Avatar4321 Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 6 minutes ago, stemelbow said: 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. Why would the Lord tell someone to oppose the Church to fix something rather than just going to His servants He has called and put in leadership for exactly that purpose? 2
ksfisher Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 31 minutes ago, changed said: 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. According to your statements above, he is not being disciplined for "voting no." He is being disciplined for, according to your quote, "Encourag[ing] others to vote opposed to Church leaders." 1
stemelbow Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 6 minutes ago, smac97 said: Um. What is it, then? Well, I thought you were the one who quoted the Church's definition of the word. Something along the lines of opposing the Church and it's leaders, or teaching things that are opposed to the Church...stuff like that. 6 minutes ago, smac97 said: I invite you to reconsider this. I invite you to reconsider this, as well. "If" being the key word there. "If." And that "if" really isn't for you or I to determine, is it? of course it is, that's why I said it. If God leads someone then following that lead is not sin. I'm not sure what I should reconsider since you haven't given me an alternative to consider. I've explained myself. What's the issue? 6 minutes ago, smac97 said: I'm sorry, I don't understand this. Thanks, -Smac I typed "how" when I meant "who". Try this: If the Church demands one who is lead by God to repent, the church is not God and it is a meaningless demand.
stemelbow Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 9 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: Why would the Lord tell someone to oppose the Church to fix something rather than just going to His servants He has called and put in leadership for exactly that purpose? God's ways are not your ways. Just accept that God can do whatever the hell he wants and then some. that is if there is even a God. He certainly wouldn't need to do what you expect.
JAHS Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 (edited) 27 minutes ago, stemelbow said: 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. President George Q. Cannon taught: "If any of you have indulged in the spirit of murmuring and fault-finding and have allowed your tongues to give utterance to thoughts and words that were wrong and not in accordance with the spirit of the Gospel, you ought to repent of it with all your hearts and get down into the depths of humility and implore Him for the forgiveness of that sin-for it is a most deadly sin." (Gospel Truth, p. 215.) Actions leading to apostasy are sins, and therefore apostasy is sin, especially when you try to convince others to join with you in the sinful act of finding fault with church leaders. God is not going to lead anyone to oppose the church in a way that denigrates it to the rest of the world. Adding what Avatar said: "Why would the Lord tell someone to oppose the Church to fix something rather than just going to His servants He has called and put in leadership for exactly that purpose?" Edited August 31, 2018 by JAHS 2
bluebell Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 21 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: Why would the Lord tell someone to oppose the Church to fix something rather than just going to His servants He has called and put in leadership for exactly that purpose? He wouldn't, which is why He taught that only the prophet can receive revelation for His church. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 Quote 42 minutes ago, changed said: Sam is a bishop - SMAC97 said: No, he's not. @smac97 There is disagreement about so many things. Can't we simply agree on the obvious, like this. He IS an ordained bishop. Why would you say he isn't? Are you unaware or are you trying to be difficult? Or do you not recognize the church's authority to ordain a man as bishop? Or do you not believe the church's teaching that ordinations do not end when a person is released from a calling. I'm trying to figure you out here. This is a verifiable fact. Sam Young IS a bishop. 1
provoman Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: @smac97 There is disagreement about so many things. Can't we simply agree on the obvious, like this. He IS an ordained bishop. Why would you say he isn't? Are you unaware or are you trying to be difficult? Or do you not recognize the church's authority to ordain a man as bishop? Or do you not believe the church's teaching that ordinations do not end when a person is released from a calling. I'm trying to figure you out here. This is a verifiable fact. Sam Young IS a bishop. you are not trying to agree.
