepping back and seeing the very real problems with Sam Young's behavior. Thanks, -Smac 1
Avatar4321 Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 40 minutes ago, changed said: No sexually explicit questions No one-on-one interviews That is all that is being asked for. Can anyone here provide a reason why sexually explicit questions should not be officially prohibited by the church? Let's start with #1. There are no sexually explicit questions already. Do you keep the law of Chastity? Is not sexually explicit
bluebell Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 30 minutes ago, changed said: What is Sam supposed to repent of? He should repent of ... being concerned for the welfare of children? Sam Young is NOT some big sinner. He is a loving father and faithful husband, who has lived a righteous life. He keeps the word of wisdom, and has spent countless hours working as a volunteer in callings in the church. Why is everyone talking about what to do with "sinners" when that is not what this is about? Sam is not being called to a disciplinary council for "sinning" - he is being disciplined for voting "opposed" to harmful policies within the church. He's not being called in for voting opposed. That's not even a thing at church-you can't vote "opposed to policies". But I understand what you are saying. First, I was responding to HJW, who specifically used the term 'sinner'. Second, we can disagree on what does or doesn't constitute apostasy, but whatever our definition is we should understand that apostasy is a sin. So, if someone is guilty of apostasy, regardless of the reason, the intent, or how much he or she believes they are in the right, then they need to repent. Third, Sam is being called to a disciplinary council for publicly and repeatedly opposing the church and it's leaders, which the church defines as apostasy.
Avatar4321 Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 36 minutes ago, smac97 said: The "whole idea behind disciplinary councils" originates from Jesus Christ. The Church should not ignore unrepentant apostasy or play dumb when it arises. In this the Church has a fairly clear mandate: D&C 50:8-9 - "But the hypocrites shall be detected and shall be cut off, either in life or in death, even as I will; and wo unto them who are cut off from my church, for the same are overcome of the world. Wherefore, let every man beware lest he do that which is not in truth and righteousness before me." D&C 64:34-37 - "Behold, the Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind; and the willing and obedient shall eat the good of the land of Zion in these last days. And the rebellious shall be cut off out of the land of Zion, and shall be sent away, and shall not inherit the land. For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim, wherefore they shall be plucked out. Behold, I, the Lord, have made my church in these last days like unto a judge sitting on a hill, or in a high place, to judge the nations." D&C 104:6-10 - "For I, the Lord, am not to be mocked in these things. And all this that the innocent among you may not be condemned with the unjust; and that the guilty among you may not escape; because I, the Lord, have promised unto you a crown of glory at my right hand. Therefore, inasmuch as you are found transgressors, you cannot escape my wrath in your lives. Inasmuch as ye are cut off for transgression, ye cannot escape the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption. And I now give unto you power from this very hour, that if any man among you, of the order, is found a transgressor and repenteth not of the evil, that ye shall deliver him over unto the buffetings of Satan; and he shall not have power to bring evil upon you." D&C 51:1-2 - "Hearken unto me, saith the Lord your God, and I will speak unto my servant Edward Partridge, and give unto him directions; for it must needs be that he receive directions how to organize this people. For it must needs be that they be organized according to my laws; if otherwise, they will be cut off." D&C 63:60-64 - "Behold, I am Alpha and Omega, even Jesus Christ. Wherefore, let all men beware how they take my name in their lips. For behold, verily I say, that many there be who are under this condemnation, who use the name of the Lord, and use it in vain, having not authority. Wherefore, let the church repent of their sins, and I, the Lord, will own them; otherwise they shall be cut off. Remember that that which cometh from above is sacred, and must be spoken with care, and by constraint of the Spirit; and in this there is no condemnation, and ye receive the Spirit through prayer; wherefore, without this there remaineth condemnation." D&C 133:63 - "And upon them that hearken not to the voice of the Lord shall be fulfilled that which was written by the prophet Moses, that they should be cut off from among the people." D&C 85:11 - "And they who are of the High Priesthood, whose names are not found written in the book of the law, or that are found to have apostatized, or to have been cut off from the church, as well as the lesser priesthood, or the members, in that day shall not find an inheritance among the saints of the Most High." D&C 1:14 - "And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people." D&C 134:10 - "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." Alma 1:24 - "The hearts of many were hardened, and their names were blotted out." 3 Ne. 18:31 - "If he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people." D&C 42:24 - "Adulterers who do not repent shall be cast out." D&C 42:28 - "He that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out." D&C 41:5 - "He that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciple; and he that saith he receiveth it and doeth it not, the same is not my disciple, and shall be cast out from among you." Helaman 12:25 - "And I would that all men might be saved. But we read that in the great and last day there are some who shall be cast out, yea, who shall be cast off from the presence of the Lord." 3 Nephi 14:15 - "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." As I have said before: "Look, I don't want them to leave the Church. I want them in it. I want everyone in it. But we are a community of faith. We cohere around faith. When we disregard apostasy we weaken our community." I think He would direct His servants = whom He has designated to be judges in Israel - to follow the mandate and guidelines described above. Thanks, -Smac Why is it every time we see someone heading toward a disciplinary council we see people proclaiming there is no scriptural basis for it despite us discussing the scriptural basis every time?
smac97 Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 20 minutes ago, changed said: Quote Quote he is being disciplined for voting "opposed" to harmful policies within the church. No, that is not correct. Thanks, -Smac It is correct - you can read the letter that was sent to Sam. https://invisiblescubit.wordpress.com/2018/08/29/excommunication-notice/ The reason for this council is that you are reported to have acted repeatedly in clear, open and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders. You have, among other things: Encouraged others to vote opposed to Church leaders. Organized more than one public “action” that expressed opposition to the Church or its leaders. None of this is equivalent to "voting 'opposed' to harmful policies." 20 minutes ago, changed said: He is being disciplined for saying "No, I do not sustain that" No, he is not. 20 minutes ago, changed said: and telling others (who were abused) they can vote opposed too. Which is not the same as "voting 'opposed' to harmful policies." Thanks, -Smac 1
Avatar4321 Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 3 minutes ago, smac97 said: None of this is equivalent to "voting 'opposed' to harmful policies." No, he is not. Which is not the same as "voting 'opposed' to harmful policies." Thanks, -Smac Moreover when have the policies been put up for a sustaining vote?
stemelbow Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 I'm disturbed that someone thinks apostasy is sin. Sin is defined by God not by the Church. If God leads someone to oppose the Church's position, then sin is not the issue. if the Church demands one how is lead by God to repent, the church is not God and it is a meaningless demand.
smac97 Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 Just now, stemelbow said: I'm disturbed that someone thinks apostasy is sin. Um. What is it, then? I invite you to reconsider this. Just now, stemelbow said: Sin is defined by God not by the Church. I invite you to reconsider this, as well. Just now, stemelbow said: If God leads someone to oppose the Church's position, then sin is not the issue. "If" being the key word there. "If." And that "if" really isn't for you or I to determine, is it? Just now, stemelbow said: If the Church demands one how is lead by God to repent, the church is not God and it is a meaningless demand. I'm sorry, I don't understand this. Thanks, -Smac
provoman Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 Changed I think you need to read Sam's blog under his first attempt at a movement in the Church. He disapproved of the Leadership of the Church, that is his right; however, he went further and stated that EVERYONE who sustains the Leadership isn't following Chirst and is destroying the Church. So he was not just opposed to policies, or specific individuals in Leadership, he was opposed to and shamed EVERYONE who did not adhere to his personal viewpoint.
Recommended Posts