Former Bishop Hunger Strike for Youth Interview Policy Change

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, changed said:

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.

 

Very true. My wife works for our local school district and recently participated in the annual child protection training. Among other things, it was clearly stated and emphasized that there should be no one-on-one meetings/conversations with kids behind closed doors. Holding such a meeting would be considered a red flag, whether it was done by the superintendent, a teacher, coach, scout leader, or "pastor".

It seems to be a common understanding that one-on-one meetings behind closed doors between a minor and an adult should be avoided, even when the adult is a pastor. But then, I do live outside of Utah.

[provoman]

"Oh the evil facilitated by the Mormon Church."

Here is the title of his latest reddit post, I wonder if he thinks "Go out swinging"

[Avatar4321]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

"Oh the evil facilitated by the Mormon Church."

Here is the title of his latest reddit post, I wonder if he thinks "Go out swinging"

He is saying Mormon Church? If that isn't apostate i don't know what is:p

[carbon dioxide]

On 9/3/2018 at 8:43 AM, changed said:

I stand with Sam.  

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

I think perhaps the Church should just ignore him for the time being.  If he truly is on a hunger strike, it should not take long for his organs to start shutting down.  But I imagine he is probably cheating because the hunger strike is more of a publicity stunt.  Excommunication is nothing different than what Twitter or Apple did to Alex Jones.  If one does not follow the terms of membership (TOM) as one does not follow the TOS of Twitter, one may be kicked out.  Membership in the LDS Church is not a right. 

[MorningStar]

On ‎7‎/‎31‎/‎2018 at 8:43 AM, FearlessFixxer said:

I agree and support Sam in his overall cause.  I don't think it is any leader's business to ask a minor if they have broken the law of chastity in any way.

If it were up to me, the youth would be given access to a list of standards to be temple worthy and then the bishop would ask if they reviewed the standards and if they think they are temple worthy.

Additionally, if a minor does come to a bishop to confess a sin regarding the law of chastity, they should either say it is between them and the lord or send them to an LDS counselor (if they can't talk to their parents)

The neighborhood CPA should not be guiding minors through the repentance process for sexual 'sins'

HAVING SAID THAT>>>>>

 

I agree with those that express disagreement with the hunger strike.

I think that it is a foolish move that will accomplish nothing.  I don't begrudge Sam for doing it.  I don't think he is bad for doing it.  I just think he is misguided.

All the church has to do is wait him out for a couple of days and it is all over.  And the members can easily attack him for being a 'crazy anti-mormon'

This needed change will only happen when the general membership demands it.  He should stick with sharing the stories and trying to get the general membership to see it the way he sees it.

The corporate fat cats don't care what he wants and are not going to change anything because he is hungry.

LDS counselors could also be predators (or any counselor). In fact, predators seek jobs where people will trust them, whereas no one gets to apply to be bishop. Also, giving into temptation doesn't mean you need therapy, but you do need spiritual guidance to repent. My brother is a cop who deals with child images (the filter will block the term) and trafficking. He recently arrested a therapist his wife hired at her clinic. Pretty horrifying. I'm 99% convinced my childhood doctor was a pedophile. Bishops can be clueless about some things, but I have trusted mine and as a teen, there's no way I would have wanted my parents in the room with me if I had anything I needed to talk about.  When getting a temple recommend as a youth, my bishops only asked if I kept the law of chastity. That's it. No probing into anything. And there were plenty of other questions. This guy acts like the interviews consist only of asking kids about their sexual behavior. 

I'm glad that parents can be in the room if the kids want, but I should never be required or else some kids won't ever repent and will feel guilty for a long time for taking part in things unworthily. 

[bluebell]

Do we know yet what the outcome of his disciplinary hearing was?

[Duncan]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Do we know yet what the outcome of his disciplinary hearing was?