HappyJackWagon Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 2 minutes ago, provoman said: you are not trying to agree. I'm trying to get him to admit the obvious, verifiable truth. Do you also refuse to admit the Sam Young IS a bishop? Or do you reasonably accept that truth. Just curious.
provoman Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 1 hour ago, changed said: 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. March 2017, Sam Young's blog You are destroying the Mormon church–my church. That’s right. I’m pointing a finger directly at you…all of you who continue to vote approval. ... you can stand on Christ’s side and vote [opposed] to uphold His law. For me and my house, we will serve the Lord. Follow Jesus by Voting Opposed There is only one way that this beautiful part of the restoration will be restored to its rightful place. 1
provoman Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I'm trying to get him to admit the obvious, verifiable truth. Do you also refuse to admit the Sam Young IS a bishop? Or do you reasonably accept that truth. Just curious. Our back and forth indicates to me that your question is insincere. If your question was sincere, you would not have asked it.
bluebell Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: @smac97 There is disagreement about so many things. Can't we simply agree on the obvious, like this. He IS an ordained bishop. Why would you say he isn't? Are you unaware or are you trying to be difficult? Or do you not recognize the church's authority to ordain a man as bishop? Or do you not believe the church's teaching that ordinations do not end when a person is released from a calling. I'm trying to figure you out here. This is a verifiable fact. Sam Young IS a bishop. It could be that smac meant that Sam isn't currently serving as a bishop (mean, he was released from that calling a while ago), not that he was never ordained as a bishop.
HappyJackWagon Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 1 minute ago, bluebell said: It could be that smac meant that Sam isn't currently serving as a bishop (mean, he was released from that calling a while ago), not that he was never ordained as a bishop. That's true. He could mean that. That would be accurate. But that's not what he has said. Considering the level of acrimony about this very basic fact, I'd like him to correct it. If people refuse to participate in a reasonable way, refusing to admit the absolute obvious, then there's not much point to the discussion. If he doesn't understand the doctrine of priesthood ordination I will apologize, but it appears to me he is being difficult for the sake of being difficult. 2
smac97 Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: @smac97 There is disagreement about so many things. Can't we simply agree on the obvious, like this. He IS an ordained bishop. Can we also agree that you calling him "Bishop Young" is puffery and bolstering? And that this is only being trotted out for its rhetorical value against the Church? 9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Why would you say he isn't? Because I oppose the weaponization of sacred things, particularly priesthood ordinations, and particularly when the rhetoric is being used to unjustifiably bolster Sam Young's standing in the Church. Per Elder Packer: Quote A man is ordained a bishop, an office in the priesthood; then he is set apart and given the keys to preside over a ward. He with his two counselors form a bishopric—a type of presidency. Once ordained, he is a bishop for the rest of his life. When he is released from presiding over a ward, his ordination becomes dormant. If called again to preside over a ward, his previous ordination is reactivated. When he is released, it becomes dormant again. We all know you are only using his dormant ordination to bolster his position. And you are using it against the Church. We get it. 9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Are you unaware or are you trying to be difficult? Neither. 9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Or do you not recognize the church's authority to ordain a man as bishop? Or do you not believe the church's teaching that ordinations do not end when a person is released from a calling. I'm trying to figure you out here. This is a verifiable fact. Sam Young IS a bishop. And you are calling him "Bishop Young" now, despite his being released many, many years ago, and despite the fact that he was never your bishop, and despite the fact that his ordination is dormant, and despite the fact that his behavior has nothing to do with his prior ordination. It's just a gimmick. A rhetorical ploy. In the dispute between him and the Church, hearkening back his prior calling is puffery. Bolstering. It's not even subtle. Again, are you going to call Daniel Peterson "Bishop Peterson" from here on out? Thanks, -Smac 1
