Former Bishop Hunger Strike for Youth Interview Policy Change

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It appears that Sam Young is following the pattern of those in recent times who virtue signal about their regard for the Atonement and divine grace and about Church leaders and members not  being "Christlike" and then go on to all but deny the historical existence of Jesus Christ. This does not compute.

It does if you see it all as just a means to an end or, perhaps, a handy tool.

In the interview I partially listened to yesterday, Sam was twice asked why he wanted to stay in the Church if he doesn't believe its truth claims. Neither time did he correct the conditional clause in that question. Instead, he talked about it being where he was familiar and comfortable and having it as a common bond with his family, etc.

Then last night I stopped by his blog, and he's publicly posted his response to his stake president regarding the upcoming disciplinary council. In it, he wrote at length about the trauma of being eternally cut off from his family by losing the sealing blessings.

The problem, of course, is that a person who doesn't believe the truth claims of the Church has no logical reason to fear that excommunication from the Church is going to affect his eternal salvation in any way. And certainly Sam doesn't actually hold this fear.

But knowing that his stake president does believe these things, Sam is happy to use that belief as a tool against him.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It does if you see it all as just a means to an end or, perhaps, a handy tool.

In the interview I partially listened to yesterday, Sam was twice asked why he wanted to stay in the Church if he doesn't believe its truth claims. Neither time did he correct the conditional clause in that question. Instead, he talked about it being where he was familiar and comfortable and having it as a common bond with his family, etc.

Then last night I stopped by his blog, and he's publicly posted his response to his stake president regarding the upcoming disciplinary council. In it, he wrote at length about the trauma of being eternally cut off from his family by losing the sealing blessings.

The problem, of course, is that a person who doesn't believe the truth claims of the Church has no logical reason to fear that excommunication from the Church is going to affect his eternal salvation in any way. And certainly Sam doesn't actually hold this fear.

But knowing that his stake president does believe these things, Sam is happy to use that belief as a tool against him.

Sounds like a typical adherent to the Church of the Holy Podcast(TM).

Thus it is, I suppose, with those who view "Mormonism" (so-called) as a culture more than a church. No wonder President Nelson is so urgent about referring to the Church properly.

Edited September 3, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[changed]

Sam shared his last testimony today...

You can read it here:  https://invisiblescubit.wordpress.com/2018/09/02/final-testimony/ 

[provoman]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Sounds like a typical adherent to the Church of the Holy Podcast(TM).

Such it is, I suppose, with those who view "Mormonism" (so-called) as a culture more than a church. No wonder President Nelson is so urgent about referring to the Church properly.

There is an interesting history between the two. Sam Young former business partner is John D dad. Sam posted he and John D reconnected a few years ago at the time that Sam Young was trying to get traction for his first "movement" back in Sep 2016.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, changed said:

Sam shared his last testimony today...

You can read it here:  https://invisiblescubit.wordpress.com/2018/09/02/final-testimony/ 

Excommunication is the most severe penalty the Church can bring. The Church does not have power to impose fines, imprisonment or death.

It is disingenuous and overwrought to claim that one guilty of apostasy is considered "worse than murderers, rapists and pedophiles" just because the Church is limited in the severity of the penalty it can impose. Furthermore, it is not true that he "will be condemned to spend the eternities in outer darkness." As an ex-bishop, he ought to know better than that.

And if it is true what Hamba reported from the interview he heard, that Sam Young does no longer believe in the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ, what standing does he have to complain about being "stripped of [his] priesthood, saving ordinances and blessings"? If they are of no validity anyway (in his eyes) what harm does he incur by having them removed from him?

 

Edited September 3, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, provoman said:

There is an interesting history between the two. Sam Young former business partner is John D dad. Sam posted he and John D reconnected a few years ago at the time that Sam Young was trying to get traction for his first "movement" back in Sep 2016.

That is indeed interesting.

 

[Avatar4321]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It appears that Sam Young is following the pattern of those in recent times who virtue signal about their regard for the Atonement and divine grace and about Church leaders and members not  being "Christlike" and then go on to all but deny the historical existence of Jesus Christ. This does not compute.

Makes sense if we watch the pattern of korihor

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What standing does he have to complain about being "stripped of [his] priesthood, saving ordinances and blessings"? If they are of no validity anyway (in his eyes) what harm does he incur by having them removed from him?

It’s almost certainly just emotionally manipulative grandstanding for the ‘benefit’ of sincerely devout members who actually do think such things have validity and are therefore of eternal significance. Such people are, after all, Sam’s primary target, and he knows it. 

Edited September 3, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Kenngo1969]

 

On 8/31/2018 at 8:30 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't support marginalizing anyone, but, oftentimes, people marginalize themselves and then blame the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members.  Mr. Young has made more than enough public statements for reasonable people reasonably to surmise his motives.  As much as he might want people who disagree with him to keep their opinions to themselves, that's not the way public discourse works.  Expecting members of the Church of Jesus Christ to remain silent while he maligns the Church and its members simply is not realistic.