I think they said they would decide later (my opinion is if they did render a verdict the mob vigil folks would go after the Stake Presidency and High Council, and it would a Texas civil war🥤🍽️

[bluebell]

On 9/5/2018 at 2:51 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

Very true. My wife works for our local school district and recently participated in the annual child protection training. Among other things, it was clearly stated and emphasized that there should be no one-on-one meetings/conversations with kids behind closed doors. Holding such a meeting would be considered a red flag, whether it was done by the superintendent, a teacher, coach, scout leader, or "pastor".

It seems to be a common understanding that one-on-one meetings behind closed doors between a minor and an adult should be avoided, even when the adult is a pastor. But then, I do live outside of Utah.

I think the biggest aspect of the common understanding is that organizations open themselves up to liability without the two-deep rule.  Not that they aren't concerned about child welfare, but the rates of abuse in most organizations are such that most people understand that a child isn't in danger every time they are alone with an adult.  It's just that it's easier to have a zero tolerance policy, and better to be safe than sorry.

There are still some places where one-on-one meetings behind closed doors are not avoided.  Doctors and therapists offices, for example, don't always practice the two deep rule. 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

I think they said they would decide later (my opinion is if they did render a verdict the mob vigil folks would go after the Stake Presidency and High Council, and it would a Texas civil war🥤🍽️

Texans are known for their civil wars.   

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Do we know yet what the outcome of his disciplinary hearing was?

I haven't seen anything yet. I think they stated they would make their decision by this evening.

I'm interested what other people think about that. It's unusual. Most DC's end with the decision made and the individual notified. Why the delay? Is it to review the results with leaders up the chain before making it official on a high profile case like this? Did the spirit not direct them yesterday? Not trying to be snarky, but I've participated in a number of DC's and I've never seen the decision postponed.

 

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I haven't seen anything yet. I think they stated they would make their decision by this evening.

I'm interested what other people think about that. It's unusual. Most DC's end with the decision made and the individual notified. Why the delay? Is it to review the results with leaders up the chain before making it official on a high profile case like this? Did the spirit not direct them yesterday? Not trying to be snarky, but I've participated in a number of DC's and I've never seen the decision postponed.

 

Wasn't Dehlin's delayed until the next night?  He gave a press conference after the meeting, I believe, so that might be a motivator.  Runnells and Snuffer never got that far as they walked out and Kelly's was long distance anyway.

Quote

Despite his excommunication — detailed in King's letter, sent Monday — Dehlin and his wife expressed "appreciation" for their local lay leaders.

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=2163720&itype=CMSID

Edited September 10, 2018 by Calm

[rongo]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I haven't seen anything yet. I think they stated they would make their decision by this evening.

I'm interested what other people think about that. It's unusual. Most DC's end with the decision made and the individual notified. Why the delay? Is it to review the results with leaders up the chain before making it official on a high profile case like this? Did the spirit not direct them yesterday? Not trying to be snarky, but I've participated in a number of DC's and I've never seen the decision postponed.

I think this was a crafty move to deal with the peripheral circus. Announcing the decision by letter "in a few days" (vague) deflates the hype and circus and allows the council to announce the decision to Sam Young without the circus waiting outside. It keeps there from being a press conference atmosphere immediately following the council (can you imagine being a high councilman leaving late at night to go home, with that kind of a circus outside, media, etc.?). 

I think it was an excellent decision to delay the announcement. Now, Sam will have to run to the media with the letter, but there is no circus atmosphere surrounding the stake center right after the council. 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think this was a crafty move to deal with the peripheral circus. Announcing the decision by letter "in a few days" (vague) deflates the hype and circus and allows the council to announce the decision to Sam Young without the circus waiting outside. It keeps there from being a press conference atmosphere immediately following the council (can you imagine being a high councilman leaving late at night to go home, with that kind of a circus outside, media, etc.?). 

I think it was an excellent decision to delay the announcement. Now, Sam will have to run to the media with the letter, but there is no circus atmosphere surrounding the stake center right after the council. 

I think it should be made standard policy if there is any public coverage of the 'event'.