Avatar4321 Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 37 minutes ago, stemelbow said: God's ways are not your ways. Just accept that God can do whatever the hell he wants and then some. that is if there is even a God. He certainly wouldn't need to do what you expect. Except the Lord has specifically said He won’t do that 1
Avatar4321 Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 14 minutes ago, provoman said: March 2017, Sam Young's blog You are destroying the Mormon church–my church. That’s right. I’m pointing a finger directly at you…all of you who continue to vote approval. ... you can stand on Christ’s side and vote [opposed] to uphold His law. For me and my house, we will serve the Lord. Follow Jesus by Voting Opposed There is only one way that this beautiful part of the restoration will be restored to its rightful place. This kind of thinking reminds me of korihor
HappyJackWagon Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 1 minute ago, smac97 said: Can we also agree that you calling him "Bishop Young" is puffery and bolstering? And that this is only being trotted out for its rhetorical value against the Church? Because I oppose the weaponization of sacred things, particularly priesthood ordinations, and particularly when the rhetoric is being used to unjustifiably bolster Sam Young's standing in the Church. Per Elder Packer: We all know you are only using his dormant ordination to bolster his position. And you are using it against the Church. We get it. Neither. And you are calling him "Bishop Young" now, despite his being released many, many years ago, and despite the fact that he was never your bishop, and despite the fact that his ordination is dormant, and despite the fact that his behavior has nothing to do with his prior ordination. It's just a gimmick. A rhetorical ploy. In the dispute between him and the Church, hearkening back his prior calling is puffery. Bolstering. It's not even subtle. Again, are you going to call Daniel Peterson "Bishop Peterson" from here on out? Thanks, -Smac So you say he isn't a bishop, even though you know your statement is false, because you feel justified in fighting back against the way it is being "weaponized" by others. OK. Thanks for admitting that you know he is a bishop but are stating falsely he isn't, for your own purposes. Yep. Dormant. I don't disagree. Doesn't change the fact that he's an ordained bishop. I'm being honest about that. Are you? Was he released "many, many" years ago. I don't recall how long ago he was released. Can someone refresh my memory. "Many, many" years ago doesn't sound accurate but I will accept the fact if it's presented. FTR- I don't consider 5 years ago to be many, many. 10 years, I think we're getting close to "many". 15-20+ years I think is "many, many". It's interesting how these discussions develop and how so many have been offended by the truthful statement of referring to sam young as a bishop. Because he is. But to you his ordination is a gimmick. Interesting. Stop with the Daniel Peterson stuff. CFR that I've EVER referred to Daniel Peterson at all...EVER. Go back and read those comments because I was quite clear on this silly diversion.
smac97 Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: That's true. He could mean that. That would be accurate. But that's not what he has said. Considering the level of acrimony about this very basic fact, I'd like him to correct it. If people refuse to participate in a reasonable way, refusing to admit the absolute obvious, then there's not much point to the discussion. If he doesn't understand the doctrine of priesthood ordination I will apologize, but it appears to me he is being difficult for the sake of being difficult. I'm not being difficult. I'm just not inclined to go along with the ploy. Referring to Sam Young as "Bishop Young" is silly. It's a gimmick. It's a weaponization of his dormant ordination against the Church. What's next? Any other rhetorical games to try to garner sympathy for him and antagonism toward the mean ol' church? Are we going to trot out childhood friends and have them reminisce? "Oh, my friend Sammy. Such a kind soul. I can't believe he is being persecuted by his church..." 🤨 This isn't that big a deal. Calling him "Sam Young" in this context is a contrivance. It merits an eyeroll, but that's about it. Thanks, -Smac
bluebell Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: That's true. He could mean that. That would be accurate. But that's not what he has said. Considering the level of acrimony about this very basic fact, I'd like him to correct it. If people refuse to participate in a reasonable way, refusing to admit the absolute obvious, then there's not much point to the discussion. If he doesn't understand the doctrine of priesthood ordination I will apologize, but it appears to me he is being difficult for the sake of being difficult. Maybe. He might just be bristling under what he sees as an attempt to use the title of bishop as a sort of appeal to authority to give Sam's words more clout. But he can definitely speak for himself on that.