 

On 8/31/2018 at 11:05 PM, ttribe said:

And that justifies ascribing evil motives? Interesting.

 

On 9/1/2018 at 4:11 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

As I said, Mr. Young has made more than enough public statements for people to surmise his motives.  Perhaps you do not have the full picture on that score.

 

On 9/1/2018 at 9:16 AM, ttribe said:

Or, maybe I just find motive assumptions in these circumstances to be problematic, at best. 

 

21 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

As Smac97 implies, assumptions, on the one hand, occur in the face of a lack of evidence; by contrast, here, on the other hand, reasonable conclusions are being drawn from available evidence.  True, those conclusions are not set in stone, and additional evidence tending to rebut them may prompt reasonable people to reexamine those conclusions.  However, given Sam Young's own words, many of the conclusions drawn by people in this thread are not unreasonable.

 

9 hours ago, ttribe said:

And yet, it is quite frequently the case that evaluation of evidence is colored by bias and preconceived notions that are also types of assumptions. 

As a general principle, I have no disagreement with this assertion.  I agree that people should strive earnestly to not allow bias or preconceived notions to color their evaluation of people and of issues. 

However, it seems to me that, if you are going to posit (implicitly, at least) that my evaluation of Mr. Young is driven by bias and preconceived notions rather than by due consideration of the available evidence, the burden of proof rests with you.  (But don't worry; I'm not holding my breath! )  I'm confident that reasonable people who are following this discussion will give your allegation (a mere bare allegation, sans any supporting evidence) that my evaluation of Mr. Young and of his cause(s) suffers from bias and from preconceived notions all of the consideration it deserves.

Quote

Despite your effort to sound like the rational one here, you don't seem to have considered or anticipated the counter-arguments.

Well, thanks, at least, for giving me credit for making the effort to seem rational!  Given my true mental state (which you, somehow, although we've never met, you don't know me, and you barely know me in Cyber space, have managed  miraculously to divine ), maintaining the facade at least of seeming rational is a gargantuan undertaking, really!  Frankly, it's such a herculean task that I'm not sure how I manage!    It's nothing short of miraculous!

Quote

Overconfidence in formulating an argument is frequently an embarrassing mistake.

I'm touched by your magnanimous desire to save me from embarrassment.  Really.  Thank you!  But, again, I'll leave it to those following the discussion to determine whether such a magnanimous gesture is really necessary.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 3, 2018 by Kenngo1969
Trying to Delete Inadvertently Uploaded Images! Help!

[Kenngo1969]

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

As a general principle, I have no disagreement with this assertion.  I agree that people should strive earnestly to not allow bias or preconceived notions to color their evaluation of people and of issues. 

However, it seems to me that, if you are going to posit (implicitly, at least) that my evaluation of Mr. Young is driven by bias and preconceived notions rather than by due consideration of the available evidence, the burden of proof rests with you.  (But don't worry; I'm not holding my breath! )  I'm confident that reasonable people who are following this discussion will give your allegation (a mere bare allegation, sans any supporting evidence) that my evaluation of Mr. Young and of his cause(s) suffers from bias and from preconceived notions all of the consideration it deserves.

Well, thanks, at least, for giving me credit for making the effort to seem rational!  Given my true mental state (which you, somehow, although we've never met, you don't know me, and you barely know me in Cyber space, have managed  miraculously to divine ), maintaining the facade at least of seeming rational is a gargantuan undertaking, really!  Frankly, it's such a herculean task that I'm not sure how I manage!    It's nothing short of miraculous!

I'm touched by your magnanimous desire to save me from embarrassment.  Really.  Thank you!  But, again, I'll leave it to those following the discussion to determine whether such a magnanimous gesture is really necessary.

 

 

 

 

 

This is such a ridiculous overreaction that I think I'll just bow out.  It seems you have no interest in the underlying issues, at all.

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 hours ago, changed said:

Sam shared his last testimony today...

Thanks for sharing. 

I can’t decide if this is full-blown messiah complex or merely one more attempt at emotional blackmail ... possibly just a good bit of both? 

[Kenngo1969]

6 hours ago, ttribe said:

This is such a ridiculous overreaction that I think I'll just bow out.  It seems you have no interest in the underlying issues, at all.

'K!  See ya!  

[changed]

6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Thanks for sharing. 

I can’t decide if this is full-blown messiah complex or merely one more attempt at emotional blackmail ... possibly just a good bit of both? 

Sam has served the LDS church for a lifetime - do you consider being an active member, serving as a bishop, devoting one's life to the Savior a "complex" or "emotional blackmail"?

There are those who ignore, belittle, look away... even accuse victims.... and those who do everything they can to fight for and protect.  

I stand with Sam.  

It is not Sam who is on trial next weekend.  The church is on trial next weekend, not Sam.

[changed]

13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Furthermore, it is not true that he "will be condemned to spend the eternities in outer darkness."