[ksfisher]

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's unusual. Most DC's end with the decision made and the individual notified. Why the delay?

Most disciplinary councils don't make the headlines.  I would imagine the decision is made, but the way it's presented to Sam Young and the subsequent letter, both of which I'm sure will quickly be made public, are being considered.

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think this was a crafty move to deal with the peripheral circus. Announcing the decision by letter "in a few days" (vague) deflates the hype and circus and allows the council to announce the decision to Sam Young without the circus waiting outside. It keeps there from being a press conference atmosphere immediately following the council (can you imagine being a high councilman leaving late at night to go home, with that kind of a circus outside, media, etc.?). 

I think it was an excellent decision to delay the announcement. Now, Sam will have to run to the media with the letter, but there is no circus atmosphere surrounding the stake center right after the council. 

That does seem like a logical reason to have made an exception to the normal practice.

I know that there was a vigil but was there media at the stake center?

Sam has posted the testimonies that he and his wife gave in the council:  https://invisiblescubit.wordpress.com/2018/09/10/tribunal-testimonies/

Edited September 10, 2018 by rockpond

[provoman]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That does seem like a logical reason to have made an exception to the normal practice.

I know that there was a vigil but was there media at the stake center?

Sam has posted the testimonies that he and his wife gave in the council:  https://invisiblescubit.wordpress.com/2018/09/10/tribunal-testimonies/

There  was an Independent Film maker was - and he appeared to deliberatly attempt to cause a scene for footage.

Mckenna Denson was there - at one she appeared to be coaching someone to cause a scene.

A police vehicle was parked in the street adjacent to th Stake Center.

Various other people were there, John Dehlin was there and rumor has it NNN was also there. So yeah it was a circus.

What is interesting is that I do not recall the Sam ever denied the charges aginst him.

[rongo]

21 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That does seem like a logical reason to have made an exception to the normal practice.

I know that there was a vigil but was there media at the stake center?

Even if there wasn't a Thomas Murphy spectacle at the stake center, this tactic injects a cool-down. You know that Sam Young was going to make a big ruckus with the media immediately following the council if a decision had been announced at the conclusion. This way, he and the Church settle this between themselves first before running to the media. Conventionally, media involvement would have been practically simultaneous with the announcement.  

Even aside from tamping down the circus immediately surrounding the DC, this way imposes more decorum and forces a cooling off before Sam runs to the media. It does naturally take some wind out of his sails with the vague, indefinite, delay in the letter. 

I wonder if it will be mailed, or delivered by two men? The letter delivery instructions (both pre- and post- DC) seem to no longer be in the online system. There is no way to submit them, like in the "old days" where the witnessed letters were part of the application and papers sent to Salt Lake. My last DC simply had basic information, a checklist of offenses, and like 5000 character limit on what I could say about the DC. I don't have my CHI:1 any more; did it (2010 paper version) or the updated online version still instruct leaders to deliver letters by hand through two witnesses?

ETA: I remembered that the announcement letter could always be mailed. I'm sure it will be mailed now. This keeps Sam Young and the Mike Norton-types completely off-guard because they don't even know if it will be this week. 

Edited September 10, 2018 by rongo

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, provoman said:

There  was an Independent Film maker was - and he appeared to deliberatly attempt to cause a scene for footage.

Mckenna Denson was there - at one she appeared to be coaching someone to cause a scene.

A police vehicle was parked in the street adjacent to th Stake Center.

Various other people were there, John Dehlin was there and rumor has it NNN was also there. So yeah it was a circus.

What is interesting is that I do not recall the Sam ever denied the charges aginst him.

This enmeshing of Norton, Denson, and Young in their coinciding actions is unsavory. Yuck! And, the optics aren't good, other than for ex-Mormons who delight in the spectacle. This public enmeshing of appearances and purpose actually hurts any chance any of them have of winning over normative Mormons. 