smac97 Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: So you say he isn't a bishop, even though you know your statement is false, I'm saying his ordination is dormant. I'm saying that you calling him "Bishop Young" is contrived silliness meant to garner sympathy for him and contempt for the Church. 4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: because you feel justified in fighting back against the way it is being "weaponized" by others. OK. Thanks for admitting that you know he is a bishop but are stating falsely he isn't, for your own purposes. He's not a bishop in the normative sense of the word. You know it. I know it. A bishop, once released, doesn't continue to tell people "Yes, I'm a bishop in the LDS Church," because that would be confusing, even misleading (even though it's technically true). 4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Yep. Dormant. I don't disagree. Doesn't change the fact that he's an ordained bishop. I'm being honest about that. Are you? Calling him "Bishop Young" in this context is silly. A contrivance to bolster his "street cred." I'm being honest about that. Are you? 4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Was he released "many, many" years ago. I don't recall how long ago he was released. Can someone refresh my memory. "Many, many" years ago doesn't sound accurate but I will accept the fact if it's presented. FTR- I don't consider 5 years ago to be many, many. 10 years, I think we're getting close to "many". 15-20+ years I think is "many, many". It's interesting how these discussions develop and how so many have been offended by the truthful statement of referring to sam young as a bishop. Because he is. But to you his ordination is a gimmick. Interesting. I'm not offended. I'm just noting the silliness of what you are trying to do. It isn't even subtle. 4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Stop with the Daniel Peterson stuff. What!? Don't you mean Bishop Peterson? 4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: CFR that I've EVER referred to Daniel Peterson at all...EVER. Again, don't you mean Bishop Peterson? And you just referred to him twice without the honorific of his former ordination. Now why is that, I wonder... 4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Go back and read those comments because I was quite clear on this silly diversion. Silly indeed. So why you insist on perpetuating it? And why aren't you calling Daniel Peterson "Bishop" Peterson? Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, bluebell said: Maybe. He might just be bristling under what he sees as an attempt to use the title of bishop as a sort of appeal to authority to give Sam's words more clout. But he can definitely speak for himself on that. Not bristling, really. More "amused." Sam Young merits, on a technicality, being called "Bishop Young" while slandering the bishops and apostles of the Church, while publicly declaring that anyone who doesn't follow his instructions is "destroying" the Church and not following Jesus Christ. But Daniel Peterson is just plain ol' Daniel Peterson. Not "Bishop Peterson." Yes, it's an appeal to authority. But I'm more amused than bothered by it. Thanks, -Smac Edited August 31, 2018 by smac97 2
USU78 Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 Just now, smac97 said: Not bristling, really. More "amused." Sam Young merits, on a technicality, being called "Bishop Young" while slandering the bishops and apostles of the Church. But Daniel Peterson is just plain ol' Daniel Peterson. Not "Bishop Peterson." Yes, it's an appeal to authority. But I'm more amused than bothered by it. Thanks, -Smac ... and JSJr is not "President Smith" or "Elder Smith" or even "Brother Joseph." And let's not even start with BY. There's not enough duct tape in all of creation to keep all those heads from exploding. 1
smac97 Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 Just now, USU78 said: ... and JSJr is not "President Smith" or "Elder Smith" or even "Brother Joseph." And let's not even start with BY. There's not enough duct tape in all of creation to keep all those heads from exploding. Yes, it could be an interesting exercise to go back and review HJW's posts to see how often he has insisted on referring to General Authorities by their titles, including those who are currently serving in that capacity. I suspect that strict adherence to referring to priesthood holders by their formal titles has only recently become an imperative. And that it's only an imperative for Sam Young. Alas, I'm not really that interested. -Smac 1
USU78 Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 2 minutes ago, smac97 said: Yes, it could be an interesting exercise to go back and review HJW's posts to see how often he has insisted on referring to General Authorities by their titles, including those who are currently serving in that capacity. I suspect that strict adherence to referring to priesthood holders by their formal titles has only recently become an imperative. And that it's only an imperative for Sam Young. Alas, I'm not really that interested. -Smac Me neither. Fun to deflate the inflated, though.
smac97 Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 (edited) 13 minutes ago, USU78 said: Me neither. Fun to deflate the inflated, though. Well, I found this post by HJW: Quote This article was written by Mitt Romney's political biographer... What!? Doesn't he mean Bishop Mitt Romney? What a brazen sign of disrespect! -Smac Meanwhile, the phrase "former bishop" is used all the time on LDS.org. Is the Church just being "difficult?" Isn't the Church aware of "once a bishop, always a bishop?" Edited August 31, 2018 by smac97 1
Recommended Posts