 

What do you believe would send someone to outer-darkness?  

[Judd]

1 hour ago, changed said:

 

What do you believe would send someone to outer-darkness?  

I’m not certain that point even warrants discussion. Certainly some may misunderstand that, but if you’ve been a member as long as he has, and served as a bishop, you either know what that doctrine is or you have a very, very, very poor grasp on understanding the plan of salvation.

And it goes against the whole premise of him saying he’s with Christ. If he’s with Christ, how do 15 guys from the Houston area have any ability to determine his eternal destination?

Edited September 3, 2018 by Judd

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, changed said:

Do you consider being an active member, serving as a bishop, devoting one's life to the Savior a "complex" ... ?

Nope, it requires repeatedly comparing oneself to the Saviour whilst comparing those one disagrees with to those who crucified the Saviour.

Quote

... or "emotional blackmail"?

Again, no. That requires weaponising the sincerely held beliefs of others when one doesn't really share those beliefs.

As I said, I can't decide which this is, maybe a good bit of both? 

[Avatar4321]

On 9/2/2018 at 6:16 PM, changed said:

Sam shared his last testimony today...

You can read it here:  https://invisiblescubit.wordpress.com/2018/09/02/final-testimony/ 

If he is excommunicated it is because he chose it.

There is a simple way to avoid it. Humbly submit to Christ

[Jane_Doe]

11 hours ago, changed said:

Sam has served the LDS church for a lifetime - do you consider being an active member, serving as a bishop, devoting one's life to the Savior a "complex" or "emotional blackmail"?

There are those who ignore, belittle, look away... even accuse victims.... and those who do everything they can to fight for and protect.  

I stand with Sam.  

It is not Sam who is on trial next weekend.  The church is on trial next weekend, not Sam.

Pulling stunts like hunger strikes on someone's doorstep is blatant bullying.  

Yes, Sam once served and acted honorably.  But... I don't find honor in the tactics he's using now.

[MiserereNobis]

3 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Pulling stunts like hunger strikes on someone's doorstep is blatant bullying.  

I see what you are saying but sometimes the protest needs to be on someone's doorstep. I'm not making a claim one way or another about Sam Young. I'm just saying that protesting right where someone has to deal with, non-violently provoking a response, as long been a hallmark of non-violent non-cooperation. Gandhi would mail the Vicar of India and tell him when and where he would be breaking the law so the Vicar could have him arrested (what a pain in the butt, lol). Martin Luther King, jr took to the streets, against the wishes of many, forcing a response from the state.

Again, I'm not commenting on Sam Young, but I do think that your statement needs some qualifications. Sometimes a protest needs to do what you call bullying, but it needs to do it non-violently, like the movements I've mentioned.

[MiserereNobis]

On 9/2/2018 at 7:28 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Excommunication is the most severe penalty the Church can bring. The Church does not have power to impose fines, imprisonment or death.

Ah, the good ol' days of medieval inquisitions...

(actually, to be fair, the Catholic Church could not impose fines, imprisonment, or death either. Those were the laws of the government. Once someone was found guilty of heresy, they were turned over to secular authorities who imposed the penalties demanded by secular law.)

I read the link and think Sam Young is being quite silly. It had the same feel as the video of Denson at the meeting.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Ah, the good ol' days of medieval inquisitions...

(actually, to be fair, the Catholic Church could not impose fines, imprisonment, or death either. Those were the laws of the government. Once someone was found guilty of heresy, they were turned over to secular authorities who imposed the penalties demanded by secular law.)

I read the link and think Sam Young is being quite silly. It had the same feel as the video of Denson at the meeting.

If you investigate the history, I think you’ll find there is quite a bit of silliness among dissidents from our faith. 

[stemelbow]

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you investigate the history, I think you’ll find there is quite a bit of silliness among dissidents from our faith. 

If we able to put on a weighted scale the amount of silliness from dissidents and the amount of silliness from the faithful, I'm guessing the faithful level of silliness would outweigh the dissidents.  But your point is taken there certainly is silliness from dissidents.  

[changed]

On 9/3/2018 at 9:02 PM, Jane_Doe said:

Pulling stunts like hunger strikes on someone's doorstep is blatant bullying.  

Yes, Sam once served and acted honorably.  But... I don't find honor in the tactics he's using now.

 

Not immediately fixing a situation that is perpetuating child abuse calls for drastic measures.

[changed]

On 9/4/2018 at 10:19 AM, stemelbow said:

If we able to put on a weighted scale the amount of silliness from dissidents and the amount of silliness from the faithful, I'm guessing the faithful level of silliness would outweigh the dissidents.  But your point is taken there certainly is silliness from dissidents.  

Quite true.

In the end this is not about how anyone is acting or reacting - it is about the safety of children.  

Many children have been harmed through PPI's.

two-deep policies are standard for any organization dealing with kids.  The underlying cause and suggested solution is not fanatical or silly at all.

 

Edited September 5, 2018 by changed