[rockpond]

19 minutes ago, rongo said:

This enmeshing of Norton, Denson, and Young in their coinciding actions is unsavory. Yuck! And, the optics aren't good, other than for ex-Mormons who delight in the spectacle. This public enmeshing of appearances and purpose actually hurts any chance any of them have of winning over normative Mormons. 

I agree.

Denson makes a little more sense since her personal cause is related to Young's.  But, IMO, she became a liability after the stunt on 2-Sep.

I don't know why Young would want to unite with Norton.

Those two are definitely not helping him.

[rockpond]

24 minutes ago, rongo said:

Even if there wasn't a Thomas Murphy spectacle at the stake center, this tactic injects a cool-down. You know that Sam Young was going to make a big ruckus with the media immediately following the council if a decision had been announced at the conclusion. This way, he and the Church settle this between themselves first before running to the media. Conventionally, media involvement would have been practically simultaneous with the announcement.  

Even aside from tamping down the circus immediately surrounding the DC, this way imposes more decorum and forces a cooling off before Sam runs to the media. It does naturally take some wind out of his sails with the vague, indefinite, delay in the letter. 

I wonder if it will be mailed, or delivered by two men? The letter delivery instructions (both pre- and post- DC) seem to no longer be in the online system. There is no way to submit them, like in the "old days" where the witnessed letters were part of the application and papers sent to Salt Lake. My last DC simply had basic information, a checklist of offenses, and like 5000 character limit on what I could say about the DC. I don't have my CHI:1 any more; did it (2010 paper version) or the updated online version still instruct leaders to deliver letters by hand through two witnesses?

ETA: I remembered that the announcement letter could always be mailed. I'm sure it will be mailed now. This keeps Sam Young and the Mike Norton-types completely off-guard because they don't even know if it will be this week. 

There is a part of me that understands the need for a cool down.  And the time to carefully word their decision.  And I also get that Young has used every opportunity he can to add publicity to his cause.  So I feel like I can understand the position of the SP/HC -- I'd probably have leaned that way if I were in their shoes.

But, there is also a part of me that wants them to own their decision.  If it was the right thing to do, just do it, and let the consequences follow.

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

There is a part of me that understands the need for a cool down.  And the time to carefully word their decision.  And I also get that Young has used every opportunity he can to add publicity to his cause.  So I feel like I can understand the position of the SP/HC -- I'd probably have leaned that way if I were in their shoes.

But, there is also a part of me that wants them to own their decision.  If it was the right thing to do, just do it, and let the consequences follow.

If they are taking the time to carefully consider the decision or the wording of that decision does not mean that they are not owning the decision.  Yes, the consequences will follow.  But the right words can mitigate negative consequences, while hasty or poorly chosen ones could exacerbate the situation.

[Jane_Doe]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And I also get that Young has used every opportunity he can to add publicity to his cause. 

He still is: for example, your read his testimonial blog and he felt out says that he's not saying everything until after the decision comes out.  

The constant grab for attention as really shot my opinion of Young as a person and any sympathy I might have once felt for him.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

If they are taking the time to carefully consider the decision or the wording of that decision does not mean that they are not owning the decision.  Yes, the consequences will follow.  But the right words can mitigate negative consequences, while hasty or poorly chosen ones could exacerbate the situation.

The wording is important... But, you have time for that when you dismiss the individual for your deliberations.  They could have written a statement during that time, read it to him, and told him that they would mail the full letter later.

As I said, I'm split on it... I can see both perspectives.  But I don't think that there is something noble in attempting to avoid publicity regarding the decision.

[Judd]

How much wind would be taken out of his sails, and how let down would the mob feel if he were simply disfellowshipped?

[rockpond]

Just now, Judd said:

How much wind would be taken out of his sails, and how let down would the mob feel if he were simply disfellowshipped?

No action is also an outcome.  And if that happens, he should be happy.  If not, than he was being disingenuous heading into the DC.

I think his reaction to potentially being disfellowshipped will depend on the terms the SP puts on it.